Susan Blackmore: Scientific Evidence and the Near-Death Experience

[ParadoxZone]

Jim,

Sure, self being a delusion or illusion, ok. Nothing original there.

Funnily enough, I had to refine my search this time as the site didn't appear on the first couple of pages.

Here's a link, and just go to the controversy section.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... -blackmore

This description is very polite compared to other accounts I have seen, a long time ago. She had to walk back some claims publicly.

Of course, her later work might be totally legit.

[AshvinP]

The comments so far have been rather bizarre.

She is a scientist not a philosopher but the only criticisms so far have been on philosophical grounds whereas the topic of the interview is the science of near death experiences.

Hedge

Qualia? Really you expect her to solve that to be able about to talk about NDEs.

SOS

It seems she might be more correctly defined as a "dellusionist".

Frankish asks why the illusion of phenomenality is so powerful. I would ask the related, but different, question of why this deluded theorising is so tempting and so powerful. The answer, I suggest, is amusingly simple, if counter-intuitive. Ask yourself this question:

‘Am I conscious now?’

It's really simple, Jim. A scientist who is unconsciously guided (or more accurately, possessed) by philosophical-metaphysical worldview and axioms, as clearly Blackmore is by mystical materialism, is going to reach all the wrong conclusions from her research, or if she somehow arrives at a relatively accurate conclusion it would be pure luck. They are only useful to provide the empirical results of that research to others who are more conscious of their Thinking activity and participatory role in the phenomenon being studied, which admittedly is very few people now, and should step away when it comes to making any conclusions about what the results mean.

[Jim Cross]

Jim,

Sure, self being a delusion or illusion, ok. Nothing original there.

Funnily enough, I had to refine my search this time as the site didn't appear on the first couple of pages.

Here's a link, and just go to the controversy section.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... -blackmore

This description is very polite compared to other accounts I have seen, a long time ago. She had to walk back some claims publicly.

Of course, her later work might be totally legit.

Thanks. It seems like some old controversies. Her paper criticizing Sargent's research is here and the abstract only concludes that Sargent's results should be viewed with caution. Whether Sargent's accusations have any merit, there isn't any way to judge.

https://www.susanblackmore.uk/articles/ ... aboratory/

The link to Berger's critique doesn't work so it is difficult to evaluate it. Of course, "good" paranormal researchers can almost always tease out some statistical significance in data.

None of that has much to do with the youtube interview on NDEs.

[Jim Cross]

The comments so far have been rather bizarre.

She is a scientist not a philosopher but the only criticisms so far have been on philosophical grounds whereas the topic of the interview is the science of near death experiences.

Hedge

Qualia? Really you expect her to solve that to be able about to talk about NDEs.

SOS

It seems she might be more correctly defined as a "dellusionist".

Frankish asks why the illusion of phenomenality is so powerful. I would ask the related, but different, question of why this deluded theorising is so tempting and so powerful. The answer, I suggest, is amusingly simple, if counter-intuitive. Ask yourself this question:

‘Am I conscious now?’

It's really simple, Jim. A scientist who is unconsciously guided (or more accurately, possessed) by philosophical-metaphysical worldview and axioms, as clearly Blackmore is by mystical materialism, is going to reach all the wrong conclusions from her research, or if she somehow arrives at a relatively accurate conclusion it would be pure luck. They are only useful to provide the empirical results of that research to others who are more conscious of their Thinking activity and participatory role in the phenomenon being studied, which admittedly is very few people now, and should step away when it comes to making any conclusions about what the results mean.

How do you know that her philosophical-metaphysical worldview is unconscious?

But I doubt anyone can reach your high standards of Thinking, Ashvin. We should all just give up and accept what you say. It is much too hard for us to think about such difficult things ourselves.

[AshvinP]

The comments so far have been rather bizarre.

She is a scientist not a philosopher but the only criticisms so far have been on philosophical grounds whereas the topic of the interview is the science of near death experiences.

Hedge

Qualia? Really you expect her to solve that to be able about to talk about NDEs.

SOS

It seems she might be more correctly defined as a "dellusionist".

Frankish asks why the illusion of phenomenality is so powerful. I would ask the related, but different, question of why this deluded theorising is so tempting and so powerful. The answer, I suggest, is amusingly simple, if counter-intuitive. Ask yourself this question:

‘Am I conscious now?’

It's really simple, Jim. A scientist who is unconsciously guided (or more accurately, possessed) by philosophical-metaphysical worldview and axioms, as clearly Blackmore is by mystical materialism, is going to reach all the wrong conclusions from her research, or if she somehow arrives at a relatively accurate conclusion it would be pure luck. They are only useful to provide the empirical results of that research to others who are more conscious of their Thinking activity and participatory role in the phenomenon being studied, which admittedly is very few people now, and should step away when it comes to making any conclusions about what the results mean.

How do you know that her philosophical-metaphysical worldview is unconscious?

But I doubt anyone can reach your high standards of Thinking, Ashvin. We should all just give up and accept what you say. It is much too hard for us to think about such difficult things ourselves.

Does she call herself a "mystical materialist"? She has simply taken materialism and grafted it onto a very shallow mysticism, which is all too common in recent years. I am just highlighting what others have already expressed and ever psychologist or observer of human thinking process knows, there is nothing very insightful about it. But apparently you find it very hard to accept.

[Jim Cross]

It's really simple, Jim. A scientist who is unconsciously guided (or more accurately, possessed) by philosophical-metaphysical worldview and axioms, as clearly Blackmore is by mystical materialism, is going to reach all the wrong conclusions from her research, or if she somehow arrives at a relatively accurate conclusion it would be pure luck. They are only useful to provide the empirical results of that research to others who are more conscious of their Thinking activity and participatory role in the phenomenon being studied, which admittedly is very few people now, and should step away when it comes to making any conclusions about what the results mean.

How do you know that her philosophical-metaphysical worldview is unconscious?

But I doubt anyone can reach your high standards of Thinking, Ashvin. We should all just give up and accept what you say. It is much too hard for us to think about such difficult things ourselves.

Does she call herself a "mystical materialist"? She has simply taken materialism and grafted it onto a very shallow mysticism, which is all too common in recent years. I am just highlighting what others have already expressed and ever psychologist or observer of human thinking process knows, there is nothing very insightful about it. But apparently you find it very hard to accept.

That would be conscious, wouldn't it? Not unconscious as you stated.

How do you judge it to be shallow? On what basis. Why is yours deep and insightful? Judge not...

[AshvinP]

How do you know that her philosophical-metaphysical worldview is unconscious?

But I doubt anyone can reach your high standards of Thinking, Ashvin. We should all just give up and accept what you say. It is much too hard for us to think about such difficult things ourselves.

Does she call herself a "mystical materialist"? She has simply taken materialism and grafted it onto a very shallow mysticism, which is all too common in recent years. I am just highlighting what others have already expressed and ever psychologist or observer of human thinking process knows, there is nothing very insightful about it. But apparently you find it very hard to accept.

That would be conscious, wouldn't it? Not unconscious as you stated.

How do you judge it to be shallow? On what basis. Why is yours deep and insightful? Judge not...

Jim, the entire motivation behind BK idealism here is to counteract shallow, mostly unconscious materialism of modern Western culture, as you already know. I think its unconcious in her case because she does not explicitly acknowledge this axiomatic influence, and I think I remember her explicitly denying it in a debate with Peterson. But, conscious or unconscious, most everyone here thinks materialism is shallow and mysticism which takes materialist concepts and substitutes mystical terms for them is just as shallow in my view.

[Jim Cross]

Does she call herself a "mystical materialist"? She has simply taken materialism and grafted it onto a very shallow mysticism, which is all too common in recent years. I am just highlighting what others have already expressed and ever psychologist or observer of human thinking process knows, there is nothing very insightful about it. But apparently you find it very hard to accept.

That would be conscious, wouldn't it? Not unconscious as you stated.

How do you judge it to be shallow? On what basis. Why is yours deep and insightful? Judge not...

Jim, the entire motivation behind BK idealism here is to counteract shallow, mostly unconscious materialism of modern Western culture, as you already know. I think its unconcious in her case because she does not explicitly acknowledge this axiomatic influence, and I think I remember her explicitly denying it in a debate with Peterson. But, conscious or unconscious, most everyone here thinks materialism is shallow and mysticism which takes materialist concepts and substitutes mystical terms for them is just as shallow in my view.

I don't think materialism is shallow. On the contrary idealism is shallow. Materialism provides a complex view with much still not understood. Idealism just provides a superficial, unthinking one.

[Jim Cross]

One of the things I learned from this interview that I didn't know was about the spike in electrical activity found just before death in humans.

I knew this spike had been detected in rats but didn't know it had been detected in humans.

I managed to track down the study that Blackmore mentions.

In each case, loss of blood pressure, as monitored by indwelling arterial line, was followed by a decline is BIS/PSI activity followed by a transient spike in BIS/PSI activity that approached levels normally associated with consciousness.

We further speculate that since this increase in electrical activity occurred when there was no discernable blood pressure, patients who suffer "near death" experiences may be recalling the aggregate memory of the synaptic activity associated with this terminal but potentially reversible hypoxemia.

These spikes are temporally associated with the loss of measurable blood pressure, and immediately after the spike, the BIS/PSI signal drop to zero and the patient is soon pronounced dead. The BIS spikes last for a few minutes at maximum, but usually last between 30–180 seconds.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jpm.2009.0159

[AshvinP]

That would be conscious, wouldn't it? Not unconscious as you stated.

How do you judge it to be shallow? On what basis. Why is yours deep and insightful? Judge not...

Jim, the entire motivation behind BK idealism here is to counteract shallow, mostly unconscious materialism of modern Western culture, as you already know. I think its unconcious in her case because she does not explicitly acknowledge this axiomatic influence, and I think I remember her explicitly denying it in a debate with Peterson. But, conscious or unconscious, most everyone here thinks materialism is shallow and mysticism which takes materialist concepts and substitutes mystical terms for them is just as shallow in my view.

I don't think materialism is shallow. On the contrary idealism is shallow. Materialism provides a complex view with much still not understood. Idealism just provides a superficial, unthinking one.

They are both shallow when informed by modern prejudices of rationalism, dualism and materialsm. The shallow idealism and mysticism is that way because they adopted materialism, usually without knowing. Materialism has the added shallowness of not even being plausible to any thinking mind.