What do you believe happens when we die

saabsaab

smacl wrote: »

I think the issue there lies with the limitations of our current instrumentation's ability to measure this activity. Deep anesthesia for example can result in a flat EEG. This does not indicate brain death, simply levels of brain activity too low to measure by this method.

Indeed that seems to be the case but 'death' is becoming further pushed back. The question is how far? Is consciousness simply a function of the complexity of the brain or is it something else and perhaps independent of the brain. We have very complex AI systems now have any been deemed to be conscious?

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

We have very complex AI systems now have any been deemed to be conscious?

Not yet. But if they were and we turned it off for a year.... then turned it back on.... would you think the consciousness "went" somewhere or wonder what happened to it in the interim?

Or would it be something that can simply be turned on and off at will so long as the underlying hardware remains undamaged?

saabsaab wrote: »

Thus it would not be expected to remain after brain activity ceases at all yet it does for a time at least.

Only if you are holding on to the assumption that I am questioning in the AI thought experiment above, and the candle thought experiment from my earlier posts.

Basically where I think the locus of your unwarranted assumption lies is in what you appear to me by the word "remain" here. What is it you think that means exactly?

smacl

saabsaab wrote: »

Indeed that seems to be the case but 'death' is becoming further pushed back. The question is how far? Is consciousness simply a function of the complexity of the brain or is it something else and perhaps independent of the brain. We have very complex AI systems now have any been deemed to be conscious?

I think you have two different questions rolled into one there. Human consciousness, as I understand it to be, is a function of not just the complexity of the brain but also its dynamically changing state. If and when we create a conscious AI this will be very different indeed. The consciousness will be stored in something akin to a computer network with all that that entails. Notably it can potentially be saved and restored at a later time using a persistent backup, and replicated to new hardware (i.e. effective immortality). It can potentially use any accessible sensor or data source connected to its network (i.e. omniscience lite). This is the tip of the iceberg for conscious AI, we stand to make an intelligence potentially far superior to our own. While it might never happen and could all go tits up, I'm quite excited by the prospect.

saabsaab

The candle idea is too simple.



AI consciousness, if it ever happens, may or may not be similar to ours. I would expect that such an AI consciousness would not be able to return with its former consciousness if stopped.



I too am excited by the AI prospect if a little worried also.


'Remain' I would take to mean that the personality stays intact while the brain is deemed inactive.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

The candle idea is too simple.

Unqualified assertion. Merely stating this and saying no more about it is no more useful than your you tube link dumping from earlier.

The point of the analogy is based on neither simplicity nor complexity however. But on the error of assumption in the types of questions and ideas you are expressing about consciousness. To repeat: There is no more reason to think of where a consciousness "goes" when it is "out" than there is a flame on a candle.

The problem is we as humans like to THINK of consciousness as this uninterrupted single flow from end to end, from birth to death. Like in the post above where you say "I would take to mean that the personality stays intact while the brain is deemed inactive."

There is no reason I know of to think that:

a) it does remain "intact" during that period or
b) that anything requires that it does, or does not make sense if it doesn't.

I merely question that that core assumption is warranted, especially when it leads to other ideas and assumptions that are themselves entirely unsubstantiated. Such as consciousness lifting off, or surviving the death of, the brain.

saabsaab wrote: »

I would expect that such an AI consciousness would not be able to return with its former consciousness if stopped.

And is that expectation based on anything, other than the assumption I just described above? Is there any actual argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to lend credence to such an expectation?

saabsaab wrote: »

I too am excited by the AI prospect if a little worried also.

Agreed, I am both also. But I think that is healthy. The people who really scare or worry me are the people who are one OR the other and not both.

smacl

saabsaab wrote: »

I would expect that such an AI consciousness would not be able to return with its former consciousness if stopped.

Why not? It seems that AI consciousness would correspond to a machine state which can be losslessly backed up and restored.

saabsaab

smacl wrote: »

Why not? It seems that AI consciousness would correspond to a machine state which can be losslessly backed up and restored.

If it is a function of some electronic network 'learning' being set up in a complex system it may not be restorable
No one can tell until an AI with consciousness is produced some say that that isn't too far away.


As for the candle idea I'd say that it's self evident that a complex system such as the human brain cannot be compared in its workings with re lighting a candle. I know you used it as an analogy but it is a very poor one.

saabsaab

Physicist David Baum ( Colleague of Oppenheimer) postulated that the universe was a mystical place where past, present, and future coexisted. He believed that there may be a realm of pure information (the implicate order) from which the physical, observable phenomena unfold. He also thought of the universe and the brain as a form of Hologram. He may be wrong but this idea comes close to an idea of God and the meaningless of death as we know it.

smacl

saabsaab wrote: »

If it is a function of some electronic network 'learning' being set up in a complex system it may not be restorable

I disagree. If the AI is running on a network of digital computers, as is the case with current deep learning and other neural nets, it can be made persistent. More specifically, execution can be suspended and the state of all non-persistent storage (e.g. RAM) can be saved to or read from external storage. Think about it like being able to save and load your game position in the likes of Call of Duty. You can always restore the last saved state, but may lose a certain amount of information between the last saved state and the last executed state.

It is possible that AIs may end up running on quantum computers but even then I can't see why they would not support persistence.

saabsaab

smacl wrote: »

I disagree. If the AI is running on a network of digital computers, as is the case with current deep learning and other neural nets, it can be made persistent. More specifically, execution can be suspended and the state of all non-persistent storage (e.g. RAM) can be saved to or read from external storage. Think about it like being able to save and load your game position in the likes of Call of Duty. You can always restore the last saved state, but may lose a certain amount of information between the last saved state and the last executed state.

It is possible that AIs may end up running on quantum computers but even then I can't see why they would not support persistence.

Yes, I can see that being the case if the conscious AI is part of a network but would it come back if the whole network was shut down? The brain is not interconnected (as far as current thinking accepts) and yet it can come back with consciousness and memories (perhaps even from the time during shut down) intact.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

No one can tell until an AI with consciousness is produced some say that that isn't too far away.

Well exactly. That is why I question the "expectations" you claim to hold. I see no basis for any useful expectations based on something we have no idea about at this time.

saabsaab wrote: »

As for the candle idea I'd say that it's self evident that a complex system such as the human brain cannot be compared in its workings with re lighting a candle. I know you used it as an analogy but it is a very poor one.

Or your evaluation of it is poor.

A mountain is a simple lump of rock. A car has a lot of complex moving parts and functions. I can STILL compare them though depending on the locus of comparison. For example if I was comparing them on the basis of Color, they might both be grey.

The failure in your evaluation is in thinking that something simple can not be compared with something complex..... just because. The reality is that it depends on what exactly is being compared.

In this case all that is being compared is the concept that the output of either has to "go somewhere" when the out put ceases, rather than simply stopping at the idea the out put has ceased. Or that anything magical or mystical can be read into the fact output can resume after a period of it having ceased.

So there is absolutely bugger all wrong with the analogy.

Perhaps the locus of your error here is in nothing more than common human hubris. Which is to simply balk at anything that even remotely suggests belittling consciousness or the brain and not treating them as some lofty magical wondrous thing to be worshipped and adored and awed at.

Also side note, making unsubstantiated assertions and then when called on them merely declaring the assertion "self evident"..... tends not to wash around here

filbert the fox

Surely the poll should have included:

O We simply don't know

O 42

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well exactly. That is why I question the "expectations" you claim to hold. I see no basis for any useful expectations based on something we have no idea about at this time.



Or your evaluation of it is poor.

A mountain is a simple lump of rock. A car has a lot of complex moving parts and functions. I can STILL compare them though depending on the locus of comparison. For example if I was comparing them on the basis of Color, they might both be grey.

The failure in your evaluation is in thinking that something simple can not be compared with something complex..... just because. The reality is that it depends on what exactly is being compared.

In this case all that is being compared is the concept that the output of either has to "go somewhere" when the out put ceases, rather than simply stopping at the idea the out put has ceased. Or that anything magical or mystical can be read into the fact output can resume after a period of it having ceased.

So there is absolutely bugger all wrong with the analogy.

Perhaps the locus of your error here is in nothing more than common human hubris. Which is to simply balk at anything that even remotely suggests belittling consciousness or the brain and not treating them as some lofty magical wondrous thing to be worshipped and adored and awed at.

Also side note, making unsubstantiated assertions and then when called on them merely declaring the assertion "self evident"..... tends not to wash around here

I don't know what 'washes' around here but you claim to know what it is, in your opinion. I will leave it to others to see my point and make up their own minds.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

I don't know what 'washes' around here but you claim to know what it is, in your opinion. I will leave it to others to see my point and make up their own minds.

Not my opinion, reporting on my experience and observations of being on the forum for years.

If you do want to come back and substantiate your claims however I will be here.

I am not sure how anyone will see your point though. You just asserted something, and then when I asked about it you just called it "self evident". There is no point there TO see.

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not my opinion, reporting on my experience and observations of being on the forum for years.

If you do want to come back and substantiate your claims however I will be here.

I am not sure how anyone will see your point though. You just asserted something, and then when I asked about it you just called it "self evident". There is no point there TO see.

It is still your opinion. You are making a claim about the opinions of others without evidence, and claiming it as fact. It seems you believe that you are the arbiter of what is acceptable?

nozzferrahhtoo

I repeat, I am commenting on experience, that when people come in here calling things "self evident" it tends not to go over well. Reporting on experience is not opinion. If you can not even get that difference, we have a communication issue.

But I think you are just deflecting really, you are making it about what you pretend my "opinion" is to rabbit hole away from the previous conversation where you could not rebut what I said, merely asserted something was wrong with it, and then when you could not back up that assertion you attempted to call it "self evident".

There is nothing wrong with the analogy, certainly nothing "self evident", so if you want to rebut the analogy, or the point the analogy is made in support of..... then by all means try to do so.

The point again, if you feel you can grasp it better without analogy, is that there is no reason to assume that consciousness "goes" anywhere or anything "happens" to it during a period it is not detectable to us. If it appears to us to be gone, and then appears to us to have returned.... then no assumptions are warranted.... or at least all assumptions are equally warranted which amounts to the same thing really.

If consciousness is produced by the brain, as an emergent property of the processes of the brain, then it could simply be just that. Why pile magic or the paranormal or unsubstantiated nonsense on top of that just to make it seem more special than it needs to be? I think I know why to be honest but that is, unlike your previous mislabeling, actually something that is my opinion.

That is the point and I do not think the point goes away just because you want to call something an opinion that is not an opinion, or assert something is poor without being able to back up the assertion that it is poor. Both are just deflections. And weak ones at that.

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I repeat, I am commenting on experience, that when people come in here calling things "self evident" it tends not to go over well. Reporting on experience is not opinion. If you can not even get that difference, we have a communication issue.

But I think you are just deflecting really, you are making it about what you pretend my "opinion" is to rabbit hole away from the previous conversation where you could not rebut what I said, merely asserted something was wrong with it, and then when you could not back up that assertion you attempted to call it "self evident".

There is nothing wrong with the analogy, certainly nothing "self evident", so if you want to rebut the analogy, or the point the analogy is made in support of..... then by all means try to do so.

The point again, if you feel you can grasp it better without analogy, is that there is no reason to assume that consciousness "goes" anywhere or anything "happens" to it during a period it is not detectable to us. If it appears to us to be gone, and then appears to us to have returned.... then no assumptions are warranted.... or at least all assumptions are equally warranted which amounts to the same thing really.

If consciousness is produced by the brain, as an emergent property of the processes of the brain, then it could simply be just that. Why pile magic or the paranormal or unsubstantiated nonsense on top of that just to make it seem more special than it needs to be? I think I know why to be honest but that is, unlike your previous mislabeling, actually something that is my opinion.

That is the point and I do not think the point goes away just because you want to call something an opinion that is not an opinion, or assert something is poor without being able to back up the assertion that it is poor. Both are just deflections. And weak ones at that.

I was drawing attention to a study on NDE and experiences you seem to think this is all the above. You seem to have also elevated your opinion to be the voice of the thread! A small God of the forum.

nozzferrahhtoo

You're making this about me now... by claiming I am doing and saying things I simply have not done or said..... and not responding to anything I am saying about the thread topic. That too tends not to go down well around here. So I will just stick to the points made if you have any questions about them.

As for the studies about NDE, I think I covered that. Not a single study seems to have verified even one case of someone being confirmed to have seen something from a position outside their body. And Audio NDE is as I said not all that spectacular, but it just an interesting phenomenon that if explained would likely tell us more about the brain.

Actual OBE is interesting enough. Again it can teach us a lot about the brain. But there are many ways to cause it to happen, not just being dying in a hospital. It can be done with drugs. It can be done with cetrefrugal force. It can be done with electrical stimulation. In fact people report being able to achieve it through meditation. And then there is also the "hand trick" mentioned earlier where you can make parts of your body feel like they are outside your body.

All massively interesting, exciting and stimulating stuff. But not one shred of ANY of it is suggestive of consciousness operating independently of.... let alone following the death of.... the brain.

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You're making this about me now... by claiming I am doing and saying things I simply have not done or said..... and not responding to anything I am saying about the thread topic. That too tends not to go down well around here. So I will just stick to the points made if you have any questions about them.

As for the studies about NDE, I think I covered that. Not a single study seems to have verified even one case of someone being confirmed to have seen something from a position outside their body. And Audio NDE is as I said not all that spectacular, but it just an interesting phenomenon that if explained would likely tell us more about the brain.

Actual OBE is interesting enough. Again it can teach us a lot about the brain. But there are many ways to cause it to happen, not just being dying in a hospital. It can be done with drugs. It can be done with cetrefrugal force. It can be done with electrical stimulation. In fact people report being able to achieve it through meditation. And then there is also the "hand trick" mentioned earlier where you can make parts of your body feel like they are outside your body.

All massively interesting, exciting and stimulating stuff. But not one shred of ANY of it is suggestive of consciousness operating independently of.... let alone following the death of.... the brain.

You have contradicted yourself above there claiming the feelings of others on this forum. I don't see anyone backing you up!



There are studies about OBE experiences but far fewer about the recent NDE. There have been many claims about remote viewing in this category not proved beyond all doubt but to say there is no evidence is not fully true.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

You have contradicted yourself above there claiming the feelings of others on this forum. I don't see anyone backing you up!

This thread is not about that, as I said I have no interest in you playing the player and not the ball and making this about me. I told you what my EXPERIENCE of this forum has been. Nothing more. If you want to pretend otherwise, you are on your own. But if you want evidence on this then read the rules too. It is actually stated there that repeating a position without entertaining discussion on it is heavily frowned upon. Which is what I said basically.

saabsaab wrote: »

There are studies about OBE experiences but far fewer about the recent NDE. There have been many claims about remote viewing in this category not proved beyond all doubt but to say there is no evidence is not fully true.

Well to be 100% accurate there is no evidence I have personally seen. And I have looked, and followed the studies with interest and found nothing. Anywhere. Ever.

If YOU feel there is evidence therefore by all means cite it. Just saying it is not true there is none..... is just another assertion. If it is not true, then cite some of the evidence and we can look at it.

Until such time as some is cited however I stand by the statement there appears to be none. But I am happy to change that to saying there is none *I* have been able to find. Not for want of trying though. And certainly not for want of asking people who claims there is evidence who then manage to never actually show it.

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This thread is not about that, as I said I have no interest in you playing the player and not the ball and making this about me. I told you what my EXPERIENCE of this forum has been. Nothing more. If you want to pretend otherwise, you are on your own. But if you want evidence on this then read the rules too. It is actually stated there that repeating a position without entertaining discussion on it is heavily frowned upon. Which is what I said basically.



Well to be 100% accurate there is no evidence I have personally seen. And I have looked, and followed the studies with interest and found nothing. Anywhere. Ever.

If YOU feel there is evidence therefore by all means cite it. Just saying it is not true there is none..... is just another assertion. If it is not true, then cite some of the evidence and we can look at it.

Until such time as some is cited however I stand by the statement there appears to be none. But I am happy to change that to saying there is none *I* have been able to find. Not for want of trying though. And certainly not for want of asking people who claims there is evidence who then manage to never actually show it.

Showing a bit of backseat modding and repeating yourself into the bargain there.


I didn't have to look too hard but see below unless this going too far and is dropping links. It shows some evidence for what I have been saying but you may not think it qualifies.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

saabsaab

Just in case anyone is interested the Late Late is running an item on a NDE tonight.

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

Showing a bit of backseat modding and repeating yourself into the bargain there.

Evidencing my claim by citing the rules is not back seat modding. It is substantiating a claim I made. You should try this sometime? But from this point forward I will be ignoring any attempts you continue to make to make it looks like I have said/done things I have not and will be merely referring them with the report function. I will not be a platform someone uses to derail the thread any longer.

saabsaab wrote: »

I didn't have to look too hard but see below unless this going too far and is dropping links. It shows some evidence for what I have been saying but you may not think it qualifies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

There is nothing wrong links as far as I know. The issue is just when a user drops links and says little or nothing about them to further discussion on the forum.

However I am not sure what you think this link is evidence for? This is evidence that NDE happens. It is right there in the title. And to my knowledge not one person on this thread has even come CLOSE to saying they do not believe they happen. So you are evidencing nothing more than something that the thread appears to have long accepted as fact.

The "conclusion" of the report says little more than NDE has not been explained. This too is something I thought was already accepted in our conversation so far. We might as well look for a study showing water is wet at this point?

The conclusion section is problematic in my view though. It states "However, NDErs are generally unconscious or clinically dead at the time of their experiences and should not have any lucid organized memories from their time of unconsciousness."

That is an unwarranted assertion by the author of that line. We simply do not know this to be true. The author simply made this bit up.

The study finishes by saying over 95% of the people think their experience was real. I think I am happy to accept their experience was real too!

I do not question that the experiences are real. At all. Anywhere. Ever. What I question is about their... and other peoples.... interpretation of what it was an experience OF. Which is consciousness operating independently of, or folling the death of, the brain. And it is THAT which I am telling you I have not yet once found any evidence for. Certainly not in your link.

saabsaab wrote: »

Just in case anyone is interested the Late Late is running an item on a NDE tonight.

I hope they do so more responsibly than that time they had the woman on who was hearing voices which she asserted were the voices of gods angels. My opinion is that they were massively irresponsible, even damaging and dangerous, to the safety and well being of the public iin how they did that one. Though it is quite some years ago now.

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Evidencing my claim by citing the rules is not back seat modding. It is substantiating a claim I made. You should try this sometime? But from this point forward I will be ignoring any attempts you continue to make to make it looks like I have said/done things I have not and will be merely referring them with the report function. I will not be a platform someone uses to derail the thread any longer.



There is nothing wrong links as far as I know. The issue is just when a user drops links and says little or nothing about them to further discussion on the forum.

However I am not sure what you think this link is evidence for? This is evidence that NDE happens. It is right there in the title. And to my knowledge not one person on this thread has even come CLOSE to saying they do not believe they happen. So you are evidencing nothing more than something that the thread appears to have long accepted as fact.

The "conclusion" of the report says little more than NDE has not been explained. This too is something I thought was already accepted in our conversation so far. We might as well look for a study showing water is wet at this point?

The conclusion section is problematic in my view though. It states "However, NDErs are generally unconscious or clinically dead at the time of their experiences and should not have any lucid organized memories from their time of unconsciousness."

That is an unwarranted assertion by the author of that line. We simply do not know this to be true. The author simply made this bit up.

The study finishes by saying over 95% of the people think their experience was real. I think I am happy to accept their experience was real too!

I do not question that the experiences are real. At all. Anywhere. Ever. What I question is about their... and other peoples.... interpretation of what it was an experience OF. Which is consciousness operating independently of, or folling the death of, the brain. And it is THAT which I am telling you I have not yet once found any evidence for. Certainly not in your link.



I hope they do so more responsibly than that time they had the woman on who was hearing voices which she asserted were the voices of gods angels. My opinion is that they were massively irresponsible, even damaging and dangerous, to the safety and well being of the public iin how they did that one. Though it is quite some years ago now.

Where did I do that 'in bold above'?


'That is an unwarranted assertion by the author of that line. We simply do not know this to be true. The author simply made this bit up.'


Really, just made it up Eh? Maybe they felt there was some evidence? You do seem to think you can tell others what they can think. Or am I wrong?

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

Where did I do that 'in bold above'?

Already answered in my previous posts.

saabsaab wrote: »

Really, just made it up Eh? Maybe they felt there was some evidence? You do seem to think you can tell others what they can think. Or am I wrong?

I have not said what anyone can or can not think. What I am doing is evaluating what they claim/say. Massively different.

The author claimed without a shred of substantiation or evidence that "unconscious or clinically dead" patients "should not have any lucid organized memories from their time of unconsciousness".

There is no evidence for this claim on offer. We simply do not know this to be true. The author is imagining it to be true it seems. But a shred of evidence that it IS true is absent.

saabsaab

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Already answered in my previous posts.



I have not said what anyone can or can not think. What I am doing is evaluating what they claim/say. Massively different.

The author claimed without a shred of substantiation or evidence that "unconscious or clinically dead" patients "should not have any lucid organized memories from their time of unconsciousness".

There is no evidence for this claim on offer. We simply do not know this to be true. The author is imagining it to be true it seems. But a shred of evidence that it IS true is absent.

Again a very high handed answer in response.



Perhaps they are more qualified that you are? Have you some expertise in this area?

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

Perhaps they are more qualified that you are? Have you some expertise in this area?

Argument from authority? Really? A claim is either true or false on it's own merits. Not the merits of the qualifications of the person making it.

saabsaab wrote: »

Have you some expertise in this area?

I have expertise in how to write / read / evaluate science papers yes. And putting entirely unqualified unsubstantiated statements in like that.... is very poor science writing indeed.

I know of NO arguments, evidence, data, or reasoning that even remotely suggests their claim remotely true.

That you or the author might "feel" there is (as you put it).... is useless white noise.

What IS true is that we actually have no idea what the brain is, or is not, capable of in such states.

saabsaab

No evidence?


I quote from link below

'Perhaps the most famous case of this kind is that of Maria, originally
reported by her critical care social worker, Kimberly Clark (1984).
Maria was a migrant worker who, while visiting friends in Seattle, had
a severe heart attack. She was rushed to Harborview Hospital and
placed in the coronary care unit. A few days later she had a cardiac
arrest and an unusual out-of-body experience. At one point in this
experience, she found herself outside the hospital and spotted a single
tennis shoe sitting on the ledge of the north side of the third floor of the
building. Maria not only was able to indicate the whereabouts of this
oddly situated object, but was able to provide precise details concern-
ing its appearance, such as that its little toe was worn and one of its
laces was stuck underneath its heel.'


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226754118_Further_evidence_for_veridical_perception_during_near-death_experiences

nozzferrahhtoo

saabsaab wrote: »

No evidence?

I am aware of that case yes, as a lot of proponents of the after life like to cite it as one of the aces in their hand.

But this case is why controlled experiments like Sam Parnia's are massively important. Because in THIS case there is no controls used and no verification possible for us.

At best all we have is an anecdote of someone who knew something and we currently do not know how they know it.

Worse an anecdote that was reported (forgive me if I am wrong here, I am doing this from memory) 6 or 7 years after the fact. A story can grow/change a lot in that time. I suggest you look into "Chinese whispers" and "recall bias" as useful starting points here to understand why.

That is not "evidence" for anything.

Worse though is what happened later. The people making the claim said it was not possible to see the shoe from the ground outside. Two researchers however went there, placed a shoe in exactly the position concerned and.... to quote an article directly "astonished at the ease with which they could see and identify the shoe".

In fact quite a lot of what was claimed about how hard it was to see the shoe turned out then to be false. For example it was claimed they had to push their face right up against the glass on the inside of the hospital to see it. But the people looking into the claim actually found it was perfectly visible from "various points" within the room.

So no this is not useful evidence at all. Except... that is.... for the deep necessity to engage in double blind control experiments on subjects like this rather than clutching at anecdotal straws that tickle our bias.

saabsaab

I felt that you would dismiss this too. That is why others are seeking to find hard evidence. There is some evidence (and not no evidence) and gives cause for proper further investigations.