IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Scammed by the light | Main | Mediums rare »

Comments

Thanks so much for mentioning this, Michael!

Regards, Rudolf

This case is game over for Woerlee. The ultimate judge of his experience is the nurse. The nurse ruled against Woerlee. Game over.

It's always possible to say that the nurse misremembered or misinterpreted his experience, so I wouldn't say it's "game over" for anyone.

Increasingly I doubt there will be a clear resolution of this question anytime soon. Like mediumship and past-life recall, NDEs will probably remain controversial for a long time to come. Skeptics will explain them one way, and "believers" (for want of a better term) will explain them a different way. And so it goes ...

It is over for Woerlee. If he thinks the memory of the nurse is flawed then obviously he cannot use this flawed memory to make his case. If the memory is accurate then paranormal perception occured. Either it is impossible for Woerlee to make a case or it is impossible what Woerlee proposes but no matter what this case is done.

"Skeptics will explain them one way, and "believers" (for want of a better term) will explain them a different way. And so it goes" ... Michael Prescott

LOL! That sure does sound an awful lot like "duality and separation" to me. It's almost like it's an inherent and inescapable property of the physical universe.

"Increasingly I doubt there will be a clear resolution of this question anytime soon." - MP

It may be that way for a reason. If we knew absolutely for certain that there was life after death the death of someone we love would cease to be the most powerful and long lasting lesson in what it means and how it feels to be separate. Emotion and memory are linked. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates.

Emotions Make the Memory Last
"Ever wonder why some memories can stay vivid for years while others fade with time? The answer is emotion."

http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/.../emotions-make-memory-last

Hi Michael correct me if I am wrong, but I just spotted a major lie in Keith Augustines article Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences.
Keith Augustine say's: By implying that those who reject NDEs as evidence for survival are advocates of some pernicious scientism, Tart presumes that the very issue of contention has already been resolved: that NDEs really are evidence for survival of bodily death. But, of course, this conclusion has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt; in fact, it is not even clear that the survivalist interpretation of NDEs is more likely to be true than false. Moreover, Tart fails to recognize that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for maintaining that NDEs are not visions of an afterlife—reasons that I have outlined in this essay because few people who've thought about NDEs have even been aware of them.

This is total nonsense, Charles Tart did not say that NDE's are evidence for survival, in fact what Charles Tart really say's: The idea that people who've had NDEs weren't really dead is a reasonable objection in many way's. OBE's and NDE's support but don't prove postmortem survival.
I think Charles Tart say's somewhere else in the book that people who directly rejects NDE's because it contradicts their materialism, now that's Scientism.
I guess Mr.Augustine thinks that people are just going to accept what he say's without questioning it, well the pseudoskeptics would but not us. Somewhere else in this blog Mr. Augustine rants about Neuroscientists taking the idea that the Brain produces Consciousness for granted, well that's not true too Mr.Augustine, there is no Materialist explanation for qualia so it disturbs them deeply, that is why people like Dan Dennet just reject Consciousness all together, the can't explain it so it's not there, well real Science does not work like that, there is absolutely no evidence, I repeat no evidence for the theory that consciousness is an emergence from complex neuron-based computation, Materialists have yet to produce any testable predictions, much less validations for their theory. On the contrary we do have evidence for the non material aspect of Consciousness, In 1998 twenty testable predictions of the Penrose and Hameroff Orch OR theory of Consciousness were published, a number of which by 2007 had been validated, and none refuted.

To Micheal Prescott and Readers of this Blog:

I wrote a note on my blog about something which concerns Skepticism. I'm a psychology major and my hypothesis is that many pseudo skeptics lack "integrative complexity" in regards to topics like life after death for various cognitive reasons. If you would like to learn more about the phenomena of Integrative Complexity, a well researched phenomena, than I posted a blog about it.

I am not trying to blatantly advertise I rarely blog but I think some of you will find this interesting.

http://spiritinscience.blogspot.com/2011/01/integrative-complexity-psychology-of.html

Thanks, Matt

Thanks Matt, great, great article, really appreciate it.

"I just spotted a major lie ..."

In general I'm not too comfortable with accusing people of lying. The statement from Tart that you quoted (or paraphrased?) does, in fact, say that NDEs are evidence for survival. "NDE's support but don't prove postmortem survival" means that NDEs are evidence for, but not proof of, survival. (There's a difference between evidence and proof.)

And the thrust of Tart's book The End of Materialism is that "pernicious scientism" is responsible for mainstream science's indifference or animus toward psi research. So I don't think Keith Augustine has misrepresented Tart (though personally I am inclined to agree with Tart about scientism, and I think the evidence for survival is strong).

Anyway, I think it's a mistake to make things personal by impugning someone's honesty or motives. Occasionally there is no alternative but to call someone out for a falsehood, but most of the time the debate can and should be more civil, IMO.

Agreed Michael

You're right I am sorry

I'm sorry for questioning Keith Augustines honesty, I shouldn't have done that

No problem, Kevin. Thanks for being so reasonable about it.

There's so little civility on the Web, I go out of my way to try to enforce it here (though I've made my share of mistakes in this area too).

Has anyone here ever bothered to read the comments appended to a popular Yahoo News story? Often there are thousands of comments - I've seen as many as 84,000 (!) for a single news item - and from what I can tell by skimming the first few pages, the vast majority are offensive, insulting, obscene, racist, and moronic. Who the heck writes this stuff? There must be an awful lot of 12-year-old boys with too much time on their hands ...

Thanks Michael, LOL, well said, I haven't come across any comments on Yahoo News without racial and political hatred, they manage to interject it into almost anything .

Now I will assess the Psychology of putting someone behind the computer screen and keyboard vs. real life and see in which environment they are more civil.

* Its almost as if internet reality is filtered reality for people, they behave in ways they normally would not because they do not feel like there are any consequences.

I suppose it doesn't take a psychologist to understand that phenomena....

From Rudolf Smit

Hi guys - how about returning to the dentures man case?

As you may know Woerlee has a site of his own, part of which is devoted to the dentures man case. There is a forum connected to it:

http://www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/man-with-the-dentures.php#bn-forum-1-1-1500407175/8091/1684238/show/2/

We, i.e. Titus Rivas and myself have placed contributions on it, but we have decided to quit. See our reasoning:

It is with some sadness that I view Dr Woerlee’s latest contributions. Because it appears that our recent collaboration as regards the translations into English of the Dutch transcript of the long interview Rivas had with nurse TG, as well as TG’s rejoinder to Woerlee, has brought us no real progress. In what regard?

Well, just view the translation of a positively sounding mail which I received from Woerlee after the translations had been finished and were put on-line.

“These translations should not only be a good rendition of TG’s words, but must also be known as such, thanks to which they will be accepted by people of all movements. Then there won’t come nonsensical stories from stupid-thinkers of all parties who doubt this important testimony by TG. Because TG’s testimony is honest. It is there. He is not crazy.“

Based on that highly positive statement one would think that at long last, he would feel obliged, on moral and scientific grounds, to accept TG’s adamant and elucidating clarification (in his rejoinder – also on line now) that the dentures were removed BEFORE the thumper was switched on.

But alas, It appears Woerlee maintains that the first ambigiuous statement, namely that first the thumpers was switched on, and only after that action the dentures were removed.

This is annoying to say the least. And worse, it makes Woerlee’s statement about TG’s honesty and not being crazy, something of which we, the Dutch say, “een wassen neus” – hardly translatable (literally, a wax nose) but in effect meaning “a matter of form” hence not to be taken seriously.

Woerlee ought to take TG’s clarifying statement seriously, not only because it is supported by two cardiologists, but also because if TG would have been mistaken about this crucial point, it would imply that he would have considerable less reason to find his experience with this patient inexplicable. He is experienced and educated enough to realize this. Thus, it would mean that he had been fooling himself for the past 31 years. To suggest in all seriousness this far-fetched possibility is, as we feel it, irreconcilable with taking TG seriously as a witness of sound mind.

There are many more aspects to deal with – but as we have seen, Dr Woerlee is starting all over again explaining his view of the matter, and at the same time dismissing ours out of hand. So we are going round and round in circles again, and thus are getting nowhere. Dr Woerlee sticks to his guns, and won’t budge not even an inch. In his eyes, so many NDE-researchers are totally wrong, and he belongs to the happy few who are right. And he presents his ideas with such fervor and determination that he even seems to believe that they are proof. Not so – they are only possible explanations based on a scientific model (the monistic materialistic paradigm) which is becoming outmoded or perhaps even is on the verge of collapsing. Besides, as I said, explanations are never proof, whatever Dr Woerlee may think of his own ideas.

Therefore Rivas and I have decided to stop the debate with Dr Woerlee, simply because it has been an entirely fruitless and frustrating exercise. The only positive thing that came out of this are the English translations. We are sincerely grateful to Dr Woerlee for his efforts in this.

For the rest we ask the readers of this site and its forum to decide for themselves where the possible truth lies.

-----------

But I am quite willing to answer questions on this blog, because as I have experienced this is mainly contributed to by reasonable people.

"For the rest we ask the readers of this site and its forum to decide for themselves where the possible truth lies." - Rudolf
------------------------------------

In the end isn't that what each one of us has to do anyway? It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks or believes. What matters to me is what I believe. That is why it is irrelevant to me what the AWARE study finds. If they are unsuccessful I will just figure that the study didn't go on long enough or they didn't have enough deep and profound near death experiences. I am sure that if the study went on long enough that eventually there would be someone that would see and remember the target.

Woerlee is a broken record. As it is he will keep using the same explanations cause that is what he is stuck with. I am thinking about the discussion he and I had on amazon. No matter how many times I destroyed any possible argument he had on Pam Reynold's hearing normally he kept insisting she heard normally. It was truly comical. Woerlee is one of those people who if you provide him enough rope he will hang himself. Just provide him the rope.

"For the rest we ask the readers of this site and its forum to decide for themselves where the possible truth lies. "

Thank you for presenting your thoughts on the matter on MP's blog.I think I refresh this site more then I do with google for all the interesting thoughts and material.

Part of Gerry's post:

"Unfortunately, Smit makes an error of reasoning when thinking that a translation, no matter how accurate, and no matter how sympathetic, implies agreement with the the thought processes, opinions,and beliefs expressed."

I find myself thinking then based on this,your(smith)discussions and heck the complete translation to english was pointless to Gerry as Gerry already made up his mind.


Yes, Brian A. You are so right. Woerlee had already made up his mind. He thinks: "Only my explanations and views are correct, no matter what - the whole world is wrong, I am right."

Actually, did you have a closer look at his website: "The unholy legacy of Abraham"? It is one big diatribe against religion. Actually, Woerlee is a militant atheist.

Which is one reason for him to condemn current views of NDE's, OBE's etc because he sees these phenomena as part of those silly (and "dangerous" ) religions which should be exterminated.

He is so fanatical that any attempt to reason with him is bound to fail. Which is why we, Rivas and I, have given up.

The best thing Woerlee could do for his cause is to say to everyone is that I was not serious with my arguments, I was just punking you!

The comments to this entry are closed.