Bruce Greyson and his woo

[Shen1986]

Here is the woo of Bruce Greyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

[Shen1986]

Here is the whole woo info I have found on Bruce Greyson. I first wanted it to use it in a Rationalwiki page but the others have decided against it because it was inconsistent but they changed their page about it a little bit with the criticism of the book he helped to write:

Here is the whole stuff:

Hi I already posted this in the Bruce Greyson web-page but it was deleted because it was inconsistent. Here is the rundown what I found and someone could add it if he knows how it would make sense:


In the book Irreducible Mind. The authors of the book are reviving a 20th century old form of dualism. The main goal of Irreducible Mind is to propose the theory of Frederic W.H. Myers William James who both were deeply studying psychical phenomena and religion. Its not suprising that the name William James pops up because William James is a central figure in Transpersonal psychology which is full of woo and New Age stuff. The same goes for Frederic W.H. Myers who also helped to develop Transpersonal psychology teachings.

Here are the link to the above written:

http://www.hoje.org.br/site/arq/artigos ... JNMD08.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningh ... hology.pdf

Bruce Greyson is also one of the first members of International Association of Near-Death Studies which continues the work of Raymond Moody:

http://iands.org/about-iands/history.html#founders-page


Bruce Greyson as a follower of Raymond Moody, believes that the mind is not created by the brain or other stuff that can be considered woo like memories of past lives like is written in his abstract in the Conference " Cosmology and Consciousness: A Dialog Between Buddhist Scholars and Scientists on Mind and Matter" in Dharamsala, India, where he was talking about "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain? This happened in December 16-18, 2011:

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinic ... India3.pdf


Dr. Greyson is also associated with a woo organization called Esalen Institute where he had a conference about his book Irreducible Minds, Pam Reynolds NDE and other woo stuff in the years 1998 till 2010:

http://www.esalen.org/sites/default/fil ... atives.pdf

Dr. Steven Novella a known neuroscientist and skeptic disagrees with Dr. Greyson on the matters of Near Death Experience and Dr. Steven Novella is saying that Dr. Greyson is engaging in motivated reasoning:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-p ... -ndes.html

The whole criticism of Dr. Greyson is on the The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast of October 15th, 2011 where Dr. Steven Novella is claiming thanks to the conclusions that Dr. Greyson drew from Near-Death Experiences that Dr. Greyson has a agenda. It about him at 10:00 our around that in the podcast:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/326

Dr. Greyson also works on Kundalini and the Kundalini syndrome where he has developed a The Physio-Kundalini Syndrome Index. The Kundalini syndrome is a fringe theory and a part of transpersonal psychology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini_syndrome


Also here Dr. Bruce Greyson is talking about some more woo stuff - which many have been already debunked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

Also he worked on Terminal lucidity- this has been debunked:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Nahm2011.pdf http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Na ... 42-944.pdf


Also he works in a woo division based by Ian Stevenson:

As founder and director of the university's Division of Perceptual Studies, which investigates the paranormal, Stevenson became known internationally for his research into reincarnation, the idea that emotions, memories, and even physical injuries in the form of birthmarks, can be transferred from one life to another.[2]

Its from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Bruc ... info_found

You can tell me what you think..

[kennyc]

Here is the woo of Bruce Greyson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

It doesn't "Seem as if" the mind and brain are the same thing, they are the same thing....intimately and directly the same thing as proven by all science that has investigated it.

[Eric D R]

Well, by calling every idea that Bruce Greyson supports "woo", you make it easier to disregard all of it in your mind. To do so is also unfortunately reminiscent of the habits of propagandists who lump everything about their enemies together under one common pejorative term. I am not saying that any of Greyson's beliefs are supported by empirical evidence (nor am I saying that none of them are, cause i don't know), but I do object to offhandedly referring to everything that isn't supported by empirical evidence as "woo" and dismissing its importance automatically in so doing.

**Edit: I am rethinking this comment. I still don't like the idea of lump dismissal of a whole range of ideas by categorizing them under a pejorative term, but perhaps Greyson's various ideas do indeed generally fit the working definition of "woo" as described below.

[Eric D R]

Here's how the Skeptic's Dictionary defines woo:

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Here's a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

I suppose that the term came from the sound an audience makes when watching a magician or a faith healer or any charlatan. It implies undue credulousness and gullibility. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the authors of "Irreducible Mind" or researchers like Ian Stevenson associated with DOPS at U of Virginia are irrational (at least not based on their writings), but perhaps you could indeed say that their ideas are based on flimsy evidence or appeal to occult forces.

[Shen1986]

Well, by calling every idea that Bruce Greyson supports "woo", you make it easier to disregard all of it in your mind. To do so is also unfortunately reminiscent of the habits of propagandists who lump everything about their enemies together under one common pejorative term. I am not saying that any of Greyson's beliefs are supported by empirical evidence (nor am I saying that none of them are, cause i don't know), but I do object to offhandedly referring to everything that isn't supported by empirical evidence as "woo" and dismissing its importance automatically in so doing.

**Edit: I am rethinking this comment. I still don't like the idea of lump dismissal of a whole range of ideas by categorizing them under a pejorative term, but perhaps Greyson's various ideas do indeed generally fit the working definition of "woo" as described below.

I am watching people like Sam Parnia, Bruce Greyson and Tucker for a long time. They work for NDEs in the interpretation of Raymond Moody. Sorry that I wrote it soo but after many years of research into this when I was a believer in the past. I came to the conclusion that these people propagate woo of the highest caliber because they make a living out of it and it pays up. Therefore its all woo and when you took your time to listen to the youtube video then you will see what I am talking about. He to this day claims that the mind is a separated entity of the brain. To this day he has brought no evidence and has even made a study similar to AWARE which produced tada - nothing..

He is a wooist nothing more or less because after he would fail he would come to the conclusion that we all tried but nothing came out of it but no NDEs are to this day a part of science. I am not saying that its bad but parapsychologist had their time its now time to look in a biological explanation.

[Shen1986]

Here's how the Skeptic's Dictionary defines woo:

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Here's a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

I suppose that the term came from the sound an audience makes when watching a magician or a faith healer or any charlatan. It implies undue credulousness and gullibility. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the authors of "Irreducible Mind" or researchers like Ian Stevenson associated with DOPS at U of Virginia are irrational (at least not based on their writings), but perhaps you could indeed say that their ideas are based on flimsy evidence or appeal to occult forces.

Look again in the skeptic dictionary on Ian Stevenson and on wikipedia and then you will get it. These people had years to prove their hypothesis and to this day nothing has changed. What these people are doing is collecting bed time stories for little children and the religious believers.

[Eric D R]

I don't think parapsychology makes much money. From what I can see, it's a marginalized field that doesn't get much funding, and a medical doctor like Sam Parnia or a psychiatrist like Jim Tucker would probably make a lot more money for their efforts and time by simply practicing their professions than by doing parapsychological research. Even writing and selling books doesn't pay much (especially considering the time it takes), unless you write a best seller. I think that what motivates these guys is more likely to be that they simply really want to believe that there is survival of consciousness.

It seems to me like they make at least nominal efforts to be objective in their research and analysis. They certainly write and express themselves as though that is their intention, and Ian Stevenson has been lauded even by some skeptics for considering and discussing more normal explanations than reincarnation and for being willing to doubt his own conclusions. Nonetheless, underneath it all may well be a simple desire to find evidence for survival. And if they can't find empirical evidence, they'll work very hard to collect as much anecdotal evidence as possible.

[Daedalus]

I don't think parapsychology makes much money. From what I can see, it's a marginalized field that doesn't get much funding, and a medical doctor like Sam Parnia or a psychiatrist like Jim Tucker would probably make a lot more money for their efforts and time by simply practicing their professions than by doing parapsychological research. Even writing and selling books doesn't pay much (especially considering the time it takes), unless you write a best seller. I think that what motivates these guys is more likely to be that they simply really want to believe that there is survival of consciousness.

It seems to me like they make at least nominal efforts to be objective in their research and analysis. They certainly write and express themselves as though that is their intention, and Ian Stevenson has been lauded even by some skeptics for considering and discussing more normal explanations than reincarnation and for being willing to doubt his own conclusions. Nonetheless, underneath it all may well be a simple desire to find evidence for survival. And if they can't find empirical evidence, they'll work very hard to collect as much anecdotal evidence as possible.

It's important to remember that money is only a part of MICE.

Money
Ideology
(C doesn't really apply in this)
Ego

[Shen1986]

I don't think parapsychology makes much money. From what I can see, it's a marginalized field that doesn't get much funding, and a medical doctor like Sam Parnia or a psychiatrist like Jim Tucker would probably make a lot more money for their efforts and time by simply practicing their professions than by doing parapsychological research. Even writing and selling books doesn't pay much (especially considering the time it takes), unless you write a best seller. I think that what motivates these guys is more likely to be that they simply really want to believe that there is survival of consciousness.

It doesn't pay up?:

Chester Carlson (1906–1968), the inventor of xerography, offered further financial help. Tucker writes that this allowed Stevenson to step down as chair of the psychiatry department and set up a separate division within the department, which he called the Division of Personality Studies, later renamed the Division of Perceptual Studies.[20] When Carlson died in 1968 he left $1 million to the University of Virginia to continue Stevenson's work. The bequest caused controversy within the university because of the nature of the research, but the donation was accepted and Stevenson became the first Carlson Professor of Psychiatry.[21]

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Esalen is pretty good at it too even Michael Shermer said its a very good and comfortable place:

Esalen Institute, commonly just called Esalen, is a residential community and retreat center in Big Sur, California, which focuses upon humanistic alternative education. Esalen is a nonprofit organization devoted to activities such as personal growth, meditation, massage, Gestalt, yoga, psychology, ecology, spirituality, and organic food. The institute offers more than 500 public workshops a year, in addition to conferences, research initiatives, residential work-study programs, and internships.[1]

Esalen was founded by Michael Murphy and Dick Price in 1962. Their goal was to explore work in the humanities and sciences, in order to fully realize what Aldous Huxley had called the "human potentialities".[2] Michael Murphy expands on Huxley's influence on California's cultural history in the 2010 documentary, "Huxley on Huxley".[3] Esalen soon became known for its blend of Eastern and Western philosophies, examined in experiential and didactic workshops. Over the years Esalen hosted a notable influx of philosophers, physicists, psychologists, artists, and religious thinkers.

Esalen is situated on 120 acres[4] of Big Sur coast, where the Santa Lucia Mountains rise sharply above the Pacific Ocean.[5] The grounds were once home to a Native American tribe known as the Esselen, from which the institute got its name.[6] This location also is a Monarch butterfly wintering site. A key feature of the site is its cliff-side natural hot spring baths.[7] The property is divided by Hot Springs Canyon. Hot Springs Creek serves as a freshwater source, along with underground springs.[8]

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute

This institute which is a think-tank for Bruce Greyson is a luxury...

Sam Parnia is going to make the AWARE study more longer. Where does he get the money for this? If it doesn't pay up??

Eben Alexander selled his book into a bestseller and has enough money to stop doing a neurosurgeon and wants to propagate NDEs as a proof of afterlife. Where he does his money get from if it doesn't pay up?

It seems to me like they make at least nominal efforts to be objective in their research and analysis. They certainly write and express themselves as though that is their intention, and Ian Stevenson has been lauded even by some skeptics for considering and discussing more normal explanations than reincarnation and for being willing to doubt his own conclusions. Nonetheless, underneath it all may well be a simple desire to find evidence for survival. And if they can't find empirical evidence, they'll work very hard to collect as much anecdotal evidence as possible.

Maybe but they have a agenda and they are possessed with this agenda. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence and mostly will be dismissed the more we learn about the brain and that we create our memories and NOT record them into our brain.

See here:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... s-sort-of/

[Eric D R]

I think you're looking at some different things here, Shen. Of course there is some money in the New Age religious scene. There's always money in religion. Eben Alexander's book has been a top seller because it easily appeals to the religiously minded mainstream out there. I don't know who donates to Esalen, but it sounds likely to be the same kinds of reasons why any religious or spiritual center gets funding (wealthy people who want to feel the hope and happiness it's offering). But as for Ian Stevenson and other DOPS people, as well as parapsychology in general, that's a lot more dry and unglamorous and unsupported by the mainstream or the happy-seeking hippies and yuppies turned ruppies. The one million dollars you cited above for his research is basically scraps. That amount of money doesn't go very far in a university program doing academic research and paying for travel expenses to go do fieldwork. As for Sam Parnia, his books don't appear to be huge sellers and I don't think he's appealing to the religious New Age scene, so I am skeptical that money is his major motivation if it's a motivation at all for him. If he is getting money, he's probably using it to fund the AWARE study not getting personally rich from it. If he were really after the dollars, he'd be writing stuff like Eben Alexander's book.

[Shen1986]

But as for Ian Stevenson and other DOPS people, as well as parapsychology in general, that's a lot more dry and unglamorous and unsupported by the mainstream or the happy-seeking hippies and yuppies turned ruppies. The one million dollars you cited above for his research is basically scraps.

Agree on that 1 million is little but Bruce Greyson has a agenda and I think that the money is there. He is following Raymond Moody and works with Esalen Institute - because Esalen allowed them to have a conference there many times. As for Dr. Greyson for his work he is very popular in the New Age world.. Several people cite him also Dr. Eben Alexander:

He proceeded to elucidate the Hard Problem of Consciousness (that current neuroscience has not the remotest idea how the physical brain might give rise to consciousness), numerous non-local aspects of consciousness (that humans can know information far beyond the ken of their physical senses, as explained in great detail in the book Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the Twenty-first Century, by Edward F Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gauld, Michael Grosso and Bruce Greyson, 2007), and the enigma of the interpretation of quantum mechanics as supporting his conclusion of the primary existence of consciousness, which then generates the rest of reality. He argues that this "filter theory" of consciousness, which goes back to the work of Carl Jung, William James and Frederic W.H. Myers, makes more sense in explaining his odyssey in coma, as well as so many other similar experiences of extraordinary consciousness, than his older conventional neuroscientific idea that the brain creates consciousness.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)

That amount of money doesn't go very far in a university program doing academic research and paying for travel expenses to go do fieldwork.

To be precise Greyson is not doing so much field work.. He only writes woo stuff and looks into other books. If you mind that field work is a conference in India then I doubt that because India who invited him payed his expenses for the conference..

Sam Parnia believe it or not. Is a huge plus for the New Age scene just take a look at Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris who believes every word that Parnia is telling.. Also others who fanatically believe in NDEs take him as their new guru and don't even skeptically think about that he is saying old stuff and some strange things.
However true Sam Parnia is after fame and after reading a parts of his book after hope that he will be with his father again who lost consciousness and died in vegetative state..

[Shen1986]

Also Eric parapsychology is with us from 1882(if you do not count cults and religions that also claimed ghosts and souls then its almost from the beginning of the human race):

The Society for Psychical Research (SPR) was founded in London in 1882. The formation of the SPR was the first systematic effort to organize scientists and scholars for a critical and sustained investigation of paranormal phenomena.

So far it has produced tada - nothing... Even some scientist claim this:

Critics state that methodological flaws can explain any apparent experimental successes[12] and the status of parapsychology as a science has been vigorously disputed.[13] Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience, saying that parapsychologists continue investigation despite not having demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research.[14][15][16]

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

So what its good for? It had so many years and it produced nothing but other science fields have produced a major things - neuroscience has allowed us(and continues) to look into the brain or has given us new brainwaves technology. Other science fields like physics have produced and are producing more and more knowledge of the world.

And where is parapsychology? Has it brought something? No.. It can even not define what a ethereal soul is - some parapsychologist claims it can function like a TV set which is ridiculous. Some claim it can even bleed blood. Some claim that the soul has many layers of itself - like there is the mind, soul, part of the soul is your relative etc.. To this day parapsychology was not even able to define what PSI is or where did it come from. Therefore it is a lost cause. I know I cannot prove the negative but there is no to little hope for this..

Parapsychology has became religion and is in the same category because its also full of lies, liars and no one even knows how to define things. They had their time to prove they are worthy but to this day. They came empty handed and the more we learn about the world thanks to physics and neuroscience the more it become obvious that there never was PSI or a soul to begin with..

The whole PSI and soul business was to give people hope that there is something after death and also for some to make a living and become rich - like priests.. This is why it was created and people then began to make more and more paranormal claims from gods, humans to aliens.. Like we were haunted by ghosts now we are haunted by aliens. Like we were first created by gods, now we are created by a universal consciousness etc..

Religion evolves like fantasy evolves thanks to our normal scientific knowledge. Parapsychology first knew nothing about Quantum mechanics but now they use it as woo to make their hypothesis plausible like it was made by Tucker or Greyson(he is referring to it in his youtube video):

Although critics have argued there is no physical explanation for the survival of personality, Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another.[8][9] He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, consciousness may not be merely a by-product of the physical brain but rather a separate entity in the universe that impinges on the physical. Tucker argues that viewing consciousness as a fundamental, non-physical, part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the physical brain.[26] He provides the analogy of a television set and the television transmission; the television is required to decode the signal, but it does not create the signal. In a similar way the brain may be required for consciousness to express itself, but may not be the source of consciousness. [27] On the other hand Susan Huelga, a lecturer in quantum mechanics at the University Of Hertfordshire, notes that brain dynamics are highly complex, and she finds that there is no more evidence that quantum mechanics is relevant in this field than that it is relevant regarding whether or not God exists.[28]

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker

[Shen1986]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU

He(Greyson) is talking about his book Irreducible Mind:

-He is saying that his book is full of facts that destroys materialism..
-He is saying that clinicians are like engineers who only desire that it should work and scientist needs a theory and explanation. Greyson is saying that clinicians are better then scientists because scientists require a theory that will make them understand what is what. Greyson with this line has said that he is open for woo and doesnt care about theories. He cares only that it works..
- He is even saying about the TV antenna analogy..

He is full of woo.

[Shen1986]

Greysons reply about OBEs when came a study with evidence that OBEs are produced by the brain:

"We do not fully understand the neurological mechanism that causes OBEs," conceded the study's lead researcher, neurologist Dr. Olaf Blanke at the University Hospitals of Geneva and Lausanne in Switzerland.

Neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson of the University of Virginia said the experiment does not necessarily prove that all OBEs are illusions. He said it is possible that some OBEs occur in different ways than the scientists suspect.

"We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions," replied University of Virginia neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson.

The Swiss researchers mapped the brain activity of a 43-year old woman who had been experiencing seizures for 11 years. They implanted electrodes to stimulate portions of her brain's right temporal lobe. The temporal lobe, which includes the angular gyrus structure, is associated with perception of sound, touch, memory and speech. Blanke suspects that the right angular gyrus integrates signals from the visual system, as well as information on touch and balance. When electrical stimulation was applied, the patient reported seeing herself lying in bed, from above, but I only see my legs and lower trunk." She also described herself as floating near the ceiling.

His answer is woo gold:

"We cannot assume from the fact that electrical stimulation of the brain can induce OBE-like illusions that all OBEs are therefore illusions," replied University of Virginia neurologist Dr. Bruce Greyson.

Taken from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers07.html

[Eric D R]

I'll be gone for the weekend til tuesday. I'll reply then. Thanks.

[kennyc]

I'll be gone for the weekend til tuesday. I'll reply then. Thanks.

Are you having an Out of Body Experience?

[Eric D R]

Shen, you posted a lot of stuff above (as you usually do), so it's hard to address all of it, but I read it all and thot about it and watched the video link. Here are some things I can reply to:

And where is parapsychology? Has it brought something? No.. It can even not define what a ethereal soul is - some parapsychologist claims it can function like a TV set which is ridiculous. Some claim it can even bleed blood. Some claim that the soul has many layers of itself - like there is the mind, soul, part of the soul is your relative etc.. To this day parapsychology was not even able to define what PSI is or where did it come from. Therefore it is a lost cause. I know I cannot prove the negative but there is no to little hope for this..

I see your point. In parapsychology, there's a lot of theorizing and speculating about things that haven't been shown to exist in any physical sense. I have read "Irreducible Mind", and most of its ideas about the mind could be seen as an exploitation of gaps in scientific knowledge.
...

The whole PSI and soul business was to give people hope that there is something after death and also for some to make a living and become rich - like priests.. This is why it was created and people then began to make more and more paranormal claims from gods, humans to aliens.. Like we were haunted by ghosts now we are haunted by aliens. Like we were first created by gods, now we are created by a universal consciousness etc..

I think it's much older than that, Shen. We can find evidence of spiritual beliefs and practices going back to some of the oldest human societies researched by anthropologists. For most human societies, even primitive societies, it has been assumed that there is some sort of afterlife or spiritual dimension of reality that humans interact with. I think this is more likely to be due to naturally occurring experiences that humans have always had with psychadelic plants and as a result of lucid dreams or trance states. Organized religion, with its focus on political power and control, came much later and more recently in human history.

Religion evolves like fantasy evolves thanks to our normal scientific knowledge. Parapsychology first knew nothing about Quantum mechanics but now they use it as woo to make their hypothesis plausible

I agree with your statement about religion evolving its ideas to adapt to scientific developments. There is no question about this. I think there's a book titled something like "The Evolution of God" which looks at this issue. But your point about parapsychology and quantum mechanics is something I don't really agree with. Since parapsychology had ideas about the mind that were based on observations of people's thoughts and subjective experiences, but didn't have a physical mechanism to explain those observations, it is not unreasonable for them to look for such mechanisms among the findings of physics.

[Daedalus]

Shen, you posted a lot of stuff above (as you usually do), so it's hard to address all of it, but I read it all and thot about it and watched the video link. Here are some things I can reply to:

And where is parapsychology? Has it brought something? No.. It can even not define what a ethereal soul is - some parapsychologist claims it can function like a TV set which is ridiculous. Some claim it can even bleed blood. Some claim that the soul has many layers of itself - like there is the mind, soul, part of the soul is your relative etc.. To this day parapsychology was not even able to define what PSI is or where did it come from. Therefore it is a lost cause. I know I cannot prove the negative but there is no to little hope for this..

I see your point. In parapsychology, there's a lot of mere theorizing and speculating about things that haven't been shown to exist in any physical sense. I have read "Irreducible Mind", and most of its ideas about the mind could be seen as an exploitation of gaps in scientific knowledge.
...

The whole PSI and soul business was to give people hope that there is something after death and also for some to make a living and become rich - like priests.. This is why it was created and people then began to make more and more paranormal claims from gods, humans to aliens.. Like we were haunted by ghosts now we are haunted by aliens. Like we were first created by gods, now we are created by a universal consciousness etc..

I think it's much older than that, Shen. We can find evidence of spiritual beliefs and practices going back to the some of the oldest human societies discovered by anthropologists. For most human societies, even primitive societies, it has been assumed that there is some sort of afterlife or spiritual dimension of reality that humans interact with. I think this is more likely due to naturally occurring experiences that humans have always had with psychadelic plants and as a result of lucid dreams or trance states. Organized religion, with its focus on political power and control, came much later and much more recently in human history.

Religion evolves like fantasy evolves thanks to our normal scientific knowledge. Parapsychology first knew nothing about Quantum mechanics but now they use it as woo to make their hypothesis plausible

I agree with your statement about religion evolving its ideas to adapt to scientific developments. There is no question about this. I think there's a book titled something like "The Evolution of God" which looks at this issue. But your point about parapsychology and quantum mechanics is something I don't really agree with. Since parapsychology had ideas about the mind that were based on observations of people's thoughts and subjective experiences, but didn't have a physical mechanism to explain those observations, it is not unreasonable for them to look for such mechanisms among the findings of physics.

The issue is that when people don't understand, or don't care to understand they simply cherrypick and invent findings to support their religious notions.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in Tipler's Omega Point Theory, which is biggest heap of pseudoscientific trash ever to hit the shelves. Truly, the bastard offspring of one man's love of science, and far greater love of religion and Panglossian musings.

[Eric D R]

I just looked that up (Tipler's theory). It just goes to show how even a very strong background in physical science doesn't prevent someone from trying to describe the world according to their fancies. Not that I really took the time to understand his scientific reasoning for his theory, but it certainly has every appearance of being fanciful and theologically motivated.

By the way (and this is a point I'd like to raise to anyone on this forum), I think there's no need to quote someone's comments when replying to them if your reply is coming directly after their posted comments. I think the quote function is only needed for when there are several people on a thread and a reply to someone is not consecutive to their post, thereby necessitating the quotation of their text to show whom you're replying to. Or when focusing on just a few specific lines of someone's comment, then quoting just those lines makes sense too.

[Gord]

It's important to remember that money is only a part of MICE.

Money
Ideology
(C doesn't really apply in this)
Ego

Hmmmm.

Money
Ideology
C (the speed of light)
Ego

Money
Ideology
Cuantum mechanics by those who don't understand quantum mechanics
Ego

Money
Ideology
Crackpot ideas
Ego

Money
Ideology
Cheese
Ego

I dunno, I can think of a few ways to make C fit!

By the way (and this is a point I'd like to raise to anyone on this forum), I think there's no need to quote someone's comments when replying to them if your reply is coming directly after their posted comments. I think the quote function is only needed for when there are several people on a thread and a reply to someone is not consecutive to their post, thereby necessitating the quotation of their text to show whom you're replying to. Or when focusing on just a few specific lines of someone's comment, then quoting just those lines makes sense too.

I disagree!

Quoting is necessary because sometimes people say dumb things that no one thinks are directed at them, so it's important to point out to whom you're saying everything on the off-chance (greater for some, perhaps) that you're saying dumb things.

Also, it prevents the quoted person from going back and editing their posts, leaving the quoter looking like an idiot unless he's made the quote so that everyone can see he's responding to the term "all cats are born dogs" rather than the edited version "all cats are born kittens" when he shouts "You idiot! Cats are never dogs!"

Observe:

All cats are born kittens.

edited once at such-and-such a time

You idiot! Cats are never dogs!

I never said they were, why are you yelling at me, you're so rude, I hate you and I'm leaving this place forever, boo-hoo!

Gord who is not nuts, how could you, you evil bastard!

*BANNED!*

vs.

All cats are born kittens.

edited once at such-and-such a time

All cats are born dogs.

You idiot! Cats are never dogs!

OMIGOD, I never said they were, why are you yelling at me, you're so rude, I hate you and I'm leaving this place forever, boo-hoo!

Wow, she was weird. Good job, Gord who is not nuts! Have some money!

And, um, etc.

[Eric D R]

Gord, you have a point in the case of someone going back and editing their comments (which I admittedly do a lot, but not for the purpose of trying to make someone else look bad, just because I re-think things and change my mind about what I said. Perhaps i shouldn't do that). But if your reply comes directly after the person you're replying to (as mine does here), I don't think quoting is necessary for showing who your comment is aimed at if you just say their name (as i did here).

oh yeah, and by the way, funny mock conversation above

[Gord]

Gord, you have a point in the case of someone going back and editing their comments (which I admittedly do a lot, but not for the purpose of trying to make someone else look bad, just because I re-think things and change my mind about what I said. Perhaps i shouldn't do that). But if your reply comes directly after the person you're replying to (as mine does here), I don't think quoting is necessary for showing who your comment is aimed at if you just say their name (as i did here).

Mine came directly after yours, and I had a reason: Because I combined two quotes and responses into one post.

If we wanted to be fair, I would agree with you in principle that there are other ways of letting someone else know that you are responding to them, but at the same time I would say that there is reason to record that to which you are responding, as well. In my case, I often quote just the part I'm interested in (which I have not done in this instance because I'm lazy).

I will agree that quoting an entire post is often frustrating when those posts are really really long and boring, though.

So I'll say you are right and win the argument, but I have caveats to the argument that are not without merit.

And now I will go look up "caveat" to figure out what I meant by that.

[kennyc]

caviar, I think you meant caviar.

[Gord]

Ooh, look at that. "A modifying or cautionary detail to be considered when evaluating, interpreting, or doing something." Egad, that almost makes sense!

[Gord]

caviar, I think you meant caviar.

One of these days I hope to look back on these posts and think to myself, "Gosh, I was smart back then!"

I honestly had no idea that I knew what "caveat" meant.

[kennyc]

caviar, I think you meant caviar.

One of these days I hope to look back on these posts and think to myself, "Gosh, I was smart back then!"

I honestly had no idea that I knew what "caveat" meant.

Well it's because the mind is a television and signals are being broadcast into it....

We are each only as smart as our signal reception is good. And definitely a few that need better antennas!

[Gord]

Great, now I'm completely mindless.

[Eric D R]

I will agree that quoting an entire post is often frustrating when those posts are really really long and boring, though.

So I'll say you are right and win the argument, but I have caveats to the argument that are not without merit.

And now I will go look up "caveat" to figure out what I meant by that.

Yeah, Gord, the "long and boring" thing is my main reason for objecting to hitting the "quote" button upon deciding to reply to someone who most recently posted a comment. Especially if the quote will contain lots of other people's quotes embedded within it. It's just a mass of unnecessary stuff to keep repeatedly quoting and making 3rd parties think they have to read thru.

But you are certainly right about the caveats. I've never tried them myself though I realize they're a prized delicacy.

[Daedalus]

It's important to remember that money is only a part of MICE.

Money
Ideology
(C doesn't really apply in this)
Ego

Hmmmm.

Money
Ideology
C (the speed of light)
Ego

Money
Ideology
Cuantum mechanics by those who don't understand quantum mechanics
Ego

Money
Ideology
Crackpot ideas
Ego

Money
Ideology
Cheese
Ego

I dunno, I can think of a few ways to make C fit!

Good to have you back, you nutter.

Money
Ideology
Compromise/Coercion
Ego

[kennyc]

M - Military
I - Intelligance
C - Can't
E - Exist

[Gord]

M - Mice
I - Icem
C - Cemi
E - Emic

[Kaepora Gaebora]

Mice, Mice, Baby.

[Daedalus]

SLUDGE

Salivation
Lacrimation
Urination
Defecation
Gastrointestinal symptoms
Emesis.

[scrmbldggs]

ENEMA

Eeeew
Noooo
Eeeew
Mercy
Aaaahhhhh

[Shen1986]

Shen, you posted a lot of stuff above (as you usually do), so it's hard to address all of it, but I read it all and thot about it and watched the video link. Here are some things I can reply to:

I see your point. In parapsychology, there's a lot of theorizing and speculating about things that haven't been shown to exist in any physical sense. I have read "Irreducible Mind", and most of its ideas about the mind could be seen as an exploitation of gaps in scientific knowledge.

All ideas in Irreducible Mind are God in the gasp arguments. We don't know what has happened and therefore we have a soul. Also some stories there are just stupid tales of anecdotes. Even one of them I think it was Gossmann a philosopher mentions Miss Z of Tart which was debunked several times and destroyed as evidence. Irreducible Mind is a New Age book and their plan is to make parapsyschology to survive. They were even financed by Esalen institute to write this Irrational Mind thing.

I agree with your statement about religion evolving its ideas to adapt to scientific developments. There is no question about this. I think there's a book titled something like "The Evolution of God" which looks at this issue. But your point about parapsychology and quantum mechanics is something I don't really agree with. Since parapsychology had ideas about the mind that were based on observations of people's thoughts and subjective experiences, but didn't have a physical mechanism to explain those observations, it is not unreasonable for them to look for such mechanisms among the findings of physics.

However that are just fantasies and nothing more. Parapsychology has to this day proved nothing and brought only cults of personality for woo masters nothing more. Believers worship Sheldrake or any other wacko like Alex Tanous like a god nothing more or less. This is what parapsychology is producing = cults.

[Shen1986]

I found this on rationalwiki:

James Cunningham "real" username Shen1986 on the skeptic forum Bruce Greysons ectoplasm cheesecloth debunked and has debunked cheesecloth ectoplasm lolz Parapsychologists admit 98% of paranormal phemomena does not exist 98% of parapsychologists admit parapsychology is fraud? 2% ectoplasm cheesecloth left to debunk. Mal Yankton (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk: ... 4/Archive1

This is wrong. I am not James Cunningham..I don't even know who that is??

My user name is Lukas1986 on JREF and it can be seen here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... ostcount=4

This was pathetic..

[Shen1986]

New info here:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21905

He is a believer and hates skeptics the person who wrote this..