Merged Near Death Experience Study

[Belz...]

Why do you think it's called the hard problem in science? Because they don't know.

No. SOME people call it a hard problem, because they prefer their ignorance to trying to understand the world around them.

 

[MaartenVergu]

Ok, maybe I'm not on the right forum then. Because there is a consensus among scientists to call it the hard problem. And Belz... don't even seem to know this basic fact.
I'm going to search a scientific forum.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ok, maybe I'm not on the right forum then. Because there is a consensus among scientists to call it the hard problem. And Belz... don't even seem to know this basic fact.
I'm going to search a scientific forum.

David Chalmers' tendency to public omphalistic onaninsm does not constitute "consensus" (consider Dennett et al.).

 

[Donn]

Public omphalistic onaninsm, POO. Wow. Another grammar "moment"

 

[Belz...]

Ok, maybe I'm not on the right forum then.

Well, considering that you want people to feel their way to their beliefs, yes I'd say that. Here, we work with evidence and reason, at least in principle. So far you've got nothing but unverified anecdotes and tentative philosophy.

Because there is a consensus among scientists to call it the hard problem. And Belz... don't even seem to know this basic fact.

I know the basic fact, and I'm telling you it's wrong. Have you even read the article ?

 

[mstricky]

Well I guess I'll bow out gracefully now as it seems this new design forum is only for skeptics. Before it said and for the discussion of the paranormal. Been nice knowing you all

 

[Belz...]

That's a bit unfair, mstricky. Nothing has changed: we continue to discuss the paranormal. It doesn't mean we have to agree that it exists.

 

[steenkh]

Well I guess I'll bow out gracefully now as it seems this new design forum is only for skeptics. Before it said and for the discussion of the paranormal. Been nice knowing you all

I must have missed something: what do you think people are going to discuss here? I see no change whatsoever. Surely, you do not think that everybody start behave differently if the blurb of the forum is reworded (not that I can find one anymore)?

 

[Nonpareil]

Ok, maybe I'm not on the right forum then. Because there is a consensus among scientists

The "hard problem" is not a scientific issue. Even your quoted Wikipedia article doesn't pretend that it is. It's a philosophical one.

Scientists don't bother with the nonsense of it at all.

to call it the hard problem.

That's a consensus among philosophers.

And it isn't even that.

 

[turingtest]

Well I guess I'll bow out gracefully now as it seems this new design forum is only for skeptics. Before it said and for the discussion of the paranormal. Been nice knowing you all

There's nothing "graceful" about a flounce based on the idea that a discussion of the paranormal can only be on the terms of those who believe in it.

 

[mstricky]

There's nothing "graceful" about a flounce based on the idea that a discussion of the paranormal can only be on the terms of those who believe in it.

I have been asked twice on here as to why I come on here as it is a forum for skeptics. That's why I feel I must bow out, gracefully or not

 

[Pixel42]

I have been asked twice on here as to why I come on here as it is a forum for skeptics. That's why I feel I must bow out, gracefully or not

You understand that a sceptic is simply someone who looks critically at all the evidence for a claim and decides whether to (provisionally) accept it or not based on that evidence, rather than on what they would prefer to believe?

If you feel you are unable to do that then yes, this is not the forum for you.

 

[turingtest]

You understand that a sceptic is simply someone who looks critically at all the evidence for a claim and decides whether to (provisionally) accept it or not based on that evidence, rather than on what they would prefer to believe?

If you feel you are unable to do that then yes, this is not the forum for you.

I took the liberty of highlighting the key word in that definition, since it's a point that Maartenn, for one, doesn't seem to get. TBF to mstricky, I don't thing she has ever presented herself here as anything more than a true believer; I'm just not sure I understand the flounce based (apparently) on the fact that everybody isn't giving her beliefs (or the anecdotes they're based on) the weight she thinks they deserve. I agree- if she can't stand the skeptic heat, she's welcome to leave the skeptic kitchen.

 

[Belz...]

I have been asked twice on here as to why I come on here as it is a forum for skeptics.

If you want to debate your opinions and ideas, then by all means come here. But if you do so, prepare to have those opinions and ideas challenged or demolished. If you don't want that to happen, then indeed you should stick to forums with less skeptical leanings. The choice is yours.

 

[steenkh]

I have been asked twice on here as to why I come on here as it is a forum for skeptics. That's why I feel I must bow out, gracefully or not

If you close-minded and do not want to have your beliefs challenged, this is definitely a hard place to be. But if you have the evidence and arguments to defend yourself, it needs not be so difficult to stay on.

I and others have declared a willingness, or even a wish for some of the paranormal claims to be true, but as long as all credible evidence points to them being false, we show the flexibility to go against our wishes and accept reality as it is. You should do the same. You can learn a lot here, especially how to test your beliefs, which is necessary if you want to go past the stage where you could just as well fool yourself.

 

[Belz...]

Hell yeah. I'd love for souls to exist ! That means I'm immortal ! And magic, sure, bring it on.

But bring on the evidence first.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have been asked twice on here as to why I come on here as it is a forum for skeptics. That's why I feel I must bow out, gracefully or not

You keep saying that.

Why not stay, and produce actual evidence for your claims?

Why not support the things you say with practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, objective, evidence?

 

[Pixel42]

For those who missed it, the findings of the AWARE study have finally been published.

Thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10263775#post10263775

 

[Slowvehicle]

For those who missed it, the findings of the AWARE study have finally been published.

Thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10263775#post10263775

Sadly, thanks to the inaccurate media summaries and Dr. Parnia’s inevitable promotional efforts, this study will probably enter the popular consciousness as ‘some scientists proved that there is life after death and out of body experiences are real’. But in reality, this study was unable to provide even a single compelling case or real ‘objective’ piece of evidence that OBEs represent accurate memories and/or that consciousness can exist independently from the body. People often have real, deeply transformative experiences when they recover from a cardiac arrest but these are not evidence of an afterlife or a metaphysical mind, just of remarkable resilience and the deep desire for meaning that often follows traumatic events.

http://god-knows-what.com/2014/10/08/new-evidence-for-life-after-death/

 

[Donn]

It's odd how the faithful want science to back them up, but never to contradict them.