Evolution Intelligent Design

Rupert Sheldrake talks about herd mentality in science

Spread the love

Rupert Sheldrake Portrait

Sheldrake, author of Science Set Free, is a Cambridge-trained biochemist and plant physiologist, is a prominent public intellectual critical of the authoritarianism and closed-mindedness that he finds increasingly typical of mainstream science.

But we will let him tell it to philosopher James Barham here:

The Best Schools: On p. 93 of your new book, Science Set Free (Deepak Chopra, 2012), you speak of the “intellectual phase-locking”—that is, the “group think” or herd mentality—that clearly plagues mainstream science today. We were wondering whether this was mainly due to the hubris that comes from the unprecedented social prestige scientists now enjoy, or whether it might not be more a matter of the metaphysical commitment to materialism that has been deeply ingrained in the scientific community for the past 400 years.

In other words, is the intellectual phase-locking of scientists more about arrogance and turf-protecting? Or is it more about their being in the grip of a misguided ideology? Or both? Please elaborate.

Rupert Sheldrake: The materialist ideology promotes a high degree of conformity in scientific thinking because it is indeed ideological, and materialists are unforgiving towards heretical deviations from this belief system.

Over the course of the twentieth century, the atmosphere within biology became increasingly intolerant, at the same time as physics opened up a wider range of possibilities. There are still great limitations on what professional physicists can think, but there is a toleration of alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, divergent interpretations of cosmology, the question of whether there is one universe or many, and so on.

Another reason for the greater uniformity of thinking is the professionalization of science. In the nineteenth century, many of the most creative scientists were not professionals. For example, Charles Darwin was an amateur naturalist living on a private income, with no academic post or government grant. He was much freer as a result.

Now, the vast majority of scientists rely on salaries and are far more aware of peer-group pressure. In fact, the peer-review system for jobs, grant applications, and publication of papers in journals means that peer pressure dominates their lives. In the nineteenth century, there were fewer constraints on creative and independent thinking. More.

Don’t miss: Non-Darwinian biologist Rupert Sheldrake takes on Darwinian atheist Daniel Dennett

Rupert Sheldrake: An early non-Darwinian biologist looks back on it all

Figure of fun Richard Dawkins gets thrown out of Sheldrake’s lab

Rupert Sheldrake likes Dembski’s Being as Communion

86 Replies to “Rupert Sheldrake talks about herd mentality in science

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    I think science proves to be just a methodology used by human beings. A verb and not a noun.
    So the people simply presum other people know better. They don’t question conclusions because they have no alternative hunch to base a question on.
    So they accept.
    Then its a higher acceptance because they believe its a intellectual class above the average. So they don’t like anyone questioning the tribe.
    Then with conclusions backing up anti religious ideas or other things tHEY REALLY circle the wagons.
    They just ain’t that sharp after all.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    What is it that science isn’t free to do?

  3. 3
    Graham2 says:

    This is the Morphic Resonance kook. UD just cant resist.

  4. 4
    ppolish says:

    Herd Mentality & Groupthink in science are probably most common in Biology. “Evolution is True” blah blah blah. Blah.

  5. 5
    REC says:

    @3….but Graham….he worked at Cambridge….for a few years….in the 70s.

    I really fear for y’all. No skepticism. Deepak Chopra and fake news from tabloids and psychic dogs and quantum woo.

    There is a “nigerian prince” looking for the UD email list….so that he can transfer money into all your accounts.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    If you want herd mentality, go to TSZ.

  7. 7
    Graham2 says:

    Rec: and flying priests.

  8. 8
    sparc says:

    Did you miss: Non-Darwinian baptist creationist Paige Patterson takes on non-Darwinian baptist creationist cdesign proponentsists ID proponent William Dembski?

  9. 9
    Graham2 says:

    sparc: Jeez, I sure did, got a link ?

  10. 10
    Andre says:

    Seversky

    Materialist science does not allow to follow the evidence where it leads….

  11. 11
    sparc says:

    Graham2 @ 7,
    for whatever reasons the original page at Florida Baptist Witness has been 404ed but it is still available from the wayback archive.

  12. 12
    Piotr says:

    Thanks for the link, Sparc!

    From the article (quoting Dembski’s repentant statement “admitting error” regarding Noah’s flood):

    In a brief section on Genesis 4–11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

    Certainly, Andre, it’s materialist science that does not allow to follow the evidence where it leads… [BANG! FZZZZ! — need a new irony meter.]

  13. 13
    Graham2 says:

    From the turkeys at Southern Baptist (HT to sparc):

    “Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,”

    To fall within the bounds of the Baptist Faith & Message, Patterson said a professor needs to believe only that there was a time when nothing but God existed, … any belief in theistic evolution is not within the bounds of Southern Baptists’ confession of faith.

    And on and on it goes. Jeez but that’s scary. All those crazy loons in one place.

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    Materialist science is an oxymoron…

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Well it seems that Sheldrake’s appeal to a more open minded, less dogmatically materialistic, science has raised the hackles of the resident Darwinians of UD and they have resorted with their usual name calling and mud slinging.
    The irony with materialists never stops.
    Ad hominem is not just a problem for internet trolls, but even prominent Darwinists such a Dawkins, Meyer, Coyne and Moran, apparently think that insults count as legitimate refutations in science.,,,
    Anyway,,, much contrary to what Darwinian atheists think are successful refutations in science, insulting a person and/or his field of work does not qualify as empirical refutation in science as much as they think it does, and as much egotistical comfort as they may get from falsely thinking they are superior to person simply because they insulted him.
    In fact, it a fallacious tactic that is known as ad hominem. And the tactic is not unlike a school yard bully thinking he is now the smartest kid in school because he beat up the the smartest kid in class.
    But if one looks past the insults of atheists, at the actual evidence presented by Sheldrake, one finds that his research is above board.
    Here is a video that highlights much of Sheldrake’s work:

    The Mind Is Not The Brain – Scientific Evidence – Rupert Sheldrake – (Referenced Notes) – video
    http://vimeo.com/33479544

    What is interesting in the preceding video is that, at the 25:00 minute mark of the video, Sheldrake speaks of a well known skeptic that he invited to replicate his experiment with dogs. The results of the skeptic revealed the same pattern of ‘extended mind’ that Sheldrake had consistently witnessed for dogs, but the well known skeptic refused to accept the possibility that ‘mind’ had anything to do with the results and tried to postulate another far fetched cause. Sad! ,,, Anyways, all in all I found Sheldrake’s methods to be thoroughly above board and yes, most importantly, ‘scientific’. In fact, Sheldrake, in the spirit of full disclosure, talks of a internet site that he has set up especially for skeptics (or whomever) so they could perform the experiments for themselves at home (or at school):

    Here is the online test site:

    Online Tests
    Excerpt: Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects.
    http://www.sheldrake.org/participate

    Here is a simple test that would be fairly easy to conduct at home with some friends:

    Telephone telepathy with the Nolan Sisters – video
    http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=22013

    What I found particularly interesting, at the 17:38 minute mark of the ‘The Mind Is Not The Brain’ video, several experiments were discussed that highlighted some animals (such as dogs, cats, and birds) have a transcendent component to their being that is able to sense what the owner’s intentions are. (of note: reptile pets demonstrated no transcendent connection to their owners). Here is a interesting short video done by ‘ordinary’ people demonstrating that fact:

    Jaytee: A dog who knew when his owner was coming home – video
    https://vimeo.com/81150973

    And Sheldrake is far from alone in finding postive evidence for ‘mind’. In the following study, a Cornell University scientist found ‘statistically significant’ evidence for telepathy:

    Study suggests precognition may be possible – Nov 18, 2010
    Excerpt: A Cornell University scientist has demonstrated that psi anomalies, more commonly known as precognition, premonitions or extra-sensory perception (ESP), really do exist at a statistically significant level.
    http://phys.org/news/2010-11-precognition.html

    Ironically, materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they try to deny free will. Yet, Libet himself was a strong defender of free will:

    Do Benjamin Libet’s Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion? – Michael Egnor – January 15, 2014
    Excerpt: Materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they deny free will.,,,
    (Yet) Libet himself was a strong defender of free will, and he interpreted his own experiments as validating free will. He noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious “decision” after the readiness potential appeared.
    ,,,”The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as ‘bubbling up’ in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing.” – Libet
    Libet even observed that his experimental confirmation of free will accorded with the traditional religious understanding of free will:,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81171.html

    In fact, many leading neuroscientists besides Libet, also supported ‘mind’:

    Materialism of the Gaps – Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) – January 29, 2009
    Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It’s notable that many of the leading neuroscientists — Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet — were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....15901.html

    Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs – 2010
    Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
    http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, a Princeton study, spanning over a decade, also found evidence for ‘mind’:

    Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program – 1997
    Abstract: Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and pre-stated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10–4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7 ?( p approx.= 3.5 × 10 –13). These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous feature.
    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear.....review.pdf

    Dean Radin – Random Number Generators correlate to intention – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFULrlxTFsA

    Random Number Generator-GCP – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w4wCWx3n1I

    Mind Effects Matter – Perturbed Randomness Following Worldwide crisis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1haKXoHMo

    Mass Consciousness: Perturbed Randomness Before First Plane Struck on 911 – July 29 2012
    Excerpt: The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened – but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.,,
    Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers. ‘It’s Earth-shattering stuff,’ says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the ‘black box’ phenomenon.
    http://www.network54.com/Forum.....uck+on+911

    Here are some of the papers to go with the preceding video and article;

    Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research – Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena – publications
    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

    The Global Consciousness Project – Meaningful Correlations in Random Data
    http://teilhard.global-mind.org/

    I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in blue blazes is my mind doing pushing your ‘god of randomness’ around?”

    Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, besides reaching ‘outside the body’, and preturbing random number generators in a way that correlates to intention, there is now fairly strong evidence that ‘mind’ is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity):

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video
    The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, besides being able to effect the structure of the brain, ‘mind’ has now been shown to be able to reach down to the genetic level and effect the expression of our genes:

    Is mindfulness meditation good medicine? – August 18, 2014
    Excerpt: In a 2010 meta-analysis (quantitative review), psychologist Stefan Hofmann of Boston University and his colleagues examined studies that tested both forms of mindfulness meditation as a remedy for anxiety disorders and depression. They found that the meditation sessions led to significant improvements in both conditions immediately after therapy, as well as approximately three months later,,
    a 2013 meta-analysis partly backs up the 2010 assessment. In that review, psychologist Bassam Khoury, then at the University of Montreal, and his colleagues found that both types of mindfulness-based therapies were effective for depression and anxiety disorders,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-medicine/

    Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,,
    the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
    http://www.tunedbody.com/scien.....ges-genes/

    Needless to say, the preceding findings are very antagonistic to the materialistic belief that we have no free will and are merely helpless ‘victims of our genes’.

    But perhaps the strongest evidence for the reality of ‘mind’ is the success of modern science itself. Modern science was born out of the Christian belief that man has a rational ‘mind’:

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer
    https://vimeo.com/32145998

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    In fact, denying the reality of ‘mind’, as materialists do, leads to the epistemological failure of modern science. One humorous consequence of denying the reality of mind is “Boltzmann Brain”:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    As the preceding highlights, materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place. This epistemological failure inherent in materialism has been further clarified in Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism:

    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....onkey-mind

    What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (‘inconsistent identity’ of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

    The following computer simulations reveal the problem of ‘cognitive reliability’ is much worse for naturalists/materialists than what even Plantinga realized. i.e. The following simulations revealed that, if naturalism is assumed as true, then we should not believe ANY of our perceptions to be true.

    Quote: “In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage”
    Donald Hoffman PhD. – Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception – 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439

    Thus, when one looks past the bullying tactics of Darwinists, one finds that there is in fact much strong empirical evidence, spanning multiple levels of investigation no less, to support the Sheldrakes’s contention for ‘extended mind’, and that Darwinists have, as usual, nothing but hot air and insults to support their position:

    Verse and Music:

    Mark 8:36-37
    What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

    ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Further notes:

    Atheistic Materialism: Illusions of free will within an illusion of mind
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M1c_Vxye4imjw_vGL0_-I3uHOIkQyyWwJPsz1Ys90g/edit

    Higher Dimensional Special Relativity, Near Death Experiences, Biophotons, and the Quantum Soul
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGuV7FWwaDag4T5glstQWjsQNtWHKw3T9qLF14fUHHo/edit

    The fact we have souls, and the fact that unguided Darwinian processes cannot generate functional information, appear to be two sides of the same coin that strongly support each other.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-545518

  19. 19

    BA77, do you have a website where you keep this stuff up and available? Categorized, perhaps? If not, can UD accommodate a permanent page where his links can be categorized and made easily accessible? It’s pure gold, man!

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    William J Murray, thanks for the compliment, but you are far more agile at defending the ‘primacy of Mind’ than I am:

    “In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.”
    – William J. Murray

    “If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
    – William J Murray

    I simply have not seen the problem put as concisely as you put it WJM. And you did that by reason not empirics!

    As tight as your reasoning is, that empirical evidence would confirm your reasoning should be no surprise for you.

    ,,,

    ,,,some of my notes can be accessed by clicking on my handle.
    But I overloaded that site about a year ago and now just keep word pad documents.

  21. 21
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    As well, a Princeton study, spanning over a decade, also found evidence for ‘mind’:

    Somehow I knew that Robert Jahn and PEAR would eventually make an appearance here. 🙂

    Their work is poorly documented, they observed a tiny effect, and it has not been replicated. You would think that if they had discovered a real phenomenon, this would be a thriving area of research. Instead, PEAR no longer exists.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    well Daves, somehow I knew that some Darwinist would try to smear PEAR’s research (is that evidence for telepathy?).

    as to your claim:

    Their work is poorly documented,

    yet that is, as usual for Darwinists, just plain false:

    Publications
    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

    As to the false accusation ‘this would be a thriving area of research. Instead, PEAR no longer exists’.

    International consciousness research laboratories
    http://icrl.org/

    PRINCETON’S PEAR LABORATORY TO CLOSE

    The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program at Princeton University, internationally renowned for its extensive study of the influence of the mind on physical reality, will be completing its agenda of basic research and closing its physical facilities at the end of February.

    The purpose of the program, established in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, an aerospace scientist who was then Dean of the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, was “to study the potential vulnerability of engineering devices and information processing systems to the anomalous influence of the consciousness of their human operators.” The research was funded by gifts from Princeton alumni James S. McDonnell, patriarch of the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace empire, Laurance Rockefeller, Donald C. Webster, and by numerous other philanthropic benefactors.

    Jahn and his colleague, Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist from the University of Chicago who has served throughout as PEAR’s laboratory manager, together with other members of their interdisciplinary research staff, have focused on two major areas of study: anomalous human/machine interactions, which addresses the effects of consciousness on random physical systems and processes; and remote perception, wherein people attempt to acquire information about distant locations and events. The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measurable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model.

    “We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates. There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over.” Jahn and Dunne said.

    Their future plans involve oversight of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL), a non-profit organization established in 1996 to promote quality research, educational initiatives, and practical applications of consciousness-related anomalies http://www.icrl.org. The members of ICRL represent some 20 countries and a broad range of professional backgrounds, and most have had some association with the PEAR program in the past. Jahn and Dunne currently serve as advisers to Psyleron, http://www.Psyleron.com, a Princeton, NJ-based enterprise that produces a line of state-of-the-art technology to enable public exploration of human/machine anomalies. They will both also continue to serve as Officers of the Society for Scientific Exploration: http://www.ScientificExploration.org.

    More than 50 publications are available on the PEAR website, and Jahn and Dunne’s textbook, Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt, 1987) has been in print for nearly 20 years. As part of their extensive archiving efforts, Jahn and Dunne have recently prepared a 150-page anthology of those PEAR publications pertinent to the burgeoning fields of complementary and alternative medicine, for a special issue of Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, edited by Dr. Larry Dossey, which is currently in press. An educational DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition, produced by Strip Mind Media, offers a comprehensive overview history and accomplishments of the laboratory is also available, and can be obtained on-line from the ICRL website at http://www.icrl.org.
    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear.....ement.html

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest:

    Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
    Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6•10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
    http://www.deanradin.com/paper.....0final.pdf

    also of related note: The materialistic conjecture of the ‘many worlds interpretation’ of quantum mechanics was recently dealt a death blow:

    Quantum mechanics
    Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....plications

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

  24. 24
    redwave says:

    Just a few thoughts about the use of the term ‘science’:

    ‘Science’ is becoming a diluted term, a linguistic construct the meaning of which is becoming weakened, washed away through casual and mistaken usage. ‘Science’ is not a verb, while ‘scientism’ and ‘sciencism’ are suffixed-nouns, which turn science into an activity or process. ‘Science’ is both noun and adjective … a proper nomen (name) for knowledge and a concept that modifies or describes another noun, such as ‘scientific’ methodology.

    Lewis Carroll treated the use and misuse of words in his writings, embedding his socio-political ideas in fantasy stories:

    ” … “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’?” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t, till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’?”
     
    “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that’s all.”

    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them, particularly verbs, they’re the proudest, adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs, however I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!” … ”

    Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1872)

  25. 25
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    well Daves, somehow I knew that some Darwinist would try to smear PEAR’s research (is that evidence for telepathy?).

    No smear intended. Rather, I simply believe that they arrived at a null result.

    as to your claim:

    Their work is poorly documented,

    yet that is, as usual for Darwinists, just plain false:

    Ok, to be fair, I was referring mainly to their remote-viewing experiments there. From Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments, by Hansen, Utts, and Marwick:

    It is also noteworthy that the [PEAR] work has been given virtually no coverage in two parapsychology textbooks (Edge, Morris, Rush, & Palmer, 1986; Nash 1986). Palmer (1985, p. 57) defended his omission saying “As procedural details of the subsequent trials are not included in the report, a methodological critique cannot be undertaken.”

    Numerous problems with their methods are also discussed in that article.

    Their work with REGs might have been documented more carefully, but then this just makes the problems that much more clear (see Stanley Jeffers).

    As to the false accusation ‘this would be a thriving area of research. Instead, PEAR no longer exists’.

    International consciousness research laboratories
    http://icrl.org/

    Well, your next line says:

    PRINCETON’S PEAR LABORATORY TO CLOSE

    which supports my claim, no? But yes, I do acknowledge that Jahn and some of his team are still together.

    But again, if all this were real, it would be one of the most sensational discoveries ever. The fact that a prestigious university essentially washed its hands of the whole operation speaks volumes.

  26. 26
    KD says:

    Just wrote a blog post relevant to this topic earlier this week here

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    daves, they did not arrive at a ‘null result’. They, as what I referenced indicates, found consistent evidence for conscious causation of perturbation in Random Number Generators. (Which is much more than I can say for materialists producing ANY evidence that atoms can EVER become conscious)

    I did not refer to ‘remote viewing’, as I have not studied it. So your complaint is on a topic I did not defend.

    As to the Random Number Generator experiments in particular, you can always find an atheist skeptical of results even when they replicate the results themselves (for instance Sheldrake mentioned just such an atheist in the video I referenced).

    That is why it is important to look at the evidence itself and ignore the flimsy excuses of atheist.

    Moreover, most ironically, you presuppose that you have a free will so as to be able to agree or disagree with the results of the experiments (results which I hold to be consistent and robust). Thus, you defeat your own argument that you are being objective to the results. You do this by defending the materialistic position which allows you no such objectivity in judgement. i.e. Your argument for ‘no mind’ defeats itself from within and winds up in epistemological failure:

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    Thus I can safely ignore what ‘you’ think is the best conclusion because ‘you’ had no choice in the matter if your materialistic worldview is true! Moreover, not only did ‘you’ have no choice, there is not really even a ‘you’ to begin with if materialism is true. (see Douthat: The Confidence of Jerry Coyne, 2014)

    Daves moreover, your accusation that the lab was shut down because it did not fulfill its mission is absurd. They published their results and had consistent confirmation for their hypothesis throughout the 28 year run of the lab.
    You are falsely equating the completion of its objective with failure of the mission.

    This is uncharitable and false for you to imply motivations of failure where none existed.

    For one clear example, we do not test nuclear bombs anymore. Do you think that nuclear bombs are a failure because testing has been shut down for them? i.e. Your claim of failure is absurd and reflects the dishonest tactics that atheists always employ to defend their indefensible position! (along the lines of atheist constantly using ad hominem as was mentioned previously)

    Moreover, I note that I provided many more lines of evidence for ‘mind’ being real, that all support each other in interleaved ways, and yet you, rather than addressing ALL the evidence honestly, and admit that it is indeed impressively consistent across many levels of study, instead try to raise doubts in areas you think cannot be so easily defended.
    This tactic further exposes you as a dogmatist who is less than forthright with the issue at hand.

    Other than your overall dishonesty towards the evidence at hand, I’m sure your mother may love you if her brain chemistry allows her to 🙂

    Jennifer Fulwiler: Scientific Atheism to Christ – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw8uUOPoi2M

    What caused Jennifer Fulwiler to question her atheism to begin with? It was the birth of her first child. She says that when she looked at her child, the only way her atheist mind could explain the love that she had for him was to assume it was the result of nothing more than chemical reactions in her brain. However, in the video I linked above, she says:
    “And I looked down at him, and I realized that’s not true.”

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    of footnote: Materialists hold that consciousness is ’emergent’ from a material basis. In other words, materialists hold that only material particles are real and that our subjective conscious experience of self is merely illusory,

    There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain.
    Daniel Dennett

    How does the brain go beyond processing information to become subjectively aware of information? The answer is: It doesn’t. The brain has arrived at a conclusion that is not correct. When we introspect and seem to find that ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels — our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are providing information that is wrong.
    Michael S. A. Graziano

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014
    Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.)
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....&_r=0

    Yet, if consciousness is merely an illusion, as is held in materialistic premises, then the belief that consciousness is foundation to reality, (both our own reality as ‘persons’ and the universe’s reality), then that illusory belief should have no tangible effects on reality.
    Yet, the presupposition that consciousness is foundation to reality does provide tangible results in reality in that the presupposition ‘consciousness is foundational’ is fostering a ‘second quantum revolution’:

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”;

    “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
    Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’

    Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner ‘consciousness’ quotes, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner’s insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a ‘second’ revolution in quantum mechanics,,,

    Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution – Anton Zeilinger – Sept. 2014
    Conclusion
    It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics,
    http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles....._01010.pdf

    Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true and that consciousness is not merely an illusion as materialists hold.

  29. 29
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daves, they did not arrive at a ‘null result’. They, as what I referenced indicates, found consistent evidence for conscious causation of perturbation in Random Number Generators.

    Not that consistent, because they and others failed to replicate the tiny ‘effect’ in later trials.

    I did not refer to ‘remote viewing’, as I have not studied it. So your complaint is on a topic I did not defend.

    Ok, fair enough.

    As to the Random Number Generator experiments in particular, you can always find an atheist skeptical of results even when they replicate the results themselves (for instance Sheldrake mentioned just such an atheist in the video I referenced).

    Their research depends on the reliability of their random number generators, which Jeffers criticizes. This doesn’t have anything to do with atheism.

    Moreover, most ironically, you presuppose that you have a free will so as to be able to agree or disagree with the results of the experiments (results which I hold to be consistent and robust). Thus, you defeat your own argument that you are being objective to the results. You do this by defending the materialistic position which allows you no such objectivity in judgement. i.e. Your argument for ‘no mind’ defeats itself from within and winds up in epistemological failure:

    But you know nothing of my position on free will, materialism, or the mind, so this is beside the point. I’m going to skip over all these off-topic digressions. The issue is the strength of the evidence provided by PEAR.

    Daves moreover, your accusation that the lab was shut down because it did not fulfill its mission is absurd. They published their results and had consistent confirmation for their hypothesis throughout the 28 year run of the lab.
    You are falsely equating the completion of its objective with failure of the mission.

    This is uncharitable and false for you to imply motivations of failure where none existed.

    For one clear example, we do not test nuclear bombs anymore. Do you think that nuclear bombs are a failure because testing has been shut down for them? i.e. Your claim of failure is absurd and reflects the dishonest tactics that atheists always employ to defend their indefensible position! (along the lines of atheist constantly using ad hominem as was mentioned previously)

    I’m not sure your analogy with nuclear tests is very useful. For one thing, no one disputes that nuclear bombs exist. The existence of PK/Psi is still very much in doubt, to say the least.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, the results, though tiny,, and contrary to what you briefly picked up from scanning the sceptics page, were consistent:

    “The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measurable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model.”

    as to the supposed failed replication, when looked at in detail (as you should have done) the reasons for failure are obvious:

    Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments
    Excerpt: The change from the systematic, intention-correlated mean shifts found in the prior studies, to this polyglot pattern of structural distortions, testifies to inadequate understanding of the basic phenomena involved and suggests a need for more sophisticated experiments and theoretical models for their further elucidation,,
    etc.. etc.. etc…
    https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/2000-mmi-consortium-portreg-replication.pdf

    as to your claim

    “This doesn’t have anything to do with atheism.”

    and yet Jeffers, from his publication history, appears to be an dedicated atheist:

    http://www.worldsci.org/php/in.....038;id=374

    moreover daveS, you are attacking the causal power of mind and free will, thus by default you are defending an atheistic position.

    If you believe in free will and mind, then why are you attacking them as to having some causal power (however tiny) apart from the body ?

    Please state your position clearly as to whether you believe you have a real ‘mind’ or not.

    As to your dismissal of my analogy to nuclear bombs. No, the analogy was very fitting.

    IMHO, You do not like the results and apparently grabbed for whatever the first skeptical response you could find on the internet without investigating further. (I don’t blame you for not referencing it)

    Moreover, my criticism that you are ignoring the weightier evidences that I’ve highlighted previously, so as to focus on this one area that you think can raise doubts in, holds, and, IMHO, exposes you as the dogmatist you are.

    Other than that, I’m sure you mother loves you if her brain chemistry allows her to 🙂

    Of note: Since I see no hope of you being reasonable, I will let you have the last word and let unbiased readers judge for themselves who has put the best case forward for ‘mind’ and free will being either real or illusory

  31. 31
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    as to the supposed failed replication, when looked at in detail (as you should have done) the reasons for failure are obvious:

    Sounds like “back to the drawing board” 🙂

    and yet Jeffers, from his publication history, appears to be an dedicated atheist:

    Is there something specific on that page that tells you he’s an atheist? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see it.

    moreover daveS, you are attacking the causal power of mind and free will, thus by default you are defending an atheistic position.

    Well, I will admit to being an atheist. I don’t know what the “causal power of mind and free will” has to do with the existence of god(s), however. Just an FYI, no need to respond.

    If you believe in free will and mind, then why are you attacking them as to having some causal power (however tiny) apart from the body ?

    I’m not attacking anything. I’m simply saying it’s reasonable to conclude that Jahn has not made his case.

    This general issue has come up several times in these discussions. Even if I did agree with your conclusions, I could still believe that your reasoning is faulty. There are bad arguments for just about every position, I imagine.

    Please state your position clearly as to whether you believe you have a real ‘mind’ or not.

    Now you’re getting into philosophical issues, which are above my pay grade, and which have perplexed humans for millenia. Plus the scare quotes make it unclear exactly what your asking. I do know a little about confidence intervals and p-values, however, which relate to Jeffers’ criticism. See this.

    IMHO, You do not like the results and apparently grabbed for whatever the first skeptical response you could find on the internet without investigating further. (I don’t blame you for not referencing it)

    I did read Margins of Reality for the first time over 25 years ago, so it’s not a new subject to me. Not that I claim to be an expert on it.

    Moreover, my criticism that you are ignoring the weightier evidences that I’ve highlighted previously, so as to focus on this one area that you think can raise doubts in, holds, and, IMHO, exposes you as the dogmatist you are.

    You make a lot of bad arguments which dilute whatever “weightier evidences” are in the mix. If you avoided this stuff along with the quantum woo, I think you would have a stronger case.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, as I said, I rest my case and will let the unbiased readers judge for themselves who has presented the better case for whether the mind and free will are real or illusory.

    Thanks for clarifying that you are an atheist.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS of supplemental note to Jeffers, I may have jumped the gun on Jeffers in calling him an atheist. His work in quantum mechanics seems to lean towards a ‘non-consciousness’ interpretation, but, a bit further reading by myself, this area is not nearly as black and white as I thought it would be from glancing over his papers the first time. I apologize for jumping the gun on him.

    Also of note. Radin claims that Jeffers was later involved in a successful replication of the PEAR RNG (Random Number Generator) results:

    Getting the Facts Straight: Dean Radin Responds to a Skeptic’s Conviction by Dean Radin, PhD – Feb. 2011
    Excerpt: Even Jeffers, who Alcock cites to suggest that the PEAR RNG work could not be replicated, was later involved in a successful RNG experiment.
    http://www.noetic.org/noetic/i.....sponds-to/

  34. 34
    daveS says:

    No problem about Jeffers, BA77.

    I would be interested to see if you find anything about this RNG experiment that Radin refers to. My google-fu is failing me.

  35. 35
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave so you don’t believe that there is scientific evidence supporting remote viewing ? Wow cool , because one of the best known atheist skeptics in this area disagrees with you and that is Richard Wiseman, but he the. Does his atheist wiggle to get out if following the evidence to wherever it may lead him to.

    http://deanradin.blogspot.com/.....ng-is.html

    In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

    Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

    She says: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

    “The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments.”

    Of course, this doesn’t wash with sceptical scientists.

    Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

    He says: “I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

  36. 36
    wallstreeter43 says:

    By the way Dave do you believe that Nde’s show show compelling evidence for the soul and the soul surviving physical death ?

    If. It please educate me and point me to the peer reviewed nde research that shows other wise

    Oxford educated professor of the philosophy of neuroscience doctor patricia church who teaches at UCSD believes that Nde’s are caused by the brain as even cites doctor Pim van Lommel as agreeing with him. When the interviewer is about to expose her lie and show her that Lommel believes the exact opposite , does her dogmatic atheistic materialistic beliefs allow her to,listen fairly befire he trounces her ?

    No , she hangs up on him lol
    Not once but 3 times and makes herself look like a fool.

    This is the kind of neuroscience experts that our taxpayer dollars are being used to employ? And at one of the top medical schools?

    http://youtu.be/7a6ZaivvCnE

    Dave lets see how honest you are about the facts ? Lets see if your a man of truth . The other atheists here in dogmatic cultic atheistic fashion made excuses for her instead of admitting that she lied and knows absolutely nothing about the nde research evidence despite that fact that she should be an expert in this area and yet is given responsibility to teach our youth the truth and educate them.

  37. 37
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Bit again, fascinating links on random number generators and free will. I’ll be reading through them today as I got some free time .
    Wallstreeter43

  38. 38
    Box says:

    Wallstreeter43 thank you for the link to the Dr. Patricia Churchland interview. Words fail me at this point.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    wallstreeter43, that Patricia Churchland interview was stunning.

    It is hard to believe that she was so purposely dishonest.

    A keeper! Atheists cite her from time to time. This interview is the perfect antidote.

  40. 40
    daveS says:

    Hi wallstreeter43,

    For the record, I don’t think remote viewing should be held to a higher standard than other areas of science.

    I don’t find it as compelling as the RNG experiments simply because the studies I’ve looked at are so subjective.

    Now if someone set up an experiment where pictures of random numbers were placed in remote locations and the viewer could determine those numbers at a rate significantly higher than would be expected by chance, I would be very interested. I don’t follow this closely, so maybe this has already been done. Are you aware of any such research?

  41. 41
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    By the way Dave do you believe that Nde’s show show compelling evidence for the soul and the soul surviving physical death ?

    Not that I am aware of, but I don’t follow this at all. However if promising results come out of experiments such as the AWARE study, I would find that fairly convincing. It looks like the AWARE study itself didn’t find anything remarkable, however.

    Dave lets see how honest you are about the facts ? Lets see if your a man of truth . The other atheists here in dogmatic cultic atheistic fashion made excuses for her instead of admitting that she lied and knows absolutely nothing about the nde research evidence despite that fact that she should be an expert in this area and yet is given responsibility to teach our youth the truth and educate them.

    I’m willing to assume for the purpose of this discussion that Churchland knows nothing about NDE research. I’m only interested in seeing clear-cut, reasonably objective evidence for NDEs, remote viewing, and so forth.

  42. 42
    Silver Asiatic says:

    wallstreeter @ 36

    I just purchased this:

    Consciousness Beyond Life
    The Science of the Near-Death Experience
    by Pim van Lommel

    Looking forward to what he has to say.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    To see if NDEs are even possible in the first place it is first important to establish whether the universe is Materialistic or Theistic in its foundational basis. I hold that science has now, as far as empirical evidence itself is concerned, established that we live in a Theistic universe to an overwhelming degree of certainty. One line of evidence that we live in a Theistic universe comes from General Relativity and Cosmology. Specifically, Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.
    In fact, I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein, (1879-1955), when he was shown that his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe might have had a beginning..

    Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre – The “Father” Of The Big Bang Theory – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhLQ_b3bKdI

    In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said,

    “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

    “Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life.”
    — George Gamow, My World Line, 1970

    Materialists still did not like the the implications of a beginning for the universe, and tried to find many escape routes around it.

    “Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.”
    Cosmologist Christopher Isham

    In fact the term ‘Big Bang’ was first uttered mockingly by Fred Hoyle as a point of derision.
    Here’s a radio recording of Fred Hoyle, around 1950, disparagingly calling the creation event of the universe ‘The Big Bang’: (He personally favored the ‘steady state’ model for the universe)

    History of the Big Bang – Simon Singh, PhD – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....2g#t=2340s

    Einstein’s general relativity equation has now been extended to confirm not only did matter and energy have a beginning in the Big Bang, but space-time also had a beginning. i.e. The Big Bang was an absolute origin of space-time, matter-energy, and as such demands a cause which transcends space-time, matter-energy.

    “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970

    But, despite the almost psychopathic need to deny the Big Bang by atheists, the evidence has mounted to the point that the evidence for a beginning to the universe is now considered to be overwhelming:

    Evidence For The Big Bang – Michael Strauss – video
    https://vimeo.com/91775973

    Evidence Supporting the Big Bang
    http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

    As Dr. Strauss mentioned in the preceding video, the decisive blow against the materialistic belief that the universe has always existed was the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation:

    International team strengthens Big Bang Theory Jun 06, 2013
    Excerpt: The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
    “The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model,” said lead author Lind. “Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-i......html#nwlt

    Unlike atheists, the co-discoverers of the cosmic microwave background had no qualms with publically stating what they thought the implications of the cosmic microwave background are:

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation

    “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
    George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
    Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’

    Moreover, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to be spherical in its large scale structure as was predicted by Theism (instead of being random in its large scale structure as would be presupposed in materialism).

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in the universe at the 3:36 minute mark in the video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

    Here is a still shot of the CMB image at the 3:36 minute mark of the preceding video

    Picture of CMBR
    http://new-universe.org/zenpho.....rams47.jpg

    Her are the verses in the bible that were confirmed with the discovery of the CMBR

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Moreover, since matter-energy, space-time, were instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang then, of course, the cause of the universe must itself be transcendent of matter-energy, space-time. Moreover, logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the transcendent, timeless, cause of this universe. That, by necessity, the the cause of this universe must be ‘personal’:

    What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

    “There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo — Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”
    Jastrow – God and The Astronomers

    Moreover, despite this stunning confirmation of this major Theistic prediction, i.e. of the sudden creation of the entire universe, many atheists still deny the obvious Theistic implications of the sudden creation of the universe and stubbornly remain atheistic, even materialistic, in their philosophical basis.
    Well, regardless of what atheists would personally prefer to believe, science marches on. And in that progress of science we find that not only has science confirmed the Theistic prediction for God creating the universe, but we also find that science, particularly Quantum Mechanics, has also confirmed the Theistic prediction that God ‘sustains’ this universe:

    Hebrews 1:3
    The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

    That the universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence use to require an inference from ‘contexuality’, (and such as that), in order to see non-locality is required for the universe to continue to exist, i.e. to be ‘sustained’,,,

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

  44. 44
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Nice silver , I haven’t read his book yet but I am probably going to purchase it soon. Lommel was an atheist whose worldview was transformed by his own nde studies so your going to probably see this transformation happening in him during the process .

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    ,, but now, in order to see that the universe is dependent on a non-local, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence, we only have to reference this following experiment:

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (betond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    Of note: Since the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics denies wave function collapse, the preceding experiment also falsifies the materialistic conjecture of many worlds.
    Moreover, as if that was not enough, due to advances in quantum mechanics the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt:
    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

    Thus, we basically have the two most powerful theories in science, General Relativity and Quantum Mechainics, both confirming that God both created and sustains this universe.
    Moreover, since atheists don’t like the Theistic Implications of a beginning for the universe or the Theistic implications of God sustaining this universe , then atheists are certainly not going to like how the successful reconciliation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is accomplished:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus Christ) – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Two very different ‘eternities’ revealed by physics:
    Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

    Thus, I find the evidence that we live in a Theistic universe, and not in a materialistic universe, to be overwhelming. And with that foundational issue now established, we are now in a much better position to investigate if Near Death Experiences (NDEs) conform to what would be expected from our knowledge of physics. And the answer to that question is, Yes! NDEs conform to what would be expected from physics:

    Higher Dimensional Special Relativity, Near Death Experiences, Biophotons, and the Quantum Soul
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGuV7FWwaDag4T5glstQWjsQNtWHKw3T9qLF14fUHHo/edit

    Verse and Music:

    1 John 4:14-15
    We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.

    Evanescence – My Heart Is Broken
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1QGnq9jUU0

  46. 46
    wallstreeter43 says:

    @dabe “”Not that I am aware of, but I don’t follow this at all. However if promising results come out of experiments such as the AWARE study, I would find that fairly convincing. It looks like the AWARE study itself didn’t find anything remarkable, however.””

    And here we go again with the standard ignore all the evidence atheist position Dave , and they wonder why I twiddle my thumbs so much lol
    You call a man’s veridical nde being times at the time when ther sis a non functioning brain not remarkable ?””

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....study.html
    One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
    Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.
    “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.
    “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
    “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
    “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

    Dave also said “”I’m willing to assume for the purpose of this discussion that Churchland knows nothing about NDE research. I’m only interested in seeing clear-cut, reasonably objective evidence for NDEs, remote viewing, and so forth.””

    I don’t think that’s correct t save as she is in a perfect position to know the evidence and even went through Pim van lommels nde study published in lancet and spin it around to the point where her own book has van Lommel agreeing with her that Nde’s are caused by the brain. She willfully lied !!! And this is atheism in a nutshell.
    Lommel never stated that and in fact he stated that that he now believes that Nde’s are not caused by the brain .

    Dave if you don’t consider an nde without a functioning brain remarkable then you can deny anything . At this point your being lead by your atheism and. It by the evidence . Most people who are neutral and unbiased would consider this example to be amazingly remarkable , but then again some people have an emotional al bond to their worldview and won’t let go of it no matter what the evidence is . At this point I just have to say if you want to deny it with pure blind faith it’s a free country , but you no longer have the right to tell young earth creationists that their belief in a 6000 year old earth is non scientific because then you would be literally preaching to the choir.

    Mister Pot meet Misses Kettle , ahh a match made in heaven 😉

    Well Dave at least ur nit as bad as the other atheists here who would only believe if the guy brought back next weeks winning lotto numbers lol

  47. 47
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Not only that but professor churchlands position on Nde’s is shared by a majority of neuro science teachers and this shows a systemic problem in our educational institutions because these ignorant nitwits are in positions of power able to suppress info in the classroom and shape the mind of our young .

    The reason why professor churchland didn’t just ad it she knew nothing about the current nde research was because she actually knew all about them but she like many of her atheistic materialistic colleagues are religiously attached to their atheism and no matter what the evidence is they will plug their ears and keep repeating the same bologna “nde are caused by the brain because in materialism no brain equals no consciousness , I do t care what the evidence is so na neeeeeee na neeeee na naaaaa on you “

  48. 48
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    And here we go again with the standard ignore all the evidence atheist position Dave , and they wonder why I twiddle my thumbs so much lol
    You call a man’s veridical nde being times at the time when ther sis a non functioning brain not remarkable ?

    Yes, I did miss that part, which is remarkable. So he was aware longer than was considered possible without a heartbeat, which is objectively verifiable, and he reported “leaving his body”, which is not.

    To clarify, the part of the AWARE study that I am most interested in is the placement of pictures in locations where the patient would not be able to see them; if the patient had a nde and then was able to describe the pictures accurately, then I would consider that to be compelling evidence, but it didn’t occur in this study.

    I don’t think that’s correct t save as she is in a perfect position to know the evidence and even went through Pim van lommels nde study published in lancet and spin it around to the point where her own book has van Lommel agreeing with her that Nde’s are caused by the brain. She willfully lied !!! And this is atheism in a nutshell.
    Lommel never stated that and in fact he stated that that he now believes that Nde’s are not caused by the brain .

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I had not heard of Patricia Churchland before today (although I’ve heard of her husband), so I have no opinion one way or another about her. She could be ignorant, lying, or whatever, but that wouldn’t provide any evidence for the reality of nde’s. There’s no point talking about her views if she’s wrong about everything.

    Dave if you don’t consider an nde without a functioning brain remarkable then you can deny anything.

    Or, perhaps his brain was functioning under circumstances that were formerly considered impossible, and the researchers learned something new.

  49. 49
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Not only that but professor churchlands position on Nde’s is shared by a majority of neuro science teachers and this shows a systemic problem in our educational institutions because these ignorant nitwits are in positions of power able to suppress info in the classroom and shape the mind of our young .

    The reason why professor churchland didn’t just ad it she knew nothing about the current nde research was because she actually knew all about them but she like many of her atheistic materialistic colleagues are religiously attached to their atheism and no matter what the evidence is they will plug their ears and keep repeating the same bologna “nde are caused by the brain because in materialism no brain equals no consciousness , I do t care what the evidence is so na neeeeeee na neeeee na naaaaa on you “

    Oookay…

    Anyway, I’ve described the evidence for remote viewing and nde’s that I would find convincing. These experiments with pictures in the operating room should be easy to carry out, so hopefully more will be performed in the future.

  50. 50
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave said “”Yes, I did miss that part, which is remarkable. So he was aware longer than was considered possible without a heartbeat, which is objectively verifiable, and he reported “leaving his body”, which is not.””

    Amazing !!!!
    What part of veridical did you not get Dave .
    It means his out of body experience was verified by outside witnesses . Everything he described when out of his body was verified as true . As much as you would love for this not to have happened Dave, IT DID and how do you explain this without a functioning brain.

    The place cards were already talked about and the weaknesses of this part of the study. If you had fully read the study you would have known 2 things
    1. That he had also witnesses a nurse that he couldn’t even see with his physical vision as he had a sheet rolled up over his groin area and the nurse was behind this sheet the whole time.
    2. The cards were places randomly , and unfortunately there was no card places in this room.

    So for you to say that his out of body experience was subjective shows that you have a hard time excepting something that potentially damages your atheism . This is called dogmatic fundamentalist.

    If you notice that most atbeists won’t come near this example with a 19 pole , precisely because what he saw was objectively verified by everyone in the room
    Dave try this trick, since your a dogmatic atheists you can basically accuse them all of lying and call it a grand conosiracy . That would be a lot more rational the for you to call a verifiable veridical nde as purely subjective .

    Dave let your guard down man.

    Maybe this statement will help.
    You don’t need to be a theist to believe in the afterlife , but u do need to get rid of your militant atheistic assumptions .

    In the means Dave why don’t you protest to keep the truth of nde evidence es from these studies from reaching the university level, this way our youth can still grow up brainwashed in materialistic blind faith believers 😉

  51. 51
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Amazing !!!!
    What part of veridical did you not get Dave .
    It means his out of body experience was verified by outside witnesses . Everything he described when out of his body was verified as true .

    I didn’t see that the Telegraph article said that the fact that he actually left his body could be objectively verified, but I’m willing to be corrected on that.

    Can you tell me where this is stated in the paper:

    That he had also witnesses a nurse that he couldn’t even see with his physical vision as he had a sheet rolled up over his groin area and the nurse was behind this sheet the whole time.

    and that the researchers verified that he actually saw something that was absolutely impossible for him to see?

  52. 52
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Nevermind, I think I found the info.

  53. 53
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave it’s right there in my quote of the article but I’ll post it again. Thank you for being honest, I guess some atheists are actually seeking .

    Here it is
    “”The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
    “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

    The last line from doctor parnia said that everything he said had happened to him had actually happened .

    It is things like this that cause doctor parnia who is an agnostic to start to lean to Nde’s not being caused by the brain

  54. 54
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Oh ok dave .cool. As far as the place cards there was a scientist a while back who experimented with a woman who was known to have the ability to induce an out of body experience many times and if I recall correctly , he placed a card or something with some numbers in the next room and she was able to get out of yet body and recall the numbers for him accurately.

    It was only one oerson . Anecdotal evidences like this don’t have a large base of subjects but when thousands have them when does anecdotal,become believable .

    Thanks again Dave for finding that part of the quote . Now while neuroscientists are still stuck in the materialistic paradigm , almost all nde researchers no longer believe that the mind is the brain.

    My question to you Dave is , why isn’t our educational system allowing these peer reviewed studies to be allowed into the classroom ?

    Is that how science operates, or is that how blind faith operates ?

    Wasn’t it famed atheist philosopher doctor Antony flew who said don’t be afraid to follow the evidence no matter where it leads you.

    🙂

  55. 55
    wallstreeter43 says:

    And remember also Dave that it was religion that has been saying for thousdand a of years that there is an afterlife , while atheism on the. Ost part has been saying that there is no afterlife .

    Guess which worldview nde scientific research is favoring ?
    😉

  56. 56
    Mung says:

    Joe: Materialist science is an oxymoron

    Indeed

  57. 57
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave , have I peaked yoir curiousity yet on the Nde’s?
    😉

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    wallstreeter you state in regards to daveS

    Thank you for being honest, I guess some atheists are actually seeking .

    wallstreeter, I would not be so quick to think that daveS was being totally honest towards the evidence. The reason why I doubt his sincerity? Well, in post 31 daveS made several contradictory, i.e. ‘waffle’, claims in regards to what the atheistic and Theistic view of ‘mind’ are.
    In other words, he was not forthright in regards to his own atheistic premises. Premises which hold ‘mind/consciousness’ to be merely a property of the brain and to not be its own independent entity with causal power as is held in Theism. (i.e. hold on to your wallet when atheist insist on using definitions that are vague to the point of meaningless)

    But most importantly as to my doubting his sincerity in his claim that he is willing to be honest to the evidence, in post 31 he also states:

    “Well, I will admit to being an atheist.”

    wallstreeter, I hold that it is simply impossible for anyone who is truly honest with the evidence, and who is truly seeking, to still be an atheist in this day and age. Why do I say that? Well, I mentioned that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, have confirmed, in over the top fashion, the Theistic predictions of the universe being created from a timeless/spaceless realm, and for the universe being ‘sustained’ from a timeless/spaceless realm.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-556395

    Moreover, although atheistic neo-Darwinists have no evidence that unguided material processes can create even one molecular machine (Behe), we find the complexity of molecular biology to be ‘almost beyond belief’:

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    wallstreeter, if daveS were truly honest towards the evidence at hand then would he not readily admit that these are stunning confirmations of Theistic predictions and disconfirmation of atheistic predictions?
    With such over the top confirmation of Theism, daveS should, if he were remotely reasonable, at least be agnostic on the matter of Theism, but no, he claims he is still atheistic in his beliefs.

    I find such inconsistency in his stated beliefs and the actual evidence in hand to be devoid of credibility.

    Even Anthony Flew, the world’s leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life, said that this present evidence supports Theism and he, honestly, changed his beliefs accordingly:

    “I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.”
    Anthony Flew – world’s leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death
    The Case for a Creator – Lee Strobel

    So apparently scientific evidence has been of little value in forming daveS’s beliefs thus far, so why should we believe that he will, all of the sudden, start being honest in regards to NDEs now?
    I simply find his claim to be devoid of credibility!

    But in regards to the actual evidence at hand, just how reliable is it apart from daveS’s bias?

    Well, we find that Parnia himself was ‘lead investigator’ of the ‘suspended picture’ study:

    Seeking Proof in Near-Death Claims – Oct. 2010
    Excerpt: At 18 hospitals in the U.S. and U.K., researchers have suspended pictures, face up, from the ceilings in emergency-care areas. The reason: to test whether patients brought back to life after cardiac arrest can recall seeing the images during an out-of-body experience.
    People who have these near-death experiences often describe leaving their bodies and watching themselves being resuscitated from above, but verifying such accounts is difficult. The images would be visible only to people who had done that.
    “We’ve added these images as objective markers,” says Sam Parnia, a critical-care physician and lead investigator of the study,,,
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB.....3494074922

    So Parnia himself was lead investigator of the ‘suspended picture’ test. And per wallstreeter, here are the results of the tests:

    First hint of ‘life after death’ in biggest ever scientific study – 2014
    Excerpt: they found that nearly 40 per cent of people who survived described some kind of ‘awareness’ during the time when they were clinically dead before their hearts were restarted.
    One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.
    Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.
    “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.
    “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.
    “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.
    “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”
    Of 2060 cardiac arrest patients studied, 330 survived and of 140 surveyed, 39 per cent said they had experienced some kind of awareness while being resuscitated,,,
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....study.html

    Thus the lead investigator himself, of the ‘suspended picture’ study, Parnia found evidence that ‘seemed very credible’.
    Perhaps not exactly scientifically ‘compelling’ evidence, as the evidence for the beginning of the universe now is, but it certainly very interesting, and even ‘credible’, evidence that warrants a closer look.
    And when we look closer, and expand our survey of the evidence, we find that there are many such cases as what Parnia had noted.
    Perhaps the most famous example of ‘seeing stuff’ in the operating room while being out of the body, one that has been attacked by atheists, is that of Pam Reynolds’s NDE

    The extremely ‘monitored’ NDE of Pam Reynolds – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

    Of related note: Dr. Jeffrey Long debunks atheist Dr. Woerlee’s anesthesia awareness hypothesis of Pam Reynold’s NDE here:

    Excerpt: ”Dr. Jeffrey Long: Again, I emphasize that anesthetic-awareness is very rare under anesthesia.
    By the way, I’m not aware of any near-death experiences that occurred under general anesthesia on the NDERF website that described the typical content of anesthetic-awareness experiences. Dr. Woerlee brings up a few anecdotal discussions about anesthetic-awareness but I have a number of references. These are the scholarly people that have actually studied a number of anesthetic-awareness experiences and published them in peer-reviewed journals in the past. That’s my source of that.
    As all of your listeners can easily see, you just don’t have near-death experiences that are predominantly hearing but no vision. You don’t essentially ever have near-death experiences that involve brief, fragmented experiences that are painful or frightening. In fact, none of the general anesthesia near-death experiences that I reviewed had any of those components of them. Really, there’s no doubt about that.
    These are completely different experiences. That being anesthetic-awareness and near-death experiences. I don’t think Dr. Woerlee quite got that point how clear that was; how crystal clear the distinction between those two types of experiences is.””
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-553792

    The following is on par with Pam Reynolds Near Death Experience. In the following video, Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a pioneer of cardiac surgery, tells the amazing stories, and accurate recollections, of two patients who came back to life after being declared dead, and the uncanny details they told him about what they had seen when they were supposedly ‘dead’ (in fact, one was known to be dead, no heartbeat, for approx. 30 minutes).

    Famous Cardiac Surgeon’s Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08

    Then there was the famous ‘blue tennis shoe’, seen by the NDEer as she floated above the hospital, that was subsequently found on the ledge of a 3rd floor hospital window:

    Kim Clark Finds the Tennis Shoe and Proves Near Death Experiences Are Real
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPXK2Ls-xzQ

    Here is another very credible testimony of a young woman seeing her mother and grandmother smoke cigarettes for the very first time in their lives in the hospital smoking area, (because they were so nervous about their daughter), whilst the young woman was supposedly in the emergency room:

    Michaela’s Amazing NEAR death experience – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcHWz6UMZ8

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, overall we find these instances of ‘different visual perspectives’ to be somewhat common to NDEers (48%):

    “A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007).”
    Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Moreover, in considering these ‘suspended picture’ tests of Parnia, (that were done in only 18 hospital emergency rooms), there are mitigating circumstances to be considered that suggest that the attention of NDErs would not necessarily be drawn towards ‘suspended pictures’.
    For instance, besides the ‘suspended picture’, there also happens to be a dead body in the emergency room that just so happens to belong to the person having the NDE! Not a small caveat!
    As well, there are, of course, the frantic activities of the hospital staff who are trying to resuscitate the NDEer. That the attention would not necessarily be drawn to a ‘suspended picture’ is understandable.
    Moreover, many NDEers report completely losing interest as to what is happening in this world as their attention is drawn towards the heavenly paradise, i.e. ‘the tunnel’, that is before them.
    In the following interview with reporter Bob Woodward, (who also had his own NDE due to a roadside bomb), Mary Jo Rapini, at the 5:40 minute mark, states to Woodward:

    “When I was going up I knew my body was back there. Like I caught a glimpse of it.,,, I didn’t really care about it (my body). I had no desire to go (back),,, I wasn’t afraid at all.”
    Mary Jo Rapini

    Mary Jo Rapini Sees the Light – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylcjjhvvddE

    Thus, we have much evidence to support that events were seen during NDEs that could not have possibly been seen by the people while they were in their body, and we also have very reasonable mitigating circumstances as to why the ‘suspended pictures’ would not necessarily draw the attention of people having NDEs.
    Moreover, I hold that even if a person happened to see a ‘suspended picture’ during one these NDEs that that evidence, in and of itself, would also be attacked by some dogmatic atheists as has all other evidence for NDEs been.
    The evidentary standards of dogmatic atheists are simply completely unfair when it comes to fairly evaluating NDEs.
    Neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor notes the double standard that atheists use whenever they evaluate the evidence for NDEs as compared to when they evaluate evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution:

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    Thus wallstreeter, I don’t buy for a second that daveS is truly being fair to the evidence since he has not demonstrated an ability to be fair to the evidence thus far.
    And, It will take far more than a few superficial concessions in a debate format to convince me otherwise.
    Atheists, especially on blogs, have simply lost all credibility with me.

    Verse and Music:

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    Third Day – Cry Out To Jesus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVxRl5bc4Y

    Supplemental notes:

    Higher Dimensional Special Relativity, Near Death Experiences, Biophotons, and the Quantum Soul
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XGuV7FWwaDag4T5glstQWjsQNtWHKw3T9qLF14fUHHo/edit

    Two very different ‘eternities’ revealed by physics: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

  60. 60
    wallstreeter43 says:

    BA777 , thanks again for putting all that info into a condensed post. Intend to post erratically which makes it hard at times to put all my thoughts into one specific post. Thanks again.

    And yes concessions from atheists are very hard to get because most of the times there is a bias that is. It so hidden to most of us here .

    The beauty of nde researchers are that most of them were atheist/materialists who came to believe in the soul through nde research .

    Another part of it that makes it extremely difficult for atheists to wiggle out of is that most of the times atbeists like to pull out the “Christian Card” meaning that once all else fails in refuting the evidence they will claim that the scientists or researcher were Christian creationists and skewed the results in favor of their worldview .

    Doctor long was a pure materialists is now a oneness monist
    As is doctor Pim van Lommel
    Doctor sam parnia is an agnostic and while he is the most conservative of the bum he is sounding awefully spiritual these days 😉

    The other tactic atheists use is to attack the credibility of the person making
    The claims as was done to doctor eben Alexander who was attacked this way by sam Harris , but when eben Alexander challenged sam Harris to a debate on skpetiko about his nde , suddenly sam Harris has no time to do it lol.

    Nde’s are so compelling that even non Christians can see the powerful evidence , but they also favor the idealism interpretation of quantum physics instead of the ridiculous many worlds interpretation which states that there are only many material wotlds .

    Materialists are finding it harder and harder to hide from these evidences but there must be a crack at the academic level , because as I showed with the patricia churchland interview , these ancient “brain equals mind ” theories are still being taught at our universities on a popular level , but the evidence from Nde’s totally refutes them .

  61. 61
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Dave , have I peaked yoir curiousity yet on the Nde’s?

    I do find the case you described interesting. I think there are serious issues that can be raised with the study, for example the fact that one of the interviews occurred roughly a year after the event. I probably won’t be persuaded until they get some good results from the hidden pictures part of these studies, but nevertheless,I am slightly more curious about nde’s than I was.

  62. 62
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    wallstreeter, I would not be so quick to think that daveS was being totally honest towards the evidence. The reason why I doubt his sincerity? Well, in post 31 daveS made several contradictory, i.e. ‘waffle’, claims in regards to what the atheistic and Theistic view of ‘mind’ are.

    Would you care to be specific? I just reread that post and don’t see any contradictions in it.

    wallstreeter, I hold that it is simply impossible for anyone who is truly honest with the evidence, and who is truly seeking, to still be an atheist in this day and age. Why do I say that? Well, I mentioned that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, have confirmed, in over the top fashion, the Theistic predictions of the universe being created from a timeless/spaceless realm, and for the universe being ‘sustained’ from a timeless/spaceless realm.

    Heh. I have basic relativity and QM textbooks right here (Schutz and Shankar), but don’t recall anything in them resembling what you are claiming. “Timeless/spaceless realm ‘sustaining’ the universe”? Do you have a textbook reference to any of this? Or a non-youtube reference where the actual physicists describe this interpretation?

    And while I’m asking, how much experience do you have actually _doing_ QM or GR? Have you ever calculated the wave equation for a particle in an infinite potential well? Do you know what a tensor product is?

    wallstreeter, if daveS were truly honest towards the evidence at hand then would he not readily admit that these are stunning confirmations of Theistic predictions and disconfirmation of atheistic predictions?
    With such over the top confirmation of Theism, daveS should, if he were remotely reasonable, at least be agnostic on the matter of Theism, but no, he claims he is still atheistic in his beliefs.

    I would label myself as an agnostic atheist or weak atheist, to be clear.

    Thus the lead investigator himself, of the ‘suspended picture’ study, Parnia found evidence that ‘seemed very credible’.
    Perhaps not exactly scientifically ‘compelling’ evidence, as the evidence for the beginning of the universe now is, but it certainly very interesting, and even ‘credible’, evidence that warrants a closer look.

    I would agree that it warrants a second look, particularly if they can get more data from the suspended picture part.

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, so according to you there is no hint that the universe requires a timeless/spaceless cause to explain its beginning in General Relativity? REALLY???

    “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970

    And according to you there is no evidence that from Quantum Mechanics that the universe requires a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain its continued existence? REALLY???

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD – Vlatko Vedral – 2011
    Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.
    http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchan.....611038.pdf

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-q.....tance.html

    Of note: Since the materialistic many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics denies wave function collapse, the preceding experiment also falsifies the materialistic conjecture of many worlds.

    Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7HHz14tS1c

    I suggest you get new textbooks! 🙂

    Moreover, as to your quip that you are more mathematically adept than I am at understanding mathematics, I note, with a wry smile, the fact that you use mathematics to describe the universe is in itself proof that this universe is dependent on a beyond space and time cause for its continued existence (and is also proof that you have a transcendent component to your being that is not reducible to material particles):

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Thus, since you are so purposely misleading with this evidence, perhaps you can forgive me for putting your criticisms in the same box as all other dogmatic atheists?

    In other words, I don’t buy your claim that you are merely a ‘weak atheist’. In fact, I hold you to be purposely deceptive and just as bad as Zach!
    I wish it were not so since the consequences are far more drastic than you can possibly imagine.

    “I knew for certain there was no such thing as life after death. Only simple minded people believed in that sort of thing. I didn’t believe in God, Heaven, or Hell, or any other fairy tales. I drifted into darkness.
    Drifting asleep into anihilation.,,(Chapter 2 – The Descent),, I was standing up. I opened my eyes to see why I was standing up. I was between two hospital beds in the hospital room.,,, Everything that was me, my consciousness and my physical being, was standing next to the bed. No, it wasn’t me lying in the bed. It was just a thing that didn’t have any importance to me. It might as well have been a slab of meat in the supermarket”,,,
    Howard Storm – former hard-core atheist – Excerpt from his book, ‘My Descent Into Death’ (Page 12-14)
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    The Near Death Experience of Howard Storm: Parts I & II- The Chains We Forge in Life/Rescue – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyWGPoMiMI

  64. 64
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, so according to you there is no hint that the universe requires a timeless/spaceless cause to explain its beginning in General Relativity? REALLY???

    “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970

    Do you have a reference to the source of that exact quote in a publication by Hawking and the others?
    I see that it shows up on a lot of theistic websites, but I don’t find Hawking himself using those exact words.

    And according to you there is no evidence that from Quantum Mechanics that the universe requires a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to explain is continued existence? REALLY???

    I will give you credit for supporting your position, at least partially:

    “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team.

    The pdf from the Taiwanese website won’t load for me, unfortunately.

    Moreover, as to your quip that you are more mathematically adept than I am at understanding mathematics, I note, with a wry smile, the fact that you use mathematics to describe the universe is in itself proof that this universe is dependent a beyond space and time cause for its continued existence (and is also proof that you have a transcendent component to your being that is not reducible to material particles):

    No, I never claimed to be more mathematically adept than you. The question was about whether you have ever solved the most elementary QM or GR problems. I guess not?

    Edit x 2: Further, I don’t make any claims about whether there is a “transcendent component to [my] being that is not reducible to material particles”.

    Thus, since you are so purposely misleading with this evidence, perhaps you can forgive me for putting your criticisms in the same box as all other atheists?

    In other words, I don’t buy your claim that you are a merely a ‘weak atheist’. In fact, I hold you to be purposely deceptive!

    Ha! So you didn’t find any contradictions in my post #31?

  65. 65
    bornagain77 says:

    daveS, since I find you to be severely disingenuous, I rest my case.

  66. 66
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    daveS, since I find you to be severely disingenuous, I rest my case.

    Again??

    Can you at least clear up the Hawking, et al quote source?

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    Big Bang Theory – An Overview of the main evidence
    Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.”3
    Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
    Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
    http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

    Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
    Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

    “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
    Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176

    “The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning.”
    Alexander Vilenkin – from pg. 35 ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’ by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: A elegant thought experiment of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.)

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” –
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – paper delivered at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party (Characterized as ‘Worst Birthday Present Ever’)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....beginning/

  68. 68
    daveS says:

    Thanks for the links, BA77. I suspected the Hawking Penrose paper of 1970 was the ultimate source.

    So is the quote you posted a paraphrase of their result? I’m not saying it’s inaccurate, just that it might have been written by someone else.

    Further, the 1970 paper assumes classical GR, but Hawking’s no-boundary proposal would indicate that their conclusion need not hold in quantum gravity. Is that also your understanding?

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    to reiterate: daveS, I rest my case, since I find you to be severely disingenuous.

    Plus, I have much better things to do today than watch you chase your own tail around and around in a circle trying to find technical loopholes in which to hide your atheistic preferences.

    Nothing personal, but it all gets too boring after a while.

    The last word is all yours in which to toot your own horn and issue more ad hominem.

  70. 70
    daveS says:

    BA77,

    Plus, I have much better things to do today than watch you chase your own tail around and around in a circle trying to find technical loopholes in which to hide your atheistic preferences.

    Well, the distinction between classical and quantum theories is hardly a technical loophole. You of all people should agree with that.

  71. 71
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave said “”I do find the case you described interesting. I think there are serious issues that can be raised with the study, for example the fact that one of the interviews occurred roughly a year after the event. I probably won’t be persuaded until they get some good results from the hidden pictures part of these studies, but nevertheless,I am slightly more curious about nde’s than I was.””

    Dave please don’t cherry pick from the data , it doesn’t show that you really are taking this study seriously . You said that one of the interviews was done a year later. The one specific patient was interviewed 3 times and last of the 3 interviews was done a year after, but the first was done much much earlier .

    I hope you are not expecting the interview to be done right away ?, as this would violate a bunch if ethical laws .

    3 interviews were done to make sure that the story was consistent which is a good protocol to follow, and it was consistent .

  72. 72
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave again here is how the protocol for the first interview went . All patients were interviewed within a week of their arrest , not a year later like u are claiming . The evidence still stands and is compelling . Please now show me how this person could have seen what they saw ? This was found by a simple google search Dave . Why is it that I found it and u didn’t ?

    http://awareofaware.co/tag/sam-parnia/

    Abstract:

    Aim :To carry out a prospective study of cardiac arrest survivors to understand the qualitative features as well as incidence, and possible aetiology of near death experiences (NDEs) in this group of patients. Method : All survivors of cardiac arrests during a 1 year period were interviewed within a week of their arrest, regarding memories of their unconscious period.

    Reported memories were assessed by the Greyson NDE Scale. The postulated role of physiological, psychological and transcendental factors were studied. Physiological parameters such as oxygen status were extracted from the medical notes. Patients’ religious convictions were documented in the interviews and hidden targets were used to test the transcendental theories on potential out of body claims. Those with memories were compared to those without memories. Results : 11.1% of 63 survivors reported memories.

    The majority had NDE features. There appeared to be no differences on all physiological measured parameters apart from partial pressure of oxygen during the arrest which was higher in the NDE group. Conclusions : Memories are rare after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. The majority of those that are reported have features of NDE and are pleasant. The occurrence of NDE during cardiac arrest raises questions about the possible relationship between the mind and the brain. Further large-scale studies are needed to understand the aetiology and true signi?cance of NDE.

  73. 73
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Dave please don’t cherry pick from the data , it doesn’t show that you really are taking this study seriously . You said that one of the interviews was done a year later. The one specific patient was interviewed 3 times and last of the 3 interviews was done a year after, but the first was done much much earlier .

    Yes, that’s consistent with what I said.

    But you brought up cherry-picking, which is another possible critique of this study. There were a handful of cases where patients scored a lot of “hits”, but these were drawn from a much larger pool of participants, and nobody’s talking about the ones that scored mostly “misses”.

  74. 74
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Dave again here is how the protocol for the first interview went . All patients were interviewed within a week of their arrest , not a year later like u are claiming .

    Again, I didn’t say anyone’s first interview was 1 year later. I simply pointed out that one interview was conducted a year after the event.

    The evidence still stands and is compelling . Please now show me how this person could have seen what they saw ?

    I don’t know? If this phenomenon is real and they are able to improve the suspended picture part of the experiment, then we should expect more convincing results in the future.

    This was found by a simple google search Dave . Why is it that I found it and u didn’t ?

    I did find the actual paper and tons of discussion on blogs and various fora, so I think I did find it.

  75. 75
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave that might be true about the pictures , but please tell me why are u hung up on the pictures ?
    Is the fact that he had a veridical nde that was verified as true with no functioning brain just as good as the suspended pictures ! , especially since he had the experiment without a functioning brain ?

    I can’t for the life if me get why this picture thing is so much more solid evidence then the veridical Nde’s that have already been experienced.

  76. 76
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    Because then they can do statistics. Let’s say they choose 4 distinctive pictures to start with. Then for each patient, hide a randomly chosen picture in the room. This could be done double-blind.

    After each procedure, ask each patient which picture was in his or her room. If significantly more than 1/4 correctly identify the picture that was in their room, then you have strong evidence that some sort of nde/out of body experience is happening.

    This would be much more convincing than fishing through patients’ accounts, searching for “hits” after the fact.

    Edit: I do acknowledge that nde’s could occur at too low a rate for this experiment to work with just 4 pictures. In that case, the number of pictures could be increased to decrease the chance of a “hit” by guessing.

  77. 77
    daveS says:

    If the experiment used 20 pictures randomly placed in each patient’s room, then you would expect 140/20 = 7 of the eligible patients to guess the correct picture just by chance. The chance of 12 or more patients guessing correctly is just under 5%. That would be a statistically significant result.

    Now let me stress, I’m no expert on experimental design. This is just why I think this sort of experiment would be more interesting.

  78. 78
    DNA_Jock says:

    wallstreeter writes:

    Dave that might be true about the pictures , but please tell me why are u hung up on the pictures ?
    Is the fact that he had a veridical nde that was verified as true with no functioning brain just as good as the suspended pictures ! , especially since he had the experiment without a functioning brain ?

    Your ‘veridical’ nde consisted of a rather generic description of resuscitation procedures of the sort that are broadcast on TV dramas every single day.
    Your claim that the patient had no functioning brain at the time rests on the assumption that his recollection is perfectly accurate, in particular with regard to the passage of time.

    I can’t for the life if me get why this picture thing is so much more solid evidence then the veridical Nde’s that have already been experienced.

    Because it would unambiguously fit the specification : “information that the patient could not otherwise have obtained”.

    Which none of the veridicals reported to date achieve. Hence the interest in the possibility of, at some point in the future, a category 5 nde that occurred in a room with images on the shelves.

  79. 79
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave I’m all for that , and so is doctor parnia .
    If you go back to his 2010 interview on skeptiko u will notice that alex tsakiris was kind of irked at parnia for saying that he believed that Nde’s were most likely hallucinations caused by a dying brain .

    He no linger feels this way , but the question here Dave is what of they do the sptwist and ten stats so t come the way you want them to come. Does that magically make this example and the thousands of anecdotal examples go away ?

    This leads to my other question , do you need the concept of scientism to be true in order for you to believe all truths including life after death ? Scientism means that the only things we can believe rationally to be true are things that can only be uncovered by science ?

    Parnia said 4 years back that if he didn’t get any good results from the awarr study within 3 years he would abandon the study and go with his original belief that Nde’s are caused by a dying brain.

    It’s 5 years now and he has already applied for funding for aware part 2 .
    What does that tell u Dave ? 😉

    Oh and I also found out something out about the deep brain surge found in rats and a human being in late 2013. It turns out that this deep brain surge has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness . This is when the neurons are de polarizing . This was why when doctor Jeffrey long was interviewed on skeptiko, lomg pulled no punches when he said that this was absolutely the dumbest explanation for the deep brain surge and the doctor who originally sensationalized her research on this quickly back peddled when pressed by alex tsakiris on this ..

  80. 80
    DNA_Jock says:

    wallstreeter43,

    I will give you some credit: you learn from your mistakes.

    When (@35) you re-pasted your bit about Jessice Utts and Richard Wiseman, you had the good sense to omit the citation to the UK Daily Mail. See
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-553899
    (comment 117 on the “Stephen Hawking says intelligent desing of the universe is highly probable” thread)
    for wallstreeter’s original defense of remote viewing.

    I refer readers to my reply at 125 on that thread.

  81. 81
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Sorry DNA jock , anyone that has looked over the descriptions given knows that they weren’t generic . They were very specific . Things such as the nurse being bald even though he was wearing something on his head and other things .

    DNA , you are the perfect example of the hyper skeptic that crossed the boundaries of rationally and logic a long time ago.

    This kind of skepticism works great if your preaching to the choir but once it’s put to scrutiny like alex tsakiris did when he interviewed doctor patricia churchland people like her and you end up looking like the fools that you really are.

    Your type of atheism is not an intellectually based atheism ,,it’s an emotionally based atheism .

    Can we say hardening of the heart ?
    It’s crystal clear .

    But then again I predict in about 30 years or so school kids will be taught about the atheism of our time and kids will be ridiculing it , wondering how anyone could have been so looney to actually hold to this belief.

    A classroom event and nothing more.

    Now DNA jock even though you don’t live your life that way, you may now go an I to your worldview which has no ultimate purpose, no uptime meaning , no ultimate value and no ultimate hope .

    But remember dude that I still love you.
    Come here me give me a big hug man. Everyone needs love , even people with emotional issues 🙂

  82. 82
    DNA_Jock says:

    Wow wallstreeter,

    It entertains me that your bias is so strong that you cannot comprehend the idea that someone who is a deist, not an atheist, could find the evidence for nde’s uncompelling.

    It’s funny: you cannot see that an nder who was able to accurately describe the upper surface of the shelves in the OR (the primary goal of the AWARE study) would be more compelling than this:

    Category 5 recollections
    Recollection # 1
    (Before the cardiac arrest) “I was answering (the nurse), but I could also
    feel a real hard pressure on my groin. I could feel the pressure, couldn’t
    feel the pain or anything like that, just real hard pressure, like someone
    was really pushing down on me. And I was still talking to (the nurse) and
    then all of a sudden, I wasn’t. I must have (blanked out). . ..but then I can
    remember vividly an automated voice saying, “shock the patient, shock
    the patient,” and with that, up in (the) corner of the room there was a
    (woman) beckoning me. . .I can remember thinking to myself, “I can’t get
    up there”. . .she beckoned me. . . I felt that she knew me, I felt that I
    could trust her, and I felt she was there for a reason and I didn’t know
    what that was. . .and the next second, I was up there, looking down at
    me, the nurse, and another man who had a bald head. . .I couldn’t see his
    face but I could see the back of his body. He was quite a chunky fella. . .
    He had blue scrubs on, and he had a blue hat, but I could tell he didn’t
    have any hair, because of where the hat was.
    The next thing I remember is waking up on (the) bed. And (the nurse) said
    to me: “Oh you nodded off. . .you are back with us now.” Whether she
    said those words, whether that automated voice really happened, I don’t
    know. . .. I can remember feeling quite euphoric. . .
    I know who (the man with the blue had was). . .I (didn’t) know his full
    name, but. . .he was the man that. . .(I saw) the next day. . .I saw this
    man [come to visit me] and I knew who I had seen the day before.”
    Post-script – Medical record review confirmed the use of the AED, the
    medical team present during the cardiac arrest and the role the
    identified “man” played in responding to the cardiac arrest.
    Recollection # 2
    “At the beginning, I think, I heard the nurse say ‘dial 444 cardiac arrest’. I
    felt scared. I was on the ceiling looking down. I saw a nurse that I did not
    know beforehand who I saw after the event. I could see my body and
    saw everything at once. I saw my blood pressure being taken whilst the
    doctor was putting something down my throat. I saw a nurse pumping
    on my chest. . .I saw blood gases and blood sugar levels being taken.”

    The interview occurred after he met the bald nurse the next day.

    And it is frankly hilarious that when I first quoted you the above text, you failed to recognize it, despite its being pulled verbatim from the AWARE paper.

    “anyone that has looked over the descriptions given knows that they weren’t generic”
    Uh-huh.

  83. 83
    daveS says:

    wallstreeter43,

    He no linger feels this way , but the question here Dave is what of they do the sptwist and ten stats so t come the way you want them to come. Does that magically make this example and the thousands of anecdotal examples go away ?

    Are you asking what happens if no effect is demonstrated in more rigorous experiments? That wouldn’t make these anecdotes go away, but it would suggest that they aren’t “real” in the sense that some people believe they are.

    This leads to my other question , do you need the concept of scientism to be true in order for you to believe all truths including life after death ? Scientism means that the only things we can believe rationally to be true are things that can only be uncovered by science ?

    If I understand your question, my answer is no. But in this specific case, I don’t see what can substitute for strong empirical evidence. And really, if nde’s are as you and others describe them, it should be possible to show that they exist using science.

  84. 84
    daveS says:

    The interview occurred after he met the bald nurse the next day.

    😮

  85. 85
    wallstreeter43 says:

    The interview occurred after he met the bald nurse the next day.

    And it is frankly hilarious that when I first quoted you the above text, you failed to recognize it, despite its being pulled verbatim from the AWARE paper.

    “anyone that has looked over the descriptions given knows that they weren’t generic”
    Uh-huh.

    Wow DNA atheist jock , and your point is ? I already told u save tahtbthenshrius interview occurred a week after and it was done that way for ethical reasons . I know I know atheist jock , the patient made it up or was lying right !

    It’s amazing that you actually think that it made a difference bit because you are an atheist and not a deist as you keep trying to fool us into believing I think we can trust the patient hete .

  86. 86
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Dave, instead of pointing that out to atheist jock who is more atheistic than u are , you give him a great big smile for his non factor post .

    What I can’t believe are the stats that come out every year saying that atheists are the. It’s hated and distrusted group of people on earth .

    I can’t for the life of me understand why this is 😉

    Can you save ?
    Lol

    I know, the whole world is jealous and they are the brites. Of course atheists are the brites of the world . If you don’t believe it just ask them 😉

Leave a Reply