Wow. Thought I would visit here. The philosophy forum is like an insane asylum. This place is like being in a really bad zombie movie. How do you guys maintain the will to live over here?

I'm goin' back to the nuthouse!

Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Are you questioning the "legitimacy" of a full professor of an American university?

What do you think the real world would make of this? For instance in a legal court?

DrParisetti wrote:Can we rely on spontaneous cases reports (the forbidden word – anecdotal evidence!) to provide some for of corroboration?

Holden, Janice.(2007) “More Things in Heaven and Earth: A Response to 'Near-Death Experiences with Hallucinatory Features.'” Journal of Near-Death Studies 26, 50-56.

In 2007, NDE researcher Janice Holden searched for every single case of apparently veridical perception during and NDE that had been reported since 1975. She found 107 such cases, from 39 different publications by 37 different authors or author teams. Using the most stringent criterion – that a case would be classified as inaccurate if even one detail was found not to correspond to reality – Holden found that only 8 percent involved some inaccuracy. In contrast, 37 percent of cases – almost five times as many – were determined to be accurate by independent objective sources.

Kindly explain this away in terms of imagination, chance, sensory clues.

You continue to evade the main issue: Even granting this finding as accurate (and since the journal is not accessible to non-subscribers, we're just going to have to take your word on that), has it been determined that the perceptions occurred when the brain was literally dead? Seems not, since we have evidence from another neuroscientist that when the brain is dead, it stays dead, so its owner can't come back and tell us what was happening while it was dead.

In the UK it would have no legal implication. I'm pretty convinced Greyson is qualified to talk about stuff - it was Greyson not Carlson who was discussed I think and as I said he has a publication record which puts many academics to shame, in some very high quality journals - but debating his level of knowledge of a specialty of medicine would be completely innocuous. Indeed for some reviews sites like the arxiiv or whatever it would be a matter of public record how his competence in the specialities in question are judged, and his H scale ratings would be available as well I think. I have a great deal of respect for the late Ian Stevenson who was at Virginia I believe, and equally am impressed by some of the others there, but honestly, this is not a legal issue. People call me nuts all the time, and frequently debate whether i know what I'm talking about. Then again I'm not a "full professor" or Professor as we would call him here, and never will be. However i certainly have had my status questioned, when I was a dodgy uni lecturer type. I only note this because it may be very different in the USA, though judging by what some have said I think criticism is common there too?

j x

DrParisetti wrote:Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Yup. I"m a psychiatrist, too, though only a lowly assistant professor. And I have no ability to determine whether the brain of someone who has just suffered a cardiac arrest has any function left.

He's entitled to an opinion, but if it's not supported by evidence, that opinion is worthless. So, again, can we see the evidence? Pretty please?

Are you questioning the "legitimacy" of a full professor of an American university?

No, we're just saying he is not a neuroscientist. You claimed he was. It just comes back to your (ever diminishing) credibility.

What do you think the real world would make of this? For instance in a legal court?

Well, that's an interesting question. Suppose you were accused of a crime, and the only witness was someone who was lying on the ground "brain dead" and claimed his soul left his body and saw you commit the crime. Would think it appropriate if you were convicted on that evidence?

BTW, DrPariseti, in case you think you're getting a rough ride here because everyone is just prejudiced against your views, you should heed the example of jerome, who is a longstanding and respected member of this forum, despite spending much of his time also discussing issues involving the paranormal of which most of us are quite skeptical. This is because he is always careful to avoid making claims that outstrip the evidence available, and answers direct questions without evasion.

And now I'm going to bed to read Erlendur Harraldsson's book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Departed-Among- ... skept01-21 I'll let you all know what I think, but it seemed appropriate to mention it here

j x

Edit: Er thanks Shrunk! Hardly respected. But I do love a good argument, if we have some facts to discuss.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Wow. Thought I would visit here. The philosophy forum is like an insane asylum. This place is like being in a really bad zombie movie. How do you guys maintain the will to live over here?

I'm goin' back to the nuthouse!

I need to go back there, too - for some therapy. Christine in the pseudo-science section has just about pushed me back over the brink. Jesus Christ on a cornflake, there's some nutty shit over there.

DrParisetti wrote:Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Do you have any idea who Chester F. Carlson was? You seem to be awfully uneducated about the subject you have brought up.

Are you questioning the "legitimacy" of a full professor of an American university?

No, because Chester F. Carlson was not a full professor at any American university. What Carlson did was donate money to a project.

What do you think the real world would make of this? For instance in a legal court?

You're getting more incoherent as this thread goes on.

Others have continually asked for the evidence that you promised and it has not come. All you have is anecdote and allegory. Add to that that you can't get your facts straight as to persons and what they are or say and I dismiss you as a nutjob.

Matthew Shute wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Wow. Thought I would visit here. The philosophy forum is like an insane asylum. This place is like being in a really bad zombie movie. How do you guys maintain the will to live over here?

I'm goin' back to the nuthouse!

I need to go back there, too - for some therapy. Christine in the pseudo-science section has just about pushed me back over the brink. Jesus Christ on a cornflake, there's some nutty shit over there.

Yup. I am otta here!

jerome wrote:And now I'm going to bed to read Erlendur Harraldsson's book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Departed-Among- ... skept01-21 I'll let you all know what I think, but it seemed appropriate to mention it here

j x

Edit: Er thanks Shrunk! Hardly respected. But I do love a good argument, if we have some facts to discuss.

Hell no. Respected was the right word; I've yet to see anyone criticize your tactics even if they obviously vehemently disagree with your conclusions.

DrParisetti wrote:Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Are you questioning the "legitimacy" of a full professor of an American university?

What do you think the real world would make of this? For instance in a legal court?

In what post do you describe this incident?

Damn. Baited. I'm still here.

DrParisetti wrote:Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Are you questioning the "legitimacy" of a full professor of an American university?

What do you think the real world would make of this? For instance in a legal court?

This Professor can say what he likes but unless he has a built in EEG and fMRI his opinion is predicated upon ability to read a computer screen. The professor would be interpreting the data from the machines and so this is the skill in doing that not in whatever the chair demands of their professorship.

In a court I would imagine that the other side would rip him a new arsehole if this skill was in any way lacking and would simply laugh at the argument from authority of who paid for the professor to appear.

DrParisetti wrote:Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Not when you edit the quote to make it appear that he's saying something as ludicrous as a state of unconsciousness being synonymous with having a non-functional brain. I'm not sure if it's Carlson that is wrong about this or your elipsis that gives that impression. But the statement is false, the definition of unconsciousness is incorrect.

"The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences ... an unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working.

Doctor, unconsciousness regards the state of being unresponsive to environmental stimuli. Note that the measure of this is the subject's ability to respond to stimuli, not the subject's inability to detect stimuli. There is nothing of the definition of the term that regards brain function beyond that.

Again you are conflating terms in order to better serve your hypothesis. You did it before with your missaprehension of what clinical death means and you're doing it again with your understanding of what the state of being unconscious is. If you have indeed been engaged in years of study and research on the phenomena of NDE, why does it take me? Someone with only a passing interest in the subject, mere minutes to correct you on the basic terms of what you purport to have studied?

Did you not think to look up what the medical definitions of unconsciousness or clinical death actually are before you began making misguided claims about them?

To clarify on DrParisetti's behalf: I don't believe he meant to say that Chester Carlson is a neuroscientist. Rather, Bruce Grayson holds an endowed chair that was funded by Carlson and is therefore entitled to be referred to as "The Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences". Omitting the "the" makes a big difference.

jerome wrote:And now I'm going to bed to read Erlendur Harraldsson's book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Departed-Among- ... skept01-21 I'll let you all know what I think, but it seemed appropriate to mention it here

j x

Edit: Er thanks Shrunk! Hardly respected. But I do love a good argument, if we have some facts to discuss.

Not 'hardly' at all. Look forward to the book review btw.

Oldskeptic wrote:

DrParisetti wrote:Now, let me make sure I understand this.

Are you saying that "Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia" is not entitled to an authoritative opinion on whether a brain is functioning or not because he is "not a neuroscientist"?

Do you have any idea who Chester F. Carlson was? You seem to be awfully uneducated about the subject you have brought up.

Are you questioning the "legitimacy" of a full professor of an American university?

No, because Chester F. Carlson was not a full professor at any American university. What Carlson did was donate money to a project.

What do you think the real world would make of this? For instance in a legal court?

You're getting more incoherent as this thread goes on.

Others have continually asked for the evidence that you promised and it has not come. All you have is anecdote and allegory. Add to that that you can't get your facts straight as to persons and what they are or say and I dismiss you as a nutjob.

It's an endowed chair.

Oops, Shrunk beat me to it, those damned neuroscientists.

Shrunk wrote:To clarify on DrParisetti's behalf: I don't believe he meant to say that Chester Carlson is a neuroscientist. Rather, Bruce Grayson holds an endowed chair that was funded by Carlson and is therefore entitled to be referred to as "The Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences". Omitting the "the" makes a big difference.

Yes, it does make a big difference, and in my opinion it shows that the doctor is pretty lazy with his facts and arguments. Also he can't spell the names of those he is citing. It is not Grayson it is Greyson, and it is Eben Alexander not Eban.

For fuck sake this guy is supposed to be and educated man, but nothing I've seen so far indicates that this is true.

If I had studied this for years and read as many fucking papers as he claims I think that I could come up with a coherent argument and some evidence.