+Henry Bemis:
“You do the best you can with the resources you have and trust. “

==If you want to determine what is truth, doing the bets you can is not a methodology.
We need solid evidence.

“In the domain of spiritual experiences, the experiences themselves ARE the "evidence." What more do you want? There is no such thing as "proper evidence" unless you mean evidence that convinces YOU.”

==How am I suppose to know that your spiritual experience is something real and not some imaginary thing?
I am not even saying that the person who says he is having such an experience is lying. Perhaps he is just deluded. Have no way to make the distinction.
We are making a distinction between what is real and what is false, right? For example, if I imagine a book, do you consider the book is real?
Evidence is not something personal. It should be observable by anyone and in any time period in the future. We should be able to check it again and again.

“Evidence by scientific definition is any fact that makes some conclusion more probable than it would be absent such fact. It is a very liberal standard.”

==That’s because officially, science does not make truth claims. The idea is to keep the books of science open for more and to be ready to go to where the evidence leads to.
In other words, everything that we know is not 100% certain to be correct. The cup in front of me might not exist but we act as if it does exist in our reality, it is observable by anyone.

“The question is whether such evidence--in this case spiritual experiences themselves--are *sufficient* evidence for the conclusion that God exists. You and I say NO, someone else might say yes.“”

==I would say that such a person wants to believe that there is a god and for some reason, he has decided that “yes, this is evidence for a god.”. I would ask such a person, what reasonable reason do you have for your belief?

“Most of the accounts of spiritual experiences are consistent with other similar accounts “

==Sometimes, a comedian tells a joke and a large portion of the audience laughs. Some laugh very hard and others a little less and some don’t get the joke.
This kind of thing happens with lots of comedians.
Based on that observation, I would say human brains are consistent.
^^^^^That was only 1 observation. I’m sure that you can think of plenty of others that would suggest that human brains are consistent and you would be able to collect stats and make graphs.
Then, at the bottom of your report, perhaps you could write 70% of the audience gave this joke a rating of 7 on 10.
NDE experiences show some consistency.


“Of course not! But ideology finds its way in a variety social issues; usually much more subtly. “

==It isn’t subtle at all. It often sounds like a loud donkey. Ever heard a donkey make that squealing sound? I was at a farm once and I was scared and shocked.
I get scared by loud noises. So do a lot of humans. So does my cat and plenty of other animals.
Here is an experiment for you. Go near your cat and make a loud clap and see him jump.
Then, try that on your family members.
^^^^^There you go. Multi-species consistency.

“We seem to be on the same page here. However, I *do* acknowledge that "clinical" psychology" (i.e. behavioral therapy) actually works! That tells us that we have free will to control our thinking; and thus to change our physical brain states; and thus to change our behavior. I will give psychology credit for providing that little bit of wisdom (although psycyhology itself seems to be oblivious to it); if only people would pay attention to it! “

==That comment is fine.

“So, there is a bloody knife at the crime scene; which we agree is physical evidence. And we have a witness who reports that he saw Johnny stab the victim, wipe the knife clean of fingerprints, and drop the knife at the crime scene, where it was found. Which is the most important evidence; the knife itself, or the witness. (Hint: without the witness the knife tells us nothing about who committed the crime.) “

==I don’t trust single witness cases. It is too risky. I am not willing to send a person to prison for life. Even in multi witness cases, it has been determined that memory is faulty. In some cases, people collude. It Is important that witnesses do not interact and come to an agreement as to what they saw (In the mormon case, the 11 witness thing, they aren’t witnesses. They interacted together for years. They are a single mind. And thus, all their testimonies goes to the garbage. In fact, only the mormon church has their testimonies. No 3 rd parties are available.)
Show me a case where they convicted someone for life based on a single witness testimony.

~~~~iceman9090

Nerds...

Oliver Wendell Holmes: "No generalization is worth a damn, including this one."

(Often erroneously attributed to Mark Twain)

Let’s step back for a minute.

In general, all human beings have an interest in acquiring information about the world. They make inferences based upon such information and act in accordance with those inferences. This is part of our evolutionary heritage and the biological need for survival in an unfamiliar environment. From this basic biological fact, we can also note that as human beings our interest in acquiring information has expanded considerably such that even non-scientists are interested in understanding the world in a general way regardless of the survival value of that understanding. In order to achieve such an additional understanding everyone starts with a consideration of where they might look to acquire such additional information.

The first question we might ask is: ‘What resources do human beings have to facilitate their quest to understand the world?’ We can all agree that (a) humans beings are consciousness; (b) they each have a conscious “self” which is the “I” part of their mental experience; (c) they experience the world through the five physical senses; (d) they have a psychological, cognitive mechanism with which to evaluate their sense experiences, including the ability to abstract general principles from such experiences; and (e) they can think, reason, and act in accordance with such inferences. These five capacities just mentioned constitute the foundation of *empiricism.* Empiricism in its basic philosophical form is the belief (and assumption) that all understanding of the world ultimately derives from sense experience; meaning the five physical senses. Empiricism is the foundational basis for the scientific worldview.

It follows from the above, that for the empiricist scientist, “evidence” relates solely to what facts and information are derived from the five senses (as expanded through technology). Other than that limitation, “evidence” is loosely and intuitively defined: A scientist (a) identifies some phenomena of sense experience (which is assumed to correlate with facts related to a real physical world), (b) generates explanatory hypotheses and theories about the world; and (c) attempts to support the same through “inductive” inferences from the data of experience (i.e. experimental testing)--i.e. evidence that “verifies” or “confirms” the theory or hypothesis. In addition, a theory or hypothesis is “deductively” falsified--at least in principle--when some experience (evidence) is discovered that is inconsistent with the proposed hypothesis or theory. By this general process—as over-simplistically described here—it is hoped (and believed) that an understanding of the world will increase. Many “materialists” scientists and philosophers believe that this is the *only* way that understanding of the world is achieved.

Now, let’s go back to the question above: ‘What resources do human beings have to facilitate their understanding of the world?’ and answer this question from the perspective of a “spiritist.” The “spiritist view” believes that in addition to the physical senses, human beings (at least some) have a “spiritual” resource that also facilitates knowledge and understanding of the world. For him or her, this resource also involves sense experience—but not necessarily the experiences generated by the five senses; or if it does involve such physical senses, it is not necessarily based upon the “normal,” everyday perceptual functioning of such sense experience. For such people this “spiritual sense” opens up a whole new worldview that is much expanded from the empiricist scientific view. For the empiricist, this claim of an expanded spiritual view is vague, elusive, subjective, and mystical; and thus questionable as a genuine source of knowledge and understanding of the world.

One can note right away that the spiritist view is just as much based upon ‘evidence’ as is the scientific empiricist view. Both rely upon psychological human experience as the foundation of such evidence. Moreover, the spiritist might ask, “If human experience is the foundation of the scientific worldview, why should it be limited to certain types of experiences (the experiences generated by the five senses), rather than all of human experience? The scientist would likely respond by introducing concerns related to reliability, and insist upon objective measures associated with such reliability, such as replication, verification, and confirmation.

At this point, we can note that the spiritist generally admits that he or she is not doing science. Rather, he or she is applying the evidence of their expanded personal experience (and the reports of like-minded others) to infer an expanded personal worldview; i.e. a worldview that encompasses more than what the normal five senses reveal. Such people usually would acknowledge that science is a legitimate source for truth within its own self-imposed limited sphere of “ordinary” experience. Within that sphere it might even be the best source of truth. Notwithstanding, the spiritist might point out that there is no rational basis to conclude that the scientific view encompasses “*all* of reality. From evolutionary principles, where information is tied to the goals of reproduction and survival, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that our five physical senses reveal *all* of reality! Spiritists then proceed to claim that they have access to an expanded, “transcendental” reality, however vague and elusive that reality might be.

With that brief background, we can note that materialist scientists, in general, are constantly trying to undermine spiritist-type claims by imposing their empiricist commitments on both reality itself and human cognition. This came to a peak in the mid-twentieth century through the extreme doctrines of logical positivism and logical empiricism, but even now it is alive and well. Everything over and above such empiricism is deemed illegitimate. If such spiritist claims are presented in a scientific guise, it is labeled pseudoscience. From this empiricist stance, it is further concluded that the world (the universe), including human beings, is mechanistic. And since there is no mechanism for any spiritist-type expanded knowledge or understanding outside of the physical empiricist tradition, such claims are without merit. Moreover, the brain is the mechanism of human cognition. It is the brain, and only the brain, that mechanistically and deterministically takes data from the environment and processes that data to generate all human understanding and behavior. In this scenario there is no room or need for any religious “souls” or any “expanded” religious or mystical worldview. Therefore “spiritual” experiences are just “tweaks” of the brain, and reveal nothing about any reality beyond the basic information generated by the five senses and processed by the brain.

There are major downsides to both of the above worldviews. For the scientific worldview, the downside is in its inability to explain life, consciousness, and the self, in purely physical terms while preserving humanist values, including free will, meaning in life, and moral responsibility. The "scientific" literature is riddled with attempts to do just that; particularly in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy and cognitive science generally. These attempts are patently unsuccessful, often ludicrous, notwithstanding rhetorical claims to the contrary. As I have noted many times, the problem is stark and fundamental: there are no human values without free will, and there is no free will in rote, deterministic, computational, physical systems, however complex.

For the spiritist worldview, we now have an excessively “open” view of knowledge and evidence, such that there are no principles from which to evaluate the truth or legitimacy of claims. Religion is the perfect example of how such openness creates havoc through wild and unsupported speculations; and even utter metaphysical nonsense. “Belief” becomes a matter of unbridled, unchecked, subjective choice, generating systems of belief by clever charlatan prophets that are then exploited for power and personal gain. Then such beliefs find their way into social policy; often with disastrous consequences. (the denial of global warming comes to mind.) On top of these problems, spiritists are no better at explaining what makes humans unique and special than materialist scientists; other than humans supposedly have a mysterious “soul.”

The above account is intentionally simplistic. Within these general parameters people are all over the map in their views and understanding. Nonetheless, what I have just outlined is a useful background for understanding the differing worldviews of science and religion. Can spiritual experiences be ruled out as providing access to some kind of “transcendent” reality? If so, why? Why should the “evidence” of human experience summarily rule out spiritual experience, if indeed they are part of human experience; particularly with respect to one’s personal worldview? Moreover, is Crick’s hypothesis really supportable? Does such things as “insight,” “creativity,” meaning, understanding, and most importantly free will, involve cognitive processes that are fully explainable by the deterministic, computational, human brain? If they are so explainable, where are the explanations? Not by way of rhetoric and platitudes; but by way of mechanisms!

This is essentially my own position; that science itself (and human cognition generally) involves capacities that are not, and cannot, be fully explained by the functions of the physical brain. This means that science itself ultimately requires an appeal to “transcendental mechanisms” that explain meaning, thinking, insight, creativity, etc. And if that is the case, what *is* the limit of such a reality, and humans’ access to it. And specifically, on what basis can we deny in principle that spiritual experiences do not reflect that reality.

The above should answer your questions.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There are major downsides to both of the above
> worldviews. For the scientific worldview, the
> downside is in its inability to explain life,
> consciousness, and the self, in purely physical
> terms while preserving humanist values, including
> free will, meaning in life, and moral
> responsibility. The "scientific" literature is
> riddled with attempts to do just that;
> particularly in neuroscience, psychology,
> philosophy and cognitive science generally. These
> attempts are patently unsuccessful, often
> ludicrous, notwithstanding rhetorical claims to
> the contrary. As I have noted many times, the
> problem is stark and fundamental: there are no
> human values without free will, and there is no
> free will in rote, deterministic, computational,
> physical systems, however complex.


Something beyond "ludicrous" is to simply pretend that propositional attitudes do not exist, à la my fellow citizen, Patricia Churchland:

"Churchland’s response — so-called “eliminative materialism” – is drastic. Propositional attitudes [beliefs, expectations, hopes, desires and thoughts], she decrees, are mirages of a naive pre-scientific “folk psychology”. They will evaporate with the advance of neuroscience: aspects of the mind that don’t fit into neuroscience are not real. The elimination of intentionality, however, would come back to bite her, as we shall see."

As we shall see:

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/conscience-patricia-churchland-book-review/

Yes. Canadians Patricia and Paul Churchland are good examples of this "ludicrous" (eliminative materialist) response to the problem of consciousness. I like John Searle's response to this view. Paraphrasing, he said: "People who hold this view do not need a refutation, they need help!"

As an interesting aside, Pat and Paul Churchland are both emeritus professors of philosophy at the University of San Diego, and have been in San Diego for many years. They are both affiliated (or were) with the Salk Institute in San Diego. It was here that they became close friends with neuroscientists, Antonio Damasio and Francis Crick, both of whom were strongly influenced by the Churchlands.

Is there a reason to accept The Literary Society review as an authoritative rebuttal of the book?

It's not peer review or an esteemed biology journal.

It wears the trappings of scholarship but not much else.

As one of your frequent? detractors, I must say that the above is well expressed.

+Henry Bemis:

“In general, all human beings have an interest ……..”

==I’m fine with that.

“We can all agree that (a) humans beings are consciousness;”

==Consciousness is just a word but I think I know what you are talking about. You are talking about our ability to think, observe nature, processes our sensor data, the feeling of being a single component.

“(b) they each have a conscious “self” which is the “I” part of their mental experience;”

==I’m not sure what you mean. Perhaps this is about the feeling of being a single component.

“(c) they experience the world through the five physical senses;”

==What are these 5 senses?


"Many “materialists” scientists and philosophers believe that this is the *only* way that understanding of the world is achieved."

==What they believe is irrelevant. What the evidence is is what is important.
Once you have the evidence, then you can believe.
A metallurgist would take a peace of steel and use a tool to measure how much stress it can handle in various directions. Those numbers can be used to figure out how much steel is needed in a building or bridge.
It does not matter if you are a dinosaur from 80 Myear ago, if you are a guy from 10,000 y ago, a guy from present day england, ... we all can observe the same bar of steel and the numbers that the instrument shows us.
The scientific domain has changed our understanding of the universe and provided plenty of things, such as bridges and buildings.


"The “spiritist view” believes that in addition ......."

==Once you have the evidence, then you can believe.

"One can note right away that the spiritist view is just as much based upon ‘evidence’ as is the scientific empiricist view. Both rely upon psychological human experience as the foundation of such evidence."

==I could close my eyes and imagine a person in a room, drinking tea with me. That’s a psychological human experience as well. Sometimes, I go sleep and it is as if I am not asleep at all. I am in some place and interacting with people who seem to have their own thoughts and I have my own thoughts. We need to be able to distinguish between what is real and what is not at this point.

“"Spiritists then proceed to claim that they have access to an expanded, “transcendental” reality, however vague and elusive that reality might be."”

==What can these spiritist tell me?

“If such spiritist claims are presented in a scientific guise, it is labeled pseudoscience.”

==Can you be specific? What exactly are you talking about?

“Moreover, the brain is the mechanism of human cognition.”

==Why do material scientists think that? Can they offer a reasonable reason?

“free will”

==What do you mean by free will? Why do you think that you have free will?

“and there is no free will in rote, deterministic, computational, physical systems, however complex”

==At the quantum level, it looks like systems are non-deterministic. There are probabilities. Even radioactivity suggests that it is a random system. In a block of some radioactive element, the atoms don’t coordinate with each other to decide which ones should disintegrate. A particular atom might disintegrate now or maybe never.
Is this something that material scientists don’t acknowledge?

"Can spiritual experiences be ruled out as providing access to some kind of “transcendent” reality?"

==I don't know what this means. Do you know what it means?

~~~~iceman9090

Iceman: I have provided a rough account of the differences in perspective between a scientist and a "spiritist," pointing out that they have similar aims; i.e. to understand the world. Moreover, I noted that both approaches are tied to the evidence of human experience; one a rather narrow (science) and the other rather broad (spiritist). I also noted that it was possible to legitimately criticize and question either approach, on somewhat difference grounds.

Given all of that, what is your general point at continually hammering away at the spiritist perspective? One could equally spend time hammering away at the scientific perspective along the lines I have done so in this thread and others. Note that "experience" is about human psychology; which is about human consciousness and human minds! Neither the scientist or the spiritist can get around that. But at least the spiritist meets the challenge of mind head on, without trying to sweep it under the rug while yet trying to retain some objective criterion as to what is "legitimate" evidence and what is not.

What I want to know from you, and what interests me in dialoguing with you is how you answer the criticisms to your own favored scientific worldview; not your continued hammering away and the spiritist view.

With that, here are some comments:
__________________________________________

"One can note right away that the spiritist view is just as much based upon ‘evidence’ as is the scientific empiricist view. Both rely upon psychological human experience as the foundation of such evidence."

==I could close my eyes and imagine a person in a room, drinking tea with me. That’s a psychological human experience as well. Sometimes, I go sleep and it is as if I am not asleep at all. I am in some place and interacting with people who seem to have their own thoughts and I have my own thoughts. We need to be able to distinguish between what is real and what is not at this point.

COMMENT: Yes. And we do that by our intuitive judgments; i.e. by comparing such "thought" experiences, dreams, hallucinations, etc. with our other, more common experiences. I do not need to open a science book every morning to find out whether my dreams were real.
______________________________________

“"Spiritists then proceed to claim that they have access to an expanded, “transcendental” reality, however vague and elusive that reality might be."”

==What can these spiritist tell me?

COMMENT: Actually, a hell-a-va-lot! They can tell you about a realm of experience, and related claims, about a reality that you are unfamiliar with. They can tell you how such experiences have influenced their personal worldview. You can take it all with a grain of salt, of course, as I do, but to ignore it, or presume it is useless, or meaningless is very, very, shortsighted.
______________________________________

“If such spiritist claims are presented in a scientific guise, it is labeled pseudoscience.”

==Can you be specific? What exactly are you talking about?

COMMENT: I am talking about paranormal studies; including ESP, near-death experiences; past lives studies, etc. all of which have a place in established academia--like it or not. It is not helpful to label such things as pseudoscience, and then ignore them, when legitimate scholars are trying to systematically understand them, and in some cases trying to make a connection between such experiences and ultimate reality.
______________________________________

“Moreover, the brain is the mechanism of human cognition.”

==Why do material scientists think that? Can they offer a reasonable reason?

COMMENT: Because it just seems intuitively obvious to them after successfully correlating the brain with numerous cognitive capacities, both conscious and unconscious. It is an assumption that is based upon substantial evidence. (But that does not mean that Crick's hypothesis--with its universal quantifier--is correct, when the evidence shows that it is not.
__________________________________________

“free will”

==What do you mean by free will? Why do you think that you have free will?

COMMENT: Do I really have to answer that again? O.K. Free will is the ability of human agents (and possibly other animals) to initiate causal effects in the physical world, including their own brains, through their acts of willing. I think I have it, because I do it every day! In fact, I did it when I decided to respond to your post, and then began to type.
__________________________________________

“and there is no free will in rote, deterministic, computational, physical systems, however complex”

==At the quantum level, it looks like systems are non-deterministic. There are probabilities. Even radioactivity suggests that it is a random system. In a block of some radioactive element, the atoms don’t coordinate with each other to decide which ones should disintegrate. A particular atom might disintegrate now or maybe never.
Is this something that material scientists don’t acknowledge?

COMMENT: Quantum probabilities do not equate with free will. As I said, free will requires the "initiation" of physical (and mental) causal processes. For quantum physics to apply you would need quantum processes to generate consciousness, a self, and free will. There is nothing about QM that currently suggests such a mechanism. But that does not mean that QM is not somehow relevant to such things in ways we do not know. (For an interesting take on this read Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self_
__________________________________

"Can spiritual experiences be ruled out as providing access to some kind of “transcendent” reality?"

==I don't know what this means. Do you know what it means?

COMMENT: Of course I do. A "transcendent reality" is some aspect of reality that is not revealed directly and specifically by normal human sense experience. Consider this statement by Einstein. He is talking about a transcendent reality underlying science--which he "religiously" believed in!

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is a fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds -- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. . . . I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

Einstein is not just talking about an "appreciation" of nature, or a psychological "awe" or nature. He is talking about "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate." That is a transcendent reality--by definition.

+Henry Bemis:
“human experience”

==We can split the system (universe) into 2 parts. The rest_of_the_universe (that has data) and us We are the data recording device. We want to learn about the universe. In order to get data from the universe, sensors are needed to interact with the universe, therefore I don’t see any alternative. Human experience has to be present.

“Given all of that, what is your general point at continually hammering away at the spiritist perspective?”

==1. I was told that this was the internet and it was a tool for communication.
2. I wonder what the methology of spiritists are for collecting data. Can you give examples that we can discuss?

“But at least the spiritist meets the challenge of mind head on, without trying to sweep it under the rug while yet trying to retain some objective criterion as to what is "legitimate" evidence and what is not.”

==What is the challenge and how does he meet it head on?

“Yes. And we do that by our intuitive judgments; i.e. by comparing such "thought" experiences, dreams, hallucinations, etc. with our other, more common experiences. I do not need to open a science book every morning to find out whether my dreams were real.”

==I don’t need to open a science book either. I just use logic, I compare with my experiences in the real world.

“Actually, a hell-a-va-lot!”

==Such as?

“I am talking about paranormal studies; including ESP, near-death experiences; past lives studies, etc. all of which have a place in established academia--like it or not. It is not helpful to label such things as pseudoscience, and then ignore them, when legitimate scholars are trying to systematically understand them, and in some cases trying to make a connection between such experiences and ultimate reality.”

==You mentioned ESP, NDE, past lives studies.
I don’t think NDE is pseudoscience. I have looked into it. For example:
Source:
Migraine aura, a predictor of near-death experiences in a crowdsourced study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31824781

I have not seen much about ESP but I’m guessing you are talking about psychics. From a demo performed by James Randi at a russian institute claiming to have a bunch of ESP people, they failed.

I have heard of a couple of cases of past lives. I remember a case in India. A 10 y claiming to have been shot by a gunman at his store. He had a mark where the bullet had hit. He went to meet his wife. They didn’t say if he remembered details about his life.

“Because it just seems intuitively obvious to them after successfully correlating the brain with numerous cognitive capacities, both conscious and unconscious. It is an assumption that is based upon substantial evidence. (But that does not mean that Crick's hypothesis--with its universal quantifier--is correct, when the evidence shows that it is not.”

==Substantial evidence is good.
What function does the brain accomplish?
What is it not capable of accomplishing?
Do you agree with what biology books say about our bones, muscles, heart, lung, nails, eyes, nerves, hair, skin, pancreas, kidneys?

“Do I really have to answer that again? O.K. Free will is the ability of human agents (and possibly other animals) to initiate causal effects in the physical world, including their own brains, through their acts of willing. I think I have it, because I do it every day! In fact, I did it when I decided to respond to your post, and then began to type.”

==I am not seeing a conflict between what a materialist believes and free will.

“Quantum probabilities do not equate with free will. As I said, free will requires the "initiation" of physical (and mental) causal processes. For quantum physics to apply you would need quantum processes to generate consciousness, a self, and free will. There is nothing about QM that currently suggests such a mechanism. But that does not mean that QM is not somehow relevant to such things in ways we do not know. (For an interesting take on this read Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self_”

==You had written:
“It is the brain, and only the brain, that mechanistically and deterministically takes data from the environment and processes that data to generate all human understanding and behavior.”
and
“there are no human values without free will, and there is no free will in rote, deterministic, computational, physical systems, however complex.”

so I just wrote that at the atomic level, scientists accept that systems are non-deterministic. Cells operate with a certain number of molecules and some wonder what this effect has on the outcome, on the behavior of a single cell.
There is an idea called
Orchestrated objective reduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

I’m not sure why you think there can be no morals without free will.
Right now, free will is just 2 words. You haven’t explained it. You are just claiming that it comes from outerspace.

“Of course I do. A "transcendent reality" is some aspect of reality that is not revealed directly and specifically by normal human sense experience.”

==In other words, human senses are not getting us all the data. If that is not getting us all the data, then what will get it?

"Can spiritual experiences be ruled out as providing access to some kind of “transcendent” reality?"

==What needs to be done is that ESP, past lives need to be verified. Do they have offer us reliable data?
NDE is a real thing.

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate”

==What is this thing that you cannot penetrate?


"Can spiritual experiences be ruled out as providing access to some kind of “transcendent” reality?"
“Einstein is not just talking about an "appreciation" of nature, or a psychological "awe" or nature. He is talking about "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate." That is a transcendent reality--by definition.”

==I thought that transcendent reality can be penetrated with a “spiritual experience”.

So besides, ESP and past lives, what else are in the box of “spiritual experience”?

~~~~iceman9090

So besides, ESP and past lives, what else are in the box of “spiritual experience”?
_________________________________________________
I will let Henry give you his official 'Henry' response but I will try to provide you things I have experienced that I would classify as 'experiences science can't explain'.

I remote view (a psychic skill), I establish the intent for my 'sub' to give me a target that had been assigned from the physicist in California to project the stock market tomorrow. I attempt to get in a meditative state and while listening to music say 'target' and draw a line and probe it with my pen and ask various questions about the target (hard/soft, man-made/natural, etc.) I do similar questions 3-5 times at 1.5 sec per answer so I can get my sub response versus conscious to make up something. The answer is normally a visual in my mind. Then I basically ask for other visuals of the target --- tonight I got a round thing, movement, life forms moving on it, a gate around it, I got a 'face' which appeared to be a life form --- either person or animal. I needed to match one of 2 pics (a merry-go-round, or a natural scene with a steep mountain and a river). Notice I am fairly new to this and did not see the merry-go-round just got clues it was something like that. Sometimes I will feel myself flying through the air, in water, hot, cold etc..

I have astral projected to the after life (took over 20 attempts). I heard my parents asking me how I got there and then a 'person' materialized before me and we were in a small room where we talked. He wanted to know how I got there and why I had come. I told him I wanted a tour. He laughed and I snapped back into my body. The next night I did get a tour by dream but no words just images of locations (study, judgement, incarnation prep place.

I have talked to 'passed family members, one friend, and spirit guide' ---- all spirits.

In college I 'knew' (but didn't know how) what specific question would be on the test that week. I still needed to find a friend to help me work it. I wasn't given the answer. I was the first out of the room in 10-15 min with my friend right behind me.

I have had a number of 'visions' --- normally warning me of danger that I was able to verify in the future. I thought I could be safe skiing on one run by looking closely to make sure no one was around ---- I was wrong when I was almost to the bottom I sensed a person right behind me, I took a left turn and they hit me directly. Now I stay completely away when I am shown some dangerous area.

I have used dreams to ask questions and project what I would see in the internet news source I look at. I got maybe 80% accuracy but 'never' enough information to prevent an airplane crash, multiple car crashes, rock slide or fire. I have asked questions and sometimes get responses sometimes not.

Some of these things appear to be coming from my 'subconscious' which some believe has 'access' to everything that was, is or will be' others I don't know.

I have also done past life meditations --- I once posted one on this board and at least 2 others got 'experiences' of past lives, no one said it didn't work.

My 'examples' to understand what some 'people', in this case me, claim they 'experienced'.

Scientific evidence ----- 0!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2020 12:13AM by spiritist.

+spiritist:
“I will let Henry give you his official 'Henry' response but I will try to provide you things I have experienced that I would classify as 'experiences science can't explain'.”

==I would like you to respond to it as well. Everyone else is invited as well.

“I establish the intent for my 'sub' “

==What’s a sub?

“from the physicist in California”

==Who?

“and ask various questions about the target (hard/soft, man-made/natural, etc.)”

==I do not understand the process. Can you explain it better?

“I have talked to 'passed family members, one friend, and spirit guide' ---- all spirits.”

==This is what I propose.
We get you online. We’ll connect with Skype. Perhaps others on this board are interested in joining us. Let’s get another psychic. You two will go to the other side, meet the same people, those people will give you a secret sentence (The same sentence to you both). You come online and send it to me via email. Will be connected via skype during all that process.
The sentence length should be 20 words and more.
We can do this test as many times as you like, the time at which you are comfortable.
We’ll record it and put it on Youtube. We’ll spread the word to the maximum possible extent.
Are you in?

“In college I 'knew' (but didn't know how) what specific question would be on the test that week. I still needed to find a friend to help me work it. I wasn't given the answer. I was the first out of the room in 10-15 min with my friend right behind me.”

==Were these written tests?
Perfect, I’ll write a written test. I’ll put maybe 20 questions on it.
We’ll give mathematics a shot.
Of course, this will also have to be done via Skype.
Are you in?

“I have had a number of 'visions' --- normally warning me of danger...”

==I don’t know. Perhaps I could design something to test this but we have to be in proximity of each other.

“I have used dreams to ask questions and project what I would see in the internet news source I….”

==I don’t know how accurate these dreams are. I don’t know if you are counting the misses as well as the hits.
One thing that I have heard is that this is like playing the lottery. Since the world population is so high, there are some hits. In other words, it is possible that someone flipped a coin a bunch of times and is getting heads each time.

~~~~iceman9090

That's the problem with Bemis's schema. You eventually end up bending spoons and healing amputees.

That's the problem with Bemis's schema. You eventually end up bending spoons and healing amputees.

COMMENT: If there is such a thing as "Bemis' schema," it is only the position that human experience in all its forms should be taken seriously. That is not just Bemis' schema, that is the underlying assumption of empirical science!

The 'Bemis schema' also includes rational evaluation as part of that seriousness. This would include the bending of spoons and healing of amputees if indeed that was part of human experience. It is better to take a phenomenon seriously, long enough to interpret it correctly; debunk false interpretations; and perhaps to expose fraud, than to ignore and dismiss it simply because it does not meet with one's pre-existing paradigm as to what human experience must necessary allow, and what it must necessarily dismiss. If that is a problem, I will take it, because the problem of some other schema based upon scientism is much worse.

> It is better to take a phenomenon
> seriously. . . than to ignore and dismiss it simply
> because it does not meet with one's pre-existing
> paradigm. . .

Ironic, that.

There’s the rub. Can humans afford to be rational beings? That’s why cons work. So, they place their bets and hope their horse finishes.

I have more experience than most in busting paradigms. What happens when you show people something that’s mind blowing? Mostly they forget that it happened or find a way to compartmentalize it. The facts don’t matter when they threaten your internal world. Mormons demonstrate this all the time. Telling people facts is a good way to lose friends.

Look, you set the table beautifully in the post I complimented you on.

But then you flip back to your "I really, really,really want freewill to exist" mode. That's the logical fallacy of arguing from your conclusion.

As a lad I sat enthralled,with many in the world, and watched men land on the moon. Newtonian science worked pretty well.

You whine that iceman keeps hammering on you. Why do you keep hammering on him?

When spiritist can put up his past life regressions on the internet for all to see in real time get back to me.

+Lulu not logged in:
“As a lad I sat enthralled,with many in the world, and watched men land on the moon. Newtonian science worked pretty well.”

==There it is. This guy gets it!

This is why I wrote a few posts back:
“If you want to determine what is truth, doing the best you can is not a methodology.
We need solid evidence.”

The scientific method is a solid methodology and has produced multiple branches within Physics, chemistry, biology and some crossovers between history, archeology, psychology.
Electrical Engineering, mechanical engineering are applications of what is being discovered.
All this has changed the world. Billions of people are observing the fruits of science right now.

In the end, it has to be something observable today and tomorrow, by anyone and anywhere. Anyone should be able to go to school, get the books and study the same science and test the same concepts over and over.

Bemis talks about a deterministic system. I talked about deterministic systems and non-deterministic. Where does free will fit in? Is it something random or does it follow the rules of logic?

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +spiritist:
> “I will let Henry give you his official 'Henry'
> response but I will try to provide you things I
> have experienced that I would classify as
> 'experiences science can't explain'.”
>
> ==I would like you to respond to it as well.
> Everyone else is invited as well.
>
> “I establish the intent for my 'sub' “
>
> ==What’s a sub?
__________________________________________________

My 'subconscious'. It usually responds to me, when it does, visually or a feeling. Others claim they hear words. So, I consciously have 'no psychic ability' however, when I can 'tap into my sub' --- it does.

>
> “from the physicist in California”
>
> ==Who
______________________________________________________

His name is Marty Rosenblatt --- web site Applied Precognition Project

>
> “and ask various questions about the target
> (hard/soft, man-made/natural, etc.)”
>
> ==I do not understand the process. Can you explain
> it better?
____________________________________________________
Better to see it done and 'everyone' uses a slightly different process. Most have paper sessions in a meditative mode then present those session on a white board and put them on utube Look up Remote viewing and I suggest Farsight institute RV projects. Also, a lot of 'free' information on the RV process is on the Reddit --- remote viewing site. We forecasted correctly the super bowl winner and some intermediate game winners also. We also have misses but this sub is mainly people in my category beginners with a few pros that blog once in a while but don't work for free. There are videos of RVing there also being done ---- Nyiam has some recent ones I believe.
>
> “I have talked to 'passed family members, one
> friend, and spirit guide' ---- all spirits.”
>
> ==This is what I propose.
> We get you online. We’ll connect with Skype.
> Perhaps others on this board are interested in
> joining us. Let’s get another psychic. You two
> will go to the other side, meet the same people,
> those people will give you a secret sentence (The
> same sentence to you both). You come online and
> send it to me via email. Will be connected via
> skype during all that process.
> The sentence length should be 20 words and more.
> We can do this test as many times as you like, the
> time at which you are comfortable.
> We’ll record it and put it on Youtube. We’ll
> spread the word to the maximum possible extent.
> Are you in?
___________________________________________________

No, I am not in this to 'prove' anything to anyone else! That doesn't work ---- you need to prove it for yourself. I have only had 'success with my relatives/friends' and it is telepathic I get thoughts. Another psychic would be a 'medium' in this area.

>
> “In college I 'knew' (but didn't know how) what
> specific question would be on the test that week.
> I still needed to find a friend to help me work
> it. I wasn't given the answer. I was the first out
> of the room in 10-15 min with my friend right
> behind me.”
>
> ==Were these written tests?
> Perfect, I’ll write a written test. I’ll put
> maybe 20 questions on it.
> We’ll give mathematics a shot.
> Of course, this will also have to be done via
> Skype.
> Are you in?
_______________________________________________
These were written tests with some math involved. Again I do not get this stuff when I want and on whatever subject. I don't know what the key is ---- it seems to come when I need something but not to show off.

>
> “I have had a number of 'visions' --- normally
> warning me of danger...”
>
> ==I don’t know. Perhaps I could design something
> to test this but we have to be in proximity of
> each other.
_______________________________________________
These come for a 'purpose' other than showing off.
>
> “I have used dreams to ask questions and project
> what I would see in the internet news source
> I….”
>
> ==I don’t know how accurate these dreams are. I
> don’t know if you are counting the misses as
> well as the hits.
> One thing that I have heard is that this is like
> playing the lottery. Since the world population is
> so high, there are some hits. In other words, it
> is possible that someone flipped a coin a bunch of
> times and is getting heads each time.
______________________________________
Again, I am not sure I get things just to show off. I would rather you see 'pro RVers' as discussed above with many years of experience and education in RV versus mine with 2 years. As far as other news stuff they do it and the Farsight website should have utube videos of past news calls and accuracy. These are our 'pros' who do this work and get paid to do it. Cryptoviewing is another but I think they charge --- sometimes on there free stuff also.

Statistics from the Government RV work --- 16 years or so is covered in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU
>
> ~~~~iceman9090



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 08:39PM by spiritist.

Two points

First, Utts is not highly regarded and her work has been rejected by a lot of her colleagues.

Second, at 5:10 in your clip she states that the reason the CIA and others defunded her work was because her findings, though positive, were nowhere near as accurate as the intelligence agencies' other systems.

If that's the best of your evidence, you should reconsider your position.

Yes, it took '16 years' for the CIA to figure out the information was 'not that good'???????

What does that sound like??? You trust it took 16 years to make a conclusion that could have been made in 1 year by anyone with a brain???

Would anyone 'trust' the CIA if it takes them 16 years to figure something so 'simple' out???

Nothing but 'fake news' and politics!!! Only a 'few' 'intellectuals' could support this type of logic!!!! In fact, contract 'pro' RVers have reported working US government contracts for the last 20 years. Of course they signed NDEs at the time not to 'disclose' they were working for the government!!!! If you think the US government is not using 'propaganda' in many areas, on the population --- you would be wrong! Sure RV is 'not useful'!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2020 01:21PM by spiritist.

It sounds like government employees having control over a budget that guarantees their income and next year's income. If it gets shut down, they're out of work. The motive isn't the results, it's income stability and career stability. They're rewarded for continuing to justify their existence, however they can do so. The system is not about accuracy of publishing peer reviewer content. There is no incentive for that. The incentive is about connecting to a revenue stream and building a career kingdom that will self perpetuate.

Intelligence results are the "useful masquerade" draped over the kingdom struggle beneath.

> Yes, it took '16 years' for the CIA to figure out
> the information was 'not that good'???????

You should take that up with your source, whom you say endorses remote viewing but who actually says it is not useful.

Did you watch your clip?


----------------
> What does that sound like??? You trust it took 16
> years to make a conclusion that could have been
> made in 1 year by anyone with a brain???

And yet you still haven't figured it out. You can't even tell the difference between a supportive source and a skeptical one.


-----------------
> Would anyone 'trust' the CIA if it takes them 16
> years to figure something so 'simple' out???

Sure. You and your RV crowd are a better source of information and judgment.


--------------------
> Nothing but 'fake news' and politics!!!

Yet it is you who provided the "fake news," news that invalidates the very proposition you claim it supports. It's a bit late now to complain, one would think.


-----------------
> Only a
> 'few' 'intellectuals' could support this type of
> logic!!!!

Let me see if I understand your logic. You believe that remote viewing works and that it enables your friend the professor consistently to beat the stockmarket. Your friend the "intellectual." When challenged, you link us to another intellectual whom you mistakenly think vouches for your position. When I point out the contradiction, you renounce the intellectuals that you cited as authoritative. So you seem to like "intellectuals" who support your prejudice but then reject the whole crowd when they don't.


-----------------
> In fact, contract 'pro' RVers have
> reported working US government contracts for the
> last 20 years. Of course they signed NDEs at the
> time not to 'disclose' they were working for the
> government!!!!

Ah yes. "What I, spiritist, say is truth. And the fact that there is no evidence of my beliefs is itself evidence of my beliefs."


-------------
> If you think the US government is
> not using 'propaganda' in many areas, on the
> population --- you would be wrong!

Straw man. Neither I nor anyone else has said anything like that.


------------------
> Sure RV is
> 'not useful'!!!

Ah yes, we are back to your original assertion, the one for which you cited an "intellectual" who in fact thinks you are out of your mind. Then you retreat to the position that the lack of evidence for remote viewing is proof that it works. Makes sense to me.



PS: Maybe your argument would be more compelling if you added some more exclamation points.

+spiritist:

“My 'subconscious'. It usually responds to me, when it does, visually or a feeling. Others claim they hear words. So, I consciously have 'no psychic ability' however, when I can 'tap into my sub' --- it does.”

==I see.


“His name is Marty Rosenblatt --- web site Applied Precognition Project”

==1. I checked out phys.org:
0 results.

2.
https://www.amazon.com/Marty-Rosenblatt-Associative-Viewing-Prediction/dp/B004BA5Z3M#customerReviews

Marty Rosenblatt - Associative Remote Viewing Prediction of a Horse Race (IRVA 2010)
^^^^^This is a DVD
24.95$

He and other members of an investment club he has formed have correctly predicted changes in the stock market over 60% of the time, making money in the process.

3. There doesn’t seem to be patents from him or research papers (white papers).


I would say, this is a perfect candidate for the Randi Foundation test thing.

Farsight institute RV projects
The URL seems to be
https://farsight.org/

I clicked on the COVID-19 link which leads to
https://farsight.org/FarsightPress/Origin_of_Coronavirus_Farsight_Project_main_page.html
I watched the video.
Video Length = 12:04
Woman talking in front of a green screen, giving description of a building, etc.
Guy talking about something heating up and blowing up, etc.

From my POV, it looks like they listened to the news, just like me. Then they are using their imagination to fill in knowledge gaps.


“No, I am not in this to 'prove' anything to anyone else! That doesn't work”

==I’m use to it. Nobody wants to prove that they are psychic. Nobody wants to prove that they are talking to a god.

“These were written tests with some math involved. Again I do not get this stuff when I want and on whatever subject. I don't know what the key is ---- it seems to come when I need something but not to show off.”

==Same as above.
I don’t mind if you have experience or not. I am not going to bite your head off.
Perhaps you have performance anxiety.
I thought you were saying that you went through a bunch of tests and you were successful.

“I would rather you see 'pro RVers' as discussed above with many years of experience and education in RV versus mine with 2 years.”

==Invite them here. We’ll talk. We’ll have tea and biscuits.

~~~~iceman9090

My only comment is --- you obviously haven't studied 'Randi's techniques'. He would never go with 'any' statistics --- it is 100% or 'fail'!!! One could get 8 of 10 and 'fail'!!!

As far as bring the evidence to you --- when the world is full of evidence and someone is to lazy to study it and critique it or agree with it.

I am not a 'fast food worker' and don't serve anything but provide my experiences and let people know there is a lot out there --- if they 'really are interested'!

I have no problem with your lack of interest! Why take advantage of 'scientific discoveries'?

The only thing I have done to support my 'expertise of 2 years' is I completed an online Remote Viewing Tournament where I was #6 of 2000 in April or May. This 'tournament' required a 'daily' test. You go to that site and request the top 10 for April or May and I will provide the screen name I used. I actually won 'money' for a sixth place finish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2020 01:08PM by spiritist.

Are you a multi-billionaire? Are your friends?

Because if you are a great remote viewer and can--as you claim--beat the market 60% of the time, you should be far wealthier than Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

I often see Bill and Jeff!

Do their wives know?

;-)

+spiritist:
“My only comment is --- you obviously haven't studied 'Randi's techniques'. He would never go with 'any' statistics --- it is 100% or 'fail'!!! One could get 8 of 10 and 'fail'!!!”

==No. James Randi’s technique compares the results of the psychic with the result of a non-psychic. Neither case can beat the odds.
What does beating the odds mean?
Let’s say I have a 6 sided dice. The idea is to guess what it will land on. You throw the dice and see if you get a hit or a miss. Your chances of getting a hit is 1 in 6. We’ll throw it 100 times.
Just connect on Skype with me and we’ll play this game. I’ll record it and upload to Youtube. Other people are invited as well to watch it live.

At the same time, I’ll show you something else with dices that demonstrate probability.

“As far as bring the evidence to you --- when the world is full of evidence and someone is to lazy to study it and critique it or agree with it.”

==You are my evidence. How can I convince my evidence to come online with me?

“I have no problem with your lack of interest!”

==Huh? Are you brain damaged? Is english your first language or not?
“The only thing I have done to support my 'expertise of 2 years”

==The only thing? Get on Skype and let’s give it a shot.

“You go to that site and request the top 10 for April or May and I will provide the screen name I used. I actually won 'money' for a sixth place finish.”

==That’s fine. Let’s do more tests but this time, I’ll be involved.

~~~~iceman9090

“So besides, ESP and past lives, what else are in the box of “spiritual experience”?”

Mediumship, communication with the dead, PSI, precognition, etc. Let’s focus on the Holy Ghost because it’s relevant. It worked when you were TBM because you believed it would work. It was (or is) a divination tool because the future lives in the realm of imagination. Everything in the future is in a state of quantum superposition. How do you navigate that? One way is with imagination powered by divine-oriented intention. Meditation is another way.

Terence McKenna called history “the shock wave of eschatology”, or a kind of backwards (from our perspective) time effect. You could think of this reverse arrow of time as the “straight and narrow path” mentioned by Christ. If you can’t find the Jungian Christ archetype within you, you are left pushing on a rope. Now it’s a real shame that Mormonism poisoned the well. They have to live with that and they will. Nobody gets away with anything.

What I mean about pushing on a rope is that faith is about pulling. You pull yourself towards an optimal future. I like spiritist’s description of his divining process. Like anything, it takes practice. He’s better off than he was in the Mormon cult. I met my Mormon neighbors the other day. Glad I’m not them.

> Let’s focus on the Holy Ghost
> because it’s relevant. It worked when you were
> TBM because you believed it would work.

I'm not sure this argument will impress many here.

I’m not locked out of the Mormon flavor of Christianity (notwithstanding the Nicene Creed) because of the doctrine. It’s more that I can’t stand authoritarian douche bags.

+bradley:
“I like spiritist’s description of his divining process. Like anything, it takes practice.”

==If it takes practice, then practice away. However, I can’t give points for practicing.

Example:
2 students study hard for an exam.
They take the same test. 1 does better than the other.

My job is not to figure out why that occurred. My job is to evaluate via a test.
Perhaps one student studied longer hours.
Perhaps one student has poor memory or some thinking skills.
Perhaps one student was hurrying during the test to get it over with.

~~~~iceman9090

I 'believe' Henry explained the various positions fairly.

Certainly, I have nothing to add.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2020 11:52AM by spiritist.

This whole exchange--which I thought was dead--reminds me of the following anecdote as related by Stephan A. Schwartz in the Forward to Russell A. Targ's book, The Reality of ESP:
_____________________________________________

"Along with Ed May, I once debated with Daniel Dennett, a prominent critic of ESP research. . . We debated along for about thirty minutes, with Dennett making dismissive and disparaging remarks to anything Ed and I said, but always in generalities. Finally I said to him: "Let's pick an experiment we both know, and you tell me what is wrong with it, and I will respond." Without a moment's hesitation he shot back in the most deliberately condescending act I have ever witnessed, saying, "You don't think I actually read this stuff, do you?" There was a moment's silence, then laughter began, first as giggles, then as chuckles, and, finally, as guffaws. It suddenly dawned on Dennett what he had said. He blushed and sat down, and left as soon as he could."
_____________________________________________

This amusing story is no doubt true, and is indicative of the dismissive attitude of "skeptics" toward all things "paranormal." The believers in this debate always have the upper hand simply because they are the one's that have read the literature and are thoroughly familiar with the issues, pro and con! I suspect the same is true with respect to the responses to this thread.

Here is an other example, as stated in the book, Irreducible Mind, by Kelly et al.:

"Throughout his book (Humphrey (1996) Leaps of Faith: *Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation,* New York: Basic Books) alludes to a supposed killer argument that he will later deploy to demonstrate the impossibility of psi. When we finally get there (Chapter 26), the argument turns out to be that he cannot imagine any possible scenario under which ostensible psi effects could be achieved by some combination of known physical mechanisms. Therefore the reported effects cannot and do not happen, Q.E.D. But whether we like it or not, such effects *do* happen, as a matter of empirical fact . . . That is the whole point, and what makes the phenomena theoretically interesting in the first place! Humphrey's "argument" amounts in my opinion to little more than an expression of his deeply felt wish that the phenomena should simply go away. In this he is of course, adopting a strategy that has been widely practiced by contemporary scientists and philosophers."

I own and have read Humphrey's book, Leaps of Faith, myself and had the exact same experience: Lots of rhetorical bluster with little substance, along with an embarrassing ignorance of the facts.

As an explanation of this dismissive phenomenon among skeptics, Dean Radin notes in his book, Entangled Minds:

"The ideal in science is to allow our experiences, in the form of formal observations and measurements, to rationally shape our beliefs. We do this through controlled experiments. In practice, we can't personally experience everything, so we're obliged to place our faith in what others report. When faith collides with experiments, disagreements invariably arise. We usually think of this conflict in terms of religion vs. science. But sometimes disagreements arise because *scientific faith* clashes with repeated *human experiences.* When this happens, [scientific] emotions trump reason."

Indeed, there is no question that when push comes to shove in these debates it is scientific faith that overrides any reasonable interpretation of such experiences. It is the attitude, "It can't be true, therefore it isn't true." End of story.

Finally, perhaps we one should assume the attitude of neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio, in his book Descartes' Error:

"At the outset I made my view clear on the limits of science: I am skeptical of science's presumption of objectivity and definitiveness. I have a difficult time seeing scientific results, especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations, to be enjoyed for a while and discarded as soon as better accounts become available. But skepticism about the current reach of science, especially as it concerns the mind, does not imply diminished enthusiasm for the attempt to improve provisional approximations. Perhaps the complexity of the human mind is such that the solution to the problem can never be known because of our inherent limitations."

This comment reflecting openness is quite ironic, however, in that Damasio himself summarily dismisses and ignores paranormal experiences--even when they are associated with brain pathology, which is right on point with his own research!

The moral of this belated post is that all of human experience is worthy of thought, reflection, and understanding. In some cases credible paranormal phenomena should be at least tentatively incorporated into our best theories and worldviews, and not summarily dismissed out of pure ignorance and "scientific" faith.

I could go on and on, but will stop there.

good stuff, Henry. Thank you.

This was hilarious:

"Along with Ed May, I once debated with Daniel Dennett, a prominent critic of ESP research. . . We debated along for about thirty minutes, with Dennett making dismissive and disparaging remarks to anything Ed and I said, but always in generalities. Finally I said to him: "Let's pick an experiment we both know, and you tell me what is wrong with it, and I will respond." Without a moment's hesitation he shot back in the most deliberately condescending act I have ever witnessed, saying, "You don't think I actually read this stuff, do you?" There was a moment's silence, then laughter began, first as giggles, then as chuckles, and, finally, as guffaws. It suddenly dawned on Dennett what he had said. He blushed and sat down, and left as soon as he could."


To the chagrin of RfM‘s science faithful, Rupert Sheldrake has a better chance for future relevance than do Dennett or Dawkins. That’s my guess, obviously, but he’s more a practicing scientist than the other two. Dennett is a philosopher and Dawkins for the greatest part of his career is a professional panelist and popularizer, a book writer. And when you clear an emotional attachment to either of them, it becomes clear that their central metaphors are faulty:

https://youtu.be/E0--Y82-o5c

(Dennett attempts to defend himself and Dawkins at the end of the clip.)

Thanks for this. I listened to this link in its entirety, and have the following general comments:

(1) Regarding metaphor in science, the problem is that science itself has a very difficult time distinguishing between what is descriptive of a mechanism and what is just metaphor. This is evident from this very debate, where "computer" is offered as a metaphor of the mind and brain, and then Blakemore states his view (consistent with neuroscience generally) that the brain is a computer. This type of problem is repeated over and over in the science literature. As another example, take the word "code." Is code a metaphor for DNA, or the reality? The scientific literature is extremely confused on this issue too.

(2) Setting aside his own speculations of mind ("morphic resonance"), I agree completely with Sheldrake here. I think his thoughts about Dawkins and Dennett are right on. Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene" is almost entirely irrelevant to modern biology, and Dennett appears to have no clue of that fact; not to mention his refusal to address his own ludicrous position about consciousness and mind, which is basically eliminativist, as Sheldrake notes.

(3) Sheldrake repeatedly accused both Dawkins and Dennett of dualism; and again he is right--sort of. Once "computer" is incorporated as part of a theory of mind-brain (and not just a metaphor) the idea of "software" becomes the dualist, non-material, component that is left unexplained. Similarly, once DNA is identified as either a "code" or some computational process, the dualism enters as the non-material programmer of the underlying software or the originator of the code.

One answer to this is to try to provide a naturalistic explanation of the computer or code--as, for example by appealing to natural law or evolution. However, to my mind this is a bit of a copout, because there remains a mysterious, dualistic-type reference to something that transcends the computer or code that is offered as the bare mechanistic explanation. Thus, to say, "the brain arose through the process of evolution to become the computer," leaves open the question as to the gap between bare mechanism and a more sophisticated computational mechanism. Software, once again, rears its ugly head. Same with DNA.

You're welcome.

Yes on (1). I've said it many times here and elsewhere.

Yes on (2).

Yes on (3). (Sheldrake is saying what you said. So, what constitutes the "sort of"?)

Finally, why copout when you can personify:

"...personifying brains makes brainifying people superficially plausible. Churchland does this in spades: she speaks of brains “being sensitive to the reliability of evidence”, of “drawing on spatial knowledge and past experience” in making a “choice”, and of “acquiring values”; and talks of neural networks “integrating information from various sources to make a decision”.

--Raymond Tallis--

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/conscience-patricia-churchland-book-review/

You, dear sir, do not make choices or acquire values or decide upon decisions, no no, my dear friend, no. It is the brain that does all that. You are merely a figment of its imagination. You, properly speaking, do not exist. But the Brain does.

(--Fine. Call one an app and the other a computer. Nerd.)

The verve of these people, at least, is entertaining.

Cheers

(Hoka time, baby!)

Resorting to unreplicable assertions as a basis for modifying science theory is indifferentiable from religious claims e.g. intelligent design.

It makes the scientific process unfalsifiable because you can't control the necessary surrounding variables to limit results to the variable in question.

All results can be explained by the paranormal. Which is no actual explanation.

Resorting to unreplicable assertions as a basis for modifying science theory is indifferentiable from religious claims e.g. intelligent design.

COMMENT: It is one thing to say that "unreplicable assertions" *cannot* be integrated within a given scientific theory, but quite another thing to deny that such assertions lack validity *because* they cannot be integrated with an *established* scientific theory. A scientist has to acknowledge the scope of human experience in whatever theory or explanation they offer that encompasses human experience; whether such experiences are replicable or not! After all, much of scientific evidence (in the soft sciences and in much of modern theoretical physics) is unreplicable. What science needs to do is at a minimum (1) make their theories of human cognition *compatible* with such experiences, i.e. not inconsistent with them; and (2) stop dismissing human experience whenever such experiences are inconsistent with their materialist assumptions.
______________________________________

It makes the scientific process unfalsifiable because you can't control the necessary surrounding variables to limit results to the variable in question.

COMMENT: I will admit that most of paranormal claims and related studies are unfalsifiable; but so is much of modern science. It is doubtful that the notion of falsifiability really has much use in modern science, beyond a rhetorical reference, and a sustained love for Popper. Moreover, when science insists upon a materialist assumption as part of their theory, and human experience shows that such assumption must be false; then the assumption itself has been falsified.
____________________________________________

All results can be explained by the paranormal. Which is no actual explanation.

COMMENT: I don't get this comment. The paranormal represents anomalous human experiences; that's all. To the extent they are credible, they cry out for scientific explanation. If science cannot offer an explanation, fine. But the experiences themselves--again, when credible-- must be taken at face value; they are what they are, whether explained or not. Now, of course, there may well be "metaphysical" or religious explanations that are also unsatisfactory for whatever reason, but again, that does not mean that the experiences should be ignored or dismissed as "unscientific."

Quickly, and only to the last point.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/03/25/new-study-of-mind-matter-interaction-via-double-slit-experiment-yields-remarkable-results/

Paranormal interaction with matter is asserted from Newtonian to Quantum levels of physics. As such no level of physics would be immune from paranormal influence of results. Indeed remote viewing precludes the ability to even double blind experimentation.

Therefore, "All results can be explained by the paranormal. Which is no actual explanation."

Paranormal interaction with matter is asserted from Newtonian to Quantum levels of physics. As such no level of physics would be immune from paranormal influence of results. Indeed remote viewing precludes the ability to even double blind experimentation.

COMMENT: Sticking to mental causation as the point of discussion, if mental causation is allowed within scientific explanation, then arguably any physical, observable event might be explained as having been caused, in whole or in part, by a mental event, known or unknown. As such, in this sense no physical event would be immune from mental explanations (unless there were some scientific principle and a corresponding methodology to differentiate between such causes) I believe this is your point.

I admit that this *could* create methodological problems for physics (and science generally) in some rare and unusual cases. But, what should be science's response to this dilemma? If, in fact, direct mental causation is established to be a real phenomenon in some isolated contexts, then it seems to me that science has no choice but to allow for the possibility of mental influence; particularly in contexts where mental attention is known to be directed toward a given result, and where a physical explanation is otherwise elusive from known scientific principles. Absent such contexts, physical causation might be appropriately considered the "default" position. This approach is supported by the fact that direct mental causation is rare and subtle.

Moreover, again, if mental causation is established, physics might join with psychology and cognitive science in an effort to determine the mechanism associated with mental causation in order to better understand the mental-physical relationship. In any event, the absolutely wrong approach--again on the assumption that mental causation is sufficiently established--would be to deny it on theoretical grounds.
_______________________________________________

Therefore, "All results can be explained by the paranormal. Which is no actual explanation."

COMMENT: Well, I think this is more a philosophical fear than a genuine problem; and I don't think the logic follows. In the first place, just because an event "might" be explained by mental causation, it does not follow that it *must* be so explained, or even *should* be. It is just another causal agent to be considered; and there are some psychological principles that can be applied in order to assist in determining whether mental causation was a factor.

Regarding the logical point: Suppose you have a murder and the police are looking for the guilty party. They have evidence that it might be P (a real known person) or perhaps S (an unknown, and unidentified stranger). Someone might argue that S is no explanation at all because in any murder case, it could be some unknown and unidentified stranger. In response, it could be pointed out that unknown and unidentified strangers sometimes commit murder, and thus that is *always* an possible explanation. That fact does not preclude S as the explanation! It is just a more difficult hypothesis to deal with; and, as a practical matter, it might be better to focus on P.

It is just a more difficult
> hypothesis to deal with; and, as a practical
> matter, it might be better to focus on P.

And there you have it. Life is finite. How much of it do you want to spend on bent spoons?

Any line of preferential weighting of evidence of likelihood in this situation is merely arbitrary.

I see no path to beyond reasonable doubt for prosecution. In that universe, you can't be sure of cause and effect.

Human experience as the basis for what must be considered valid in explaining the world includes the paranormal, angels, demons, magic, and more.

So you can't draw the line at human meddling by intention. There are so many other equal claims.

Russel can have his teapot; Sagan can have his invisible dragon in the garage; Jack Black as Wonderboy could kill your victim from 200 yards with mind bullets.

"That's telekinesis Kyle."

Any line of preferential weighting of evidence of likelihood in this situation is merely arbitrary.

COMMENT: Why? In any context where explanation of an experienced phenomena is of interest; whether scientific or otherwise, there are facts to consider. In this discussion there are physical facts and presumably mental facts, or paranormal facts. Moreover, there are experiential tests that can be conducted. If such evidence suggests a physical cause, then so be it. If it suggests a mental or paranormal cause, then so be that. In hard cases (just like in any hard cases of physical causation only) you weigh the evidence and accept the best explanation. Mental causation--and paranormal phenomena generally--is NOT a blank explanatory check.

Thus, if I hear noises in the attic, I can ask, "What is the likelihood that it was caused by a mouse as opposed to a gremlin? (or the mental thoughts of my neighbor)" The answer is NOT arbitrary. We have facts to apply to reach the best explanation. Moreover, we can go up there and look! If we see a mouse, case closed!
_________________________________________

I see no path to beyond reasonable doubt for prosecution. In that universe, you can't be sure of cause and effect.

COMMENT: Although there is no path to certainty, we could never navigate the world with such a high standard of evidence. Instead, as a practical matter we are constantly making judgments and taking actions based upon our intuitive determination of the "preponderance of the evidence," and when evidence is not available, or insufficient, we go with our gut. Mental causation and the paranormal merely add another element into the mix. It is a factor that at times should perhaps be considered. It is NOT the dictator of explanation.
__________________________________________

Human experience as the basis for what must be considered valid in explaining the world includes the paranormal, angels, demons, magic, and more.

COMMENT: No. No. Human experience indeed includes such things as "angels, demons, magic, more," But, there are standards of credibility with respect to such experiences, and particularly whether they reflect any external reality. These standards are to a large extent dictated by the context and content of such experiences. Such contexts and content dictate whether or not the paranormal "must be" or "should be" considered.
___________________________________________

So you can't draw the line at human meddling by intention. There are so many other equal claims.

COMMENT: (?)
___________________________________________

Russel can have his teapot; Sagan can have his invisible dragon in the garage; Jack Black as Wonderboy could kill your victim from 200 yards with mind bullets.

"That's telekinesis Kyle."

COMMENT: This strikes me as way too reactionary! The paranormal is the reflection of a reality that transcends normal experience. It doesn't invalidate ordinary causation, or established natural laws within normal, human, contexts. Do you think spiritist here on the Board lives his life in doubt of the laws of nature just because he believes and has experienced the paranormal?