Survival

[Mark Tetzner]

BK just posted this on his fb-page. Where and when did this win an award?
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winnin ... 8yUA8cIh7Y

[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.)

[Jim Cross]

BK just posted this on his fb-page. Where and when did this win an award?
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winnin ... 8yUA8cIh7Y

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.

[Mark Tetzner]

BK just posted this on his fb-page. Where and when did this win an award?
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winnin ... 8yUA8cIh7Y

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...

[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.

[Soul_of_Shu]

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.

[Eugene I]

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

[Jim Cross]

BK just posted this on his fb-page. Where and when did this win an award?
https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/Winnin ... 8yUA8cIh7Y

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.

[Eugene I]

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

[Jim Cross]

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"