Page 1 of 7
Survival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:24 am
by Mark Tetzner
BK just posted this on his fb-page. Where and when did this win an award?
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winnin ... 8yUA8cIh7Y
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:53 am
by Martin_
I would like to know that too. And also: only in facebook? Not even on his own site? Really? maybe it's "coming soon".
2nd edit: it has the letterhead of Essentia Foundation. Can't find it on their site either, I am assuming that it will show up there soon enough.
3rd edit: here is the contest
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php
4th edit: I'm actually skipping his article for the moment, and reading the winner: Jeffrey Mishlove!! (His essay is worth 10x more than Bernardos, at least if you look at the award amount.)
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:43 pm
by Jim Cross
Seems like just a reworking of old and familiar ideas.
He still seems to miss the fact that psychedelic experiences can
seem intense and expansive while certain aspects of brain activity can appear reduced (while others may appear increased). This also overlooks the observations relating to meditators showing stronger and more synchronous activity.
No clear conception of what survives after disassociation ends that makes postmortem survival in any way meaningful.
The rest of it is just reworking of the usual critiques against physicalism. The ultimate problem is that even if you disprove physicalism that doesn't by itself prove anything else including survival after death.
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:58 pm
by Mark Tetzner
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:43 pm
Seems like just a reworking of old and familiar ideas.
He still seems to miss the fact that psychedelic experiences can
seem intense and expansive while certain aspects of brain activity can appear reduced (while others may appear increased). This also overlooks the observations relating to meditators showing stronger and more synchronous activity.
No clear conception of what survives after disassociation ends that makes postmortem survival in any way meaningful.
The rest of it is just reworking of the usual critiques against physicalism. The ultimate problem is that even if you disprove physicalism that doesn't by itself prove anything else including survival after death.
you are more than just a philosopher you are a real critic pointing at his shortcomings...
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:47 pm
by Martin_
Mishlove (
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/docs/1st.pdf ) , p96:
We hide from our own deepest identity when
we postulate that consciousness is
extinguished with the death of the body –
resulting in a severe gap in our capacity for
self-knowledge.
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:21 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
Martin_ wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:53 am
I would like to know that too. And also: only in facebook? Not even on his own site? Really? maybe it's "coming soon".
2nd edit: it has the letterhead of Essentia Foundation. Can't find it on their site either, I am assuming that it will show up there soon enough.
3rd edit: here is the contest
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php
4th edit: I'm actually skipping his article for the moment, and reading the winner: Jeffrey Mishlove!! (His essay is worth 10x more than Bernardos, at least if you look at the award amount.)
Yeah, BK's essay was awarded one of 11 'runner-up' prizes, aside from the top 3, Mishlove's getting top prize. Curiously, in the 'reading' section of the Essentia site, not one of the essays/papers published there was written by Bernardo. Presumably he's the curator who decides what gets published there, and so that may preclude publishing his own pieces—other than those attributed to 'The editors', which likely includes him.
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:25 pm
by Eugene I
Martin_ wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:53 am
I'm actually skipping his article for the moment, and reading the winner: Jeffrey Mishlove!! (His essay is worth 10x more than Bernardos, at least if you look at the award amount.)
me too
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:27 pm
by Jim Cross
Mark Tetzner wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:58 pm
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:43 pm
Seems like just a reworking of old and familiar ideas.
He still seems to miss the fact that psychedelic experiences can
seem intense and expansive while certain aspects of brain activity can appear reduced (while others may appear increased). This also overlooks the observations relating to meditators showing stronger and more synchronous activity.
No clear conception of what survives after disassociation ends that makes postmortem survival in any way meaningful.
The rest of it is just reworking of the usual critiques against physicalism. The ultimate problem is that even if you disprove physicalism that doesn't by itself prove anything else including survival after death.
you are more than just a philosopher you are a real critic pointing at his shortcomings...
Has BK run out of gas? Everything he writes seems to be reworkings of a few ideas he had five or ten years ago.
It also seems to be fundamentally misunderstanding what science does. Science establishes facts then develops models and descriptions that allow predictions. There is no established fact relating to life after death. There is a conjecture that is probably more wishful thinking than anything else. BK's evidence from science even at taken at face value and without criticism can't prove an unestablished fact. Science begins with facts. You don't start with an unproven conjecture and find facts to support it.
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:30 pm
by Eugene I
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:27 pm
It also seems to be fundamentally misunderstanding what science does. Science establishes facts then develops models and descriptions that allow predictions. There is no established fact relating to life after death. There is a conjecture that is probably more wishful thinking than anything else. BK's evidence from science even at taken at face value and without criticism can't prove an unestablished fact. Science begins with facts. You don't start with an unproven conjecture and find facts to support it.
That's right.
It's just that not everything in life is reducible to science
Re: survivival
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:52 pm
by Jim Cross
Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:30 pm
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 3:27 pm
It also seems to be fundamentally misunderstanding what science does. Science establishes facts then develops models and descriptions that allow predictions. There is no established fact relating to life after death. There is a conjecture that is probably more wishful thinking than anything else. BK's evidence from science even at taken at face value and without criticism can't prove an unestablished fact. Science begins with facts. You don't start with an unproven conjecture and find facts to support it.
That's right.
It's just that not everything in life is reducible to science
Right. I can agree with that but BK's title is: "A rational, empirical case for postmortem survival based
solely on mainstream science"