Ted's PalTalk Debate Challenge

[TLN]

1. Did you answer the question of why consciousness survives death with "Near Death Experiences"? Just yes or no, please.

It was just one of the pieces of "evidence" he sighted. We never got to any others because once it became clear he couldn't back up this assertion he resorted to the usual Ian bag of tricks (claiming I don't understand, it's not relevant, etc.) and then fled. Now he flees from the debate altogether because he knows he's backed into a corner he can't escape from.

 

[Yahweh]

Ah well... Cant please 'em all...

 

[CFLarsen]

It was just one of the pieces of "evidence" he sighted. We never got to any others because once it became clear he couldn't back up this assertion he resorted to the usual Ian bag of tricks (claiming I don't understand, it's not relevant, etc.) and then fled. Now he flees from the debate altogether because he knows he's backed into a corner he can't escape from.

Let's see what happens. It is simply "yes" or "no", three of them. Shouldn't take more than 5-10 seconds.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, is this correct?

No, TLN is lying.

1. Did you answer the question of why consciousness survives death with "Near Death Experiences"? Just yes or no, please.
   

1. 
   
   I don't understand the question. NDEs very powerfully suggest that consciousness survives death certainly. One could write thousands of words on this (and I will on my forthcoming website).
   
   

   [*]Did you claim that the NDEs explained as nothing more than hallucinations are not "proper" NDEs? Just yes or no, please.

   
   I said that a centrifuge reproduced certain aspects of an NDE. I do not understand the phrase "proper NDE". TLN is lying when he claims I used this phrase.
   
   

   [*]Did you refuse to explain the difference because it is not important? Just yes or no, please.

That's right, the difference is not important to the question of whether NDEs are what they seem.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, TLN is lying.

Let's see what happens.

I don't understand the question. NDEs very powerfully suggest that consciousness survives death certainly. One could write thousands of words on this (and I will on my forthcoming website).

Then let me try to rephrase it:

Are NDEs evidence that consciousness survives? Yes or no?

I said that a centrifuge reproduced certain aspects of an NDE. I do not understand the phrase "proper NDE". TLN is lying when he claims I used this phrase.

Really? TLN, do you have a log or perhaps witnesses?

That's right, the difference is not important to the question of whether NDEs are what they seem.

Now I don't understand what you mean. How do you tell the difference between real NDEs and non-real NDEs? Please be specific, using concrete examples.

 

[TLN]

I said that a centrifuge reproduced certain aspects of an NDE. I do not understand the phrase "proper NDE". TLN is lying when he claims I used this phrase.

Yahweh, is this true?

Many people heard you use this prase Ian. The only liar here is you.

I'm done feeding this troll.

 

[Yahweh]

Ian:
I said that a centrifuge reproduced certain aspects of an NDE. I do not understand the phrase "proper NDE". TLN is lying when he claims I used this phrase.


TLN:
Yahweh, is this true?

Many people heard you use this prase Ian. The only liar here is you.

I'm done feeding this troll.

I listened to the conversation, Ian did in fact use the phrase "proper NDE".

From the context, I think "proper NDE" is used to distinguish between NDEs which occur in the cases of surgery or comatose and the hallucinations induced by peyote and centrifuges.

No, I dont have a recording of this. I record much of what I listen to on PalTalk and frequently try to keep text logs, however due to conservation of hard drive space I only keep the recordings which are hilarious or could potentially be used to blackmail MoeFaux (I rarely keep many other recordings), so there is no WAV file archives available of the night.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yahweh,

Nevertheless, that's one more testimony against Ian.

Ian,

Do you have any comment on Yahweh's statement? Is Yahweh a liar as well?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I listened to the conversation, Ian did in fact use the phrase "proper NDE".

There are not proper NDEs and non-proper NDEs. There simply NDEs which have more or less of the phenomena which we tend to associate with NDEs.

I do not understand what I meant by "proper NDE" if I did indeed say that. There are of course what we might define as NDEs where one only had an OOBE (and happens to be near death). Or there are NDEs with more or less the full repertoire of characteristic phenomena eg meeting deceased relatives/friends/being of light, life review, out of body experience, the experience of profound love directed at you, going to what seems like an otherworldly reality, coming to a boundary.

As far as I am aware one does not get anything like the full range of phenomena from a centrifuge.

Really it's a question of what you define as an NDE. If you are not near death then you would need to have more than an OBE to constitute a "proper NDE". It's just all a question of definitions.

But this is unimportant. I accept that one can experience other realities and not be near death. Indeed my model of the self/brain expects it as I explained today in community.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yahweh,

Nevertheless, that's one more testimony against Ian.

Ian,

Do you have any comment on Yahweh's statement? Is Yahweh a liar as well?

I don't know. It's certainly not a phrase I would tend to use. {shrugs} I might just use it as a short hand way of referring to those experience which occur spontaneously near death. But it shouldn't be supposed that experiences of a similar nature, whilst not being near death, are therefore hallucinations.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Are NDEs evidence that consciousness survives? Yes or no?

How do you tell the difference between real NDEs and non-real NDEs? Please be specific, using concrete examples.

 

[TLN]

I don't know. It's certainly not a phrase I would tend to use.

But you did. Then you called me a liar.

You can apologize whenever you're ready.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know. It's certainly not a phrase I would tend to use. {shrugs} I might just use it as a short hand way of referring to those experience which occur spontaneously near death. But it shouldn't be supposed that experiences of a similar nature, whilst not being near death, are therefore hallucinations.

That may be.

Testimonials (which you place the utmost faith in) tell us that you did use that phrase. You denied that you did, but there is more evidence that you did. Fair's fair, so let's add that to the list:

• Given that there is more evidence that you did in fact use the phrase "proper", are you going to apologize to TLN?
• Are NDEs evidence that consciousness survives? Yes or no?
• How do you tell the difference between real NDEs and non-real NDEs? Please be specific, using concrete examples.

If, OTOH, you do not wish to point to testimonials as evidence, could you please explain when we are supposed to accept testimonials as evidence? When it supports the idea of consciousness survival?

I'm only asking, you know. It is up to you to explain what your stance is.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

Are NDEs evidence that consciousness survives? Yes or no?

Indeed. A great deal of evidence.

How do you tell the difference between real NDEs and non-real NDEs? Please be specific, using concrete examples.

There is no such thing as a non-real NDE.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But you did. Then you called me a liar.

You can apologize whenever you're ready.

If I did then I apologise. But I emphatically deny that induced NDEs are somehow unreal or are hallucinations. I would need to listen to what I said before I started issuing apologies. There has never ever been a single occasion in the past where someone has said I said something which transpired to be true.

So I'm sceptical.

 

[Interesting Ian]

That may be.

Testimonials (which you place the utmost faith in) tell us that you did use that phrase. You denied that you did, but there is more evidence that you did. Fair's fair, so let's add that to the list:

• Given that there is more evidence that you did in fact use the phrase "proper", are you going to apologize to TLN?
• Are NDEs evidence that consciousness survives? Yes or no?
• How do you tell the difference between real NDEs and non-real NDEs? Please be specific, using concrete examples.

If, OTOH, you do not wish to point to testimonials as evidence, could you please explain when we are supposed to accept testimonials as evidence? When it supports the idea of consciousness survival?

I'm only asking, you know. It is up to you to explain what your stance is.

I've already addressed these questions. Please read my posts.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indeed. A great deal of evidence.

Excellent. Thank you for your direct reply.

Now, could you give a few concrete examples of real NDEs?

There is no such thing as a non-real NDE.

That may be so. However, how do you distinguish between the experiences that seem like NDEs and the experiences that are NDEs? Please be concrete.

If I did then I apologise.

Excellent. Good for you!

But I emphatically deny that induced NDEs are somehow unreal or are hallucinations. I would need to listen to what I said before I started issuing apologies. There has never ever been a single occasion in the past where someone has said I said something which transpired to be true.

So I'm sceptical.

So, you need to exemplify what the difference is. I am totally not interested in your personal problems, I just want to see those NDEs.

I've already addressed these questions. Please read my posts.

No, you have not. E.g., you have not addressed the question about what constitutes a real NDE. Please exemplify, and be specific.

 

[Lucianarchy]

To newbies:

We must assume that Mr Interesting is probably 100% correct in everything he says on this thread, as Claus has now been exposed and proven to be a cheap liar and fraud.

He is not a skeptic at all. You have been conned. Under investigation, now he has been causgt, he admits he tracks people who visit the website he spams this forum with and it is very likely that he sells the information to other spammers. So if you are getting lots of spam, porn, or hacks after visiting his website it is very likely that it is due to Claus Larsen.

 

[CFLarsen]

To newbies:

We must assume that Mr Interesting is probably 100% correct in everything he says on this thread, as Claus has now been exposed and proven to be a cheap liar and fraud.

He is not a skeptic at all. You have been conned. Under investigation, now he has been causgt, he admits he tracks people who visit the website he spams this forum with and it is very likely that he sells the information to other spammers. So if you are getting lots of spam, porn, or hacks after visiting his website it is very likely that it is due to Claus Larsen.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...this is, of course, a bald-faced lie.

 

[steenkh]

So if you are getting lots of spam, porn, or hacks after visiting his website it is very likely that it is due to Claus Larsen.

This is a crass accusation. Not only is it slanderous, but it is also completely untrue. At the very least you should present credible evidence.