Mod+ 269. DR. MICHAEL SHERMER, SKEPTICAL SCIENCE REPORTING

But people like you don't really matter. You think you are a biological robot. Most people know they are much more than that. BTW, have you read Irreducible Mind yet?
You are a biological machine, the inheritor of the original spark of life that drives and motivates your fellow humans (even me) and all other flora and fauna on the face of the earth.
You are not a ghost driving a meat robot.

I'm not an expert in neuroscience. I freely admit this. So I looked at what experts had to say about the book, "Irreducible Mind". I read the whole commentary, but this is their summary:
The authors’ sincerity and the extent of their labors are beyond question, and yet this volume appears to us to be little more than another broadside in the psi wars.
After making the enormous effort required to read this large book, our impression in the end is one of fatigue and a certain sadness that nothing more substantive has been presented here.
Mitchell G. Ash (Vienna)
Horst Gundlach (Würzburg)
Thomas Sturm (Berlin/Barcelona)

It's better than a historian who fails to make informed (or even factual) commentary on the work of an MD.
Michael Shermer might not be a nice person. But Lommel's work does not show life after death because the patients did not die. Lommel's work did not show anything that can not be explained by a normal human brain getting less oxygen than normal.

JREF doesn't even have that much going for them.
The organization is aimed at Education. Mostly to try to inform the general public about the non-efficacy of things like homeopathy and other pseudo-scientific claims made to part them from their money.
I would at least hope that you are confident enough in your own evidence that you would have no fear about being lumped in with faith healers and psychic surgeons.

It took 50 years to discover the Higgs Boson.
I will admit that you saying this hurt my feelings. It is so over-the-top wrong that I had to walk away from my computer last night.
The Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world. Higgs showed that the Standard Model predicted a particle that would be the "seat" of gravity. If the Standard Model is correct, that particle had to exist.
There was a theory in place to explain why something should be there. They looked for it through experimentation, they found it. If they had not found it, the Standard Model would need to be re-structured or changed to account for this.

WHEREAS, for claims of parapyschological phenomenon, there is no equivalent of the Standard Model, no theory for how these things could exist, just anecdotes and suppositions.
It's all just wishful thinking.
It's not particle physics, it's alchemy.
 
Richard, first off; bravo for having the balls to go swimming in a shark tank alone. I disagree with your stance on some of these matters, but the vigour you're putting into converting the heathens is almost admirable.
Thank you, this has been mentally stimulating. I read voraciously and am intensely interested in these sorts of topics, but live in a small town in the Netherlands, where finding a native English speaker, also interested in these topics enough to sit down over a cup of coffee and argue, is difficult.

I sort of noticed that you claimed not to be driven by a belief system... but I also noticed that you are making a lot of assertions where opinions would do instead. Indeed, you seem to be quite eager to sell your view of things. This is usually the smoke to the fire of dogmatism.
I admit that I have been using my anti-theist toolkit in this discussion. For some of the claims from the parapsychology crowd, there is more than a whiff of charlatanism. The very concept of "The brain is a transceiver, your mind is something else outside of your body"

I guess my question to you is: what would you say to someone who claimed straight up that they had had multiple 'paranormal' experiences of a personal nature? Would you assume they were lying? Crazy? How would you go about having a meaningful discussion with said person?
I would treat them the same way I treat a religious person. Ask them questions in an attempt to shift their epistemology. I don't scream 'Liar!' in their face, I'm socially inept, not cruel.
 
I would treat them the same way I treat a religious person. Ask them questions in an attempt to shift their epistemology. I don't scream 'Liar!' in their face, I'm socially inept, not cruel.

Why try to change people's stance? Are you 100% confident in yours?
If you consider yourself a true skeptic then you need to question your opinion as well as others'. If you just come here for a good wrestle you'll get nowhere. You have to engage with other people's material.

I am a theist and I sit through Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss debates and lectures and the list goes on and I admit that they do a good job... when preaching to the converted. Their arguments get flimpsy when they debate people who are intellectually robust.

Richard, are you familiar with Bernardo Kastrupp's work? If not, give it a peek.
 
All of the results of parapsychology research come down to this, nothing but a few un-reproducible statistical anomalies.

So consider the reincarnation studies by Stevenson which in some cases show 40 or more data points as matching with only a few (depending on the case) non-matching or indeterminate. The statistical chances of this happening being billions to 1 depending on the case. Anomalous,, Really? By who's definition?

If you want to call these many cases of this one branch of study statistically "anomalous", you are certainly have a right to do so,,, but good luck foisting that off as being "scientific" in front of this audience. You'll need it...

What you'll surely find is that fewer and fewer people will even respond to your posts, no matter how many hours you spend reading the material only to ignore the data.

In case you are still reading and still have a shred of real interest,,, read "20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation". On second thought: don't bother. I am not interested in debating your "findings".
 
Last edited:
So the reincarnation studies by Stevenson which in some cases show 40 or more data points as matching with only a few (depending on the case) non-matching or indeterminate.
Tucker's cases such as that of Ryan/Marty Martyn had over 90 matching data points, including the age of death, which was wrong on the death certificate!
 
You are a biological machine, the inheritor of the original spark of life that drives and motivates your fellow humans (even me) and all other flora and fauna on the face of the earth.
You don't sound like a skeptic. A skeptic would certainly have doubts and be critical of blanket statements, especially in the face of the massive ignorance that still covers mysteries such as that of life, consciousness and the origin of everything that exists.

Isn't it even a little bit humbling that we already struggle with making sense of the roughly estimated 4% of the stuff in the visible universe? It is 4%
... and only if our estimate is correct. The universe could very well be infinite.
... and of the alleged 4% we have a bunch of very incomplete and contradictory models

I would invite you to become a skeptic. A real one.
 
Last edited:
I am not making any claims about the validity of Shermer's conclusions. Which is I think where you have problems And it certainly does nothing to support or refute either person's argument about the conclusions.

1- It is perfectly reasonable for Dr Shermer to reinterpret Van Lommel's data
The hand-waving was about what it takes to actually reinterpret well-formed data. Shermer did not do anything; but lie about the data collected by a scientist to enable the sales and marketing of his "wares".

And I admire the history of Copernicus and mentioning him in the same context as Shermer made me mad. I'm over it and do appreciate your opinions.
 
Obviously the answer is no one. You know this. I would challenge you to work a bit harder to understand why this is the case. It's just sounding like you're getting stuck on stupid here. I mean no offense by that, but you're in a cul-de-sac with this one.
I don't understand your point. Shermer et al are peddling the biological robot meme as an alternative to the son of God meme. I'm just pointing out how idiotic these "men of reason" are being. also, most folks don't know or haven't fully accepted, that this really is science's position.

as always, I'd love to have some expert come on Skeptiko and straighten me out... I don't want to be stuck on stupid :)


Also on a stranger and more curious note, I'm wondering why you cut the interview off without thanking Shermer. I mean, I get that you said "thanks" to your audience, but it never happened during the actual interview. Normally there's a natural closing with your guests. Did the recording stop? Was there more after Shermer mentioned the movie he was working on? He just got cut off there.

we lost our Skype connection at the end. I called him back and thanked him, but that audio was somehow lost.
 
Shermer betrays himself horribly by the examples that Alex brought up and his go-to...But, it's an unknown and I don't like the conclusions, so WE can't include this! Therefore it's forbidden and WE must marginalize it. Ha ha...woo woo! And, because more of US disbelieve that science and we're more popular? So, you're persona non grata if you do.

But, Alex kept the kid gloves on and pulled his typically calling it like it is exchange.

I could have done better. I can remember feeling dumbfounded that he was repeating such worn-out idiotic ideas, but I didn't call him out like I could have. He's also pretty skilled at this stuff. It's hard to counter, "yea, but most neurosciences agree with me" (it's bullshit, but it's hard to counter without condemning science in general and looking like a wingnut). I also felt obligated to talk about his book.

I did better with Krauss.
 
Then get to citing, because I have been reading a lot of articles and papers and I have not seen anything I would consider valid in this area. If you can demonstrate something, you should immediately apply to the James Randi educational foundation and get you that million bucks they are offering to anyone who can prove a claim like that.
Cash money, in your pocket.

I would highly recommend Dean Radin's Books, Supernormal and Entangled Minds as they give good overviews of the some of the best scientific studies yielding solid evidence for psi:
http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Min...es-Quantum/dp/1416516778/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Science-Evidence-Extraordinary-Abilities/dp/030798690X

Here's a few studies I looked up:

Evidence that meditators can affect the out come of the double-slit experiment through intention:
http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics Essays Radin final.pdf

Evidence for telepathy in the ganzfeld experiment:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2010MetaFreeResp.pdf

An overview of some findings of psi meta-analyses:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf

Meta-analysis on intention affecting dice:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_05_1_radin.pdf

On intention affecting Random Number Generators:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_03_1_radin.pdf

Effect of global consciousness on Random Number Generators:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_4_nelson.pdf

A discussion of the CIA's declassified remote viewing program
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf

More studies:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html
 
No. He makes a claim for "moral emotions" as I quoted (15:00 ). You can throw it into whichever pile you like but simply declaring it a 'straw man' doesn't make it so. They have no objective, testable, or more importantly, falsifiable evidence that demonstrates how morality arises "biologically" from animals 'kicking' each other. They do have a whimsical narrative however. Now if that narrative isn't based on anything remotely like conclusive objective evidence.....what could it be based on? Belief perhaps? Like a story constructed to explain a preconceive conclusion arising from faith that it has to be biological?

nice :)
 
You are a biological machine, the inheritor of the original spark of life that drives and motivates your fellow humans (even me) and all other flora and fauna on the face of the earth.
You are not a ghost driving a meat robot.

You need to provide evidence to support your beliefs, Richard. You haven't done that. You've just repeated a dogma.

So JREF is "educating" us? That's what the religious groups that go door to door handing out pamphlets think they are doing too.

Repeating the mantra of your religion isn't science, or education.That's all you've been doing here. Meanwhile, there are people out there doing science, investigating those small anomalies and moving things forward. Censoring and quashing the work of scientists who are using the scientific method to investigate things you personally don't want to see investigated is unscientific. JREF doesn't promote science, or good scientific methodologies. It promotes censorship.

I don't have all the answers. But I suspect that encouraging free thinking and investigation might be a better way to promote scientific discoveries than ridiculing those who do think of ways to investigate things we don't know enough about.

But you can go on repeating your mantra and supporting the church of JREF if you want to. I wouldn't want to suppress anyone's religious freedoms.
 
Last edited:
There is none, not even a coherent concept to solve the epistemic cut, the symbol matter problem. It is in fact the exact same problem as the hard problem, how a network of firing nuerons can be something it is not. Evolution with its invoked magical abillities is null here because for any evolution to occur a thing must be able to encode it's own form via representations. Semiosis must pre exist. It is an irreducible relationship, sign, referent and interpretant.

This is all completely empirical. All completely scientific. Propents of the biological machine idea do not realise the implications of that claim. It is very clear through the functional operation of information transfer that we understand quite well and is evidenced in our own technology we are surrounded by. It actually has to be this way!
very cool. perhaps you've said this a million times, but I heard it for the first time now :)

can you explain why the "via representations" part is important... I kinda get it, but would love to hear more.
 
I could have done better. I can remember feeling dumbfounded that he was repeating such worn-out idiotic ideas, but I didn't call him out like I could have. He's also pretty skilled at this stuff. It's hard to counter, "yea, but most neurosciences agree with me" (it's bullshit, but it's hard to counter without condemning science in general and looking like a wingnut). I also felt obligated to talk about his book.

I did better with Krauss.

I enjoyed the interview! My only complaint is that you once again held up self-directed neural plasticity as the greatest paradigm busting evidence for the primacy of consciousness, and Shermer very predictably retorted that that is evidence of "neurons changing neurons". You'll never win over any skeptics with self-directed neural plasticity. That can change how we view psychology, but until the mechanism is entirely explained, it can't change materialism.
 
Argh. When will they realise that a cybernetic machine is actually not reducible to physics? This is easily realised through the material application of information transfer. The ONLY way to transfer information through time and space is through the use of tokens that represent someting other than themselves and by operational nesecescity do not have any physical law connecting between the thing and the thing it represents. None!

The gap is closed by formal operations, codes, programming etc.. within the cell and within our tech. The formal operators being substantiated in matter again not through any thermodynamjc process but ultimately encoded. Codes, semiotics, digital programming are not physics! It is actually the codes and information in living things that control the very matter they are represented by!

We have not even got to spirit or consciousness yet. Even at this stage within material and information science it is self refuting!

Biological machines are we? The universe happened to stumble apon cybernetic AI programming through chance? Well chance is easily ruled out by even a single simple protein. All that is left is lawful necsecity, the laws of physics.

You must believe that blind chemistry can produce a language no less. Language from mud as I always say.

This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence wouldn't you say? :)
@LoneShaman can you propose some interesting names that @Alex could interview about this very problem?
Maybe you've already done that. I'd love to hear at least a couple of experts in the field about this subject and it would be an entirely new topic for Skeptiko, one that is very apropos.
 
So Richard. Your basis of not wanting to read IM is based on one review. Your judgement of parapsychology is based on what other people say of it, not as it seems, by reading the actual studies. If you would have a bit if look into it, you would come to realise that parapsychology studies are actually very well controlled. Something that Chris French concedes in this video. In essence, your views seem to me to be arguments from authority rather than actually doing your own digging. The MDC is simply a distraction BTW. JREF is not a scientific organisation, and the results of a hypothesis are not based off one test, with odds that Randi, who is not a scientist, has arbitrarily pulled out of his arse.

 
I enjoyed the interview! My only complaint is that you once again held up self-directed neural plasticity as the greatest paradigm busting evidence for the primacy of consciousness, and Shermer very predictably retorted that that is evidence of "neurons changing neurons". You'll never win over any skeptics with self-directed neural plasticity. That can change how we view psychology, but until the mechanism is entirely explained, it can't change materialism.

I don't find the neural plasticity argument so convincing myself (i.e. computers can be programmed to create code for themselves although it is not often done). What I would probably do is just go to a few of the elephants in the room: how could even a single protein spontaneously arise from inert lifeless matter? There are a number of good biologists who have examined what would be needed for this to happen, including a very precise sequence of events required for inert matter to suddenly create a protein, and the odds have also been calculated, so ridiculously great that you would have better odds of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a jumbo jet. And after 200+ years of laboratory experiments, not a single scientist has been able to create life from lifeless matter. If the Materialists are so sure this is the case why hasn't it happened? And what theory have they presented scientifically explains the origin of life?

Another elephant in the room is the hard problem of consciousness. There currently is not a single scientific fact demonstrating consciousness is a product of the brain. No scientist has shown how self-awareness comes about, or even how consciousness experiences the color "red" or the sound of a beethoven symphony. Sure - we can go inside the brain, like we can go inside a radio - see all the parts moving, see how electro-chemical signals move throughout a billion neurons in the brain. But where is the color red? Where is the self-awareness? Where is consciousness?

And here's yet another third elephant: quantum physics and the observer problem, and quantum entanglement - spooky action from a distance. This in itself puts the idea of materialistic locality and the independence of consciousness from what we observe - into a new kind of science (leaving Newtonian materialism behind) and is barely being acknowledged at the moment.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
very cool. perhaps you've said this a million times, but I heard it for the first time now :)

can you explain why the "via representations" part is important... I kinda get it, but would love to hear more.

Thanks Alex, it is a subject that I have been researching for some time.

By representation I mean symbols. it is a necessary part of information transfer. In text, speech, programming and even DNA, any form of communication/ information transfer requires using tokens representing things they are not. For instance these pixels are not actually the concepts they represent. The word apple is not actually an apple.

My sources are mostly from the emerging field of biosemiotics. In particular the work of Howard Pattee who has spent several decades illuminating the problem that he refers to as the symbol matter problem or the epistemic cut. Below is one of his papers that will give you some background on the issue. The symbol matter problem is in essence the very same as the hard problem, and it extends to the origin of life and all of evolution. It even relates to the measurement problem in QM as well. This is the one underlying fundamental thing in all of these issues. It is what separates the knower from the known.

And it is completely incoherant in a materialist framework yet it exists of course.

hstp://www.academia.edu/234713/The_Physics_and_Metaphysics_of_Biosemiotics
 
Hurmanetar said: (go to post)
I enjoyed the interview! My only complaint is that you once again held up self-directed neural plasticity as the greatest paradigm busting evidence for the primacy of consciousness, and Shermer very predictably retorted that that is evidence of "neurons changing neurons". You'll never win over any skeptics with self-directed neural plasticity. That can change how we view psychology, but until the mechanism is entirely explained, it can't change materialism.

I don't find the neural plasticity argument so convincing myself (i.e. computers can be programmed to create code for themselves although it is not often done). What I would probably do is just go to a few of the elephants in the room: how could even a single protein spontaneously arise from inert lifeless matter? There are a number of good biologists who have examined what would be needed for this to happen, including a very precise sequence of events required for inert matter to suddenly create a protein, and the odds have also been calculated, so ridiculously great that you would have better odds of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a jumbo jet. And after 200+ years of laboratory experiments, not a single scientist has been able to create life from lifeless matter. If the Materialists are so sure this is the case why hasn't it happened? And what theory have they presented scientifically explains the origin of life?

Another elephant in the room is the hard problem of consciousness. There currently is not a single scientific fact demonstrating consciousness is a product of the brain. No scientist has shown how self-awareness comes about, or even how consciousness experiences the color "red" or the sound of a beethoven symphony. Sure - we can go inside the brain, like we can go inside a radio - see all the parts moving, see how electro-chemical signals move throughout a billion neurons in the brain. But where is the color red? Where is the self-awareness? Where is consciousness?

And here's yet another third elephant: quantum physics and the observer problem, and quantum entanglement - spooky action from a distance. This in itself puts the idea of materialistic locality and the independence of consciousness from what we observe - into a new kind of science (leaving Newtonian materialism behind) and is barely being acknowledged at the moment.

My Best,
Bertha

thx to both of you, but I think this kind of discussion misses the point -- the evidence for mind>brain is overwhelming. lack of evidence is not the problem. the problems are psychology/social/political. Shermer had the right book title awhile back (even if he directed it at the wrong target): Why People Believe Weird Things.
 
Back
Top