Sharon Dirckx vs Emily Qureshi-Hurst • Do consciousness & near death experiences prove an afterlife?

[@PremierUnbelievable]

For exclusive early access to new episodes and bonus content, including the eBook and audience Q&A for Sharon Dirckx's Big Conversation with Iain McGilchrist, register now at: www.thebigconversation.show/

[@Stupidityindex]

Funny how faith makes people talk as if they can be taken seriously. Silly thinking. We know them by their works & these advocate faith when nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital & Jesus says faith is worthless if you can't move mountains by voice-command. \\ Any god outside of fiction is an absurdity the illiterate observes. Those with one foot in fantasyland authorize themselves to weigh-in on whatnot as if Earth had gravity-free zones & magic. The religious don't have ears to hear, the books of God are filled with faith & prayers: Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital, the religious are only into convincing themselves. Rabbi Podium Jockey should not take himself so seriously, nobody should. The religious have no quality-controls. God knows, god helps those helping themselves is a saying because gods have a perfect record of nothing doing outside of fiction. One might expect a deity to make itself known to everyone without work performed in interpretations of old literature by guys like our verbose podium jockey. Who in their right mind promotes travel as if best done with one foot in fantasyland vocabulary. Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital, and these wolves in sheep's clothing advocate prayer & faith verbiage. Even Jesus Christ said faith was worthless if you can't move mountains by issuing voice commands. What is moral or ethical about suggestions of travel with one foot in some religious fantasyland? A house divided cannot stand. We vote because Christians have no quality-controls, & we desire those governing not making suggestions travel is best done with one foot in someone's fantasyland. 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'' Come, let us worship Jesus. Let us all forget it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions & witch-killings. Let us forget we have a saying: God helps those helping themselves, because gods have a perfect record of doing nothing. Let us ignore nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. Let us ignore a wicked generation seeks signs. Theologians grant the titles to each other without a deity certification. A deity unable to be acknowledged by everyone is a forgery based on literature. Oppression builds character among the dominated. Who do you think nailed the king of the Jews, when Imperial Rome controlled temples & publications? Just for the fun of it, have their Messiah say render to Caesar? My sheep hear my voice. Think not I come with peace, but sword. The literate of the age; built religions & made propaganda, devalued the currency, too. Marvel not I say you are all gods, and so on & so on. Faith is a fantasyland term, & the Christians hate to hear it. If faith had any value, then you could move mountains by voice-command. We know there is no god outside of fiction. Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. The Christians slapped their books on the Old Testament, & the Mormons glued theirs on to them both, thus proving Christians lack quality-control. Think not I come with peace, but sword. I come to divide this that and the other thing, & I give you tax exempt status. "Furthermore, whenever any person or group of persons in a position of great power, and without the full knowledge and consent of the public, uses such knowledge and methodology for economic conquest -- it must be understood that a state of domestic warfare exists between said person or group of persons and the public." You can't be serious. God is an absurdity outside of fiction. It is the religious who don't have ears to hear, being a wicked generations seeking signs. These are the wolves in sheep's clothing: My sheep hear My voice. Even Jesus The Nailed, says faith is worthless if you can't move mountains by voice-command.

[@martinploughboy988]

Can we have a Christian next time please?

[@_joshwalter_]

A Christian scientist in discussion with an atheist theologian. A paradoxical flip of the expected narrative. Love it. 😊

[@onionbelly_]

Philosopher, not theologian.

[@samrowbotham8914]

Atheist theologian is an oxymoron.

[@91722854]

@@samrowbotham8914 not really, philosophers don't study what they already believe to be true, anything can essentially be studied as if they were not true, one call learn about astrology even if they don't believe it, much like dragons, orcs and many other things that can be studied but not necessarily true or exist

[@fcastellanos57]

You mean a scientist that is a christian because there is such a thing as “christian science “ which is not what Sharon is.

[@akwaMartyna]

as far as I know if you enroll to uni to study theology they don't require you to prove you believe in god (because how lol, you can just say you believe even if someone asked)@@samrowbotham8914

[@Magnulus76]

I have spent some time studying near death experiences and mystical and religious experiences in general. I believe the bulk of the evidence points towards something like subjective idealist metaphysics almost certainly being the best description of the commonality between these experiences.

[@CKD3332]

This should have been 2 hours long. Im buying both their books. Brilliant.

[@JC-pu3vl]

That was great. I wish it was a couple of hours longer! Im going to check out both books.

[@ray162738]

I so enjoyed this conversation! Thank you for doing this

[@stephansyme2125]

One thing I noticed about studying the nature of Near Death Experiences was although there was many features common to most experiences. There was enough variance leading me to think that each person has a personalised version of the experience. Or even more speculative everybody is creating their own afterlife experience, just as possibly have created their own life.

[@Magnulus76]

Generally, deeper layers of consciousness are interacting with thoughtforms or archetypes that the person has affinity with. However, people do have mystical and religious experiences of religious figures or symbols that are unknown to them, or improbable.

[@ktall6749]

Often complete contradictions between individual interpretations of their NDE events. I think there is much subjective analysis of each experience which is where much of the deviance arises.

[@murrayjsm1]

Lovely! Thank you all three of you for assisting my both soul & brain for getting ready for work, lol. Sharon & MacGilchrist Q & A??? Cannot wait. Best, Jimmy James 😊

[@whittfamily1]

Ah, you do have a brain, but there is no good evidence that you have a soul.

[@daveyofyeshua]

32:00 If you damage the TV screen or the circuit board it won't show the picture as it once did, however that hasn't impacted the transmission only the signal decoders ability to relay the picture.

[@mceajc]

Would I be interpreting your analogy correctly if I said that you are likening this signal to the soul, and that the soul exists outside of the television? My rebuttal would be that you would see the same symptoms whther the signal was broadcast from outside or stored locally on a VHS tape or Hard disk.

[@daveyofyeshua]

@@mceajc That's a very good rebuttal, however is it common for a person to have symptoms of illness while at the same time vitals (physiology) all coming back absolutely perfect.

[@mceajc]

@@daveyofyeshuaYes. For example, there are many examples of people going blind or losing vision because of stress - no physically measurable damage. Similarly, I am sure many people have headaches, but we can't necessarily measure why. Though, I am not sure how that is relevant to the earlier point you were making?

[@daveyofyeshua]

@@mceajc Above normal stress can however manifest in the bodies ability to not be able to fend of disease due to weakened immune system, ie resulting physiologically. Point being you said the signal/spirit *not soul not being able to function in the material world could be as a result of a damaged signal. Therefore I said do we often see illnesses with no signs of a physiological impairment? You mentioned stress, to which can manifest in a compromised immune response. Evidence from for my position is any/all outer body experiences, whereby it would be impossible for the person to have known what they know given they were unconscious given our measuring means.

[@mceajc]

@@daveyofyeshuaI am confused. I will try and summarise my understanding in the hopes of clarity. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything. Are you saying that you believe an external soul is transmitting information into the brain? My original rebuttal was regarding internal recording equipment could still be running, to be consciously reviewed later. I am still unsure what point is being made regarding the physiologically fine measurements but still exhibiting signs or symptoms of illness. I agree, there can be underlying, hard or impossible to detect issues which both do and do not manifest in a detectable way. There is no hard and fast rule one way or another, and so I think it is not a profitable way to come to any conclusions. If there is evidence that a person could not have had any internal processes running, and still had recollection of events, then perhaps this could be evidence of information not being stored locally - but there is no evidence to support this. If there is reliable, good quality evidence for this, these two specialists have not brought it up, and I am not aware of any. Please link to any you are aware of, I would be fascinated to read them.

[@mceajc]

I'm stunned this does not yet have very many views. It deserves a greater reach!

[@Starchaser63]

Interesting discussion, id like to see a part two 🤔!

[@imilyashina7701]

I go back to this from time to time, great work by both. I found Emily's sceptic principles lovely. The lads and lassies at Cambridge this year will be having a blast having her as a professor 🤞

[@its9429]

This discussion reminds me of a scene from one of the Planet of the Apes movies where "Caesar", the leader of the ape rebellion, confronts Governor Breck, the main antagonist, and has him strapped to an operating table. Caesar asks Governor Breck about the existence of the soul. The point is, Caesar wants to see the soul much in the same way science wants to "see" it to confirm it's existence. But like mathematics, things that can't be seen are nevertheless real.

[@betsalprince]

How did you come to the conclusion that the existence of the soul is real?

[@whittfamily1]

But mathematics has been proven to be real and souls have not.

[@viperstriker4728]

@@whittfamily1 Describe how math is proven to be real? Would it not be more accurate to say math is assumed to be real because it is the only way we get anything done? And would the same not be said about things like free will and the soul?

[@whittfamily1]

@@viperstriker4728 V1: Describe how math is proven to be real? GW1: Math is real and abstract. V1: Would it not be more accurate to say math is assumed to be real because it is the only way we get anything done? GW1: No, that would not be accurate. We know math is real and abstract. We don’t assume it to be real. V1: And would the same not be said about things like free will and the soul? GW1: No. We don’t know that free will and the soul are real. In fact, I believe they are not. If you think either one is real, then present your case for it.

[@viperstriker4728]

@@whittfamily1 So you stated again that math is real, but you have yet to prove it. Yes and no don't make an argument. You don't have the authority to declare things so again prove it.

[@firmbiz000]

5:40 great analogy.

[@VMQuantumMechanic]

Nice work, ladies!

[@fcastellanos57]

Very good discussion. Hebrew Scriptures give us and understanding of how we are put together. There is a body but there is also a spirit which is called the breath of the Almighty in Genesis 2. We have to note that we are not either one of this parts separate, but the union of both. According to Ecclesiastes 12:7, that spirit returns to the Almighty at death and the body to the ground, which means we cease to be. Christianity teaches the reunification of a body and the spirit at the coming of Jesus, it is a re-creation of an immortal body for those who have died in the faith. So, I agree with Emily who says that those who have NDE have not died so we can’t say that whatever they experienced continues because they did not truly died, albeit being considered clinically dead. Also, it is true that current EKG, are not sensitive enough to detect deeper brain activity, we have to be mindful that the spirt we have is not a physical thing so it cannot be detected with any physical device but there may be activity that goes on nevertheless. The experiences and knowledge those people experience appears to be true, it is a mystery to know how these was acquired. So, there are some true facts that those people have experienced mixed with artifacts created by the brain itself. From a Christian point of view, there is no consciousness that continues after death, however the identity, memories, personality, and self awareness is preserved in the spirit that returns to the Almighty who gave it.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

But technically they did. Some had their hearts completely stopped and had no brain activity. All measured in surgery rooms.

[@fcastellanos57]

@@Simon-xi8tb Unless the spirit leaves the body, there is no death yet. So there is still a connection between the spirit and the body and that is why they can still have awareness and experiences, once the spirit departs, that is the end of it.

[@dazraf]

As a computer scientist and mathematician l have so many objections to this talk. From a symbolic model of computing one can absolutely say that network interactions and symbolic transformations that encode self-referential information of qualia are directly mappable. This is definitely the case with functional MRI and EEG experiments that train an artificial neural network on a subject's brain and the AI can then predict the subject's thoughts faster than it becomes conscious to the subject. Sigh, I feel this discussion was wasted in that it didn't have more scientists specialised in the topic

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Yup. The apologists talking points are many decades behind the current state of research.

[@VaughanMcCue]

A proper scientific input would interfere with what is being marketed. The Templeton Foundation pays for mythology to be sold as reality.

[@seb98885]

Absolutely false, trained AI cannot truly predict thoughts. What it can do is anticipate the act based on neural movements. It can tell if you're going to move a part of your body or if you're focused, but predicting qualia in any way is completely impossible. It is absolutely absurd to claim such a thing. AI can identify patterns of movement, behavior, or mental states, but it cannot access an individual's subjective thoughts.

[@dazraf]

@@seb98885 I think while the model cannot experience the qualia experienced by a human mind, it theoretically is possible to form rough correlates of mental states and thoughts through a process of observation of actions (movement, speech, blink rate, skin conductivity and flushing etc) to neuronal activations. While nothing even approaching high resolution, the correlates may be sufficient enough to read coarse grained thoughts and feelings.

[@seb98885]

@@dazraf I agree that they can anticipate an individual's actions through prior analysis, but they can never predict or precede the neural movement that generates a certain behavior. In other words, they cannot discern an individual's experience; they can only gather information and reproduce it according to the neuronal movements as they occur, allowing them to anticipate the act that the individual will perform. However, this does not imply that they can anticipate thought; rather, they anticipate based on the information they have gathered about behaviors, neuronal movements when there are certain intentions, etc. Thanks.

[@nadjaj5290]

Very interesting conversation, thank you. Phineas Gage, however, wasn't accurately represented - he experienced a frontal lobe damage through the accident, which is where inhibitory processes are located. So rather than seeing a direct personality correlate, it was an impact on Gage's inhibition, which indirectly led to certain aspects of his personality to come through our be emphasised due to the inhibitory processes not working properly anymore.

[@whittfamily1]

Yes, but it was still a dramatic personality change produced by accidental damage to the brain.

[@nadjaj5290]

@@whittfamily1 that's true, but the interpretation was incorrect - there's no neurological correlate for personality, which is what was suggested. There's just a brain area for inhibition, which leads to certain aspects of personality not being expressed in the way they would be if that area wouldn't function like it should. Frontal lobe is not a personality area, but an inhibitory system. We are yet to find anything in the brain relating to temperament and personality. There might not be any brain which is directly correlated to personality - that's my point. We don't know how character, personality, and temperament are being expressed and whether there are brain areas which directly relate to this, so we have to be careful with attributing things to brain lesions, as so far, we can only prove mediating roles. Phineas Gage is an example of how brain functions correlate with specific areas. This says nothing about personality changes per sé, so cannot be used to argue for anything relating to a person's character being located in the brain.

[@whittfamily1]

@@nadjaj5290 NJ: that's true, but the interpretation was incorrect - there's no neurological correlate for personality, which is what was suggested. GW: I disagree. The activity of the brain is correlated with personality, but we don’t yet know specifically how this works. The brain and personality are very complex, and neuroscience and psychology are still in their infancy. NJ: There's just a brain area for inhibition, which leads to certain aspects of personality not being expressed in the way they would be if that area wouldn't function like it should. GW: There is some truth to that explanation, but it is oversimplified. There are inhibitory neurons throughout the brain. NJ: Frontal lobe is not a personality area, but an inhibitory system. GW: That’s oversimplified and not quite accurate. The frontal lobes have many functions, including reasoning, planning, organization, decision making, and inhibition to some extent. There are no known “personality areas” of the brain. As of now, we must consider personality to be determined by the entire brain. NJ: We are yet to find anything in the brain relating to temperament and personality. GW: Nothing specific, yet. Temperament and personality are very general concepts. You would need to identify a single trait and then do the research to find out how the brain determined the trait. NJ: There might not be any brain which is directly correlated to personality - that's my point. GW: Different brains produce different personalities, but we don’t know exactly how this happens, yet. NJ: We don't know how character, personality, and temperament are being expressed and whether there are brain areas which directly relate to this, so we have to be careful with attributing things to brain lesions, as so far, we can only prove mediating roles. GW: But we can say that brain damage will often produce personality changes. The mind and personality are totally dependent on the brain, as far as we know. If an independent soul or spirit determined personality, then we wouldn’t see changes in personality when the brain is damaged. I am more in agreement with Emily than Sharon. NJ: Phineas Gage is an example of how brain functions correlate with specific areas. This says nothing about personality changes per sé, so cannot be used to argue for anything relating to a person's character being located in the brain. GW: Of course a person’s character is dependent on their brain! We just don’t yet know the details. But probably some day we will.

[@nadjaj5290]

@@whittfamily1 you basically just said what I said, just in different words. Not sure, you got my point - I never said the frontal lobe is ONLY for inhibition, and I didn't say that personality was not influenced by the brain. So, you're strawmanning me. In fact, Phineas Gage did show other impairments related to Frontal Lobe damage. However, this wasn't relevant to this discussion, so I didn't mention them. That doesn't mean that I'm claiming, the Frontal Lobe is ONLY for inhibition, so not sure how you came to that conclusion. What I said was that there is no direct neurological correlate for personality. In this interview, it was treated like the Phineas Gage incident means that certain areas modify our personality, which is simply untrue. I don't disagree with you at all that the whole brain is responsible for personality. It is not ONLY the brain either, though - just to make this very clear as well! When you read again what I wrote, I never said there's no reflection of our personality in our brains - in fact, I said the exact opposite! However, the interpretation of the Phineas Gage data was not accurate. The damage of inhibitory systems was responsible for the character change, not some aspect of character per sé which is located in this area. They didn't even explain that it was the frontal lobe, which left it very vague and made it sound to laypeople like there's an area that was damaged which is responsible for character traits. As you write, "there are no known personality areas" - exactly what I wrote. "There is not any brain area directly correlated to personality". That was the whole point. I'm thus not sure where the disagreement is.

[@whittfamily1]

@@nadjaj5290 NJ: you basically just said what I said, just in different words. GW: It appears that we agree on some points and disagree on others. NJ: What I said was that there is no direct neurological correlate for personality. GW: I agree with that specific point. But personality is totally dependent on the brain. NJ: In this interview, it was treated like the Phineas Gage incident means that certain areas modify our personality, which is simply untrue. GW: I disagree. The Gage example was not treated in that way. Emily simply presented the example as anecdotal evidence that the mind depends on the brain. NJ: I don't disagree with you at all that the whole brain is responsible for personality. GW: Like I said, we agree on some points, perhaps the major points. NJ: When you read again what I wrote, I never said there's no reflection of our personality in our brains - in fact, I said the exact opposite! GW: Even if you agree with me on some point, I think you did not express yourself clearly and precisely. NJ: However, the interpretation of the Phineas Gage data was not accurate. The damage of inhibitory systems was responsible for the character change, not some aspect of character per sé which is located in this area. GW: I think you are reaching too far beyond the data to come up with your interpretation here. It could be that damage to a frontal lobe caused a disability to predict or anticipate the future and this is what was primarily responsible for the change in personality. There are many possible good natural explanations. NJ: They didn't even explain that it was the frontal lobe, which left it very vague and made it sound to laypeople like there's an area that was damaged which is responsible for character traits. GW: You are missing the purpose that Emily had in introducing the example. She was not giving a lecture on the frontal lobes. She was merely showing how damage to the brain results in damage to the mind and personality. NJ: As you write, "there are no known personality areas" - exactly what I wrote. "There is not any brain area directly correlated to personality". That was the whole point. I'm thus not sure where the disagreement is. GW: Well perhaps we mostly agree, but I think not only did you fail to communicate clearly, you also misunderstood the purpose of Emily’s example.

[@harlowcj]

I can't say I found either of Emily's materialistic objections to be particularly satisfying and even she seemed a tad uncomfortable throwing herself behind them but you have to believe what you have to believe to make your worldview work.

[@VaughanMcCue]

I say it would be hard to hold your ground in enemy territory with two caught up in superstition and her in touch with reality. It makes more sense to accept Emily's position of withholding judgment about the alleged magical experiences and not attributing them to the superstition of your choice. Would a person claiming to have adopted the Christian superstition, believe the claims of someone using the Muslim superstition? If they claimed to have had a visitation from his prophet, it must be true.

[@harlowcj]

@@VaughanMcCue It should be hard to hold your ground when your explanations of "reality" make little sense when compared to the available evidence. I think we should not withhold judgment at all but rather make judgments according to the best evidence available.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@harlowcj Supposed evidence has no value if the observer has zero standards. The alleged NDE of the Christian -icon- [edit woman]makes it harder to believe the moon was cut in two. We can see evidence of the same trick performed every 28 days. I am confident that you will evaluate my claim as the best explanation because I presented evidence all can see.

[@harlowcj]

@@VaughanMcCue I have no idea what claim you're even trying to make. What standards are you bringing to the table to evaluate evidence with? Do you have justification for those standards?

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@harlowcj You favour the lady who values mythology and not the one with her feet on the ground. You and I share the same standards in real life, because you know gasoline for your car does not enter the tank relying on muttering with your eyes closed. That is a trick that only works for lost keys. The alleged NDE experiences cannot be taken seriously, because *theocratic tact is the art of bending the truth to fit religious claims. *Religious apologetics. If you think of the story of the fish that got away, when the video was off, you will get the idea. Please provide one challenge that left you dissatisfied by feet on the ground woman

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

Left out the concept of placebo. A person thinks a sugar pill will heal them and it does. How is this possible if physicalism is the correct understanding of the human being.

[@Magnulus76]

It's not, obviously. Placebos should do nothing if physicalism is true. Because a placebo's only active ingredient is an idea or suggestion.

[@NoContextRDH]

Great point

[@seb98885]

Great point

[@Efesus67]

This felt like an ambush. The host didn't even try to get the dualist to explain *how* it is that the soul interacts with the brain and body. The dualist, like the physicalist and whom the talk only focused on, does not have a theory for how the mind/soul and the human body interact. We only saw how the physicalist fails, but what about the dualist?

[@firmbiz000]

16:33 conflict with fundamentalist views on creation and science

[@thetrollpatrol8799]

I don’t think people care about whether some cultural religious values are coherent with science. They care about if belief in God can be validated or denied based on science

[@whittfamily1]

God does not exist, and this has now been proven through a combination of science, philosophy, and history, i.e. reason.

[@thetrollpatrol8799]

@@whittfamily1 That’s falsely jumping to conclusions

[@whittfamily1]

@@thetrollpatrol8799 No. I only carefully draw true conclusions. If you disagree, then tell use why. Be specific.

[@thetrollpatrol8799]

@@whittfamily1 there currently aren’t specific points provided here to respond to

[@whittfamily1]

@@thetrollpatrol8799 Of course there are! I made the specific point that God does not exist and the further point that it has been proven that God does not exist. Please respond to those specific points.

[@richwheeler]

Miscellaneous notes: Evolution has four processes: Genesis of the environment, genesis of life, multiplication of species, and thinning of species. "Science" explains only the fourth. The first three remain entirely in the domain of guesswork. Belief in evolution requires faith. The atheist's a priori assumption of, or faith in, materialism begs the question. Experimental science is not designed for investigation of non-material issues. It's like using a screwdriver to paint. Materialists rule out spiritual agents before science even begins, then say, "See? We found no evidence (that we didn't look for). Atheists inevitably invoke their faith in future science. This one assumes future science will enable mind-reading using machines. Another factor not mentioned is chemical response, such as hormones, to thought. Not all brain activity is electrical. Hormonal action at a microscopic level would be undetectable. I must have dozed though any discussion of whether NDEs gave people access to information that they could not have accessed. Whether a machine detects brain activity while a patient acquires such unavailable information is irrelevant. My belief is that mind or "soul" is informational, like database software that includes the procedural database information. Either the brain or the spirit can function as a platform for memory and procedures. Brain-reading machines could never rule out NDEs; only verification of NDE memories can do that. So, the atheists' faith in future science relies on moot hopes.

[@RLBays]

Not sure where you're getting your evolutionary biology from but it's wrong. Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. That's it.

[@lark8356]

Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a different platform for further discussion? The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

"Belief in evolution requires faith." In your opinion, is faith a reliable method of reaching conclusions? Last I heard theists have LOTS AND LOTS of faith. You aught to be able to believe in evolution very easily then. Oh wait! You don't pick and choose what you want to use your faith to believe do you? You don't ONLY use faith to uphold and reinforce your religious beliefs, and congratulate yourself calling faith a wonderful thing in that situation, yet, when talking about those whos views you disagree with, accuse them of having faith in a pejorative context, that makes it sound like faith is terrible detrimental and delusional thought process do you? 'Cos that'd be a bit of a double standard. That sounds like projection of your own mindsets vices, and denial of the alternative views virtues. Who are you trying to convince anyhow?

[@richwheeler]

@@lark8356 Yes, I'm interested.

[@lark8356]

@@richwheeler Phenomenal. Please select my photo. My information is there.

[@rickm.rogersphd9673]

Good discussion. Not sure whether Sharon Dirckx tendency to more absolutist opinions and dualistic views predate her conversion or not. However, I find Emily Qureshi-Hurst agnostic approach to be more charitable and scientifically sustainable.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

I think that maybe what is going on here is that they probably both fail to grasp that mind and matter are not a true duality and they aren't polar opposites. Also, Emily is not agnostic, she subscribes to materialism.

[@mordecaimanengureni4242]

Emily, (It seems to me) continuously makes "Skepticism" the end in itself -that we're supposed to be in this unending carefulness, cautiousness to the possibility of the unkown. That's just as dangerous as dogmatic fundamentalism, to me

[@Zoomo2697]

“It is assumed that the skeptic has no bias; whereas he has a very obvious bias in favour of skepticism.” ― G.K. Chesterton

[@onionbelly_]

Why do you think it's dangerous as dogmatic fundamentalism to be skeptical of mind-body dualism, NDEs, and the afterlife?

[@mordecaimanengureni4242]

​@@onionbelly_ To be skeptical, I'd agree that's worthwhile, It's the "I WILL ALWAYS BE SKEPTICAL" to quote Emily, that I take with some uneasiness.....think about it, what's good about open mindedness if it never reaches established truths

[@onionbelly_]

@@mordecaimanengureni4242 What established truths do you think Emily is being skeptical of, exactly? NDEs, souls, and the afterlife aren't established truths, so I have no idea what you're even referring to. When you quote someone, you need to quote what they actually said, not what you think they said. Nowhere in this discussion did Emily say anything remotely close to "I will always be skeptical". Around the 23min mark, she said she's a skeptic in regard to our ability to know things with absolute certainty, followed by "I think I'm going to remain agnostic on some of the issues about the relationship between the mind and the brain". She sees problems on both sides and does not want to jump to premature conclusions based on insufficient evidence. To suggest that this is making skepticism the end in itself or that Emily is just doubting these things because she's uncomfortable or afraid of the possibility of the unknown is flat-out baseless.

[@mordecaimanengureni4242]

@@onionbelly_ I see your point.....Thanks!

[@unknowncowman]

One interpretation of the different figures experienced according to the world view could be explained by it being a general revelation that is then later interpreted by the cultural context of the person. If you are Christian, you interpret that as Jesus, as a Hindu you interpret it as Vishnu or whatever. But thats just one of the many takes

[@samanthathompson9812]

Why is it called "Premier" Unbelievable?

[@beskepticaled6223]

Near death is not equivalent to death. NDEs are of people who were resuscitated, not resurrected. Isn’t it more likely that seeing a bright light is correlated with resuscitation as paramedics shine flashlights in the eyes to check for pupil movement and bright lights on operating tables.

[@lesleypatoncox1569]

Great debate. Thank you. Why does that light wander about the studio? It's distracting.

[@richwheeler]

The light isn't moving. The camera is. Building motion into a video helps viewers stay alert.

[@ManuelGonzalez-ur6ss]

Alert for what? falling 😴

[@its9429]

Interestingly, the grand question "what is true?" was put to Jesus by Pontius Pilate. How great an irony is that?

[@whittfamily1]

Not much irony. This question comes in philosophy frequently.

[@CKD3332]

Pilate was looking at the truth but couldn't see him.

[@whittfamily1]

@@CKD3332 False. You are making a category error. A person is not a truth.

[@ProfYaffle]

58:56 i agree with Emily we should have healthy scepticism, but i suspect Emily may have an unhealthy scepticism. Is she ignoring too much of the evidence?

[@onionbelly_]

We have testimonial evidence of people from various religious backgrounds having vivid hallucinations when their brain is deprived of oxygen. Emily is not ignoring that. She's on the show literally talking about it in front of a camera. The idea that this proves the afterlife, spirits, Allah, Jesus, Mormonism, etc, is where the healthy skepticism comes in, which both speakers seem to agree.

[@ProfYaffle]

@MichaelLee-zk1jd no one said it proves the afterlife. Sharon didn't. Emily was not willing to admit it might indicate a spiritual realm. She was trying very hard to push in the direction she wanted. Sharon was more open to what it could possibly mean. Emily had already decided

[@onionbelly_]

​@@ProfYaffle Looking at the evidence and finding it to be insufficient is not the same as being close-minded and concluding that spiritual realms are an impossible reality. Based solely on the NDE testimonies of Muslims or Mormons, are you willing to admit that they are potential indications of the existence of Barzakh or whatever version of spiritual realm Mormons believe in?

[@ProfYaffle]

@MichaelLee-zk1jd yes indeed. But my point is that neither woman considered the NDEs to be sufficient evidence. But Sharon concluded that it could possibly be an indication, especially given the similarities of experience, and given that the brain is so close to shut down that our sophisticated machines can't detect any activity. Sharon was not saying this means there definitely is, but that there could be. She is looking at the evidence as a scientist should. While Emily was doing everything she could to find other explanations: e.g. machines not sophisticated enough, similarities not similar enough...she was not prepared at all to accept there might be a spiritual realm. Sharon coukd see both sides, Emily only one. I have never heard any NDE testimonies of Muslim or Mormons. I have heard them on YT from people who subsequently became Christian (probs the YT algorithm). TBH I am also sceptical, I am willing to accept they might be true, but unless I have grounds to trust the person giving the testimony (I.e. my friend who has proved themselves trustworthy) I am just as willing to accept they are lies. I have no idea And I therefore hardly ever watch them. Waste of my time. I would change my religion in a shot if I thought there was better evidence for another than for mine. In fact I did - I haven't always been Christian.

[@onionbelly_]

@@ProfYaffle Emily is suggesting that there could be better explanations to what people have perceived as out of body or near death experiences, while acknowledging that both the mind-body dualism position and the materialist position have problems and therefore no firm conclusions can been reached at this point. I don't understand why you would view this as "ignoring too much of the evidence" or not willing to see the other side of the argument. I didn't see Sharon expressing her openness to the possibility of a materialist worldview either. She only presented the possibility of a spiritual realm that she happens to already believe in as a Christian, so it's a bit unfair to claim that Sharon could see both sides and Emily couldn't. Why do you accept NDE testimonies of Christians as true? Have every one of those Christians giving the testimony proved themselves to be trustworthy to you?

[@j-psavoie8173]

A very surface level discussion at best. Watching just one interview with someone like Bruce Greyson gives you a lot more pertinent information about NDEs. Both speakers did not know much about the litterature. Emily in particular rehashed a good number of tired arguments that are favorites of so-called debunkers, like the dying brain hypothesis.

[@beskepticaled6223]

To further the map analogy, science not only enlightens the uncharted and does away with the religious sea monsters. Science describes at various scales. Sure it’s not perfect and has filled in the map from largely fragmented disciplines. Nevertheless, science has a track record of providing novel, testable predictions and delivering on those; whilst religion provides not even a single sea monster. While no map can be perfect or else it would cease to be a map, science provides the most accurate, precise and reliable map that humanity has at its disposal. To use religion to find what is true would be like turning off your navigation system and having your passenger navigate using a map dated back to past millennia. Hey, watch out for that sea monster!

[@VaughanMcCue]

Emily had her feet on the ground and Sharon had her head in the clouds.

[@Gracchus66]

Sharon: "During NDEs the brain is shutting down..." Emily: " Yes, shutting down, not shut down." Checkmate, Emily.

[@whittfamily1]

It is likely that the dying of a neuron is a process, not an instantaneous event.

[@daveyofyeshua]

17:20 The Bible doesn't present the earth as being 6000 years old 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@NoContextRDH]

The same nonsense points they regurgitate again and again

[@daveyofyeshua]

Exactly 🤷‍♂️

[@seanmvincentvideos]

I was enjoying this until they finally got to NDEs. At that point, Sharon Dirckx's opinion became a lot less credible to me. The less verifiable her opinion got the more adamantly she held to it. You could see a mild look of disbelief on Emily's face.

[@Simon-xi8tb]

37:20 - Emily spewing nonsense.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

Science is knowledge. It depends on someone's subjectivity to external objectivity. There are only true conditions and when someone says science they run the risk of limiting knowledge to the limit and bias of the scientist. Therefore we say things like science, theology, history, etc are these separate things when they are the same thing. Often scientists will go beyond their limitations and not be aware that they have.

[@lark8356]

Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a different platform for further discussion? The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.

[@whittfamily1]

The spiritual is a null set, so theology is not a legitimate branch of knowledge. Dawkins has pointed this out previously.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

@@whittfamily1 What do you mean by spiritual?

[@whittfamily1]

@@DonswatchingtheTube The meaning depends on context. Quote the sentence in which I used the word "spiritual" and then I will tell you what I meant by it.

[@halflife352011]

Okay discussion, but way to much speculation as an answers on both sides.

[@whittfamily1]

I agree that they didn't talk enough about the evidence. However, most of this area is speculation.

[@LKJKSLDJ]

A scientist should care about the truth, not the implications of it. Sharon's concerns with free will and moral responsibility are very telling from the get-go. She says "Science doesn't get you there", God of the gaps in its most basic form, science didn't supply an explanation yet - therefore magic. Can you refer us to some non-physical discoveries that were made in the past? Also, I just want to know, do animals have minds? How about insects? How about artificial intelligence?

[@Magnulus76]

What would animals having minds have to do with an afterlife, or existence after death?

[@LKJKSLDJ]

@@Magnulus76 Nothing, they have to do with consciousness. Which is the topic of this debate.

[@alexnorth3393]

Yes. That's it. Sorry religious people.

[@martinploughboy988]

It was interesting that Sharon said ".. one of the other definitions is that science is a methodology but of course the methodologies of science are multifarious so the way that you do geology and the way that you do quantum mechanics are completely different " The problem with much of geology is that the geologist is working with events in the past that cannot be observed or replicated. So, instead of just recording what they find, the geologist feels a need to explain how the evidence came about. In this they venture out of science & into philosophy & story telling. When they put dates on the geological column they are not doing science. And Evolution is an extreme example of this not doing science, explaining what is found without supporting observation. Thus when Sharon goes on to say: "taking the particularly the creation narratives in Genesis as factually and historically accurate the type of um of Christianity that takes those as the final word on matters of history is not compatible with science so young Earth creationism or a denial of evolution I mean they're at that point science and religion are coming into con conflict with each other in a way that can't really be resolved because the two besides the science and the religion are they're starting from completely different points and so there isn't really a place where there isn't a common framework by which you can assess the claims that each are making" she is mistakenly claiming that the Bible &science are in conflict, when in fact it is the Bible & the philosophy of the believer in Evolution that is in conflict. It would be interesting to see how a conversation such as this would progress if instead of a nominal, pretty ignorant 'Christian' Premier would bring a Bible believing Christian to the table.

[@dazraf]

Doesn't it seem more logical for a scientist to be agnostic about matters that we have no evidence for or against? I find both theist and atheist points of view illogical as a scientist.

[@fordprefect8375]

🤤 No, you're your pretty faces also! 😍

[@RLBays]

No. Consciousness and near death experiences do not prove that there's an afterlife. Why would anyone believe that life can just magically persist after death? It's an obvious contradiction and frankly a bit desperate.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

Yes, the evidence is everywhere. God bless

[@OptimusNiaa]

It's only an obvious contradiction if one defines "life" and "death" in particular ways. The whole crux of the matter is that non-materialists are open to the idea that "life" might not be restricted to the ongoing biological processes we see in organisms. Hence it is not a priori impossible for "non-material life" to persist after "material death." You might, of course, think the idea of non-material life is silly. And again, that question is really central to the entire debate, and is worth exploring. But as a matter of logic, the "it's a contradiction" argument doesn't work, since people aren't arguing material life continues after material death.

[@RLBays]

@@trinitymatrix9719 Where?

[@RLBays]

@@OptimusNiaa I suppose if people make up different definitions for what is life and what is death, then sure.

[@whittfamily1]

@@trinitymatrix9719 God does not exist, and this has been proven.

[@California1973-o1d]

What a waste of time. Sharon Dirckx is delusional.

[@tosafmjcom]

Interesting debate. Thank you both. To pose that there is no afterlife is a theory that by definition cannot be observed, because you would not exist at that point to observe anything. The only observable theory about the afterlife is that there is something there to be observed. But what could you possibly observe. Well, the only thing you could observe is that you were either right or wrong to believe in the afterlife. So there is a life review where you examine how your thoughts and deeds give evidence of what you believe about the afterlife. Some, I suppose, will see how their deeds were done to prevent death because they thought that this life is all there is. Few perhaps show that they were invested in the truth of the afterlife by giving of themselves to help others believe that there is a heaven to gain.

[@whittfamily1]

The weight of the evidence points to the conclusion that the mind is totally dependent on the brain. When the brain dies, the mind no longer exists. There is nothing to have an experience of an afterlife.

[@zotrules]

From the introduction you understand that theology was the only topic she could pass without much pain at the university. And listen what she says about oxford: I wanted to learn about this and I went there.... As if everybody can go to Oxford and if you had a chance to go there you'd waste it with theology(and be and atheist) and she keeps looking up to her left. But she's hot. Maybe 100 degrees C. Parents had a lot of money.

[@Amazing_Mark]

What a shallow comment! 👎

[@zotrules]

@@Amazing_Mark the video is shallow. It's a virtual layer that is projected to our retinas by the screen. I analyzed both it and it's audio wave info. It was English. It has been quoted and stated. What kind of other depth do you expect? Challenge it!