Afterlife Exists says Top Scientist

[Magic Man]

No, they can also be explained away like the NDE.

This seems to be your main argument; that no matter what NDE is presented, skeptics will explain it away. It is based on the fact that all NDEs so far have been explained away. I've already provided examples of stories that would be considered convincing.

The one thing I would like to make clear is that I don't want to explain away all of these examples. I don't want them not to be true. It would be very cool to find out there was something more after this life. But, as a rational person not basing my decision on emotion, I need real evidence. All I've been presented with is stories that a) are no better than rumors, since there is no verification of them at all, or b) make certain claims that are then not supported by the real details that come out (like the doctor's sister story).

In the case of the "A" stories, they could very well be true, but we have no way of knowing. It's like a friend telling you they saw a pink dragon. It's possible they're right, but unless they have something other than their own testimony, I'd guess you'd refrain from believing them, as would I. In the case of the "B" stories, it's not that we completely prove them wrong, but we prove that their explanations aren't what they said they were and they give us no reason to believe there's anything supernatural at play.

Now you've provided some examples in book form, which may or may not break those molds. It's possible the stories in those books are well verified and exactly what they claim to be. It's possible there are actual stories of people who are blind from birth who have visions they couldn't possible have had without an OBE. I would be fascinated if that was the case. But you can see why I'd have my doubts, and wouldn't make it my first priority to spend hours reading books that are crying wolf just like many other things I've read.

It reminds me of evolution deniers. You set it up so that the other side is obviously biased, and that's why they'll never take you or your research seriously. When in reality, it's not bias on the other side; it's the fact that none of the research you present is worth taking seriously, from an objective point of view. But anytime someone says that, you fall back on the idea that it's coming from a biased point of view.

 

[McBell]

It reminds me of evolution deniers. You set it up so that the other side is obviously biased, and that's why they'll never take you or your research seriously. When in reality, it's not bias on the other side; it's the fact that none of the research you present is worth taking seriously, from an objective point of view. But anytime someone says that, you fall back on the idea that it's coming from a biased point of view.

And the whole time they are blaming the skeptics of bias, they are completely ignoring their own bias in accepting the flimsiest of "evidence"...

 

[George-ananda]

This seems to be your main argument; that no matter what NDE is presented, skeptics will explain it away. It is based on the fact that all NDEs so far have been explained away. I've already provided examples of stories that would be considered convincing.

All I recall is you talking about cases that would be convincing. Having been down that road before I asked you for a hypothetical believable example and then I got something a critic would shoot down. Try again if you want. One of my points was people and witnesses in these cases are not initially interested in proving anything to anyone else; and therein lies a problem with your position of expecting great evidence.

The one thing I would like to make clear is that I don't want to explain away all of these examples. I don't want them not to be true. It would be very cool to find out there was something more after this life. But, as a rational person not basing my decision on emotion, I need real evidence. All I've been presented with is stories that a) are no better than rumors, since there is no verification of them at all, or b) make certain claims that are then not supported by the real details that come out (like the doctor's sister story).

Just a question on your b) clause of your last sentence and the doctor's sister story; how was the story not supported by the real details that came out?

In the case of the "A" stories, they could very well be true, but we have no way of knowing. It's like a friend telling you they saw a pink dragon. It's possible they're right, but unless they have something other than their own testimony, I'd guess you'd refrain from believing them, as would I. In the case of the "B" stories, it's not that we completely prove them wrong, but we prove that their explanations aren't what they said they were and they give us no reason to believe there's anything supernatural at play.

Comment on the 'pink dragon' strawman example. NDE's are supported by a working respectable model/understanding of what consciousness is and how it interacts with the physical world. Also it correlates well with a long list of other types of paranormal phenomena. The same can not be said about pink dragons.

Now you've provided some examples in book form, which may or may not break those molds. It's possible the stories in those books are well verified and exactly what they claim to be. It's possible there are actual stories of people who are blind from birth who have visions they couldn't possible have had without an OBE. I would be fascinated if that was the case. But you can see why I'd have my doubts, and wouldn't make it my first priority to spend hours reading books that are crying wolf just like many other things I've read.

Here's what your position sounds like: There's no evidence for NDE's; If someone claims evidence it isn't worth the time to look at it because people have cried wolf too much.
So with those two positions how can your position ever change for the rest of your life. So given that, why are NDE's worth discussing for you. Unless it's one of those skeptic mantras that say: the real interesting question is why rational people could believe in such things; and what is the psychology of this myth perpetuation.

It reminds me of evolution deniers. You set it up so that the other side is obviously biased, and that's why they'll never take you or your research seriously. When in reality, it's not bias on the other side; it's the fact that none of the research you present is worth taking seriously, from an objective point of view. But anytime someone says that, you fall back on the idea that it's coming from a biased point of view.

I remind you of an 'evolution denier' with my lack of evidence and claims of bias?

When I compare the quality of the arguments and quality of the people in those two camps ('nde proponents' and 'evolution deniers') I see huge differences.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now how did you get from what I said to your statement that I have a very negative opinion of someone simply because he disagrees with my worldview. He has the right to challenge any worldview he wants. If you read through my quote, the reason for my very negative opinion is my conclusion that he 'unfairly maligns' people he cannot fairly debunk; not because he disagrees with me.

I saw the "malign" part in your post, but I couldn't find the "unfair" part. What do you mean when you refer to "people he cannot fairly debunk"? Are you saying that it is impossible to reproduce the claims of these people under controlled conditions, in the presence of skeptics?

Does physics know everything yet? Can physics explain consciousness yet?

The answer to both questions is "no". But this is irrelevant, because we don't have to know everything, nor do we need to explain consciousness, in order to realize that certain claims would violate known laws. And that was my point.

No, not at the higher levels of the field.

Yes but most areas of science aren't rife with fraud and illusions at any level of the field. I can't watch TV or drive down the street without running into someone making phony paranormal claims--and earlier you admitted as much. Out of this ocean of untrustworthy information you claim some genuine cases have been extracted ... clearly this situation is different from other fields of science. At least proteins are neutral, they don't deliberately try to fool us or fool themselves.

Regarding the biophysics/paranormal comparison; actually things like proteins are vastly more understood by science than consciousness; and less controversial. And it might be easier for scientists to come to a consensus in bio-physics because the questions do not effect our basic views on religion, spirituality and science. Bio-physics deals with less emotionally controversial things.

Yes but we don't need to explain anything, George-ananda. The first step is simply to demonstrate that the phenomenon exists in the first place. This should be very easy and straightforward.

I have given my opinion on Randi. He debunks fairly where he can but if he can't he goes to plan B which includes unfairly maligning the researchers. I've seen this when I actually studied a case below the surface claims.
...
And also the field of the paranormal is vast; esp, telekenisis, nde, oobe, reincarnational memories, spiritual mediumship, ghosts, etc., etc... The majority of this is not really applicable to controlled experiments.

So, again I'm wondering, when you say Randi can't debunk these claims are you saying there is something about Randi that prevents him from doing it, or are the claims inherently "not really applicable to controlled experiments"?

 

[George-ananda]

I saw the "malign" part in your post, but I couldn't find the "unfair" part. What do you mean when you refer to "people he cannot fairly debunk"?

　
Randi first tries to debunk paranormal researchers by exposing the flaws in thier experimental design, execution and analysis. Sometimes he is valid in showing things like how the subject could have fooled the tester. This is what I call legitimately debunking which is what he will always want to do. If he legitmately can not find the flaws in the design, execution and analysis he will go to plan B and make accusations about the experimenter and their experiments that, will always sound good to his fans, but when analyzed below the surface will show that the experimenters were 'unfairly maligned'. The experienters do speak up and defend themselves well but there are few listeners to the 'pseudo-scientific hacks' among Randi's faithful. They get all their information through Randi and his skeptic colleagues.

I mentioned the one case I investigated where physicists Russel Targ and Hal Puthoff were pretty much called buffoons. He actually nicknamed them Laurel and Hardy in one of his books that I've read (Flim Flam) where his whole point was to be as biting, critical and insulting as possible to paranormal researchers in his flamboyant, entertaining style. Great read for his fans but not science.

Are you saying that it is impossible to reproduce the claims of these people under controlled conditions, in the presence of skeptics?

No, that's not something I talked about.

The answer to both questions is "no". But this is irrelevant, because we don't have to know everything, nor do we need to explain consciousness, in order to realize that certain claims would violate known laws. And that was my point.

Can you give me one example of a claim that would violate known laws so I can respond.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

　
Randi first tries to debunk paranormal researchers by exposing the flaws in thier experimental design, execution and analysis. Sometimes he is valid in showing things like how the subject could have fooled the tester. This is what I call legitimately debunking which is what he will always want to do. If he legitmately can not find the flaws in the design, execution and analysis he will go to plan B and make accusations about the experimenter and their experiments that, will always sound good to his fans, but when analyzed below the surface will show that the experimenters were 'unfairly maligned'. The experienters do speak up and defend themselves well but there are few listeners to the 'pseudo-scientific hacks' among Randi's faithful. They get all their information through Randi and his skeptic colleagues.

I mentioned the one case I investigated where physicists Russel Targ and Hal Puthoff were pretty much called buffoons. He actually nicknamed them Laurel and Hardy in one of his books that I've read (Flim Flam) where his whole point was to be as biting, critical and insulting as possible to paranormal researchers in his flamboyant, entertaining style. Great read for his fans but not science.

Are those the guys who were fooled by Uri Geller? The only way for Targ and Puthoff to defend themselves is to allow any and all of their subjects (including Geller) to be tested by skeptics, including Randi. Did they do this?

No, that's not something I talked about.

You said Randi unfairly maligns people he cannot debunk. Why can he not debunk them? Did Randi try to debunk them, but the psychics scored well on all his tests? Did the scientists refuse to allow Randi to test their psychics independently?

Can you give me one example of a claim that would violate known laws so I can respond.

Sure. Uri Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons with his mind, not by touching them. This would seem to violate Newton's laws of mechanics, Maxwell's laws of electricity and magnetism, and the first law of thermodynamics, for starters.

 

[George-ananda]

Are those the guys who were fooled by Uri Geller?

There is no indication they were fooled by Geller. The experiments were controlled and they were testing him for things other than telekenesis (spoon bending).

Most Randi followers have swallowed the mantra that Geller is 100% fraud because that's all they ever heard. It's Randi's number #1 mantra (Geller) and the cause of Randi's rise to celebrity status in the 1970's.. Many believe Geller has genuine psychic abilities with personality problems also. He is falliable and has a showman's personality. His successes outnumber his failures.
　

The only way for Targ and Puthoff to defend themselves is to allow any and all of their subjects (including Geller) to be tested by skeptics, including Randi. Did they do this?

The subjects were human beings not under the control of Targ and Puthoff after the Stanford experiments and were free to be tested by anyone they wanted to be tested by. Randi never engaged in experiments with any of them to the best of my knowledge. My guess as to why is that Randi didn't want the risk of being wrong and the subjects realized the hostile environment they would be facing.

You said Randi unfairly maligns people he cannot debunk. Why can he not debunk them? Did Randi try to debunk them, but the psychics scored well on all his tests? Did the scientists refuse to allow Randi to test their psychics independently?

See previous reply. He claimed to be debunking the experimenters and the experiments in this particular example (and only indirectly the subjects).

Sure. Uri Geller claimed to be able to bend spoons with his mind, not by touching them. This would seem to violate Newton's laws of mechanics, Maxwell's laws of electricity and magnetism, and the first law of thermodynamics, for starters.

No, because telekenisis produces excitation of metallic molecules that cause the bending.

 

[fantome profane]

Most Randi followers have swallowed the mantra that Geller is 100% fraud ...

Would you please clarify your own personal position on Geller. If he is not 100% fraud, what percentage would you say? Is he only 50% fraud? Or is he only 10% fraud?

Do you think it is wrong to view this individual, who has be shown to be guilty of perpetrating at least one kind of fraud, with high skepticism? Do you think it is wrong to hold an individual guilty of fraud with contempt?

You speak of your dislike for Randi. Randi is guilty of bias, and showmanship, and has perhaps displayed a disrespectful attitude. But James Randi has never been guilty of fraud or deliberate deception.

 

[George-ananda]

Would you please clarify your own personal position on Geller. If he is not 100% fraud, what percentage would you say? Is he only 50% fraud? Or is he only 10% fraud?

He's like Randi in that he has the 'flamboyant showman' in him and doesn't ever want to be wrong or fail.

However he has demonstrated genuine psychic abilities under controlled conditions and this does not even include spoon-bending..

Regarding his controversial life story I am not particularly interested. He is a minor player in the paranormal field and seems to enjoy teasing people with his lack of straight-forwardness. If the field of paranormal research rested on Geller it would be in trouble I agree.

Do you think it is wrong to view this individual, who has be shown to be guilty of perpetrating at least one kind of fraud, with high skepticism? Do you think it is wrong to hold an individual guilty of fraud with contempt?

Yes, people guilty of frauds should be highly suspect and worthy of contempt for their behavior

One side issue; I don't think Geller has ever admitted to fraud; although there are unproven allegations and people that would just love to claim that they caught him in fraud. I would be interested in hearing his side of the story in each of these claims but he and Randi have been in lawsuits with each other for most of their professional lives and lawyers counsel them on what they can say and not say.
　

You speak of your dislike for Randi. Randi is guilty of bias, and showmanship, and has perhaps displayed a disrespectful attitude. But James Randi has never been guilty of fraud or deliberate deception.

That is very not true. He has many times been accused of fraud and deliberate deception. Some say that is part of his modus operandi. Targ and Puthoff have accused him of deliberate deception and have backed it up with evidence and witnesses.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So George-ananda your criticism of Randi boils down to: he maligned two researchers who were fooled by Uri Geller's frauds, but Randi can't prove that Geller was a total fraud. Maybe the psi-wheel or some other trick was genuine, some of the time.

The simplest explanation in light of undisputed facts is that Uri Geller is a fraud, and any powers he claims to have should be assumed fraudulent unless proven otherwise. The burden of evidence is on Geller and those who tested them to allow/request skeptics to independently test Geller. If they won't or can't do so, then their claims have no merit. Period. Maligning scientists who persist in defending their bad science is not unfair.

For those who don't know about Uri Geller, here are several videos in which Randi the debunker does his thing (George-ananda admits Randi is quite good at this) and shows Geller using trickery, not just in spoon-bending but in remote viewing and altering a compass, too. Watch Uri Geller:

(1) Bending a key with his hands when he thinks no one is looking and then doing what magicians call "ratcheting" to create the illusion of bending a pre-bent key; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDHPOWXFVI
(2) Using his own spoon, instead of the ones given to him (and of course he couldn't perform when Johnny Carson provided the spoons); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phFXBnsexw
(3) Peaking at a woman's drawing while pretending to look away during "remote viewing"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKLvscWe04
(4) Again, making an already bent fork appear to bend by ratcheting; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdTqpscvaw4
(5) Here Geller pretends to move a compass with his mind ... gee, do you think there could be a magnet hidden in his fist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA7jCWwrAV8

And of course magicians like James Randi can do all of these tricks, as demonstrated in this video, and furthermore, Uri Geller's powers don't work when he is tested carefully by skeptics like Johnny Carson:
Uri Geller Exposed - YouTube

Finally, as if this all weren't damning enough: we know scientists, including people with PhDs in physics, can be fooled. (And I say this as a person who admires people with PhDs in physics and aspires to be one soon.) This was demonstrated quite convincingly by Project Alpha. The boys who fooled the scientists with physics PhDs didn't just do spoon-bending, either. They did lots of tricks, whenever they saw an opportunity. A reasonable person would assume that a known fraud like Geller would do the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1S5CRcqJQo
And just for good measure, here Randi embarrasses my physicist colleagues over at Lawrence Livermore Labs. Yikes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwWL5ezA4g

And with that I rest my case, George-ananda. Thank you for the lively discussion, I leave the last word to you.

 

[George-ananda]

I know this is going nowhere but here are my replies hoping there's some readers who are trying to understand what I'm saying;

So George-ananda your criticism of Randi boils down to: he maligned two researchers who were fooled by Uri Geller's frauds, but Randi can't prove that Geller was a total fraud. Maybe the psi-wheel or some other trick was genuine, some of the time.

Did you follow when I said this is one example I studied in detail. I never even came close to saying this was the limits of Randi's transgressions. I have read hours of criticism of Randi over the decades from many sources.

Now it's disingenious on the part of the posters here to hijack the 400 post thread with Uri Geller. How this tangent got started is I mentioned the names of some psychics the maligned researchers worked with and Uri Geller was in that list. They did not even test Geller for spoon-bending. Uri Geller is not a player at all in my argumentation. The paranormal evidence stands exactly the same if him and his controversies never existed.
　

The simplest explanation in light of undisputed facts is that Uri Geller is a fraud, and any powers he claims to have should be assumed fraudulent unless proven otherwise. The burden of evidence is on Geller and those who tested them to allow/request skeptics to independently test Geller. If they won't or can't do so, then their claims have no merit. Period. Maligning such scientists for doing bad science is not unfair.
For those who don't know about Uri Geller, here are several videos in which Randi the debunker does his thing (George-ananda admits Randi is quite good at this) and shows Geller using trickery, not just in spoon-bending but in remote viewing, too:
(1) Bending a key with his hands when he thinks no one is looking and then doing what magicians call "ratcheting" to create the illusion of bending a pre-bent key; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnDHPOWXFVI
(2) Using his own spoon, instead of the ones given to him (and of course he couldn't perform when Johnny Carson provided the spoons); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0phFXBnsexw
(3) Peaking at a woman's drawing while pretending to look away during "remote viewing"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKLvscWe04
(4) Again, making an already bent fork appear to bend by ratcheting; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdTqpscvaw4
And of course magicians like James Randi can do all of these tricks, as demonstrated in this video, and furthermore, Uri Geller's powers don't work when he is tested carefully by skeptics like Johnny Carson:
Uri Geller Exposed - YouTube

As you said the above was 'for those who don't know'. I've been aware of the above for decades as does everyone who seriously looks at the paranormal field. Uri Geller is held in low-repute but that doesn't mean he doesn't also have some genuine psychic abilities tested in controlled conditions.
　

Finally, as if this all weren't damning enough: we know scientists, including people with PhDs in physics, can be fooled. (And I say this as a person who admires people with PhDs in physics and aspires to be one soon.) This was demonstrated quite convincingly by Project Alpha. The boys who fooled the scientists with physics PhDs didn't just do spoon-bending, either. They did lots of tricks, whenever they saw an opportunity. A reasonable person would assume that a known fraud like Geller would do the same:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1S5CRcqJQo

Everybody who has seriously studied the paranormal is aware of Project Alpha. I hope you also realize people with PhDs in physics can also do good experiments. I don't think anyone is going to say only Randi can do good experiments.

And with that I rest my case, George-ananda. Thank you for the lively discussion, I leave the last word to you.

The last word is a quote in this thread from George-ananda (post # 290):

For some people. maybe zero times; maybe once; maybe twice in a lifetime there is a world-view paradigm tipping point. Something internal makes you hungry for and accepting of change. But these are not common events.

 

[Magic Man]

All I recall is you talking about cases that would be convincing. Having been down that road before I asked you for a hypothetical believable example and then I got something a critic would shoot down. Try again if you want.

I don't need to try again. I gave you examples already. You tried to shoot them down, because you are under the false belief that a skeptic like me would shoot down any example possible. But you failed. The fact is, whether or not you want to believe it, that there is such a thing as a convincing situation. I outlined things that would be necessary for it to happen.

One of my points was people and witnesses in these cases are not initially interested in proving anything to anyone else; and therein lies a problem with your position of expecting great evidence.

My "position of expecting great evidence" is expecting a situation that has evidence that means that it's more likely to be a supernatural experience than a natural one.

Just a question on your b) clause of your last sentence and the doctor's sister story; how was the story not supported by the real details that came out?

The story was that he somehow knew he had a biological sister that no one had told him about, and that he was able to identify her. The real details were that he was shown a photo of said sister, and then claimed she was the female figure in his vision.

Comment on the 'pink dragon' strawman example. NDE's are supported by a working respectable model/understanding of what consciousness is and how it interacts with the physical world. Also it correlates well with a long list of other types of paranormal phenomena. The same can not be said about pink dragons.

No, you consider it a working respectable model, but that doesn't make it so. Just because you and others accept something doesn't make it credible. The only difference between the pink dragon story and NDEs is the number of people who claim NDEs, as you point out. But then, we've been over that. 1,000 people making crazy claims with no evidence is no better than 2 people making a crazy claim without evidence.

Here's what your position sounds like: There's no evidence for NDE's; If someone claims evidence it isn't worth the time to look at it because people have cried wolf too much.

Not quite. I'm more than willing to read the stories. I just don't feel like taking the time to go to the library - since I'm not buying them - and spend several days reading them, especially now that I have a child. I'm happy to look at examples on the internet that I can read in the span of 5-30 minutes.

So with those two positions how can your position ever change for the rest of your life. So given that, why are NDE's worth discussing for you. Unless it's one of those skeptic mantras that say: the real interesting question is why rational people could believe in such things; and what is the psychology of this myth perpetuation.

As I said above, my position can change if someone presents an example that fits my criteria for a convincing experience. I read about the doctor's story because I was able to do it fairly quickly. My aversion to the books you've mentioned is that I'd have to take extra time to get them and read them. It's not worth that kind of time to me.

 

[Magic Man]

Uri Geller is held in low-repute but that doesn't mean he doesn't also have some genuine psychic abilities tested in controlled conditions.

Of course it doesn't. It just means he'd need to prove his abilities in controlled conditions, and until he does, it's reasonable to consider him a fraud.
　

 

[ninerbuff]

Drugs do wonders.