No God in The Machine

[steve001]

Psi gamma and psi kappa perhaps could be explained within the mind = brain assumption, only the filter hypothesis explains more simply psi than materialistic hypothesis, but psi theta not because these phenomena show minds without brains or minds that have continued in some point without brains.

Last night Bill tried to explain how the brain filters non local consciousness. I have requested FDRS provide a concise explanation from any source how the brain filters non local consciousness, he said he would so I may read it. Maybe he has forgotten to or can't find one. So, I'll have to ask you if you can?

 

[Smithy]

Are you happy with this bullshit ?

Let me try it this way...both documented and undocumented stories can contain information about a particular phenomenon. But undocumented stories also contain the effects of cognitive biases and memory errors. Since these effects are large, they can be expected (by theory and by prior experiment) to be the dominant effect influencing the story - that is, by itself, an undocumented story will reflect (tell us about) cognitive biases and memory errors more than it will reflect a novel phenomenon.

Alternatively (empirically), through contrast with documented stories, we can also look at these differences more directly, in which case, we are looking at both documented and undocumented stories, or documented and undocumented portions of stories. But just because, in the latter case, you are using documented elements for comparison, it doesn't mean that information is coming from only the documented portion. The information comes from the difference between both (i.e. at worst you can say that both documented and undocumented stories tell us about the effects of cognitive biases and memory errors). But more importantly, that difference is telling us about the effects which are present in the undocumented portion rather than the effects which are present in the documented portion (i.e. it would be more accurate to say that it is the undocumented story which tells us about the effects of cognitive biases and memory errors).

In neither case would it make sense to say that the information (about cognitive biases and memory errors) comes from the documented portion of the story and not from the undocumented portion of the story.

Tim - I have a close friend who not only has a Ph.D. (with honors) as an analitical chemist, but also happens to be a science writer and editor, and who made it his habit to write exceptionally clearly.

For this type of writing his verdict is quite straightforward: "Some people cannot write".

My impression of this fls-piece is that it is her elaborate way of saying that she does not believe anything, that she won't accept anything, not even well-document cases, and so on and so forth. There is always something to complain about.

I can appreciate your frustration.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That page is asking for donations. This from an organisation worth many millions. JREF is closely allied to CSI - Randi being a founder member. JREF also begs for donations. One of the "house skeptics" here has been a fund raiser. Yes, they have an agenda.

And no one else does such a tacky thing, of course.

http://www.noetic.org/support/overview/

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/people/dean-radin

~~ Paul

 

[steve001]

There is a party line which is hardly ever deviated from by the skeptics here. It is summed up on the CSI website thus:



That page is asking for donations. This from an organisation worth many millions. JREF is closely allied to CSI - Randi being a founder member. JREF also begs for donations. One of the "house skeptics" here has been a fund raiser. Yes, they have an agenda.

No matter what evidence you bring to the discussion, what personal experience you relate, what book you quote or anecdote you offer for debate, you will always get these prolific posters leaping to their keyboards to dismiss it all.

You know for certain the JREF is worth millions of US dollars?

 

[Kamarling]

Like Tim and Gabriel, I'm signing off from this sub-forum for a while. Don't know if I'll be back. If I'm happier without the negative emotions it engenders probably not.

Last comments:

And no one else does such a tacky thing, of course.

What else would anyone expect from the fund raiser himself? Does Dean Radin employ guerrilla skeptics to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda publication for his own agenda?

You know for certain the JREF is worth millions of US dollars?

Can't you read?

CSICOP/CSI
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) is a well-funded debunking organization with a $4 million headquarters building in Amherst, New York, and a $5 million West Coast centre in Los Angeles. In January 2007, it changed its name to CSI, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Any questions here are rhetorical, no need for either of you to reply but I'm sure you will. I won't though.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

You appear to believe that mind = brain cannot explain psi even in principle (assuming psi exists). What is that principle?

~~ Paul

Ah, this is actually a good question, probably worthy of another thread where your and Linda's input would be really useful to get the skeptical philosophical and medical angles.

Braude has a rather detailed argument about this, and it connects with the philosophical critiques of engrams, but I feel like I need to read it over again before making a thread on it.

 

[steve001]

Like Tim and Gabriel, I'm signing off from this sub-forum for a while. Don't know if I'll be back. If I'm happier without the negative emotions it engenders probably not.

Last comments:



What else would anyone expect from the fund raiser himself? Does Dean Radin employ guerrilla skeptics to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda publication for his own agenda?



Can't you read?



Any questions here are rhetorical, no need for either of you to reply but I'm sure you will. I won't though.

My mistake. I did do some digging for the assets of CSI. It appears if I'm reading it right, their total assets after expenses amounts to $474,120, not the millions you claimed.
http://non-profit-organizations.findthebest.com/l/159847/Committee-For-Skeptical-Inquiry-Inc

 

[steve001]

Ah, this is actually a good question, probably worthy of another thread where your and Linda's input would be really useful to get the skeptical philosophical and medical angles.

Braude has a rather detailed argument about this, and it connects with the philosophical critiques of engrams, but I feel like I need to read it over again before making a thread on it.

I could be wrong, As I recall historically, such parapsychologists of the last century as J.B. Rhine thought the brain could do esp without the need to explain it in a non local fashion.
The other day I was trying to find the answer to this question. I've only done a cursory search so far without results. When did it come into vogue this idea of non local consciousness in it's present form? And. What are the origins of the brain is a filter for non local consciousness?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I'm eager to hear how the brain filters non local consciousness is a viable "hypothesis" instead the brain with its trillions of synaptic connections isn't.
The typical train of thought goes like this: I can't understand how the brain creates consciousness so I'm going to go with this idea that consciousness exists beyond the brain and somehow the brain acts like a filter or like a radio and receives non local consciousness because I believe NDE's, OBE's, PSI... is proof. I can't provide details of how and why, but it makes sense to me anyway.

I think the proponent argument would be more as follows:

1. The brain seems important to consciousness, yet there is a variety of evidence suggestive that it might not be the cause*.

2. Separating correlation from causation, as well as icons from actualities, is difficult. As such it becomes difficult to determine whether the brain is a consciousness producer, localization of Universal Idealist Mind, or filter/transmitter given most if not all evidence from neuroscience can be interpreted each way. So we need to go deeper:

3. For the brain, as defined by materialism, to be producer of subjective experience requires the miracle of emergence. Besides the requirement of a "something from nothing" miracle there are other reasons to doubt a materialist explanation relating to the nature of subjective experience.*

4. Evidence for observer-participancy (here + here) suggests consciousness has efficacy outside of your skull, though any certainty about this remains an open question. For example, Kauffman's poised realm explanation for consciousness may suffice.

5. The way out of inclusion of an ex nihilo type miracle in which nonconscious matter becomes conscious is to appeal to some kind of "proto-consciousness". In refuting Dennet the anthropologist Graeber suggests panpsychism, and it leads us into territories adherents to materialist evangelism* would likely want to avoid. Why would you only have "proto-consciousness" in a particle? What stops a particle from being fully aware & directing bodies via quantum superposition, as Grof (AFAICTell) suggests? Yet if you're wandering into these landscapes, you aren't that far from Hammeroff's notion of a quantum soul.

So it seems to me that even if one takes the materialist position at the outset it doesn't matter much. You can still end up with ideas conducive to immortal conscious entities, at least at this point & time in our history.

*see here for discussion of starred items

 

[steve001]

I think the proponent argument would be more as follows:

1. The brain seems important to consciousness, yet there is a variety of evidence suggestive that it might not be the cause*.

2. Separating correlation from causation, as well as icons from actualities, is difficult. As such it becomes difficult to determine whether the brain is a consciousness producer, localization of Universal Idealist Mind, or filter/transmitter given most if not all evidence from neuroscience can be interpreted each way. So we need to go deeper:

3. For the brain, as defined by materialism, to be producer of subjective experience requires the miracle of emergence. Besides the requirement of a "something from nothing" miracle there are other reasons to doubt a materialist explanation relating to the nature of subjective experience.*

4. Evidence for observer-participancy (here + here) suggests consciousness has efficacy outside of your skull, though any certainty about this remains an open question. For example, Kauffman's poised realm explanation for consciousness may suffice.

5. The way out of inclusion of an ex nihilo type miracle in which nonconscious matter becomes conscious is to appeal to some kind of "proto-consciousness". In refuting Dennet the anthropologist Graeber suggests panpsychism, and it leads us into territories adherents to materialist evangelism* would likely want to avoid. Why would you only have "proto-consciousness" in a particle? What stops a particle from being fully aware & directing bodies via quantum superposition, as Grof (AFAICTell) suggests? Yet if you're wandering into these landscapes, you aren't that far from Hammeroff's notion of a quantum soul.

So it seems to me that even if one takes the materialist position at the outset it doesn't matter much. You can still end up with ideas conducive to immortal conscious entities, at least at this point & time in our history.

*see here for discussion of starred items

A quick read through of these links don't seem to tackle the question: How the brain could filter (act as a receiver for) external non local consciousness?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

A quick read through of these links don't seem to tackle the question: How the brain could filter (act as a receiver for) external non local consciousness?

How can the brain produce local consciousness?

 

[electricfunk]

Let me try it this way...both documented and undocumented stories can contain information about a particular phenomenon. But undocumented stories also contain the effects of cognitive biases and memory errors. Since these effects are large, they can be expected (by theory and by prior experiment) to be the dominant effect influencing the story - that is, by itself, an undocumented story will reflect (tell us about) cognitive biases and memory errors more than it will reflect a novel phenomenon.

You can't say that if you are claiming that undocumented stories are comprised of unreliable information. The term "unreliable information" reflects an uncertainty as to whether that information is accurate or inaccurate. Realistically, you simply don't know to what extent cognitive bias and error are contributing to the information contained in a story that you have deemed unreliable (due to lack of appropriate documentation).

Alternatively (empirically), through contrast with documented stories, we can also look at these differences more directly, in which case, we are looking at both documented and undocumented stories, or documented and undocumented portions of stories. But just because, in the latter case, you are using documented elements for comparison, it doesn't mean that information is coming from only the documented portion. The information comes from the difference between both (i.e. at worst you can say that both documented and undocumented stories tell us about the effects of cognitive biases and memory errors). But more importantly, that difference is telling us about the effects which are present in the undocumented portion rather than the effects which are present in the documented portion (i.e. it would be more accurate to say that it is the undocumented story which tells us about the effects of cognitive biases and memory errors).

In neither case would it make sense to say that the information (about cognitive biases and memory errors) comes from the documented portion of the story and not from the undocumented portion of the story.

In the example you gave, the information about source misattribution came from the documented portion of the story (from what Sartori says in the interview). Without that information, there would be no way for you to claim that source misattribution had occurred in that respect. So the documented portion of the story is essential for identifying that particular bias (whether you are justified in concluding that source misattribution has occurred is another matter).

I'd feel more comfortable agreeing that I agree if you gave an indication that you understood what I have been describing.

And the same for me. But I'm already confident that we agree on the fact that information deemed "unreliable" cannot tell us anything reliable about bias, memory error or psi.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How can the brain produce local consciousness?

With an interacting set of physical processes.

The transmission hypothesis: With an interacting set of physical and nonphysical processes.

At least we know physical processes exist.

~~ Paul

 

[steve001]

How can the brain produce local consciousness?

At this moment absolutely no one knows. However, as
Paul noted:

At least we know physical processes exist.

 

[billw]

Last night Bill tried to explain how the brain filters non local consciousness. I have requested FDRS provide a concise explanation from any source how the brain filters non local consciousness, he said he would so I may read it. Maybe he has forgotten to or can't find one. So, I'll have to ask you if you can?

Which Bill tried to explain that?

Cheers,
Bill

 

[steve001]

Which Bill tried to explain that?

Cheers,
Bill

You, I believe. I checked, it was you.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

With an interacting set of physical processes.

The transmission hypothesis: With an interacting set of physical and nonphysical processes.

At least we know physical processes exist.

~~ Paul

Keep in mind physical and nonphysical can simply be explanatory dualism, not substance dualism. If mind & matter - or body & soul if one prefers - arise from some neutral monist substance (information, aether, Platonic Math, God, etc) then the transmission process positing two substances is only an abstraction rather than dualism.

But the interacting set of physical processes still requires either a "something for nothing" leap or the possibility of proto-consciousness. The first is the "miracle" Harris talks about, the second doesn't explain why you can't substitute "proto-consciousness" of particles with full consciousness.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Keep in mind physical and nonphysical can simply be explanatory dualism, not substance dualism. If mind & matter - or body & soul if one prefers - arise from some neutral monist substance (information, aether, Platonic Math, God, etc) then the transmission process positing two substances is only an abstraction rather than dualism.

Agreed, but we still can't point at any abstract-mental processes, nor at any of the things in your parentheses.

But the interacting set of physical processes still requires either a "something for nothing" leap or the possibility of proto-consciousness. The first is the "miracle" Harris talks about, the second doesn't explain why you can't substitute "proto-consciousness" of particles with full consciousness.

The "something from nothing" argument just poisons the well. Is gravity something from nothing? How about the weather? Everything except the fundamental existents is something from nothing.

~~ Paul

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Agreed, but we still can't point at any abstract-mental processes, nor at any of the things in your parentheses.

I think, depending on how information is defined, there's some good indicators for it being the neutral monist substance under current physics?

The "something from nothing" argument just poisons the well. Is gravity something from nothing? How about the weather? Everything except the fundamental existents is something from nothing.

How is the weather something from nothing?

The issue is the flipside of the Mind/Body problem. If the Phenomenal is distinct from the Material, and so explaining their interaction is philosophically untenable, why should we think the Material - which lacks any trace of the Phenomenal - can somehow produce it?

As MaverickPhilospher notes, Idealism and Eliminativism are "not in the same logical boat",

eta: These might also be relevant ->

Lycan's Moorean Argument Against Eliminative Materialism

Of Berkeley's Stones and the Eliminativist's Beliefs

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think, depending on how information is defined, there's some good indicators for it being the neutral monist substance under current physics?

The fundamental substance, not requiring any substrate? Ooh, that's tricky.

How is the weather something from nothing?

There is no weather in physics, just like there is no consciousness. Why is consciousness special when the weather is not? The fact that we have an (incomplete) explanation for the weather and not for consciousness does not make consciousness special.

The issue is the flipside of the Mind/Body problem. If the Phenomenal is distinct from the Material, and so explaining their interaction is philosophically untenable, why should we think the Material - which lacks any trace of the Phenomenal - can somehow produce it?

We can't explain their interaction now. Why does it make an explanation untenable for all time?

I'm not arguing for "total eliminativism."

~~ Paul