I really enjoyed Michael Tymn's last book about life after death, The Articulate Dead, and have been very much looking forward to his newest effort, The Afterlife Revealed. It did not disappoint.
Tymn sets the stage in the preface, when he notes that at age 75, with some health worries, he is aware of his own mortality. But, he writes, "I think I can honestly say I do not significantly fear the idea of death itself. In fact, I find it somewhat exciting." While happy to live in the present, he sees knowledge of the afterlife as a way of simultaneously "living in eternity." He quotes philosopher Alice Bailey:
We can live in the consciousness of immortality, and it will give an added coloring and beauty to life. We can foster the awareness of our future transition, and live with the expectation of its wonder. Death thus faced, and regarded as a prelude to further living experience, takes on a different meaning.
Meanwhile, Tymn observes, "today's hedonistic materialism is a result of a loss of spiritual values, especially a lack of belief in the survival of consciousness after death." I think there's a lot of truth in this, although the sheer abundance of material goods available in our world is another large factor. It's perhaps inevitable that people with access to unprecedented luxuries would become somewhat hedonistic, even if they happened to retain a belief in a spiritual dimension.
Of course, the big question is whether there is good evidence for an afterlife. As Tymn observes in a brief overview of conventional religious beliefs, acceptance of an afterlife on faith isn't very comforting to the modern mind, especially when the afterlife is envisioned as either "a humdrum Heaven or a horrific Hell." And why are revelations in ancient books considered sacrosanct, while more recent revelations of a similar character are dismissed as fraudulent, delusional, or demonic?
This, by the way, is my main objection to Christian writers like Dinesh D'Sousa and Roy AbrahamVarghese, who defend the afterlife on the basis of Judeo-Christian scripture and a highly selective reading of contemporary evidence, limited mainly to near-death experiences. Why are mediumship, reincarnation memories, hauntings, etc. disregarded by these authors? Whatever their rationalizations, the real reason seems to be that such phenomena contradict Biblical teachings or are prohibited by Biblical injunctions. But an open-minded investigator would look at all the evidence, and not be bound by ancient taboos.
Tymn begins the main part of The Afterlife Revealed with a brief history of Spiritualism, which includes famous cases like the Fox sisters and Emanuel Swedenborg, as well as such less familiar names as George T. Dexter, Grace Rosher, and John Scott. Part of the book's appeal is the presentation of cases that even many aficionados may not have read about. Tymn's encyclopedic knowledge of afterlife research allows him to draw on material that more casual researchers have never heard of.
The book proceeds to examine the dying process and its aftermath in step-by-step, chronological fashion -- from deathbed visions (including the remarkably detailed report of Sir Auckland Geddes in 1937), the moment of separation from the physical body, the early stages of postmortem existence, the life review, and the soul's gravitation to the appropriate sphere or plane.
Summing up in a chapter titled "Making Sense of the Afterlife," Tymn considers how best to understand this larger world. "Another perspective on this," he writes,
is to view the earth life like a movie, an illusory life, being viewed by the real self -- the soul. During a movie, we occasionally remind ourselves that we are separated from the movie action, but we then again become absorbed by the action and feel much of the emotion being experienced by the actors. After a very emotionally-charged movie ends, it sometimes affects us for the rest of the day or evening. And so it seems to be with the soul that has a hard time shaking off the earth experiences.
The lingering effects of earthly life account for some of the difficulties in making the transition to the next life, and for the diverse levels of consciousness among the deceased, as revealed by mediumship.
The book offers four appendices covering premonitions of death, the possibility of reincarnation, the issue of suicide, and capsule biographies of noted researchers and mediums. There is an extensive bibliography which runs the gamut from modern books like James E. Beichler's To Die For to older, obscure titles like Stanley De Brath's 1925 Psychical Research, Science and Religion. The breadth of Tymn's sources is truly impressive, and I was left thinking I should make a list of the interesting titles in his bibliography that I haven't yet read. There are quite a few.
The Afterlife Revealed clocks in at a speedy 192 pages, densely packed with information and insights. It's a fine book, a labor of love aimed at lightening the burden of all those who seek a larger meaning in our predominantly materialistic age, and I hope it finds the intelligent, discriminating readership it deserves.
Thanks for this review, Michael. As soon as I get a job, I'm going to buy Tymn's book!
Posted by: Kevin | June 28, 2011 at 08:29 PM
Nice review, Michael!
Posted by: Matt Rouge | June 29, 2011 at 12:10 AM
"Why are mediumship, reincarnation memories, hauntings, etc. disregarded by these authors?"
----------------------
I don't consider reincarnation to be life after death. If I lose my sense of self, my individuality, then in what sense can I say that "I" continue to exist? If my memories are wiped clean and I don't remember who I am at this moment then I find that little different than the materialist stance of total annihilation.
Posted by: Art | June 29, 2011 at 02:24 AM
Okay to be honest the whole idea of reincarnation horrifies me and there is nothing I like about it. I agree with the Buddha, "all life is suffering." I hope to god we are wrong about reincarnation and there is something else going on and I do not have to come back here.
Posted by: Art | June 29, 2011 at 08:15 AM
Alright. I am going to risk sounding like I may have gone off the deep end with how I will begin my next paragraph but, considering that the question I posed to him is related to reincarnation and NDEs, his answer may be of interest to some of you.
From the man whom I have acknowledged and accept as being the long-awaited Messenger of God, the long-awaited Messiah, the long-awaited Imam Al-Mahdi, who is now known as Terence (previous 'known' life-time 'Avatar' was Jesus), I got an acceptable response when I asked him about the following.
Here was his response...
Somehow the formatting didn't keep but yeah, according to Dr. Carl Wickland's research, within his book { 30 Years Among the Dead } reincarnation can actually be a dangerous theory to believe in as there are often spirit-possessions of people who think that they've reincarnated when all they've really done was possess another individual which often leads the possessed individual into MPD or schizophrenic-diagnoses. I suspect that mistaken beliefs about reincarnation may be a factor in causing the earth-bound.
Posted by: Юкинов | June 29, 2011 at 01:14 PM
Art, the Buddha didn't say that all life is suffering, just that there is suffering, and there is also pleasure, enjoyment, and fulfillment. Buddhism simply offers a way to make the suffering a little easier, at least that's what I've found.
I also think it's possible to be reincarnated and still be one's self. I don't think memories are necessary to still be oneself. I think a lot of what we think of as "ourself" is just a temporary ego that we assume in order to survive, but too often identify far too much with.
BTW, I've just read Chris Carter's new book, Science and the Near Death Experience--I think it's truly exceptional.
Posted by: Kathleen | June 29, 2011 at 03:47 PM
contemporary neuroscience makes it clear that our brains are enough to explain everything about ourselves. Our whole sense of self, our consciousness everything comes from our brain, where else can it come from? And when our brain dies it seems that consciousness will just vanish, as sad and horrible as it is, we must accept the fact that Death is the end. Speak to any of our great Scientists, all of them will tell you Life After Death is a joke, a fantasy and a myth, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings, PZ Meyers, Steve Novella and many, many other Scientists have said Death is the end. Parasychology is not going to save us, i have not read a single book on Parasychology because it is impossible to reconcile any evidence that we get from this fringe science with Cognitive Neuroscience.
This is all there is, so we should use it to make us happy, there is nothing wrong going after material goods, we only have one miserable life, what is wrong with accumulating all the material goods that we can get? If being rich makes you happy go for it, i don't see anything wrong with it.
I feel sorry when i look at buddhist and hindu monks and sages, they renounce the material world for a fantasy made up world.
There is nothing wrong with a materialistic outlook in life?
All of you worship and look up to Jesus Christ and Buddha and whatever?
I worship and look up to James Randi, Michael Shermer, Keith Augustine and others.
These are the true people we should look up to, we can call them the bringers of the light.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | June 29, 2011 at 05:51 PM
"i have not read a single book on Parasychology"
Wow, AM, your arguments seem pretty airtight to me. Where did you pick up those debating skills?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 29, 2011 at 06:33 PM
is 'Atheistic Materialism is a fact' being sarcastic? because it really does sound like a satirical piece than an actual reason-minded person. there are so many fallacies and non-science basis that this guy must really be joking and poking fun at those fundamentalists in the materialism world..
Posted by: TomC | June 29, 2011 at 07:32 PM
AM has convinced me. Finally someone who makes sense! I was starting to "buy" into the the different types of after life evidence that is readily available to an open minded person but I would rather take his word for it based on the boiler plate response I see on any skeptic website. For a minute there I thought I would have to sift through mountains of research and read books that open minded scientist have published on after life findings and form my own opinions. Thank you AM, for saving me from reading about findings that challenge contemporary norms about what we know about science.
Posted by: Ray | June 29, 2011 at 07:46 PM
LOL! Atheistic Materialism is going to be so surprised when it comes his/her turn to cross over. Would be fun to be a fly on the wall and be there to see the surprised look on his/her face! Surprise! {grin!}
I doubt it matters what anyone believes anyway. Belief is probably irrelevant. It's all just so much more "duality and separation" under the bridge.
The interesting and fun thing about life is that regardless of what we believe we will all one day get the chance to see who was right and who was wrong because no matter how much one vehemently denies "life after death" - one thing is true and for sure - that is death is common to us all regardless of what we believe. So all we have to do is be patient and wait.
Posted by: Art | June 29, 2011 at 07:57 PM
I honestly can't tell if the comment from AM is a joke or not. If it's a joke, it's a pretty good one. If it's serious ... well, it's still pretty funny!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 29, 2011 at 07:57 PM
“I honestly can't tell if the comment from AM is a joke or not. “
Exactly. I feel the same way.
It’s pretty amazing. This guy walks into the room and blows us all away by introducing a mystery as deep as the ones we USUALLY ponder: Is he the perfect fool, or has he written the perfect satire?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 29, 2011 at 09:10 PM
LOL, but seriously, lets get real, all of you derive your believes in an afterlife from some worn out useless pre scientific so called sacred book whether eastern or western, and your heroes are some ancient figure that knows nothing about modern Science, i mean these people would call a car or a computer a miracle. Believing in an afterlife is a combination of wishful thinking, fear, and a mind that refuses to face reality. We know much more than Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, and Muhamad ever did. Embrace Science and Reason. And don't delude yourself, Religion and Spirituality will tell you that the material world is bad, they are wrong, the material world is all there is, we must gain full control of it for our benefit, there is nothing wrong with hedonistic materialism. I want to get as much as i can while i am alive, and whenever the thought of death springs up in mind ( which is nothing but a product of my brain) all i have to do is to meet a good shrink that will give me a scientifically manufactured pills to help me get rid of my silly fears.
One final note, all of you seem to be convinced with the evidence from Parasychology fair enough? I draw my conviction from mainstream Science. While all of you worship J.B Rhine, i have Michael Shermer and Robert Todd Carrol that have pointed out J.B Rhines Baloney.
You might look up to Rupert Sheldrake, the only well qualified parasychologist, while i have more than a dozen Atheist Materialist well qualified Scientist that have made it clear: DEATH IS THE END, to name a few: Steven Pinker, Stephen Hawkings, Steve Novella, PZ Meyers, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Paul Churchland, Patricia Churchland, Susan Blackmore, Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan and nearly every other well qualified Scientist that doesn't believe in WOOOOOO.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | June 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM
boilerplate responses. man. i'm getting more confused than ever. i can't stop smiling....
Posted by: TomC | June 29, 2011 at 10:54 PM
That's it, i am getting tired of 'Atheistic Materialism is a fact' fallacies. First of all, you mentioned a whole list of Atheistic Materialist scientists on top, all of them have been hostile towards the idea of quantum biology, Pat Churchland and Dan Dennet have been attacking Quantum Consciousness for the past 15 years, well everything is changing now with the rapid advancement of Quantum Biology: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474272a.html
As Quantum Biology progresses we will see the validation of Henry Stapps, Stuart Hammerofs and Roger Penrose's theories of Quantum Consciousness. Many other Scientists are now beginning to take Quantum Consciousness seriously.
Secondly you have demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of parasychology, just like Michael Shermer and Robert Todd Carrol you seem to be coming from a highly dogmatic anti scientific position.
The only person that should embrace Science and Reason is you, stop holding on to a world view that has been completely overturned by Quantum Mechanics.
Look at this even Atheist Physicist Lawrence Krauss said: the argument is that the universe is the way it is because there are astronomers here to observe it, you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmCAKUmv2s&feature=related
Science is based on critical thinking and rigorous investigations, i am not saying its wrong for you to hold on to your philosophical positions, but don't mix it with Science.
Posted by: Baloney Detector | June 29, 2011 at 11:18 PM
"Believing in an afterlife is a combination of wishful thinking, fear, and a mind that refuses to face reality"
Would you describe "facing reality" as what you do when you're scared, and go to a shrink for those scientifically manufactured pills?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Back to the Review!:
Tymn begins the main part of The Afterlife Revealed with a brief history of Spiritualism, which includes famous cases like the Fox sisters and Emanuel Swedenborg, as well as such less familiar names as George T. Dexter, Grace Rosher, and John Scott. Part of the book's appeal is the presentation of cases that even many aficionados may not have read about. Tymn's encyclopedic knowledge of afterlife research allows him to draw on material that more casual researchers have never heard of.
I met Grace Rosher many years ago. She wrote two books called "Beyond the Horizon" and "The Travellers Return", both of which are in my possession as are John Scott's books.
Dexter, who developed mediumship, co-authored with Judge John W. Edmonds, of the New York Supreme Court, the 1853 book, "Spiritualism".
Judge Edmonds' daughter, Laura, was a trance medium. Although she could speak only English and a smattering of French, while entranced by Spirit she spoke nine different languages with great fluency: Spanish; French; Greek; Italian; Portuguese; Latin; Hungarian; and Indian dialects were identified. These phenomena and many others were all very meticulously recorded by Judge Edmonds.
While most people may not have heard of these mediums they are not unknown among Spiritualists.
Posted by: Zerdini | June 30, 2011 at 12:45 AM
"Believing in an afterlife is a combination of wishful thinking, fear, and a mind that refuses to face reality"
I have found this to be true with most materialists wishing and hoping the afterlife is not true frankly, the fear being that if the afterlife is true, then they might get in trouble with god or the gods because of the time he got drunk and had a samesex encounter or whatever.
It’s the fear of what may come after death that keeps most atheists up at night.
Posted by: Not Scared | June 30, 2011 at 02:10 AM
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 30, 2011 at 03:04 AM
LOL, who is this AJ Ayer that you speak about?
Near Death Experiences are a terrible source of evidence for the survival of Consciousness. A highly educated Atheist named Keith Augustine thoroughly debunked it, he called out some of the most well qualified woo believing Scientists that promote NDE's. Many of us were unaware how deep the NDE literature was, thankfully Keith Augustine dispelled all of that. Nobody has dared to challenge Keith.
So what else is there ? What other sort of evidence for Life After Death is there? I strongly urge all of you to read Keith Augustines lovely debunking of NDE and his case against any sort of immortality.
Be warned these articles will be very painful for all of you dualists:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html
and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html
I feel sorry for all of you, i really do, but please be aware that there are many people besides Keith Augustine that have completely debunked the notion of an afterlife. Susan Blackmore the greatest Parasychologist wrote a book that i have yet to read called dying to live, here we have a well qualified open minded Scientist that wasted time with Parasychology and found negative results. Are any of you aware of that?
About Quantum Biology yes i admit it does threaten the traditional Mechanical view of life, but i have yet to see any Physicists openly believe in Life After Death.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | June 30, 2011 at 04:22 AM
I am getting in a bit late regarding AM's posts. They are funny. The level of response from AM is like a student in 9th grade algebra trying to argue the case that fractal theory is bogus based upon the opinions of Michael Shermer and James Randi.
I wish to be kind so I will only say that AM's posts show a limited ability to think and therefore comprehend abstract material. As a psychologist this might be stated as "Mr X exhibits a rather concrete style of thinking". Children gradually develop their abstract cognitive abilities and it isn't until age 13-14 that the frontal lobes reach full enough maturity to think abstractly, plan, initiate, organize and act upon the world in what one might consider an "adult fashion". Not every adult fully develops these abilities and there are is a bell curve variability within this developmental line of comprehension in adults. Concrete thinking is ranges somewhere between 1 SD and 2SD Below the mean. I am lousy mechanic and my visual perceptual abilities are probably below the mean. No problem...I don't argue about NASCAR engines with NASCAR mechanics. I would say that AM, if serious, is out of his league.
Posted by: rick49 | June 30, 2011 at 04:22 AM
'Be warned these articles will be very painful for all of you dualists:'
Eh, what's this about 'dualists'? If we insist on going with philisophical lables then I guess I would class myself as a Monistic Idealist. I think sooner or later quantum mechanics will validate monistic idealism i.e. consciousness is everything. Imv, the old mind/body dichotomy is ultimately false in the grand scheme of things, as even the body is product of mind, as is all physical reality.
Posted by: Douglas | June 30, 2011 at 05:08 AM
AM is obviously a wind-up merchant.
Can we just ignore him and get back to MP's Review please.
Posted by: Zerdini | June 30, 2011 at 05:56 AM
Atheistic Materialist, just watch one episode of "Real Housewives of Wherever" on television, or try to stomach 10 minutes of it. You'll see just how "happy" materialism makes people. Or examine the many studies that have shown that, past a certain point of basic comfort, money and many toys do not make people happy. I think you're putting us on anyway.
Posted by: Kathleen | June 30, 2011 at 05:59 AM
'who is this AJ Ayer that you speak about .. Keith Augustines lovely debunking ... Susan Blackmore the greatest Parasychologist wrote a book that i have yet to read...' Sorry Zerdini, but this is priceless - more please.
I wish Paranormalia's resident sceptics had this sort of brio, they'd be more fun to read.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | June 30, 2011 at 06:22 AM
The problem is why haven't any parasychologists won a nobel prize? Why aren't spooky things like Telepathy and Astrology accepted and used by mainstream Scientists?
Scientists are generally silent on the strange field of Parasychology, but thank goodness ( not God) we have a dedicated and powerful network of skeptics. People like James Randi, Susan Blackmore, PZ Meyers,Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and many others are bringers of the light, Science brought us out of the caves and we are not going back. We must fight, fight, fight silly superstitions. With nuclear bombs lying around we can't afford to let the naive public belive in silly things like Telepathy and Near Death Experiences. There are no Gods or Angels coming to help us, all we have are Scientists and growing number of dedicated skeptics to lead us to the light.
Death is the end, this fact is hard to swallow, but there is hope, we might be able to download our selves into computers. On a final note,i find the concept of heaven silly, as the great Scientist and Philosopher Daniel Dennet once said: The idea of a disembodied existence is incoherent. Its sad but Science clearly shows that at death we will just be snuffed out. So enjoy your time under the sun, chase after material goods, get rid of silly superstitions. Eat, drink and enjoy.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | June 30, 2011 at 06:52 AM
Read this AM: http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2009/06/mindful-universe-by-henry-stapp-causal.html
Posted by: Baloney detector | June 30, 2011 at 07:25 AM
Alright, you apparent CSICOP fan, you.
The problem is why haven't any parasychologists won a nobel prize? Why aren't spooky things like Telepathy and Astrology accepted and used by mainstream Scientists?
Why haven't you heard of Brian David Josephson who is a Nobel Prize winner ? Who is also a paranormal-researcher. That's a problem if you're uninformed.
Historical-contributors to Science were people like Sir William Crookes who pioneered and invented the Cathode Ray Tube which lead to the discovery of the X-Rays (a very useful scientific-advancement). Crookes was actively engaged in para-normal research.
Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff were the pioneers of the Laser Beam and they also actively engaged in paranormal-research. I think you have it backwards in terms of who brought us out of the caves and who brought us out of being forced to use candles as our Light-Sources. Speaking of which...Thomas Edison also was inventing these machines in part to communicate with the dead (contrary to what pseudo-skeptical literature claims).
Thomas Edison's phonograph met with a "skeptic" who jumped out and grabbed the demonstrator by the throat to say: "I won't be taken in by your ventriloquist!"
Then there's the incident of "Rocks don't fall from the sky" (French Academy of Sciences) being attributed to "Lightning heated up the rocks" before "Meteorites" were accepted as being the rocks that fell from the sky.
For your information, most of us already know what your responses are going to be before you even respond, because whilst great minds think alike with one another, the fools seldomly differ, and you, sir, have not demonstrated much difference in how the typical pseudo-skeptic behaves (belligerent ridicule of everyone else who doesn't believe or disbelieve the same as you which is something that I would typically only expect out of a teenager).
Then you go on to attempt to character-assassinate people who take an interest in learning by claiming that all of their published works are somehow a result of fabrication or fraudulent trickery (also a claim that places the burden-of-proof upon the pseudo-skeptic)...failing to mention the fact that the vast majority of cheating and detecting fraud was discovered by the parapsychologists themselves and NOT a discovery of so-called skeptics and debunkers.
Also, nothing is wrong with having material possessions, but the problem occurs when you obtain it at the expense of everybody else without regards to the well-being of the community. Happiness should definitely be pursued but it doesn't come from being a minion of war. Let me put it in more "woo-woo" terms for you: "The Forces of Satan separates people and turns everyone into enemies."
"The Pure Truth is what brings people together so that everybody can live in peaceful co-existence and harmony."
AM, I am sure everyone here is willing to welcome you as a member of the universal community, but if you insist on treating other people to the same cookie-cutter arrogance that is typical of the typical pseudo-skeptic, then obviously you're not the type who's willing to thoroughly read through the literature that has been produced by paranormal-researchers in order to show where the specific errors are with specific quotations.
Let me put it another way: I don't believe what someone's book says just because he wrote that book, like the typical pseudo-skeptics tend to do with their CSICOP figureheads, but if it criticises another book, then you are damn straight that I will examine the book in question that's being cricitised, read it thoroughly, then come to my own conclusion as to whether the author's statements about that book are accurate. I went from extremist-skeptic to interested zetetic as a result. When you put so much faith into an author who tells you to believe them rather than deciding for yourself...that makes you dogmatic and someone with a lack of autonomy.
Posted by: Юкинов | June 30, 2011 at 07:46 AM
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 30, 2011 at 09:01 AM
From the writing style/formatting, it looks like Atheistic Materialist and Baloney Detector are the same person...having a debate with him/herself. Just sayin'....
Posted by: Ginny | June 30, 2011 at 09:53 AM
All of you worship and look up to Jesus Christ and Buddha and whatever?
I worship and look up to James Randi, Michael Shermer, Keith Augustine and others.
I don't worship anybody.
Worshipping is for cult-followers.
Posted by: Юкинов | June 30, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Zerdini,
I have read The Afterlife Revealed and I very much enjoyed it. It is densely packed with very fruitful information to a beginner in this research such myself. I have been a keen observer on afterlife threads, posting very little because as my English professor once said, "Whatever you have to say Shakespeare probably said it better" however I value your opinions VERY highly for all that you have read, seen and experienced. Since you have such a vast knowledge on the subject, I was just curious as to why these types of books that review the previous literature and famous mediums, spiritualist, etc rarely mention recent publications and mediums. Perhaps I am still too much of a beginner on topic that I may have no yet discovered such material but do you recommend any (within the past 15 years or so)books that publish recent findings for evidence in the afterlife or any current mediums who are worthy of close examination? Why does it seem like case studies on afterlife evidence has rapidly diminished since the late 20th century. This may not be true just my finite impression as someone who just started this journey. I am just curious on your perspective on this since I consider you to be the "Don Mecca" on this topic :)
Best,
Ray
Posted by: Ray | June 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Personally I think AM is one of us lampooning skeptics but if not he likes my dear friend Keith who has really been silent since being debunked on the Reynold's case. Maybe he will recommend Woerlee to me :)
Posted by: Kris | June 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM
"From the writing style/formatting, it looks like Atheistic Materialist and Baloney Detector are the same person...having a debate with him/herself. Just sayin'...."
You know what, Kathleen, you may be right.
But more to the point, AM is a troll: someone who enters a conversation not to learn or to shed light, but to provoke people and see how much attention he can draw to himself.
"I feel sorry for all of you, i really do"
Does anyone really want to waste their time responding to that?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM
It just occurred to me: we got taken in for the moment because we're not USED to seeing trolls here. And that's a tribute, really, to Michael, and to the rest of us.
Like attracts like, and jerks like AM aren't comfortable here for long.
Let's let him be a bad boy someplace else.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | June 30, 2011 at 12:06 PM
I try not to use the word «troll» as its origins are somewhat derogatory (its original reference being to that of a ogre-like creature out of D&D type RPGs no doubt). Even someone like that A-M can be assisted to come to his senses if treated with some kindness and directed to certain questions that assist him in understanding why some of us went from extreme skeptical-atheist (with black & white thinking - similarly to how many Creationists or Fundamentalist Christians also have the "us versus them" type of black & white thinking) into a more agnostic-like disposition (and thus we realise that things aren't exactly as true/false as they might seem on the surface rather than dogmatically clinging to a position).
Prescott certainly does have a remarkably mature followership and postership despite his blog not requiring moderator-approval before we can post comments. I posted specifically what I posted because I have found that the Randi-fans don't particularly care to address the facts about parapsychologists having been Nobel Prize Laureates (Brian Josephson) nor about the fact that "parapsychologists" such as Sir William Crookes and Targ & Puthoff made the biggest contributions to the most-significant advancements of science/technology (CRT & Laser). Amongst a whole bunch of other things that I always "pre-empt" simply because psychological-history seems to be repetitive and I have seen the same rhetorics so many times that it`s just down-right predictable. Ultimately...I give them some logic that even they should be able to agree with and see that it`s not so black-and-white after all. Such as when I say: « Feel free to be "right" ...I don't mind...I will continue to learn and re-examine all evidence since what is "right" or "correct" today can just as easily become "incorrect" or "wrong" and "obsolete" tomorrow. » Combine that with "history repeats" and we can all agree that we should be spending our time learning as much as we can rather than in argument since mental-growth is a personal-responsibility (and dogmatism isn't conducive to mental-development).
I wonder how much like attracts like applies to the after-life. Will we all recognise each other and congregate into our own like-minded...actually, nevermind, the answer just became obvious. Wouldn't that be a hoot "Hey, you, that person who posted on MP's blog back when we had our earth-lives!" ;O
The funniest thing about those skeptical-debunkers is that a lot of them don't seem to realise that much of their literature has been thoroughly studied, examined and debunked and they are bewildered as to why the rest of us don't find them very convincing. I am reading through the links that he posted and I already came across so many arbitrary assertions (touted as if though fact like some sort of religious mantra) that it comes across as an intellectual-struggle or even religious programming to «rationalise away» the validity of documented research on NDEs (and it has a graph purportedly located within Michael Sabom's book: Light and Death - for Pam Reynold's NDE - can anybody confirm this and compare it with the information on the link that AM provided ? I have not read that book yet).
Let us examine everything like True Skeptics.
Posted by: Юкинов | June 30, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Ray,
At any time in the history of Spiritualism there has always been a dearth of quality mediums and it is no different today.
In the fifty plus years I've benn investigating the subject I've been fortunate in finding a handful of mediums who could supply good evidential mediumship both mental and physical.
There may be some in the years to come but at this present moment I would find it hard to recommend anyone - with complete confidence that they would be willing to undergo the 'close examination' you suggest.
Kind regards
Zerdini
Posted by: Zerdini | June 30, 2011 at 02:43 PM
Bruce wrote:
"I feel sorry for all of you, i really do"
Does anyone really want to waste their time responding to that?
I, for one, do not.
I have far better things to do with my time.
Posted by: Zerdini | June 30, 2011 at 02:50 PM
I call 'Troll'.
Posted by: Paul | June 30, 2011 at 03:17 PM
Maybe Woerlee has a son and his son decided to grace us with his presence.
Posted by: Kris | June 30, 2011 at 03:50 PM
Alright i have had it, i am about to show all of you something that you will find very disturbing, if you can debunk this blog post by PZ Meyer than i will accept the evidence for Life After Death, be warned this article will be very painful for all of you believers, read this carefully, and i am extremely sorry for shattering your illusions:
PZ Meyers
Ain't no heaven, ain't no afterlife of any kind, either, say the physicists
Hasn't Sean Carroll learned from Stephen Hawking's experience? Nothing stirs up the public like a physicist explaining how silly their cherished myths are. Now Carroll gives the physicists' perspective on life after death.
Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV. The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of "spirit particles" and "spirit forces" that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham's razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.
And then he body-slams the opposition with the Dirac equation. Theologians break down and weep. The faithful flee, and then riot. Churches implode as the void at their heart is exposed.
Well, we can hope.
The biologists' perspective, which is a little less fundamental, is simply that there is no identifiable 'receiver' localized in the brain (no, not even the pineal gland, as Descartes believed), distributed physiological activity is associated with thought, and injury, disease, and pharmacology can all profoundly influence the mind. Furthermore, the way the brain works involves trans-membrane ion fluxes and synaptic activity — it's all electrochemistry and biochemistry. In addition to that new physics, we'd need a new chemistry to explain how spirit interacts with neurotransmitters or gene expression or protein phosphorylation.
While we won't see the churches shut down, at least we can say that wishful thinking withers in the face of science.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | June 30, 2011 at 04:12 PM
I still don't know whether to take AM is supposed to be a parody of skeptics or for real, first off there's the whole thing about having never read a single thing about parapsychology, and then there's the whole thing about "nothing wrong with accumulating material goods" or something along those lines. With the latter, I find a lot of materialists don't speak like that, and still believe the value of life isn't just collecting the most toys, but other people and values that are in line with humanism, so I think that in itself is trying to play off of a misconception some proponents may have against skeptics.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | June 30, 2011 at 04:39 PM
I got 240 hits when I typed "Augustine" into the site-search box here. Nearly all are just references. Could someone winnow that down to the ten (?) or so threads where he participated and post them for AM's benefit? TIA.
Posted by: Roger Knights | June 30, 2011 at 04:41 PM
You're welcome to discuss the evidence with us in detail. Try not to use the "testimonies" of other individuals as your "appeal to authority" as we'd like to see your own efforts at thinking rather than relying on others to do the thinking for you. I would suggest you carefully read through http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm to see that the typical debunker has indeed been thoroughly studied and researched and analysed.
Posted by: Юкинов | June 30, 2011 at 05:23 PM
This folks is what happens when you take the like of Woerlee, Augustine, Shermer , PZ Meyer and Carroll serious.
by the way AMF, "i" is capital unless it is simply a letter in a word, however it can still be capital of the word with "i" assuming the word is the start of a sentence. For example.
It ran home. Notice in this case I though part of a sentence is capital.
However " i" when it is the first person singular is always capital.
Thus our first lesson for AMF.
Posted by: Kris | June 30, 2011 at 05:50 PM
AMF,
Keith Augustine debunking of Ndes is very weak indeed he uses the fact that because a few people who have ndes. That they see living people that must give us reason to think that a very high percentage of ndes who do see deceased loved one aren't seeing them at all. He then used a two skeptics whos main objective was to debunk the shoe on the ledge case. He took their word for it instead of even considering Kimberly Sharp's opinion on the matter who was there. That is just a couple of weaknesses i found in Keith Augustine's attack on nde's and obe's being evidence for an afterlife. He also mentions that all experiments that could show that out of body experiences are evidence for an afterlife.
If a patient saw a sign up above were all negative. Mostly all these experiments were inconclusive with some patients in some of the experiments claiming they did see a sign but could of seen it at the vantage point the researchers speculated.
You mention PZ Myers article as well, he must not be aware of the fact that parallel universes may very exist and that physicists are open to other realities beyond our own that are very different then our own.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | June 30, 2011 at 06:22 PM
Actually the cases where people even see living people are very weak at that. They tend to be children and in the cases they always later report seeing the "living person" becomes someone else that they know is not living. Atwater reports that the people who had this experience reported that they initially saw living people to make the experience more comforting.
Posted by: Kris | June 30, 2011 at 07:08 PM
To be honest, I've seen the exact opposite situation occuring on atheist/materialists message boards or blogs where one "proponent" will some how think he/she can change the mind of everyone there and ends up coming off as a troll to everyone there. It goes beyond even parapsychology, being an automobile enthusiast I've seen many times where there will be a message board for a community of owners of automobile A and a fan or owner of automobile B will join that board and try and tell everyone that A is inferior to B, you can guess how those kind of conversations go.
Posted by: Aftrbrnr | June 30, 2011 at 08:21 PM
"The biologists' perspective ... is simply that there is no identifiable 'receiver' localized in the brain ..."
One version of the hypothesis of quantum consciousness posits that the receiver is found in microtubules. There are other variations. I'm not saying quantum consciousness is true - who knows? - but the idea can't be dismissed out of hand.
"... distributed physiological activity is associated with thought, and injury, disease, and pharmacology can all profoundly influence the mind."
All true, but none of it is inconsistent with the transmission theory.
"the way the brain works involves trans-membrane ion fluxes and synaptic activity — it's all electrochemistry and biochemistry."
Agreed, the brain itself is all electrochemistry and biochemistry. But while brain states and mental states are correlated, they aren't the one and the same. The thought "I'd like to have tuna fish for lunch" is qualitatively different (i.e., different in kind) from a stream of electrons through gray matter. The relationship between mind and brain has yet to be understood.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | June 30, 2011 at 11:08 PM
AM wrote:
if you can debunk this blog post by PZ Meyer than i will accept the evidence for Life After Death,
Did you mean PZ Myers?
Posted by: Zerdini | June 30, 2011 at 11:37 PM
This might interests our dear AMF
http://tinyurl.com/64n8l8b
Maybe he would kindly explain how these people functioned with almost no brains.
I cannot begin to think just how many lizards and rats have died in vain attempts to locate memory to any single part of the brain.
Actually saying memory is located in the brain is a statement of faith, as there is no scientific evidence for that claim.
Posted by: Kris | July 01, 2011 at 12:08 AM
For a moment i got afraid, but thank goodness the TV analogy has been debunked, i am so sorry for shattering your illusions again
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/12/deepak-chopra-michael-shermer-larry-king.html
Also note another favorite argument of the woo – argument by analogy. I’ve heard this analogy to the TV set before – our brain is like the TV set but our mind is somewhere else (by analogy, the TV signal). But the analogy fails. In fact, it’s more than that, if anything the analogy demonstrates the mind is not like the TV signal. We know that if you damage part of the brain, the functions associated with the damaged sections of the brain will be reduced or disappear altogether. This is not like a TV at all. If you damage part of your TV set you won’t find that you now only get the commercials but not the programs, or that you get game shows but not documentaries. That would be a true analog of what happens when the brain is damaged. No. If you damage your TV set, either it still works (you didn’t damage anything significant) or it stops working altogether.
(For the most part, anyway.) And if you disrupt the signal, by disconnecting the cable box, or by shielding the aerial, again the TV again stops working completely. You don’t find that you now get the programs but the remote doesn’t work any more.
Do you imagine that Chopra has ever tried (very hard or even not so hard) to prove that the mind is not a separate entity from the brain? Would he even consider doing that? He gave us the TV set analogy – the brain is like the TV set but the mind is like the signal. Do you think he has ever thought of testing this to see if he could prove it false – by shutting off the signal (analogous to disconnecting the cable box) or disrupting it (by analogy, putting the TV aerial inside a Faraday cage), to see if the brain stops providing consciousness when the signal from the mind is disrupted? Has he even thought of doing this? You know the answer – of course he hasn’t. He never would. He isn’t interested in trying to prove his pet theory wrong; he’s only interested in posturing on the Larry King Show and on the pages of the Huffington Post.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 12:37 AM
Kris that link that you sent is great but first try to debunk my post above, i can sense all of you are uneasy after reading that, sorry once again for shattering all of your delusions
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 12:54 AM
No response from Юкинов and Kris, feeling afraid are we? I understand those arguments above are very powerful, i know its painful but try to embrace reality my friends.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 12:58 AM
To AMF,
You said "Susan Blackmore the greatest Parasychologist.... "
please read this, to give you a more balanced view
http://archived.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm
Rod McKenzie
Posted by: Rod mckenzie | July 01, 2011 at 01:43 AM
Dear Rod McKenzie, sure i will read that biased criticism of Susan Blackmore only if you agree to read this excellent criticism Entangled Mind, afraid are we?: http://www.skepdic.com/entangledreview.html
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 02:13 AM
Ok Fine Susan Blackmore made a lot of mistakes, but we still have Richard Weisman, Chris French, Ray Hyman and James Alcock.
Other skeptics like PZ Meyers and Susan Blackmore as good as they are, they still lack the power of the great Richard Weisman.
Keep in mind that Ray Hyman has been in the field of Parasychology for more than 30 years and he has made it clear there is nothing there.
So with Parasychology eliminated what other evidence do you have for life after death?
And i am still waiting for a response from Kris and Юкинов.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 02:20 AM
To AMF,
1. You say biased, why?
2. Read RTC article reminds me of TD's Greg Taylor's comment " brain vomit"
Wiseman & French have now said by standards of science psi is proven just rely on extraordinary claims defence.
Hyman relies on future finding errors to reject autoganzfeld
Rod McKenzie
Posted by: Rod mckenzie | July 01, 2011 at 02:55 AM
@Rod, sorry i made a mistake, i didn't realize how sloppy Susan Blackmores research was, thanks for enlightening me by sharing that article.
However you can't deny the fact that Susan Blackmore is a prominent scientist and a major figure in consciousness research. Who can blame her for rejecting Parasychology, she knows too much about the brain to realize things like Telepathy are impossible
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 03:30 AM
Dear AMF
Did you imagine maybe for a second that perhaps the reason folks are not responding to your awesome intellect is the fact that its 3:30 in the morning?
The fact you are a fan of Susan Blackmore say’s all we need to know about you. Uninformed Skeptics fall for her because she allegedly had her own NDE and whats better then a NDE’r saying that consciousness lives in the brain because she had a NDE and she knows!..... at least until we find out her NDE was while smoking pot and playing on a Ouija board (I shit you not) so clearly the fact that she dived in to a Ouija board so hard that it killed her...she must be an expert because I would think it must be goddamned hard to kill yourself playing with a Ouija fracking board!
I can not respect anyone who would use her has definitive source of well, anything.
Posted by: Not Scared | July 01, 2011 at 03:49 AM
Thankyou, Thankyou so much, 'A M is a fact,' from the bottom of my heart.
That was the best laugh I've had for months ( of course you're having us on ) but some of the earlier posts caused me to almost stop breathing, I couldn't get the huge belly laughs out fast enough.
Please, A M is a fact, I'm begging you, don't stop posting, just keep it coming about Blackmore and co and you not reading any of the books etc.
Posted by: Anon. | July 01, 2011 at 04:50 AM
LOL didn't realize the time difference, its just 11pm here in Melbourne.
Anon, lol, i am glad i made you laugh, i love how all of you are avoiding giving an answer to my earlier post about the TV analogy.
Once again sorry for shattering your illusions.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 05:30 AM
"The relationship between mind and brain has yet to be understood." .QED.This is brilliant,Michael!
Posted by: Alexander1304 | July 01, 2011 at 05:33 AM
Michael,slightly off-top(sorry).What do You thinkk about medium Carole Lynne and these interviews?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN1r9rBQSNc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgU50l2pVp0&feature=related
I especially liked this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d2co7wHrDk&feature=related
Posted by: Alexander1304 | July 01, 2011 at 05:41 AM
By the way to all of you please try to watch the first 5 minutes of this video, the great Steven Pinker thoroughly debunks the Soul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf-mE6IcVuI&feature=related
Are all of you panicking now?
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 06:04 AM
In that video above Dr. Pinker says experiments conducted by Alfred Russel Wallace to communicate with the dead were a failure.
The great Dr. Pinker goes on to say we have every reason to believe that the person goes out of existence at death.
Any objections?
LOL, at this point i really feel bad for all of you, my side is so much stronger.
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 06:07 AM
AMF,I don't get your point.You present arguments for your side,that's fine,but posting such insulting comments as "LOL, at this point i really feel bad for all of you, my side is so much stronger." adds nothing to civilized discussion.And althiugh I'm myself skeptic to a degree,I'm not sure that your side "is so much stronger".Why wouldn't you read books,say,of Stephen Braude,Alan Gauld and C.D.Broad with open mind?
Posted by: Alexander1304 | July 01, 2011 at 06:23 AM
AM, I read your link about the TV analogy (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/12/deepak-chopra-michael-shermer-larry-king.html). I don't see how this "debunks" the TV analogy at all. The clue is that it is an analogy--the theory posits that the brain and consciousness work in a similar (but probably not exact) manner.
You keep citing Susan Blackmore's "Dying to Live," but admit you've never read it! I think you owe it yourself to do more research instead of throwing down taunts. Read both Blackmore and Carter's Science of NDEs, like I have, and I'm sure most of us here have. Personally, I was totally unimpressed with Blackmore right from the start, when she began comparing a "trip" she had when smoking pot to an NDE.
Posted by: Kathleen | July 01, 2011 at 07:21 AM
AM, you seem to think your arguments are something new to us. If you look through the posts in this blog (more than 1,000 by now), you'll find that all of them have been addressed at one time or another, either in the main posts or in comments. I'm not saying you would find our rebuttals convincing, but nothing you've said is new.
If you were to make such a search, you'd find that I have very mixed feelings about life after death, and in some ways would prefer it if there is none. Personal extinction sometimes strikes me as less troubling than a transition to a new and strange world. Nevertheless, I think the evidence for personal survival is too strong to ignore, though I'm not 100% convinced by it.
Regarding the TV set, if you drop it or hit it with a hammer it may very well keep working but not as well as it did before. The picture or sound may be distorted, etc. This would relate to brain injury, by analogy. Of course an analogy can be pushed only so far. The "signal" in question is not an electromagnetic signal, as it is in the case of a TV.
The long but worthwhile book Irreducible Mind by Kelly et al. offers a large number of cases suggesting that the mind is not coterminous with the brain. Many of these cases come from mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, not from parapsychology.
Ray Hyman is not a parapsychologist, by the way, and he has not done any research. He is an armchair critic, like most skeptics. The only skeptical parapsychologists I can think of offhand are Richard Podmore, Eric Dingwall (both deceased), and Richard Weissman. And even Weissman concedes that there is enough evidence for psi to establish it as a proven fact, if the idea of psi were not so "outlandish" (to him).
Weissman quote:
http://tinyurl.com/3e9x9yd
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 01, 2011 at 08:13 AM
Guys, even as a sceptic of "the afterlife" it's obvious that AMF isn't worth the bother. Someone who's holding forth on the philosophy of mind and has to ask who A.J. Ayer is is like a heavy metal fan who's never heard of Black Sabbath.
Posted by: BenSix | July 01, 2011 at 08:18 AM
I will get back to thoroughly commenting on your posts after I finish my conversation with this chic in this on-line game that I am playing.
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 08:32 AM
Don't worry, you aren't the only one, for Alan Vaughan was also once an editor for an atheistic-materialistic skeptical-publication in New York back in the day. I will quote something in reference to his statement before he went from "skeptic" into, heaven forbid, a practicing parapsychologist ! I quote him here and provide the link so that you can indeed see this for yourself...
AMF, I am not answering to your posts to convince you of anything, but I am describing to you the information that I have come across which I consider to be more convincing than CSICOP-related references. You aren`t some sort of "opponent to be defeated in debate" because that whole idea is just silly black-and-white thinking. I will share with you as to how my paradigm got bigger. That is all.
Regarding your TV Analogy link...I am reading through it and already I see a worshipping of Michael Shermer (I am still going to read through the article thoroughly since I simply add your paradigm to build upon my own paradigm-grid). I am sorry but I find Marcello Truzzi's reviews of Michael Shermer's works to be far more comprehensive. I can agree that Shermer is a very smart guy but even he seems to be clouded and perhaps even blinded by emotion. Here is the link in case you ever decide to read it for yourself.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_65/ai_76737821/
...basically, Truzzi gives a review of Shermer's book, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, And Other Confusions Of Our Time.
You might also be interested in Michael Shermer's episode on putting Vedic Astrology to the test in order to expose it as bunk, however, the results might surprise you. Here is the link so that you can watch it for yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo&fmt=18
Once more, I am not giving you an argument, I am describing the reasons why I am unable to take your claims seriously, but my references haven't been fully linked since I don't want to flood you with information over-load.
Only when you play gymnastics with semantics. Paranormal-phenomenon isn't as black-and-white as you`re trying to force it to be so semantically.
Assuming that we all know what the mind actually is - the brain, yes, perhaps to an extent, neurologically, but it doesn't convince me as being complete either.
Chinese Medical-Doctors who are familiar with Acupuncture know that disruptions in the physical can also affect the flowing energy channels. I am sure if you built a scientific-instrument that was designed to collect radio-waves, micro-waves, solar-power, then some part of it breaks. I am quite certain that if the sola-collector broke it would certainly malfunction and no longer receive the "energy" (you could interpret "energy" as being "thoughts" and thus "consciousness") from solar-sources.
Proving things is the domain of mathematics. Scientific-progress should simply be the continued accumulation of data, evidence, knowledge, revision of previous knowledge, updates to that knowledge so that it doesn't become dogmatic, then formulating better theories than current theories. Once more, I am not telling these things to you to prove anything, but only describe MY reasons for why I find the publications of paranormal-researchers to be more credible than the skeptical-debunkers (and if necessary I will even include the clip on Richard Dawkins attempting to unsuccessfully character-assassinate Rupert Sheldrake rather than actually discussing evidence).
Regarding your statements about Chopra. I haven't heard of him until now. However, what I find is typical with the skeptics, that they seem to target the most amateurish-scientists they can possibly find, then attempt to use that as a straw-man to claim that the entire baby and bath-water need to be thrown out. That is like me finding some poop in your house from your dog then decide that we need to scoop and shovel up the entire and whole house and get rid of it rather than simply cleaning up and rejecting the poop whilst leaving everything else in-tact for further-examination.
AMF, I would be careful, because the more you do actual intensive research and investigation of your own, even when the source-material is diametrically opposed to your paradigm, like I have for the last decade, and thus over 4000+ hours worth of reading and researching under my belt now, you will subject yourself to much paradigm-shift and cognitive-dissonance, and you can NEVER GO BACK to your previous beliefs, because they will seem so inadequate and incomplete. Plus, you will find, that your former colleagues will probably turn on you and insist that you have been "lost to the woos" and can NEVER be brought back into their fold because they won't be able to convince you. That is my experience. Take my word for it or call me delusional.
I don't see any reason nor need to be dishonest but if you think I am being dishonest about describing my experiences then so be it - you are free to believe what you want and what others believe does not give me bother (because, for as far as I am concerned, anybody who gets themselves into serious trouble as a result of their belief was probably deserving of that fate anyway, for reasons that I neither understand nor comprehend, but that I would not have been able to do anything about anyway - considering how stubborn some people are with their beliefs...some people are also stubborn with their disbeliefs which also can get them into serious trouble).
---
I will get to the other posts as I have not fully read through them yet. I am a slow reader so don't expect me to be chatty...also, regarding Ray Hyman, even Hyman has acknowledged that there's something interesting going on with Remote-Viewing, that there are NO methodological-flaws in the experimental-design, even if he refuses to conclude that it could have anything to do with Psi. I will quote Dean Radin's quote of Ray Hyman...
Original Article by Radin can be found here... http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/skeptic-agrees-that-remote-viewing-is.html
Once more, AMF, before you erroneously make the arbitrary assertion that I am trying to prove anything to you, I will tell you again that I am only describing the information that I find to be more convincing than the CSICOP-references, because you seem to keep missing my points for some reason, and don't seem to actually read through the links that I post, despite the fact that I thoroughly read through the links that you are posting.
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 09:33 AM
AMF
I have skinned Augustine on here numerous times as has others.
I have certainly skinned alive Augustine's mentor Gerry Woerlee.
Current discussion- http://tinyurl.com/3j9fu7e
Older discussion- http://tinyurl.com/3fslyn6
So I have no problem refuting someone with a masters in philosophy and a doctor on these subjects I can definitely refute a child, which you certainly are if I am so inclined.
The fact you cannot see how the Lorber study throws a nasty monkey wrench in the production theory tells me you really need to step back, calm down and actually do a basic level of research on these subjects and critical thinking.
Posted by: Kris | July 01, 2011 at 09:54 AM
Sorry for so many posts in such a short amount of time - I have something to add about that whole "TV Analogy" description. I would say that the television is like only one aspect of the entire house, the house would represent the brain, because it's certainly far more complex than a mere television, and each appliance is like a different type of cell (T-Cells, Red Blood Cells, etc.), each with different cognitive-functions of the house...somewhat. Probably not the best example.
However, a better "analogy" would probably be that of a computer, and that the "CPU" is really closer to how the brain functions, but the "CPU" needs energy (and thus we have food - our biological power supply). One problem of the day that I see is that people seem to think that the brain has faulty wiring and that somehow replacing the CPU or altering the wiring of the CPU will somehow bring a fix. Ignoring the idea of re-programming the software itself.
Regardless of what you do with the CPU, when you have software that is erroneously programmed to leak memory like an old grand-mother with Alzheimer's, the re-wiring of the CPU will still not prevent those memory leaks...software, and thus, consciousness itself, must be what is re-programmed in order to prevent the memory leaks of insanity, irrationality, and other "negative emotions" of "fear" or "anger" that lead into insane or irrational-behavior. You know you are on the right track when you can wade through an entire encyclopedia of diametrically opposed paradigms without feeling the fear that is associated with cognitive-dissonance.
Thoughts and emotions don't originate entirely and purely from bio-chemical processes nor entirely from neurotransmitters but are simply a flow of consciousness that determines whether our actions are kind/benevolent/forgiving or cruel/malevolent/vengeful. One of my students once said that memory is stored in the brain to which I replied: I'm quite certain that we'd have been able to piece together memories from the brain by now with our current state of scientific-advancements and technology from the corpses of insects, animals, and perhaps even distinguish the patterns within the brains of human-corpses in order to dig up which memories are stored - IF that were true...
I simply find it an incredible claim that the CPU is somehow the storage-unit for our memories...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (this last part was coined by Marcello Truzzi and NOT Carl Sagan by the way).
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 09:59 AM
I doubt AMF is even reading our replies.
Posted by: Art | July 01, 2011 at 10:11 AM
Юкинов said:
"What in the world is there to be afraid of ?"
Kudos to you, Юкинов (and to others here, too), for hanging in there with AM, and talking to him in a more humane and civilized manner than he's talking to you.
I dismissed AM as a troll, but you're doing something better: you're trying to help him.
I like that you began by mentioning his fear, because AM himself keeps referring to it over and over. He told us that when he's afraid, he goes to his shrink for pills. That's amazingly honest, really.
AM, you keep referring to OUR fear. Could that be a bit of projection? Even with all those pills, is there still some fear left inside? And rather than feel it, would you rather attribute it to us?
I know about fear. (As do all of us here.) I feel it as much as anybody does. It's no fun. But when I let myself FEEL the fear, rather than try to put it down in some way, I act saner. My life is better.
You can feel your fear, or you can run from it by acting it out. The choice is yours.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 01, 2011 at 10:19 AM
Hey Юкинов
Have you ever read about the experiments they used to do with rats and lizards? They would teach them to run through a maze till they perfected the skill. Then they removed different parts of their brains in order to isolate the part that contains memory. No matter what part of the brain they removed they could always complete the maze.
Posted by: Kris | July 01, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Kris, I have read a skeptical-publication in regards to experimental-design that had to do with rats, and it wasn't until an experimenter placed sand all over the ground so that the rats could not hear the echo of their foot-steps that they could not find their way to the targets. The details I remember are a bit hazy but the link is here if you care to wade through it for the reference and descriptions...
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3043/1/CargoCult.pdf
---
Also just have to add one more thing regarding Ray Hyman...I will quote it from the CSICOP Review Page 30 that I kept on linking. I am sure our new friend AMF would be interested in what Ray Hyman says about anything - and also, for these reasons that Ray Hyman was quoted as saying, another reason why I find para-normal researchers to be more convincing than the debunking skeptics. Even Ray Hyman says that paranormal-researchers are primarily honest people (why would they need to lie or fabricate their research - Hyman does not go about character assassinating them...does he ? I would typically expect character-assassinations to only be employed by politicians - the types of people whom I also do not find trustworthy).
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Maybe I should clarify something. By "acting out" your fear, I'm talking about the phony bravado, the taunts, your pretending to know it all (in contrast to us fearful, ignorant ones).
Let go of that act, and you may find yourself reaching for even more pills.
But there are better solutions.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 01, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Let me change that second paragraph to something more helpful: why don't you let go of that act, and simply join us as an equal?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 01, 2011 at 11:02 AM
"I doubt AMF is even reading our replies." - Art
I suspect you're right, Art!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | July 01, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Just finished reading the article, that rat experiments had nothing to do with the rat experiments I was discussing.
I was discussing the rat experiments in 1946 by Karl Lashley . He was attempting to isolate the part of the mind memory was stored in.
No matter what part of the rats brain that was removed though, he could not find the part containing memory. They could still run the maze.
Posted by: Kris | July 01, 2011 at 11:19 AM
yes but AMF made things very very amusing here and might have kicked up some good conversations.
I have to wonder if young Woerlee made arguments like dear AMF does.
Posted by: Kris | July 01, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Is it just me or am I the only one wondering why we are responding to AM as if he is really making arguments? There is a quality of pseudo-argument that seems farcical to me. Names, theories, skeptical counter arguments are presented but they have a Potemkin Village quality or a better analogy would be a Hollywood set with billboard exteriors but without depth or complexity.
I understand that irony is often lost in message board communication, however, am I the only one projecting irony and and sensing a "put on"?
He sure has this board humming. If it's real than what's the point of arguing with AM? It reminds me of a comment attributed to Abe Lincoln when he refused to debate certain political opponents. Paraphrasing his unwillingness to engage with certain politicians as hte attempt to "wrestle with a pig" and that there are only two outcomes. The first is that you get muddy and the second is "the pig likes it".
Posted by: rick49 | July 01, 2011 at 11:54 AM
----
I suspect you're right, Art! » - MP
AMF did come to realise and acknowledge that Susan Blackmore's research was sloppy after all. Thus I still have hope for him that he won't necessarily be for-ever bound to the chains of dogmatism...even if traces of it still seem apparent. I am sure he still has the potential to become a great contributor to the advancement of unknown knowledge once he's willing to absorb the idea that all of us still have an incredible amount to learn about everything...thus...beginning his journey into becoming a zetetic-skeptic rather than remaining a militant-debunker.
----
Either way - both are experiments... upon rats...? ;O
Okay, not yet, but I will look into Karl Lashley's research after I thoroughly read through and examine some of these other materials...
----
Much of the time I was reading through http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk/ over the last year and, because I believe its author to actually be the Final Messenger before that Armageddon of the Mind prophecy, I am absolutely unwilling to pay taxes as a result. I am honestly absolutely terrified of funding anything that has ANY amount of punitive-measures attached as a result of what I have read combined with my knowledge of paranormal-research and cause-and-effect karmic-manifestations.
Basically, and ultimately, I now live by the rule that everything that I or my servants do unto others or cause them to experience will also become my spiritual-due that will manifest itself somehow in the future (either during this or a future life-time), and that taxes going to the wages of sin make those people in uniform my servants (but we all know deep down that badges/uniforms/votes/legislation/etc do NOT change a crime/sin into a non-crime/non-sin). I went from seeking evidence to seeking out what reasons or purpose our experiences serve (considering that I feel that I have already come across more-than-enough evidence and thus have outgrown the need for more evidence).
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 11:55 AM
My Goodness, Gracious Me!!!
That AMF guy made me stagger: was he serious, or was he making fun of the skeptics?
Apparently not! Gosh - it seems he has never visited these blogs before, otherwise he would have realized that everything he was bringing up, has long been discussed and dismissed by most of the contributors here!
Posted by: Rudolf Smit | July 01, 2011 at 02:02 PM
Weissman quote:
http://tinyurl.com/3e9x9yd
Do you mean Richard Wiseman?
Posted by: Zerdini | July 01, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Regarding Wiseman [note spelling], here's what our host, MP, said about him on Nov. 13, 2009:
Posted by: Roger Knights | July 01, 2011 at 04:20 PM
I will never forget this thread. It has been pure joy to experience. Honestly, A M the materialist, you are a star.
I don't mean that in a demeaning way.
Anyone can see your 'arguments' are naive. I don't know if you are boy or girl and I still find it hard to believe that you're not taking the micky.
But there is just something magnificently innocent and amusing about your first two posts with the references etc.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.
Posted by: Anon. | July 01, 2011 at 04:20 PM
I love a good healthy debate even if one argues like a Sunday school student. if anything it brought out a vast knowledge of references and I think that is the positive to take from this. I know I learned a lot thanks to the antagonist.
Posted by: Ray | July 01, 2011 at 04:52 PM
Ok Fine, thanks for all the links and answers, i have not read them yet, yes Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore might be wrong but it doesn't change the fact that there is no good evidence from Parasychology. If people like Derryl Bem could make so many mistakes what can you expect from 19th century Scientists that knew nothing about the trickery.
By the way Even if Consciousness is some mysterious force of the cosmos ( even Paul and Patricia Churchland said it could be) it doesn't mean there is life After Death, these are the facts
we Human Beings a machines made of meat, this is what the great PZ Meyers said, once again sorry for shattering your illusions:
There is no immortal, constant part of any of us that will survive after death — our minds are the product of a material brain. We are literally soulless machines made of meat. When we die, there is no paradise, no hell, not even a grim gray afterlife of darkness and regret…we are just gone. Everyone who has ever lived has or will simply end, and become nonexistent.
And why hasn't anyone replied to my link about Steven Pinker, he briefly said Alfred Russel Wallace experiemnts failed to contact the dead, here is the video, watch the first five minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf-mE6IcVuI&feature=related
Are you panicking?
Posted by: Atheistic Materialism is a fact | July 01, 2011 at 05:14 PM
"And why hasn't anyone replied to my link about Steven Pinker?"
I'll speak for myself, AM: because there's a touch of sadism to remarks like "Are you panicking?" that I find revolting.
For some reason, others here seem willing to talk with you. I might be too, if you'd stop acting like a jerk.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | July 01, 2011 at 05:51 PM
Oh go pop a zit AMF. Folks lets don't feed the troll
Posted by: Kris | July 01, 2011 at 05:52 PM
Victor Zammit also has a chapter that thoroughly details the research on after-life communication but I`m not going to bother to link it unless Q:F REALLY wants to read it for himself (yes, HIMself, because militant-atheistic-debunkers, with the SOLE exception of Susan Blackmore [except she`s not "militant" about it], are male, and even Blackmore has agreed that Randi's works contain far too many errors to be recommended).
One more thing I`m going to tell you, AMF, why we don`t particularly find those arguments of pseudo-skeptics to have the greatest of validity, and that is the fact that pseudo-skeptics keep on trying to present us REAL researchers with things that they somehow think we have never come across before in our life-times...even though we have...I will quote something else from that CSICOP Review page as to why I tend to have an automatic-suspicion of your sources (even though I am still willing to read through them thoroughly and in its entirety anyway).
Let me link you to that page again since you seem to be trying to avoid it for some reason... http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
You aren't particularly going to convince any of us that there's no such thing as life-after-death, but if you want to be more effective at being convincing, I will help you out be giving you an example of what I do to help Christians debunk their own fantasies/illusions. I usually begin by referring to them to their own bible and ask them to tell me what it says in John 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well - such that, had all of them been written, then I suppose that not even the entire world would be able to contain the books that would be written"
I do that to "open them up" a bit to knowledge that is not necessarily contained within the bible...telling them that, just because the information was not recorded into the bible, does not necessarily mean that other sources that are not in the bible are "not from God" (remember - I am doing this intentionally to help them re-program themselves and then de-program their dogmatisms). Similarly, should you want to be more convincing to para-normal researchers, you should be thoroughly familiar with the sources and authors that para-normal researchers find to be credible, just like how I use the bible to convince Christians that there's more out there than they seem to believe (even though I do not personally regard the bible as the most-credible source of scientific-information either but at least I can back up my statements both scientifically and biblically - I will spare you the bible references though).
And let us not forget of course... http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm (I will keep posting this link because it shows how militant-debunkers and their paradigms have been thoroughly studied and researched and thus why we're able to predict their behaviours even before they know what they're going to do).
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 06:34 PM
Oups...I didn't preserve all of the formatting properly for that quote...here it is with proper preservation.
Once more, I don`t include all of the information from the Chaptre, but only provide the most-relevant, briefest point in order not to bestow readers with too much information over-load.
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 06:40 PM
Fail - let me try this once more...
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 06:41 PM
AMF strikes me as a strange but intentional straw man for the materialist position. His posting style also reminds me heavily of the frequent poster who goes by Open Minded Atheist on the Skeptiko board. http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/2177-new-evidence-falsifies-materialsim.html
He strikes me as either being very young, or having some kind of condition.
Posted by: sam | July 01, 2011 at 08:36 PM
Yes, he uses the same phrase "machines made of meat" at the end of that thread I linked to. He seems to just be looking for rebuttals to the arguments he finds troubling.
Posted by: sam | July 01, 2011 at 08:51 PM
Indeed, I am watching/listening to his latest You-Tube link, and it seems he could/should take the very advice of the very people he's linking to in that video...relating to morality and the treatment of others of course...I regard all human-life as precious...even if they are annoying pseudo-skeptical cynical close-minded militant-debunkers. ;O
This AMF guy seems to want to insist that there is no such thing as a soul and, according to paranormal-researchers, what people like AMF expect is exactly what they get in the after-life, for a time anyway...eventually they «wake up» but complain about darkness and nothingness IF they are fortunate enough to come in contact with a psychic-medium because, apparently, virtually ALL of their «senses» (sight, touch, etc), seem to have been annihilated, just as they had wished to believe, like a mind-controlled after-life-created reality.
Voltaire was also mentioned in that video and, ironically, Voltaire is also quoted in Ian Currie's book within the Chaptre on Reincarnation:
I, personally, put very little stock into the belief of reincarnation and, believe it or not, its "invalidity" was something that I read out of a paranormal-researcher's book...from his Chaptre on Reincarnation: 30 Years Among the Dead - Dr. Carl Wickland
I used to believe in reincarnation but Dr. Carl Wickland's book combined with the response that I got from The Messiah was enough to convince me that reincarnation is not necessary for us to continue on in our wheel-of-suffering as we continue to inflict suffering upon others. I would also 'suspect' that AMF grew up surrounded by Orthodox over-religious people, sort of like I did, and those religious people were abusive, and thus I can understand his disposition against anything that he might interpret as possibly being remotely related to religion, but in this case... misinterpreting the para-normal as if though it were the same thing as religion - even though Orthodox religion also rejects parapsychology.
Posted by: Юкинов | July 01, 2011 at 09:18 PM