Neal Grossman is a Professor Emeritus of philosophy. He has a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Indiana University. His special interests are Spinoza, mysticism, and the epistemology of parapsychological research. I thank professor Grossman for accepting this interview. Enjoy.1-Professor Grossman, why did you get interested in parapsychology and afterlife research?
When I was still in High School, Plato’s allegory of the cave had a profound effect on me, and led me to study spirituality and mysticism. But I did not take parapsychology seriously until I read William James.
2-As a professional philosopher, what aspects of the study of parapsychology do you find more interesting or relevant to current philosophical discussions?
None! That’s because “current philosophical discussions” steadfastly ignore the wealth of scientific data uncovered by parapsychologists. Such discussions are hence irrelevant, and not useful to anyone who believes that one’s opinions about such matters should be informed by empirical science.
3-Do you think the existence of precognition is incompatible with a libertarian view of free will?
The question is too complex for a simple answer. But, as a Spinozist, I do not believe we have free will.
4-Skeptics argue if phenomena like psychokinesis were real, then a basic scientific law like the principle of energy conservation would be violated, because psychokinesis implies the transference of energy from a non-physical source to the purely physical world. Hence, such fundamental physical law precludes a priori the possibility of psychokinesis and the mind-matter interaction. What do you think of this scientific objection?
On general principles, it is unscientific to claim that one’s current theory is true a priori. Facts trump theory. Psychokinesis is a fact that has been unequivocally demonstrated over and over again (e.g. the PEARS experiments). It is absurd to deny that the facts are what they are simply because their occurrence poses difficulties for our current theories. It is not good scientific practice to reject empirical data because it poses problems for conventional theories. Materialism is clearly false, and I regard Dualism as still very schematic and not yet a full-fledged theory, and may very well be superceded by a Hegelian-type of Idealism. The point is that we must stay close to the data, even if there is no theory that adequately explains it. Anomalous data is the engine that drives the search for new theories, even though, as the history of science shows, there will always be those who prefer their old theories to new data that falsifies what they believe. So it is a fact that mind can influence a random number generator; we do not now have a theory that can explain this fact, and it is highly unlikely that such a theory will be compatible with Materialism.
5-According to some materialistic scientists, the empirical evidence of split-brain patients strongly undermines dualism. Do you think the cases of split-brain patients pose some serious problems for dualism?
Sometimes I think people are looking for religious certainty. There is no “theory” that is free from difficulties. I believe that the evidence that falsifies Materialism is overwhelmingly conclusive; therefore any adequate theory must recognize consciousness as an independent variable. I do not understand how the split-brain data is supposed to be a “problem” for Dualism. No one doubts that while we are embodied, our experience of consciousness is highly structured by the brain.
6-Skeptics argue that the transmission/filter hypothesis of consciousness defended by William James and others is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific, because no possible empirical evidence could ever refute it. Do you think the transmission hypothesis is falsifiable?
As James says, the facts of neurology will forever be inadequate to distinguish between the transmission and production hypotheses. But the facts of the NDE (and mediumship and reincarnation cases) are definitely adequate to empirically distinguish the two hypotheses. These are the relevant facts that render both hypotheses falsifiable.
7-In addition to NDEs and mediumship, what other kinds of empirical evidence for the afterlife do you find good or at least interesting? Do you think the researches done in Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) and Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are, from a scientific point of view, good independent evidence for survival?
I am not very familiar with EVP, so will not comment on it. Additional kinds of evidence for the afterlife are (i) reincarnation cases, (ii) after-death communications, (iii) end-of-life phenomena, and (iv) parapsychological research generally. The latter is not usually considered to be direct evidence for survival, but this research (e.g. remote viewing) establishes conclusively that the mind can receive information independent of the brain, and what is independent of the brain cannot be destroyed when the brain dies (this is what the word “independent” means)
8-Do you think the evidence for the afterlife, dualism and the existence of a spiritual world conflicts with the Darwinian theory of evolution?
No. These debates are a lot of nonsense.
9-Most reliable communications and messages coming from mediums seem to suggest that reincarnation doesn't happen. However, some psychical researchers consider that the evidence for reincarnation is good. What do you think of the scientific evidence for reincarnation, and the conflict between the reincarnation evidence and the largerly consistent anti-reincarnation messages coming from mediumship communications?
I don’t know what you are talking about. All mediumship communications of which I am aware and that discuss the concept of reincarnation, are strongly supportive of that concept. (e.g. The Seth Material). The evidence collected by Stevenson, Tucker, and others, is impeccable and conclusive. Some mediums can even get information about past lives. (I don’t know the type of mediums you have experienced, but I am aware that a few are Christian based, and they interpret everything in such a way as to be consistent with their prior religious beliefs).
10-What do you think of contemporary sophisticated philosophical arguments for God's existence like the Kalam cosmological argument, or the fine-tuning argument? Do you think they're reasonably good philosophical arguments?
I’m not much interested in philosophical arguments these days. The data, and inferences drawn from the data, are all one needs to form one’s beliefs about these things. Nevertheless, as far as arguments go, the Kalam argument is pretty good.
11-What do you think of Jesus of Nazareth, his teachings and its putative resurrection as an historical fact?
I think of Jesus as one of the great spiritual teachers, like the Buddha and Socrates. I’m inclined to take the view of the Gnostic Gospels regarding the resurrection (Jesus appeared in spirit, but his appearance was so real that the disciples thought it was physical). But the historical stuff, although interesting, is not that important to me, since we have his recent teachings in the Course in Miracles.
12-Do you have any opinion about other "unorthodox" topics, like alien abductions, UFOs and alternative medicine?
Well I think something is going on with UFOs, abductions, crop circles…..but I don’t know what. There is perhaps a universal tendency in all cultures to reject and ridicule data that cannot be explained in terms of the culture’s existing paradigm.
13-You have written about the dogmatism and lack of curiosity of most scholars regarding topics like parapsychology and the afterlife. What advices would you give to undergraduate students and young open-minded scholars and scientists who are seriously interested in these controversial topics but are afraid of being ridiculed if they express their intention to research these topics academically?
Undergraduates have no problem with this material; they see it for what it is. But if you are a grad student or young professor, you should expect to be ridiculed by those who do not understand. I think reading Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions will prepare you by showing how an entrenched paradigm (Materialism, in this case) typically responds when threatened. Then just focus on the data.
14-What good books would you suggest about parapsychology, afterlife research and philosophy?
The 3 books by Chris Carter, and recent books by Tart, Tucker, van Lommel, and Radin.
15-In your opinion, which is the main spiritual lesson that we must learn from NDEs and other empirical evidence for the afterlife?
The main spiritual lesson is that the purpose of life, of our lives, is to grow in our ability to give and receive unconditional love.
16-Would you like to add something else to end this interview?
Yes. The last point is the most important. Many people do not want this to be true…..they are invested in competitiveness, in the need to be right, to appear better than others, etc. I think this attachment to playing competitive ego games constitutes a strong emotional resistance in some people to accepting this data as real. But if we are to survive as a species, we must make the shift from a “me-based” society to a “we-based” society. The data is pointing us in this direction. May we be collectively wise enough to follow it.
When I was still in High School, Plato’s allegory of the cave had a profound effect on me, and led me to study spirituality and mysticism. But I did not take parapsychology seriously until I read William James.
2-As a professional philosopher, what aspects of the study of parapsychology do you find more interesting or relevant to current philosophical discussions?
None! That’s because “current philosophical discussions” steadfastly ignore the wealth of scientific data uncovered by parapsychologists. Such discussions are hence irrelevant, and not useful to anyone who believes that one’s opinions about such matters should be informed by empirical science.
3-Do you think the existence of precognition is incompatible with a libertarian view of free will?
The question is too complex for a simple answer. But, as a Spinozist, I do not believe we have free will.
4-Skeptics argue if phenomena like psychokinesis were real, then a basic scientific law like the principle of energy conservation would be violated, because psychokinesis implies the transference of energy from a non-physical source to the purely physical world. Hence, such fundamental physical law precludes a priori the possibility of psychokinesis and the mind-matter interaction. What do you think of this scientific objection?
On general principles, it is unscientific to claim that one’s current theory is true a priori. Facts trump theory. Psychokinesis is a fact that has been unequivocally demonstrated over and over again (e.g. the PEARS experiments). It is absurd to deny that the facts are what they are simply because their occurrence poses difficulties for our current theories. It is not good scientific practice to reject empirical data because it poses problems for conventional theories. Materialism is clearly false, and I regard Dualism as still very schematic and not yet a full-fledged theory, and may very well be superceded by a Hegelian-type of Idealism. The point is that we must stay close to the data, even if there is no theory that adequately explains it. Anomalous data is the engine that drives the search for new theories, even though, as the history of science shows, there will always be those who prefer their old theories to new data that falsifies what they believe. So it is a fact that mind can influence a random number generator; we do not now have a theory that can explain this fact, and it is highly unlikely that such a theory will be compatible with Materialism.
5-According to some materialistic scientists, the empirical evidence of split-brain patients strongly undermines dualism. Do you think the cases of split-brain patients pose some serious problems for dualism?
Sometimes I think people are looking for religious certainty. There is no “theory” that is free from difficulties. I believe that the evidence that falsifies Materialism is overwhelmingly conclusive; therefore any adequate theory must recognize consciousness as an independent variable. I do not understand how the split-brain data is supposed to be a “problem” for Dualism. No one doubts that while we are embodied, our experience of consciousness is highly structured by the brain.
6-Skeptics argue that the transmission/filter hypothesis of consciousness defended by William James and others is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific, because no possible empirical evidence could ever refute it. Do you think the transmission hypothesis is falsifiable?
As James says, the facts of neurology will forever be inadequate to distinguish between the transmission and production hypotheses. But the facts of the NDE (and mediumship and reincarnation cases) are definitely adequate to empirically distinguish the two hypotheses. These are the relevant facts that render both hypotheses falsifiable.
7-In addition to NDEs and mediumship, what other kinds of empirical evidence for the afterlife do you find good or at least interesting? Do you think the researches done in Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) and Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) are, from a scientific point of view, good independent evidence for survival?
I am not very familiar with EVP, so will not comment on it. Additional kinds of evidence for the afterlife are (i) reincarnation cases, (ii) after-death communications, (iii) end-of-life phenomena, and (iv) parapsychological research generally. The latter is not usually considered to be direct evidence for survival, but this research (e.g. remote viewing) establishes conclusively that the mind can receive information independent of the brain, and what is independent of the brain cannot be destroyed when the brain dies (this is what the word “independent” means)
8-Do you think the evidence for the afterlife, dualism and the existence of a spiritual world conflicts with the Darwinian theory of evolution?
No. These debates are a lot of nonsense.
9-Most reliable communications and messages coming from mediums seem to suggest that reincarnation doesn't happen. However, some psychical researchers consider that the evidence for reincarnation is good. What do you think of the scientific evidence for reincarnation, and the conflict between the reincarnation evidence and the largerly consistent anti-reincarnation messages coming from mediumship communications?
I don’t know what you are talking about. All mediumship communications of which I am aware and that discuss the concept of reincarnation, are strongly supportive of that concept. (e.g. The Seth Material). The evidence collected by Stevenson, Tucker, and others, is impeccable and conclusive. Some mediums can even get information about past lives. (I don’t know the type of mediums you have experienced, but I am aware that a few are Christian based, and they interpret everything in such a way as to be consistent with their prior religious beliefs).
10-What do you think of contemporary sophisticated philosophical arguments for God's existence like the Kalam cosmological argument, or the fine-tuning argument? Do you think they're reasonably good philosophical arguments?
I’m not much interested in philosophical arguments these days. The data, and inferences drawn from the data, are all one needs to form one’s beliefs about these things. Nevertheless, as far as arguments go, the Kalam argument is pretty good.
11-What do you think of Jesus of Nazareth, his teachings and its putative resurrection as an historical fact?
I think of Jesus as one of the great spiritual teachers, like the Buddha and Socrates. I’m inclined to take the view of the Gnostic Gospels regarding the resurrection (Jesus appeared in spirit, but his appearance was so real that the disciples thought it was physical). But the historical stuff, although interesting, is not that important to me, since we have his recent teachings in the Course in Miracles.
12-Do you have any opinion about other "unorthodox" topics, like alien abductions, UFOs and alternative medicine?
Well I think something is going on with UFOs, abductions, crop circles…..but I don’t know what. There is perhaps a universal tendency in all cultures to reject and ridicule data that cannot be explained in terms of the culture’s existing paradigm.
13-You have written about the dogmatism and lack of curiosity of most scholars regarding topics like parapsychology and the afterlife. What advices would you give to undergraduate students and young open-minded scholars and scientists who are seriously interested in these controversial topics but are afraid of being ridiculed if they express their intention to research these topics academically?
Undergraduates have no problem with this material; they see it for what it is. But if you are a grad student or young professor, you should expect to be ridiculed by those who do not understand. I think reading Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions will prepare you by showing how an entrenched paradigm (Materialism, in this case) typically responds when threatened. Then just focus on the data.
14-What good books would you suggest about parapsychology, afterlife research and philosophy?
The 3 books by Chris Carter, and recent books by Tart, Tucker, van Lommel, and Radin.
15-In your opinion, which is the main spiritual lesson that we must learn from NDEs and other empirical evidence for the afterlife?
The main spiritual lesson is that the purpose of life, of our lives, is to grow in our ability to give and receive unconditional love.
16-Would you like to add something else to end this interview?
Yes. The last point is the most important. Many people do not want this to be true…..they are invested in competitiveness, in the need to be right, to appear better than others, etc. I think this attachment to playing competitive ego games constitutes a strong emotional resistance in some people to accepting this data as real. But if we are to survive as a species, we must make the shift from a “me-based” society to a “we-based” society. The data is pointing us in this direction. May we be collectively wise enough to follow it.
Links of interest:
-Prof. Neal Grossman's article on Super-ESP
-Interview with Prof.Grossman in Skeptiko.
-Prof.Grossman's article on NDE debunkers.
-Article by Prof.Grossman on the afterlife.
0 comments:
Post a Comment