DrParisetti wrote:It is interesting to be attacked and made fun of for claims that I never made.
It is interesting to see even quotes that I use from a previous post (the definition of the endowed position of Prof. Greyson) used to further my conviction as an idiot. Plus, I mistype "Eben" into "Eban". Can you imagine that? What an idiot I really am!
It is interesting to see that people are quick to play the victim card when they fail to provide solid evidence for the grandstanding claims.
DrParisetti wrote:It is also interesting to note that previous post with arguments and references to evidence are happily ignored.
It is also interesting to see that you still have not realised the plural of anecdote isn't evidence and that NDE-of-the-gaps argument isn't a rational argument. Furthermore you have yet to provide evidence of a dead brain experiencing things and making memories of said experiences.
DrParisetti wrote:It is not even 12 hours ago that I repeated that
I do not claim that NDE constitute "proof" of life after death.
I also repeated that NDE contribute to a much larger body of evidence which support the only claim I ever made:
Either your not thinking through what you're posting or you have a different understanding of the concep of 'evidence' than the rest of us do.
You have yet to present evidence of people experiencing NDE's due to actual contact with an afterlife. You haven't even presented any evidence of people experiencing something while dead or braindead.
DrParisetti wrote:Look at the previous post, and see how this has been completely ignored, transfigured into something which I never said and for which I am being crucified.
Now, back to NDEs-
I claim that NDE are an established fact. They occur. I have provided references to peer reviewed publications.
You have provided references to evidence of people claiming/thinking/believing they've had an NDE. What you've failed to provide is that these people experienced anything other than hallucinations or that they experienced these things while braindead.
DrParisetti wrote:I claim that the explanations for the phenomenon which have been put forward in the past do not account for it.
A claim that has already been refuted.l
DrParisetti wrote:I have provided a synthesis of the arguments and pointed to further publications. This appears to have been completely ignored (see again the last post...).
You appear to suffer from selective reading. Several members already refuted your claim that other explanations are insufficient, they even provided expert testimony and rebuttal to the 'study' you linked.
DrParisetti wrote:I claim that there is "evidence" ("observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions") strongly indicative that consciousness operates independently from a functioning brain.
Evidence which you have yet to provide.
DrParisetti wrote:This is where I knowingly touched the nerve of this community. I have dared challenging the holy grail, and for that I am immediately burnt at the stake, together with people immensely more qualified and authoritative than me.
You're burned to the proverbial stake because neither you nor the 'immensly more qualified people' as you call them can offer anything other than arguments from ignorance and faith for this claim.
DrParisetti wrote:I am burnt at the stake not for having claimed that I have "proof", but for simply entertaining the idea and for daring to say that I looked at the evidence and I find it "strongly indicative".
Again, for lack of presenting evidence not your claims per se. Poorly played victim card.
DrParisetti wrote:Now, as to the "evidence", in THIS VERY DISCUSSION THREAD:
- I have briefly described two experiments by Dr. Sabom. Not one single comment focussed on the substance, as far as I know this has been completely ignored in this discussion. I have pointed to a book with the details on the experimental procedure and the findings. This was thoroughly ignored, probably on grounds that "it's not peer reviewed and therefore it's automatically false". An extreme position which which I strongly disagree, and which DOES NOT APPLY HERE, since I DON'T FUCKING CLAIM THAT THIS IS "PROOF".
You love to erect straw-men going by this particular post of yours. Those unreviewed studies are dismissed because there is no way to varify the claims being made are true.
And if you don't claim it is evidence or 'proof' in support of your OP, why then cite said experiments?
DrParisetti wrote:- I have referred to the PhD dissertation of Penny Sartori, which confirms the findings of the Atlanta study by Dr. Sabom, and provided references. Did I read ONE comment on the substance of it? No, I just heard what fuckwits me, Bruce Grayson and - implicitly - at least a couple more dozens others are.
Please quote someone accusing you of being fucktwits.
Again if this not evidence, why reference it? Also I think you might need to reread the thread since most if not all of your cited studies have been adressed.
DrParisetti wrote:- I have summarised the findings of the study by Janice Holden, which are perfectly consistent with the three studies above, and provided references. The comments I got were "I cannot read it because you have to pay for it". Not ONE comment on the substance.
How can we comment on the substance if we cannot read it?
DrParisetti wrote:- I have not referred to three other peer-reviewed studies on the same subject, because the sample size is admittedly small. I should have, because for me as a rational person these contribute to my assessment that the evidence is "strongly indicative" of consciousness operating independently from and outside the physical body (which, I repeat for the fourth time in this thread, IS THE ONLY CLAIM I HAVE EVER MADE WITH REGARD TO NDEs).
In other words you only have a strong belief.
DrParisetti wrote:- I have not even dreamed of referring to the mass of purely anecdotal evidence about veridical out-of-body experiences during (but certainly not limited to) NDEs. This is what people who have had the experience say, and I know all too well that for this audience this is automatically false (fantasy, confabulations, "need to belief", chance, hallucinations, misreporting, selective memory, sensory clues, should I go on?). For me as a rational person, this kind of anecdotes are observations of a phenomenon and DO constitute an element of evidence.
How can you differentiate betweeen their experiences being real or being an illusion?
It isn't rational to believe the claims of people who were near-death about their perceptions on face value.
DrParisetti wrote:As rational person, I don't automatically "believe" them and do not use them to jump to conclusions. I observe that these accounts are perfectly consistent with research findings
Except they aren't. Someone already cited a study that found the NDE'ers incapable of accurately describing their surroundings during their out of body experiences.
DrParisetti wrote:and this further adds to my assessment of the evidence being "strongly indicative".
Your doint exactly the same as certain theists; only accepting the things that confirm to your presupposed conclusion.
DrParisetti wrote:The few comments which have indirectly addressed the substance I have presented here do entertain the possibility that the reported experiences are real, but basically say
- they happened before or after "normal" consciousness shut down, and/or
- a highly structured conscious experience, strikingly consistent across a large number of variables, and the production of long-term memories are possible when cortex is out.
As to the first, this in inconsistent with the available experimental data and with the anecdotal evidence.
Bullocks. You have yet to present evidence that the NDE's happened while the people were braindead.
And the plural of anecdote still isn't data.
DrParisetti wrote:As to the second, I consider THIS is a completely preposterous claim. I would be grateful to anybody suggesting a mechanism which would explain it.
Who made such a claim?
DrParisetti wrote:So, can any of the trigger-easy persons who have insulted and ridiculed me
Report them since this in violation of the FUA, otherwise stop pretending your a martyr, 'cause you're not.
DrParisetti wrote:(not important
at all,
If you truly felt that you wouldn't have mentioned it.
DrParisetti wrote:just to say this hasn't gone unnoticed) explain to me what intellectual crime I have committed with my claim (MY FUCKING CLAIM, REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES, NOT WHAT YOU THINK I CLAIM).
No-one's accusing you of a crime and your insinuations and liberal use of the word evidence do make your claim into what we've accused you of.
DrParisetti wrote:When you will have explained to me why, based on what's written in this post, I am not rational, and therefore not even worth talking to, perhaps we can proceed and I can develop my argument further.
Thanks for your continued (albeit pained, I understand) attention.
I'd appreciate it if you stopped playing the victim card, it doesn't help the discussion or general interaction in this thread.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."