YAY!!!
The Good Doctor is back!!
Could we get a little explanation of what the NCCF is? Maybe it’s the hour, but I don’t quite get this.
Take a look at this search list. Make sure to watch the sky over your head.
In particular is this one.
Doc is a highly trained Ether-Psychologist. He’s an undisputed expert in the field.
[QUOTE=DocCathode
from other Thread posted by SimonX]
binary-photon-metaconsciousness-effecter
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what this is, but I wants one! 
-XT
Quote:
Originally Posted by lekatt
Of course I would expect “scientists” to question the methods of another scientist if he didn’t agree with them.
Agreement has nothing to do with it, ideally. It’s called Peer Review. It is essential to good science. Scientists rely on other scientists reviewing and criticizing their work. It’s a very powerful help, both before and after publishing. Sampling methods, testing procedures, statistics methods, the logic used in forming conclusions, and other things are examined. This puts many minds to the same problem. Scientists routinely retest, recalculate, regraph, rewrite, and rethink results as a result of this routine criticism.
If the science is good to start with, most of the criticisms can be answered. Sometimes the answer is, this is a faulty criticism. Sometimes the answer is, yes, doing that would have been better, but the conclusions are still valid. If there were weaknesses in the procedures, retesting and/or recalculation is in order.
The criticism is part of the science. Ducking the criticism is ducking science.
I understand what you are saying but I still disagree. You cannot prove there are no words of more than twenty letters in your post because I can use my “meta-concious spiritual perceptifier”(sorry…was inspired by DocCathode’s post) to see all of the hidden adn silent “z’s” adn “q’s” in many of your words that make them longer than twenty letters. Prove me wrong.
Exactly the answer I’d expect from somebody whose organization is named after a non-existant gas. “Consciousness” doesn’t exist…there are drugs that can give you any state of consciousness you want. It’s all neural impulses and what you do with them. And, Doc, if you ever want to come back and do real science, I know some Ixers who would be glad to have you.
[chanting accompanied by wild screaming and whistling]Doc-tor, Doc-tor, Doc-tor![/]
I hate to say stuff like this, but I still have no idea if this NCCF/Ether stuff is a joke or not. An intentional one, I mean.
No need. You already did. As I said, an epistemic proof depends on the bounds of the system. You can posit your meta-concious spiritual perceptifier to go either way. It can add letters or it can take them away. You can prove either that there are or that there are not twenty-letter words. It has nothing to do with positive or negative.
I’m with you, I’d love to know what happened in relation to Mayer’s challenge. Googling doesn’t seem to reveal anything about what Consumer Affairs did about it. My guess would be that either they didn’t bother doing anything, or concluded that the weasely disclaimers that probably appeared somewhere in relation to JE’s shows were sufficient to offset the promotional statements about the show actually involving talking to the dead.
Actually another possibility is that the CA’s around Australia just realised that this debate is a quagmire they didn’t want to get into: they send Edward a notice under s106A or its equivalents in other states, Edward provides “proof” in the form of dozens of testimonials from various credophiles that he actually spoke to their deceased Aunt Millie, and where do CA go from there?
If they charge him they end up more or less having to prove JE doesn’t speak to the dead, potentially in front of a jury consisting of believers (JE has plenty).
Or they don’t charge him, in which case JE ends up spouting off about how CA accepted his evidence that he speaks to the dead.
I’ve emailed Mayer and asked him to let me know the outcome, and invited him to join this discussion. We shall see.
OK, so I’ve had a reaction from Mayer already (that was quick!) which is as follows:
I read a good chunk of the article. It’s quite interesting, and the overall feel is hard and competent.
I think, ultimately, that the good evidence for NDEs as proof of the afterlife falls in two categories:
- Veridical perceptions when such are impossible.
- The claims by the experiencers that the NDEs were NOT hallucinations.
As for cat. 2, skeptics won’t give a hoot. The people have been fooled by their hallucinations, and that’s that.
Cat. 1 is the more problematic for them. The article does it’s best to show how certain OBEs and NDEs are NOT veridical, but all such arguing cannot make go away the “killer cases” (in which one person gets a LOT right) and the many cases in which many people get at least a little right.
Many things in the article reveal a complete difference of perspective. Any “believer” in these things understands that reality Over There is far more fluid. Further, we are talking about people crossing the barrier, so there is no reason why dreams and, yes, outright hallucinations can’t be mixed in.
One thing the article doesn’t deal with is this, a point I raise again and again: Why don’t people “get” after awhile that their experiences weren’t real? (The article does mention one or two cases of this but doesn’t deal with the larger question of why people believe their “hallucinations” to be real.)
One question I would like NDE researchers and skeptics alike to ask NDErs is this: could you pinch yourself? Could you verify during the experience that it was real? One hallmark of dreams and hallucinations is that this question is never asked during the experience.
Just ask yourself, and Doc, to prove his ether and see what happens, My experience has been nothing.
Love
Lekatt my friend,
During your experience, were you able to take a step back and think about what was going on?
I am asking because I want to believe, it’s true. Both my father and grandmother had NDEs, but I was not able to ask them much about them (my grandmother because she was already dead, and my father because it was too painful for him to talk about).
Thank you!
I have had about 16 years to think about it, study it, and research it and others’ NDEs. I am sorry your father couldn’t talk to you about his experience, but I can understand how it would be more difficult to tell your own children than most anyone else. My family has supported me, but don’t like for me to talk about my experience. It reminds them of death, my death, and most don’t want to know about death due to their deep fear of it.
It seemed to me at the time that everyone would love to have the information I gained from my NDE, after all, why wouldn’t people want to know that life goes on after death and that the creative force of the universe loves them very much. But they were too afraid to talk about it, or they over compensate and say they’re not afraid while their every word and action betrays them.
I think there are several good reasons why people are reluctant to believe.
Many have been taught a different picture of God, one that destroys his children in eternal fire if they question Him. (preachers, ministers, etc.)
Many have been taught there is no after life or God, it is all BS, so they have learned to sneer at the ignorant ones. (such as believers, NDEers, etc.)
But the reason I believe is the strongest is the teaching of NDEs that everyone will reap what they sow. Now, that is scary, but very true.
Most wish to believe “when you’re dead you’re dead”, that way there is nothing to make up for, no punishment, no reparations, just total nothingness.
This belief is the truth “crutch” of the fainthearted.
But that’s not the way it happens, and there is no need to be afraid of death or anything else, they only need to learn about unconditional love to find out the truth.
Love
MOST WISH to believe that “when you’re dead you’re dead”?!?!? I have never heard of a single person in my entire life who WANTED death to be permanent, unavoidable or irreversible?!? MOST of us wish that there were an afterlife(including myself!).
Calling our acceptance of an unpleasant truth a “crutch” is non-sensical. Like accusing a lottery winner of throwing away all his money because he did not want to face the “painful truth” that he actually won the money he had been wanting to win.
Skeptic Conspiractor #1: “We MUST stop this Lekatt!! He is going to blow the lid off the whole thing adn people will be FORCED to accept that they live forever! I don’t even have a plan for the rest of my phyic=sical life! I damn sure don’t want to have to decided what i am doing as a free-floating ectomorph for the next…ETERNITY!!”
Skeptic conpirator#2: " Relax. WHo is going to believe him? We have managed to turn the world against him(Muhahahahah)! We have convinced the world that the planet is an elipsoid, The christian God is REAL and that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a MAN(Muhahahahaha)!?! Now that we have everyone believing phyisical death is the end and should be avoided or put off as long as possible, even LeKatt cannot stop us!"
Sceptic Conspirator #3: “We still need to do something about those damned Readers’ Digest articles though! If we cannot find a way to shut them down, others will be inspired to follow their lead! I can see the headline story in The New York Times already; Scientific experiments reveal that listening to Al Gore speeches backwards reverses aging process!…be a f*cking nightmare if all this crap gets out!”
SC#2 : " We have taken a pre-emptive approach to prevent this. Agent Jason Blair has succeded in simultaneously making the Times…and all of print Journalism seem untrustworthy while making himself a bestselling champion of honesty and free speech! Even now agent Blair is tossing around the idea of doing an article for Readers Digest…"
Skeptic conspiractors: Muhahahahah!!
I have an invisible unicorn in my pocket. He tells me (yes, it’s a talking, invisible unicorn) that he is the only invisible unicorn there has ever been. Therefore you cannot have an invisible pink unicorn in your pocket.
We also want to know how your unicorn is pink, as this would naturally prevent it also being invisible. We laughed about that, me and my invisible unicorn.
Therefore I have proven an negative. Prove that me and my invisible pink unicorn haven’t proven this. No, I won’t take anything your invisible pink unicorn has to say on the matter as evidense, as we have already established it doesn’t exist.
(Do you see what I did there???)
You’ve never had an NDE, Lekatt. You only had an experience while you were asleep. It says so right there on your web page.
In all our debates you have steadfastly maintained that the onus of proof is on those who seek to deny the existence of paranormal things. DocCathode says his NCCF work categorically proves John Edward is a fraud. The onus of proof is (according to you) on you to prove him wrong.
My work is no joke. I’m working to expand human knowledge. I know that it sounds odd. As I’ve said, the explanations I give here are simplified. They have to be. NonActualized humans cannot perceive my work anymore than the naked eye can see ultraviolet light.
Ether is very real. Though the Greyfaces voted that it was no longer to be part of the NA Consensus of reality.
Captain Amazing
I’m confused by your post. Have you hung up the black suit for the lab coat of a Proge?