Mind/Brain Identism

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Mind/Brain Identism

Has science proven that the mind and the brain are identical? Not according to British scientist Raymond Tallis. Below is a link to a talk he gave at the "Neuroscience Panel Discussion" in the U.K. (To those forum members suffering from ADD...the "YouTube" video is only seven minutes long).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seg8kjc6Z84

Raymond Tallis is a self-professed atheist who eschews materialistic interpretations of the mind. He employs the term "neurotheologists" to describe those scientists/philosophers who assume that the mind and the brain are identical. The primary neurotheologist is apparently Daniel Dennett. See link below for the article entitled "The Ardent Atheist" by Andrew Brown, published in "The Guardian."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/apr/29/philosophy1

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Correction. Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientifically validated fact. Indeed, the prevailing scientific evidence (i.e. quantum mechanics) does not support materialism.

No matter how much you repeat that tired lie, it is still not true. The material universe can be described on some level using QM. How is that not material exactly?

It's pretty simple. Materialism requires determinism and the prevailing scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate (IOW, quantum events are physically uncaused and unbidden). And I'm afraid that quoting your "college introductory physics  course instructor" is not going to change this fact.

Jormungander wrote:
No matter how much you repeat this other equally tired lie, it is also still not true. Do I need to repost a link to a description compatabilism?

No, because compatibilism is compatible with the idea that sentient beings are nothing more than "robots with consciouness!" What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system." Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:And I'm afraid

Paisley wrote:

And I'm afraid that quoting your "college introductory physics  course instructor" is not going to change this fact.

I have never quoted or mentioned the first four physics classes that I took in college (what I consider to be the intro ones). When I talk about that QM class, I am talking about a class that only covers QM and nothing else. So no, I'm not going to quote any intro to physics professors. On the other hand I will do my best to recall what I learned in Chem 130B. If you want to stop embarrassing yourself, read these helpful (and lighthearted) ppt presentations from the class: https://eee.uci.edu/08w/40906/lectures.html They will actually show the fundamentals of QM. Then read Peter Atkins's textbook entitled Physical Chemistry. Any edition will do. Sentence by sentence you show your fundamental misunderstanding of QM. Please, actually learn about it. Or, barring that, don't belittle those who did actually learn about it.

If I show how very wrong you are in what you state, responding by saying I'm just quoting some professor doesn't actually help your case. If your incorrect statements contradict what I learned about QM in physical chemisty, then I will think you are wrong. If you don't like that then attempt to argue in support of your claims rather than restating them again and again in duplicate threads. Attempting to belittle actual education on this matter doesn't make you seem any less wrong.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I have

Jormungander wrote:
I have never quoted or mentioned the first four physics classes that I took in college (what I consider to be the intro ones). When I talk about that QM class, I am talking about a class that only covers QM and nothing else. So no, I'm not going to quote any intro to physics professors. On the other hand I will do my best to recall what I learned in Chem 130B. If you want to stop embarrassing yourself, read these helpful (and lighthearted) ppt presentations from the class: https://eee.uci.edu/08w/40906/lectures.html They will actually show the fundamentals of QM. Then read Peter Atkins's textbook entitled Physical Chemistry. Any edition will do. Sentence by sentence you show your fundamental misunderstanding of QM. Please, actually learn about it. Or, barring that, don't belittle those who did actually learn about it.

If I show how very wrong you are in what you state, responding by saying I'm just quoting some professor doesn't actually help your case. If your incorrect statements contradict what I learned about QM in physical chemisty, then I will think you are wrong. If you don't like that then attempt to argue in support of your claims rather than restating them again and again in duplicate threads. Attempting to belittle actual education on this matter doesn't make you seem any less wrong.

I'm not interested in your resume. I'm only interested in your counterargument. Thus far, I have seen nothing that you have presented that would remotely persuade me that quantum indeterminacy is due to errors in measurement or disturbances.

Also, you have conveniently evaded my last post....

Paisley wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Jormungander wrote:
No matter how much you repeat this other equally tired lie, it is also still not true. Do I need to repost a link to a description compatabilism?

No, because compatibilism is compatible with the idea that sentient beings are nothing more than "robots with consciouness!" What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system." Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

I expect an appropriate response.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
To which you will respond by

To which you will respond by changing your definitions yet again?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:It's pretty

Paisley wrote:
It's pretty simple. Materialism requires determinism and the prevailing scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate (IOW, quantum events are physically uncaused and unbidden).

So, logically, if scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate, and materialism requires determinism, then the scientists on this board (and even non-scientists like me) are not arguing for materialism. Haven't we been over this?

Paisley wrote:
What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system."

We don't know. That's the succinct answer.

Paisley wrote:
Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

... except exhibit consciousness, naturally.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Thus far, I

Paisley wrote:

Thus far, I have seen nothing that you have presented that would remotely persuade me that quantum indeterminacy is due to errors in measurement or disturbances.

But that is not my argument. I never said that quantum indeterminacy is caused by errors in measurements. I only said that the accuracy of certain measurements can be limited and that you can check if two variables commute to see if there is a limit on how accurately you can measure both at once. Did you really think I was arguing that quantum indeterminacy is due to errors in measurement? Seriously?

 

Paisley wrote:

Also, you have conveniently evaded my last post....

What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system." Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

I expect an appropriate response.

Settle down, Paisley. You have made other posts with this statement in it and I think that I already responded to those old posts on old threads. I thought that this has already been discussed, so I would not need to re-discuss it with you. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself to you. If you won't think up anything new to say, then I'll just ignore your tired and oft-repeated statements. Or, as you put it, I'll 'evade' getting into the same dead-end discussion with you. The first few times I was fine with repeating and re-repeating myself to you. But from now on I'll just not respond to any of your tired old BS. I know that you'll think this is me chickening out and exposing some kind of weakness; but I'm just tired of repeating myself to you. Think up something that we have not already discussed to death in the past, and I'll respond. Repost tired old arguments that everyone has already seen more than once from you, and don't expect anyone to bother getting into to a repeat argument with you. I have a feeling that most people on this forum feel this way. I just held out a bit longer than most in dealing with your repeated arguments.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It's pretty simple. Materialism requires determinism and the prevailing scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate (IOW, quantum events are physically uncaused and unbidden).

So, logically, if scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate, and materialism requires determinism, then the scientists on this board (and even non-scientists like me) are not arguing for materialism. Haven't we been over this?

Sorry, but redefining materialism as physicalism will not resolve this dilemma for you. If there are physical events occurring without physical causation, then physicalism obviously cannot account for the evidence. Hence, whether you call it materialism or physicalism is actually...well...immaterial!

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system."

We don't know. That's the succinct answer.

It may be a succinct answer, but it is not an honest one. The truth is that the materialist cannot explain why (not even in theory).

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

... except exhibit consciousness, naturally.

No, there is no way for the materialist to determine from external appearances what robots are conscious and what robots are not. That's the whole point!

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Sorry, but

Paisley wrote:
Sorry, but redefining materialism as physicalism will not resolve this dilemma for you. If there are physical events occurring without physical causation, then physicalism obviously cannot account for the evidence. Hence, whether you call it materialism or physicalism is actually...well...immaterial!

But the point still stands. You're attacking a position that no one here holds. You keep arguing that causation is necessary, while the rest of us are happy with correlation and observation.

Paisley wrote:
What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system."

HisWillness wrote:
We don't know. That's the succinct answer.

It may be a succinct answer, but it is not an honest one. The truth is that the materialist cannot explain why (not even in theory).

But that is an honest and accurate answer. We don't know why. That's why I said "we don't know". There are, however, several theories, including population bottlenecks, that attempt to explain it. That doesn't mean that we know. We don't. And neither do you.

Paisley wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

... except exhibit consciousness, naturally.

No, there is no way for the materialist to determine from external appearances what robots are conscious and what robots are not. That's the whole point!

I didn't realize the non-materialist had a magical way to determine consciousness from unconsciousness. Of course, since there are no such things as conscious robots (seeing as we reserve the term for biological creatures) it's a moot point. But how do we test consciousness in humans? Why would your hypothetical robot be so different?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Thus far, I have seen nothing that you have presented that would remotely persuade me that quantum indeterminacy is due to errors in measurement or disturbances.

But that is not my argument. I never said that quantum indeterminacy is caused by errors in measurements. I only said that the accuracy of certain measurements can be limited and that you can check if two variables commute to see if there is a limit on how accurately you can measure both at once. Did you really think I was arguing that quantum indeterminacy is due to errors in measurement? Seriously?

Perhaps I should refresh your memory. The following is post#82 of this thread:

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I understand enough to know that quantum indeterminacy has nothing to do with experimental errors in measurement

You are just repeating that incorrect statement. Apparently you misunderstand enough to be so confused as to not know that quantum indeterminacy means that there is a limit to how accurate some measurements can be.

No, I'm not repeating an incorrect statement. Quantum indeterminacy has nothing to do with experimental errors in measurement!

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Also, you have conveniently evaded my last post....

What I would like you to explain to me is why a "SENTIENT stimulus-response system" was naturally selected over an "INSENTIENT stimulus-response system." Why? Because on the materialistic worldview there is nothing a "robot WITH consciousness" can do that a "robot WITHOUT consciousness" cannot.

I expect an appropriate response.

Settle down, Paisley. You have made other posts with this statement in it and I think that I already responded to those old posts on old threads. I thought that this has already been discussed, so I would not need to re-discuss it with you. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself to you. If you won't think up anything new to say, then I'll just ignore your tired and oft-repeated statements. Or, as you put it, I'll 'evade' getting into the same dead-end discussion with you. The first few times I was fine with repeating and re-repeating myself to you. But from now on I'll just not respond to any of your tired old BS. I know that you'll think this is me chickening out and exposing some kind of weakness;

Agreed. You lack the intellectual honesty to admit that materialism cannot account for it.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So you guys agree and you

So you guys agree and you throw an insult anyway?

Odd...

Let me see if I have this straight - materialism can't account for everything so you add a God created by material human beings to do so?

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Let me see if

jcgadfly wrote:

Let me see if I have this straight - materialism can't account for everything so you add a God created by material human beings to do so?

Naw. It's "Materialism can't explain some things, so atheism makes no sense."

...

Yeah.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, I'm not

Paisley wrote:

No, I'm not repeating an incorrect statement. Quantum indeterminacy has nothing to do with experimental errors in measurement! 

Wow. I don't know what to say. Well... actually I do know what to say. You're a lost cause, and I don't know why anybody bothers arguing with you.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Paisley

spike.barnett wrote:

Paisley wrote:

No, I'm not repeating an incorrect statement. Quantum indeterminacy has nothing to do with experimental errors in measurement! 

Wow. I don't know what to say. Well... actually I do know what to say. You're a lost cause, and I don't know why anybody bothers arguing with you.

I know what you mean by this. I put in a pretty good effort; so I feel as if I honestly tried to get through to him. And, if Paisley ever comes up with something new, I'll be glad to bicker with him over that. But I can't take too much more of this. We have all had our say on the matter and, short of repeating ourselves, I don't see anything more to say.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Sorry, but redefining materialism as physicalism will not resolve this dilemma for you. If there are physical events occurring without physical causation, then physicalism obviously cannot account for the evidence. Hence, whether you call it materialism or physicalism is actually...well...immaterial!

But the point still stands. You're attacking a position that no one here holds. You keep arguing that causation is necessary, while the rest of us are happy with correlation and observation.

Correction, there actually are individuals here who are not willing to accept the fact that there is scientific evidence for physical events occurring without physical causation. Indeed, you were once such an individual. That you are now acknowledging this fact is only a recent development. Evidently, you have finally come to see the light. Be this as it may, your theory of "materialism" cannot account for the scientific evidence.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It may be a succinct answer, but it is not an honest one. The truth is that the materialist cannot explain why (not even in theory).

But that is an honest and accurate answer. We don't know why. That's why I said "we don't know". There are, however, several theories, including population bottlenecks, that attempt to explain it. That doesn't mean that we know. We don't. And neither do you.

What I do know is that logic precludes the possibility that materialism will ever account for the anomaly of consciousness.

By the way, I'm not a materialist. I don't have to account for emergence of consciousness. I consider it to be fundamental. And the prevailing scientific evidence supports my view.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
No, there is no way for the materialist to determine from external appearances what robots are conscious and what robots are not. That's the whole point!

I didn't realize the non-materialist had a magical way to determine consciousness from unconsciousness.

I call it nonsensory perception, not magic. But on the materialistic worldview, it might be construed as magic. At any rate, there is definitely scientific evidence for telepathy.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Of course, since there are no such things as conscious robots (seeing as we reserve the term for biological creatures) it's a moot point.

No, it's not a moot point. On the materialistic worldview, there is every reason to believe that there are human beings who are actually organic robots without consciousness.

HisWillness wrote:
But how do we test consciousness in humans? Why would your hypothetical robot be so different?

You're making my point. Thank you very much!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
But how do we test consciousness in humans? Why would your hypothetical robot be so different?

You're making my point. Thank you very much!

There is the mirror method. It's not perfect, but if the being is conscious and intelligent it'll work just fine.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I know

Jormungander wrote:

I know what you mean by this. I put in a pretty good effort; so I feel as if I honestly tried to get through to him. And, if Paisley ever comes up with something new, I'll be glad to bicker with him over that. But I can't take too much more of this. We have all had our say on the matter and, short of repeating ourselves, I don't see anything more to say.

I guess I just answered my own question. I just replied, knowing full well how useless it was. Even though I see the futility in it I still feel compelled to point out the bullshit when I see it...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Correction,

Paisley wrote:
Correction, there actually are individuals here who are not willing to accept the fact that there is scientific evidence for physical events occurring without physical causation. Indeed, you were once such an individual.

That was while I was still trying to figure out what you were raving about. We traversed through several schools of thought before I figured out that you're a Neoplatonist. After that, it made sense.

Paisley wrote:
That you are now acknowledging this fact is only a recent development. Evidently, you have finally come to see the light. Be this as it may, your theory of "materialism" cannot account for the scientific evidence.

How many times do I have to say I side with the evidence and have not presented a theory of materialism?

Paisley wrote:
By the way, I'm not a materialist. I don't have to account for emergence of consciousness. I consider it to be fundamental.

That's because you're a Neoplatonist. I know you're not a materialist. EVERYONE knows you're not a materialist. But considering consciousness to be "fundamental" lacks meaning.

Paisley wrote:
And the prevailing scientific evidence supports my view.

What are you on? Scientific evidence that supports the idea that "consciousness is fundamental"? The sentence doesn't even mean anything! How could scientific evidence support a meaningless statement?

Paisley wrote:
I call it nonsensory perception, not magic.

Ah-hahahahaha! Ha!

Hehe. Whoo!

Oh man. That's a good one.

You know what "nonsensory perception" is usually referred to as? Hallucination.

Paisley wrote:
But on the materialistic worldview, it might be construed as magic. At any rate, there is definitely scientific evidence for telepathy.

I had no idea that you were a supernaturalist, too. If there's scientific evidence for telepathy, why hasn't anyone collected James Randi's prize? It's $1,000,000. Surely someone would want that money, and if there's so much scientific evidence, then it could be collected easily.

Paisley wrote:
No, it's not a moot point. On the materialistic worldview, there is every reason to believe that there are human beings who are actually organic robots without consciousness.

Oh. I guess that's unfortunate for them, then. I mean if they're unconscious. Wait, when you're dreaming are you unconscious? I mean, in your version of things. I don't know if we've talked about your version of consciousness, considering it's "fundamental" and all.

Paisley wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
But how do we test consciousness in humans? Why would your hypothetical robot be so different?

You're making my point. Thank you very much!

You're declaring victory based on a hypothetical robot scenario ... that is meant to illustrate reality. Congratulations on confusing yourself.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Paisley

Sinphanius wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Okay. Just for the sake of clarity, are you claiming that the mind is separate and therefore not identical with brain?

No, of course not. Given that there is no evidence that such is the case I do not believe it is the case. I maintain that my ultimate answer to the question of whether the brain is identical to the mind is simply 'I don't know, but it certainly seems like it comes from the brain.' Until there is actually some evidence for the existence of some non-physical aspect to the mind, I will not believe in it.

The bottom line here is that you believe (by default) that the mind is identical with the brain!

Sinphanius wrote:
Simply stating that the current physical interpretation cannot explain something and therefore proves that there is a non-physical element is nothing more than a supernaturalism of the gaps argument.

And simply saying "we have to wait and see" is nothing more than promissory materialism or a "materialism of the gaps" argument. See, it works both ways!

By the way, you seem to be operating under the false impression that dualistic theories of the mind and brain have no currency in science. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would classify "epiphenomenalism" and "supervenience theory" (both of which are actually dualistic theories) as supernatural theories of the mind.

Sinphanius wrote:
Remember, disproving one hypothesis does not automatically vindicate another, to claim that it does is to invoke a false dichotomy.

But it does invalidate the said hypothesis!

Sinphanius wrote:
Before you whine at me that I am just using a 'physicalism of the gaps' argument, I would like to point out that I am not asserting that because the supernatural description does not explain everything, which granted it doesn't as it explains nothing but merely dodges the question, this proves a physical cause. I think the mind is likely an emergent process of the physical brain because damage to the later can and does affect the former, irreversibly, and in ways that make sense based on the mind being a property of the brain, but don't make sense based on the idea of the mind being channeled through the brain, as were this the case we would not see the loss of specific memories or aspects of personality. Furthermore we would not see the ability to influence a person's choice based on physical substances.

The mind is an "emergent process" of the brain? Once again you appear to be wavering on the issue at hand here. Which one is it: A) the mind is physical, or B) the mind is nonphysical? (This is not a trick question.)

Sinphanius wrote:
I have a request at this point which I am fairly certain you will blatantly ignore; if the mind is a non-physical entity that is simply channeled through the brain, then explain chemical addictions and their ability to make someone choose to continue taking whatever substance they are addicted to.

If the mind is simply a by-product of the brain, then please explain to me why the twelve-step program has proven to be hugely successful in the recovery of individuals from alcoholism and other forms of chemical dependencies?

Sinphanius wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Yes. And it is the basis for quantum indeterminacy.

Indeed it is, now this becomes funny when placed next to your next line;

Paisley wrote:
Quantum indeterminacy has nothing to do with errors in measurement.

You then go on to quote the wikipedia page, which reads;


wikipedia wrote:
Indeterminacy in measurement was not an innovation of quantum mechanics, since it had been established early on by experimentalists that errors in measurement may lead to indeterminate outcomes. However, by the later half of the eighteenth century, measurement errors were well understood and it was known that they could either be reduced by better equipment or accounted for by statistical error models. In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.

(source: Wikipedia: Quantum indeterminacy)


What makes this funny is that you still don't understand the nature of metaphor. I grow weary of explaining it to you, however to put it as simply as I can, the ball was nothing more than a metaphor. The fact that we will never be able to determine the exact precise landing spot of the ball does not mean that the ball does not have an exact precise landing spot, merely that we cannot determine it. Likewise, I see no reason to suspect that because we can only represent the aspects of the universe described by quantum mechanics as probability distributions and possible states, that these aspects are thus nothing more than probability distributions themselves. If you contend that this is the case, explain yourself and prove it.

I don't know why you think it's funny. You were operating under the false impression the quantum indeterminacy is the result of errors in measurement. And as the Wikipedia article clearly states...it has nothing to do with errors in measurment!

Sinphanius wrote:
What promotes this from funny to hilarious is that, if quantum indeterminacy is actually a fundamental aspect of the physical universe, which seems to be the case, then this allows at least some aspect of the universe to be 'random'. This was one weakness the pre-quantum universe contained, it could not be random, were one to know every variable and have a sufficiently powerful computer at their disposal, they could predict the entire course of the universe. With quantum indeterminacy your beloved free will can be explained as nothing more than the ultimate outcome of the fundamentally random nature of micro-physics and the random fluctuations in the paths of specific particles providing a random and thus unpredictable aspect to human will.

Correction. The moment you attribute quantum indeterminacy to conscious will (which you apparently have in the foregoing statement), then it is no longer a random act, but an intentional one.

Sinphanius wrote:
I fully expect that you will now try to state that I am actually arguing against Materialism and for a supernatural aspect of the universe. Given that the preceding sentence was the first time in this post I have used the word material, I think you might want to actually argue against something I have written instead of strawmanning my argument.

You have made an argument against materialism. Thank you very much!

Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, you would need to explain just why this 'random' aspect of the universe requires a supernatural aspect of the universe in order to exist.

Because it does not have a physical explanation. Therefore, we can safely assume that it has a nonphysical explanation.

Sinphanius wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Correction. Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientifically validated fact. Indeed, the prevailing scientific evidence (i.e. quantum mechanics) does not support materialism.


Once again, had I actually mentioned Materialism once in the text you quoted, you might actually have a point, as I did not, you do not.

If you are not willing to admit that you subscribe to atheistic materialism, then we should end this discussion right now. I'm only interested in debating individuals who subscribe to atheistic materialism. Quit wasting my precious time!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:How many

HisWillness wrote:
How many times do I have to say I side with the evidence and have not presented a theory of materialism?

Do you side with physicalism? Or, are you one of these individuals who is incapable of taking a philosophical position?

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
By the way, I'm not a materialist. I don't have to account for emergence of consciousness. I consider it to be fundamental.

That's because you're a Neoplatonist. I know you're not a materialist. EVERYONE knows you're not a materialist. But considering consciousness to be "fundamental" lacks meaning.

The term "meaning" presupposes consciousness. Without consciousness, nothing would be meaningful.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
And the prevailing scientific evidence supports my view.

What are you on? Scientific evidence that supports the idea that "consciousness is fundamental"? The sentence doesn't even mean anything! How could scientific evidence support a meaningless statement?

Quantum theory, neuroscience, parapsychology, neo-Darwinian evolution theory, etc.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I call it nonsensory perception, not magic.
Paisley wrote:
But on the materialistic worldview, it might be construed as magic. At any rate, there is definitely scientific evidence for telepathy.

I had no idea that you were a supernaturalist, too. If there's scientific evidence for telepathy, why hasn't anyone collected James Randi's prize? It's $1,000,000. Surely someone would want that money, and if there's so much scientific evidence, then it could be collected easily.

I have already provided this forum with the video from Dean Radin in which he presented the evidence for psi phenomena. And he did address the "James Randi" challenge. He said it costs a lot more than a million dollars to actually conduct the research and produce the kind of data that Randi demands. IOW, Randi's challenge is bogus.

HisWillness wrote:
Wait, when you're dreaming are you unconscious? I mean, in your version of things. I don't know if we've talked about your version of consciousness, considering it's "fundamental" and all.

Conscious

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Do you side

Paisley wrote:
Do you side with physicalism? Or, are you one of these individuals who is incapable of taking a philosophical position?

You know where I side. I'm a physicalist in the sense that everything is physical, including physical evidence. The non-physical is indistinguishable from pure imagination, so I have no problem dismissing it. Indirect evidence, like calculation, relies on the natural world remaining physical.

Paisley wrote:
The term "meaning" presupposes consciousness. Without consciousness, nothing would be meaningful.

But what you're arguing, then, is more about communication than it is the universe itself. Yes, the only way for us to communicate in a way that we find meaningful is with the underlying consciousness of our individual minds. But that's precisely because we use the words "meaningful", "conscious" and "mind" to describe behaviours that we exhibit.

Epistemologically, you've created an extremely unhelpful circle, there. "It's meaningful because we say it is, therefore our consciousness is the basis for everything" borders on the solipsistic. Of course, it's not, it's neoplatonic, a philosophical stance that kept human knowledge in the dark for almost 1,000 years in the Western world.

Paisley wrote:
Quantum theory, neuroscience, parapsychology, neo-Darwinian evolution theory, etc.

It's an interesting tactic to throw a pseudo-science in there.

Paisley wrote:
I have already provided this forum with the video from Dean Radin in which he presented the evidence for psi phenomena. And he did address the "James Randi" challenge. He said it costs a lot more than a million dollars to actually conduct the research and produce the kind of data that Randi demands. IOW, Randi's challenge is bogus.

But Radin performs comparable studies all the time, and seems to bear the cost of these studies without complaint. What I mean is that it's something he's already doing, so this opportunity to recoup his costs would be wonderful for him, one would think. If what he's saying is that he can't afford to do real science, then I'm afraid that's a bit of a weak argument.

He'd just need a statistically significant population (over 100 subjects) to demonstrate something that falsifies the currently held limitations on the human mind. He would then no longer be engaging in pseudo-science, but would have discovered something that could be considered "psychology" rather than "parapsychology".

I don't see why that would cost $1,000,000, considering how many universities operate psych labs without incurring those kinds of costs.

Don't get me wrong - I love new scientific discoveries. If it could be shown that we are able to communicate without touch, smell, sight, or hearing, I'd be very interested. Thus far, all we have are statistically insignificant results that could easily be explained away by error.

Radin presumably already does research, so why would it be so hard to do this research in a scientific way?

edit:

PS - Apparently I was wrong! All Radin would need to do is show that one person (one!) can perform some ability previously deemed impossible. Here are the rules:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

They don't require a study at all! You had me fooled!

Now ... how would showing up and demonstrating a psychic power cost someone $1,000,000? That's quite the train ticket.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You know

HisWillness wrote:
You know where I side. I'm a physicalist in the sense that everything is physical, including physical evidence. The non-physical is indistinguishable from pure imagination, so I have no problem dismissing it. Indirect evidence, like calculation, relies on the natural world remaining physical.

You believe in a brand of "physicalism" in which physical events occur without physical causation. As such, your brand of physicalism is MEANINGLESS.

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The term "meaning" presupposes consciousness. Without consciousness, nothing would be meaningful.

But what you're arguing, then, is more about communication than it is the universe itself. Yes, the only way for us to communicate in a way that we find meaningful is with the underlying consciousness of our individual minds. But that's precisely because we use the words "meaningful", "conscious" and "mind" to describe behaviours that we exhibit.

Epistemologically, you've created an extremely unhelpful circle, there. "It's meaningful because we say it is, therefore our consciousness is the basis for everything" borders on the solipsistic. Of course, it's not, it's neoplatonic, a philosophical stance that kept human knowledge in the dark for almost 1,000 years in the Western world.

This has nothing to with epistemology. It's simply a matter of understanding the English language.

I said that I believe consciousnesss (the mental) is fundamental. You said this is meaningless. What exactly is it about this statement that you don't understand?

You believe that the physical is fundamental. Should I say that this is meaningless? (Well, actually it is meaningless in your case because you have redefined physicalism to be compatible with nonphysical causes! The nonphysical causes is what we call conscious will. Hopefully this will  clarify things for you.)

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Quantum theory, neuroscience, parapsychology, neo-Darwinian evolution theory, etc.

It's an interesting tactic to throw a pseudo-science in there.

Parapyschology is a science. It's accepted as a science by the AAAS (the largest scientific society in the world).

Quote:
Tthe Parapsychological Association took a large step in advancing the field of parapsychology in 1969 when it became affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest general scientific society in the world.[28]

(source: Wikipedia: Parapyschology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

HisWillness wrote:
PS - Apparently I was wrong! All Radin would need to do is show that one person (one!) can perform some ability previously deemed impossible. Here are the rules:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

They don't require a study at all! You had me fooled!

Now ... how would showing up and demonstrating a psychic power cost someone $1,000,000? That's quite the train ticket.

No, that is not what the rules say (which have been conveniently changed as of April 1, 2007). Randi himself must agree to what constitutes a positive result and what constitutes a negative result (rule #1). How convenient! Moreover, he requires results that no other human science would be able to meet (e.g. psychology or sociology). The bottom line is that his challenge is a bogus one.

Dean Radin addresses the "Randi Challenge." See time @ 1:00 and also time @1:23 in the YouTube video link provided below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rule #1 governing the JREF

Rule #1 governing the JREF Challenge states"

Quote:

applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.

It is a mutual agreement, Paisley, a basic requirement in any contract. Interpreting that requirement as JR being the (implied) sole judge as to whether the demonstration has been successful is perversely dishonest and/or ignorant.

JR is just requiring that the applicant clearly state what they intend to demonstrate, in advance, and JR has to agree to pay out on a positive result. JR only requires that a positive and negative be clearly distinguishable, using criteria acceptable to both sides.

JR changed the rules recently to restrict the range of those who could apply to those who had made significant public claims, in the media, to avoid the ongoing cost of testing the many individuals who were convinced they had powers, but had never tested them under conditions which could eliminate misinterpretation or mundane explanation, and failed completely under conditions which they readily agreed to. None of these applicants have passed even the preliminary test, despite being quite confident that they would be able to. IOW their subjective perception of their psychic abilities was quite mistaken, which incidentally is further evidence that conscious judgement of such things is quite unreliable, so trying to use your own internal conviction that consciousness is not a manifestation of physical processes as 'proof' of your position is worthless.

JR's main beef is with the prominent 'psychics' who make money out of convincing the paying public of their 'powers', and in the case of 'healers', actually lead to harm and death to people who forgo proper medical treatment in pursuit of these charlatans.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Rule #1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Rule #1 governing the JREF Challenge states"

Quote:

applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.

It is a mutual agreement, Paisley, a basic requirement in any contract. Interpreting that requirement as JR being the (implied) sole judge as to whether the demonstration has been successful is perversely dishonest and/or ignorant.

Yeah, he must agree what constitutes a positive result or else "we don't have any deal and therefore I'm not obliged to fork over the money." Well, how freaking convenient!

Imagine that I will offer a million dollars to anyone who can provide me with scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having either a heart attack or stroke. And when an individual approaches me with statistical data that demonstrates that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will actually reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke, I refuse to sign the contract because I demand a higher-statistical percentage than what the experimental results indicate. Well, how convenient for me! But does this really mean there is no scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke? Answer: No! It's a bogus challenge.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You believe in

Paisley wrote:
You believe in a brand of "physicalism" in which physical events occur without physical causation. As such, your brand of physicalism is MEANINGLESS.

You keep doing that. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics involves non-physical things again? Is that where this comes from? Your need for Newtonian causation borders on the obsessive. I still side with the available data, which is based on tests of physical things. You can call that meaningless if you want, but it's just observation.

Paisley wrote:
I said that I believe consciousnesss (the mental) is fundamental. You said this is meaningless. What exactly is it about this statement that you don't understand?

"The mental" is only observable by one species (us) regarding one species (us). It's not a specific term, it's a catch-all. When you say "fundamental", it's also vague. I'm left to wonder if you mean that the collection of human minds is responsible somehow for matter. Is that where your causation argument is going? But at least that would be a falsifiable statement, whereas "consciousness is fundamental" lacks specificity to such a degree that it cannot be falsified.

How, for example, would we test the notion that "consciousness" (of whom? in what capacity? attentive or inattentive?) is "fundamental" (to what? of what? in what capacity?). It's vague enough so that it cannot be tested. I therefore think the idea lacks credibility based solely on the fact that you're presenting something that is neither true nor false, and thus epistemologically unhelpful. That means it doesn't help us learn anything, before you say it doesn't have anything to do with epistemology again.

Paisley wrote:
You believe that the physical is fundamental.

What I believe is that the physical is observable. If you want to contrive a neoplatonic argument out of that, be my guest. 

Paisley wrote:
Should I say that this is meaningless? (Well, actually it is meaningless in your case because you have redefined physicalism to be compatible with nonphysical causes! The nonphysical causes is what we call conscious will. Hopefully this will  clarify things for you.)

It would clarify things for me if it weren't a misrepresentation of what I said, and then the introduction of conscious will as non-physical. That I require causation for my "worldview" is a big stretch of your imagination. Conscious will only exists in biological creatures, it seems, so the correlation between will and creatures is 100%. It would be difficult for you to demonstrate that one causes the other, certainly, and I won't bother trying. Nor do I need to, considering a quick comparison of what we learn from successful epistemologies like the scientific method, and unsuccessful epistemologies like neoplatonic contemplation.

Paisley wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Quantum theory, neuroscience, parapsychology, neo-Darwinian evolution theory, etc.

It's an interesting tactic to throw a pseudo-science in there.

Parapyschology is a science.

Strangely, you knew which one I thought was hooey. Anyway, I'm glad they're part of the science club. Maybe some day, we'll have a collection of studies that shows us ... something. I wish them good luck with that.

Paisley wrote:
Dean Radin addresses the "Randi Challenge." See time @ 1:00 and also time @1:23 in the YouTube video link provided below:

His argument is that statistically, he observes an effect in 1 of every quintillion samples. And he's using meta-analysis.

Anyone else who has taken a stats course and finds this argument hilarious?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yeah, he must

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, he must agree what constitutes a positive result or else "we don't have any deal and therefore I'm not obliged to fork over the money." Well, how freaking convenient!

Of course he will only place his money in jeopardy after clearly defining what success and failure is. How could such an offer work without there being a mutually agreed upon criteria of what failure or success means?

 

Paisley wrote:

Imagine that I will offer a million dollars to anyone who can provide me with scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having either a heart attack or stroke. And when an individual approaches me with statistical data that demonstrates that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will actually reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke, I refuse to sign the contract because I demand a higher-statistical percentage than what the experimental results indicate. Well, how convenient for me! But does this really mean there is no scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke? Answer: No! It's a bogus challenge.

Bad analogy. The fact that statistically significant results were obtained is what shows that low doses of aspirin help prevent heart attacks. Look up what 'statistically significant' means and you'll see why that analogy falls apart. These fraud psychics are unable to obtain statistically significant results at all. It is not that Randi is unreasonable with what counts as success, it is that these people fail to achieve positive results when you get them to very clearly define what results they claim that they can produce. The saddest part is that these people believe their own bullshit. They are surprised when they fail. They really think that their powers are real until those powers are put to the test.

But I suppose that this is all moot. Randi is sick and tired of exposing petty frauds. Unless you are a high profile fraud, then he isn't interested in you. At least I think I remember reading about how he is no longer considering run of the mill frauds any more.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You keep

HisWillness wrote:
You keep doing that. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics involves non-physical things again? Is that where this comes from? Your need for Newtonian causation borders on the obsessive. I still side with the available data, which is based on tests of physical things. You can call that meaningless if you want, but it's just observation

It's an observation for which your theory of physicalism cannot explain. Hence, your theory is wrong.

HisWillness wrote:
"The mental" is only observable by one species (us) regarding one species (us). It's not a specific term, it's a catch-all. When you say "fundamental", it's also vague. I'm left to wonder if you mean that the collection of human minds is responsible somehow for matter. Is that where your causation argument is going? But at least that would be a falsifiable statement, whereas "consciousness is fundamental" lacks specificity to such a degree that it cannot be falsified.

The mental is only observable by one species? So, let me see...my cat doesn't have a mental life?

We can ascribe mentality to the electron. Is that specific enough for you?

HisWillness wrote:
How, for example, would we test the notion that "consciousness" (of whom? in what capacity? attentive or inattentive?) is "fundamental" (to what? of what? in what capacity?). It's vague enough so that it cannot be tested.

No, actually it's not. Dean Radin is heading a project entitled the "Global Consciousness" project" where he is specifically testing for "collective attentiveness." In fact, I intend this to be the subject matter of my next thread. Stay tuned.

HisWillness wrote:
What I believe is that the physical is observable. If you want to contrive a neoplatonic argument out of that, be my guest

I don't know if this qualifies as a neoplatonic argument but do you believe that mental phenomena are observable? Are your dreams physical?

HisWillness wrote:
His argument is that statistically, he observes an effect in 1 of every quintillion samples. And he's using meta-analysis.

Anyone else who has taken a stats course and finds this argument hilarious?

It would be helpful if you were able to get your facts straight. The odds against chance is twenty-nine billion trillion to one. IOW, there is one chance in twenty-nine billion trillion that the effect was due purely to chance!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Rule #1 governing the JREF Challenge states"

Quote:

applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.

It is a mutual agreement, Paisley, a basic requirement in any contract. Interpreting that requirement as JR being the (implied) sole judge as to whether the demonstration has been successful is perversely dishonest and/or ignorant.

Yeah, he must agree what constitutes a positive result or else "we don't have any deal and therefore I'm not obliged to fork over the money." Well, how freaking convenient!

Imagine that I will offer a million dollars to anyone who can provide me with scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having either a heart attack or stroke. And when an individual approaches me with statistical data that demonstrates that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will actually reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke, I refuse to sign the contract because I demand a higher-statistical percentage than what the experimental results indicate. Well, how convenient for me! But does this really mean there is no scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke? Answer: No! It's a bogus challenge.

 

What is wrong with your reading comprehension, Paisley??

"because I demand a higher-statistical percentage than what the experimental results indicate." would constitute changing the criteria for a positive result that would have to have been agreed before the data was presented. The threshold percentage would already have been accepted by both parties.

The challenge would not be applicable to such a scenario in any case. It is about someone claiming particular capabilities being able to clearly demonstrate them under controlled and mutually agreed-upon conditions, in advance of the test, and with neither party allowed to change the criteria of success after the test, which further requires that the conditions are made sufficiently clear that there should be minimal grounds for dispute.

You clearly want to dodge the strong implications of the failure of anyone to meet the JREF challenge that 'Supernatural' powers, anything supporting your delusion of mind-body dualism, are a myth, a delusion. All you can do is disparage the conditions.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Imagine that I will offer a million dollars to anyone who can provide me with scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having either a heart attack or stroke. And when an individual approaches me with statistical data that demonstrates that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will actually reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke, I refuse to sign the contract because I demand a higher-statistical percentage than what the experimental results indicate. Well, how convenient for me! But does this really mean there is no scientific evidence that taking a low-dose aspirin daily will reduce my chances of having an heart attack or stroke? Answer: No! It's a bogus challenge.

Bad analogy. The fact that statistically significant results were obtained is what shows that low doses of aspirin help prevent heart attacks. Look up what 'statistically significant' means and you'll see why that analogy falls apart.

I'm glad that you understand what "statistically significant" means because it affords me the opportunity to demonstrate to you why the aspirin analogy was very apt.

Jormungander wrote:
These fraud psychics are unable to obtain statistically significant results at all.

Sorry, but the individual in question here is not a psychic. He's a researcher in the field of parapsychology and his name is Dean Radin. And what Radin's research has demontrated is that telepathy has an effect-size (statistically significant) five times greater than the effect-size of aspirin in reducing or preventing heart attacks. See time @ 19.45 in the YouTube video link provided below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Jormungander wrote:
It is not that Randi is unreasonable with what counts as success, it is that these people fail to achieve positive results when you get them to very clearly define what results they claim that they can produce.

Randi's challenge is nothing but a sham, touted by skeptics like yourself as proof that psi phenomena are not real. If there is scientific evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin in preventing heart attacks, then there is certainly scientific evidence for the reality psi phenomena.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:It's an

Paisley wrote:

It's an observation for which your theory of physicalism cannot explain. Hence, your theory is wrong.

Wow, I thought quantum theory was pretty solid. It turns out it's totally wrong according to a mystic. How are we going to find jobs for all those quantum theorists?

Paisley wrote:
The mental is only observable by one species? So, let me see...my cat doesn't have a mental life?

I don't know, does it?

Paisley wrote:
We can ascribe mentality to the electron. Is that specific enough for you?

Yes, that's specific enough. The only problem is that it's like saying everything is mental. If that's the case, then it's irrelevant what is and is not mental, and we no longer need to separate our terms for something with a mind and something without a mind. What would be odd about that, mostly, is that you were earlier arguing that mind and brain aren't the same. If everything is mental, then they are.

Paisley wrote:
I don't know if this qualifies as a neoplatonic argument but do you believe that mental phenomena are observable? Are your dreams physical?

There's certainly a strong correlation between certain types of brain activity and dreaming, so I'd say mental phenomena are observable through brain activity, yes. Can we experience exactly what other people are experiencing? Obviously not.

Paisley wrote:
It would be helpful if you were able to get your facts straight. The odds against chance is twenty-nine billion trillion to one. IOW, there is one chance in twenty-nine billion trillion that the effect was due purely to chance!

Oh, I see. So his meta-analysis of studies assumes zero error, then?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:What is

BobSpence1 wrote:
What is wrong with your reading comprehension, Paisley??

My reading comprehension is fine, but yours leaves something very much to be desired.

BobSpence1 wrote:
"because I demand a higher-statistical percentage than what the experimental results indicate." would constitute changing the criteria for a positive result that would have to have been agreed before the data was presented. The threshold percentage would already have been accepted by both parties.

No, that's not what I said! If I already know what the experimental results are for the causal-efficacy of aspirin, then I just raise the bar higher BEFORE I will agree to ENTER into a contract. This way I can play this game of saying that there is no evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin because no one has been able to claim my million dollar prize. It's a bogus challenge. It doesn't mean anything. It's not proof that there is no evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin. It's simply proof that I am being disingenuous.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another example of Paisley

Another example of Paisley lack of comprehension:

Quantum uncertainty (Heisenberg principle) does mean that there is "a limit to how accurate some measurements can be." (Jormungander).

This is NOT an assertion that it has anything to do with "experimental errors in measurement". Perhaps the term 'precise' may have expressed the meaning better than 'accurate', but this statement expresses that QM uncertainty means that there is a fundamental limit to the precision of certain measurements. No one seriously knowledgeable in QM would have brought up the aspect of 'experimental errors'.

QM is not strictly incompatible with determinism, since statistically random, unpredctable processes can be approximated to any desired degree of accuracy by strictly deterministic systems, typically involving non-linear feedback ('chaotic' behaviour), which does not require great complexity. QM is not strictly a-causal, in that there are physical states in the environment that are required for a quantum-scale event, such as radioactive decay, to have a significant probability of occurring. The nearest we get to lack of cause is that the exact timing of the event is not apparently driven by any external 'cause'. However, this is still consistent with the quantum 'fuzziness' in the environmental states which 'determine' its probability of occurrence in any given time interval. This probability of occurrence can be considered as the probability that at any given instant, the effective values of all those states of the environment are such as to make the probability of occurrence virtually 100%.

EDIT:

So the main additional category required by QM is a very low level background randomising 'field' or influence. Not anything resembling a 'mind'. Just pure, random (the antithesis of anything 'purpose-driven') twitchiness, possibly reflecting some deeper deterministic processes ('hidden variable' interpretation).

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If there is

Paisley wrote:
If there is scientific evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin in preventing heart attacks, then there is certainly scientific evidence for the reality psi phenomena.

This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's closer to apples and dairy farms. Meta-analysis is great and everything, but it presents the statistician with the problem of not being able to identify bias. That's a pretty significant problem with the number of studies that we're talking, here, and the fact that they're psychological studies, which are well known to contain much higher rates of error than say chemistry or biology. Much, much higher.

So comparing a pharmaceutical study to psychological study is your first problem. Your second is that meta-analysis magnifies the possible design problems of studies in a field already rife with problems in their study designs.

This is definitely an area where separate calculations could lead to different conclusions, so it's disingenuous to claim that pharmaceutical studies have the same weight as a meta-analysis.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Sorry, but the

Paisley wrote:

Sorry, but the individual in question here is not a psychic.

Yeah, I know. I saw this video a few months ago. I like his 'your mind is like a radio receiving thoughts rather than like a computer producing thoughts' analogy the best.

 

Paisley wrote:

 If there is scientific evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin in preventing heart attacks, then there is certainly scientific evidence for the reality psi phenomena.

That sounds easy enough to corroborate. Just give us the titles and authors of the published studies that demonstrate these statistically significant results of psi phenomena and we can verify this.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:

 If there is scientific evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin in preventing heart attacks, then there is certainly scientific evidence for the reality psi phenomena.

That sounds easy enough to corroborate. Just give us the titles and authors of the published studies that demonstrate these statistically significant results of psi phenomena and we can verify this.

I provided you with the video link. If you're truly interested, then watch it! (Dean Radin has several published books on his research and he also recommends other books in the video).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I have already watched that

I have already watched that video a few months ago. I was unimpressed. If you could give us the titles and names of authors of the published studies that demonstrate these statistically significant results of psi phenomena or retract your claim that such studies exist, then we can get somewhere on this matter. I don't mean to be condescending: but you do know the difference between a published study and a book, right?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
<getting into character as

<getting into character as Paisley>

But James Randi and his people are stopping all these studies from being published by asking for demonstrable evidence that can be published in a study.

<breaking character before I vomit>

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:I don't

Jormungander wrote:

I don't mean to be condescending: but you do know the difference between a published study and a book, right?

I think it's pretty obvious he doesn't...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace