Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 142 (423500)
09-22-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-22-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Mary's Room experiment
But the "Mary's room" thought-experiment really doesn't address the point. The question it deals with is experience versus theoretical knowledge.
Now if you want something relevant I'd say that the results of the "split-brain" operation (severing the corpus callosum which is the main link between the two hemispheres of the brain) are relevant. In short the outcome is that the splitting the brain also splits consciousness (not entirely but close).
That's a major challenge to dualism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 3:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 3:33 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 17 of 142 (423510)
09-22-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
09-22-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Mary's Room experiment
Now if you want something relevant I'd say that the results of the "split-brain" operation (severing the corpus callosum which is the main link between the two hemispheres of the brain) are relevant. In short the outcome is that the splitting the brain also splits consciousness (not entirely but close).
Is this not becoming a question of "Who am I" rather than "What are thoughts"? Am I a soul which can be transcendent of the body before and after death? Or am I that which is created by my body and brain? As you state Paul, we know that when damage to the brain occurs, the personality can change, sometimes drastically. I've also read stories about people who have little brain material left due to injury or disease; one of them still went on to achieve a degree in mathematics. The fact of the matter is that science still knows very little about the brain, so perhaps all we can really do is speculate about the nature of consciousness. I believe that philosophy and religion have more to say about this than science at this time.
By the way, I've been reading the Faith and Belief thread. (Could someone please explain how I can add a link to it? Thanks.) It talks about the Law of Attraction. Perhaps I was touching on it in my previous post, but only in a very basic way. I know from experience that people who are very negative and always look for the worst case scenario, often find it. I do not, however, think that rich people get that way because they know how to "want it" or how to "be positive," and people who are poor or ill are that way because they just don't know how to focus their energies. I was recommended a book on the Law of Attractions but the person who recommended it is one who is wealthy and believes she attracted it all to herself. Definitely not what I'd consider to be evidence of what our thoughts can do, unless it's that they can justify for us anything we want, including our deservedness of material wealth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2007 3:09 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 09-22-2007 4:13 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 23 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:20 PM Kitsune has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 18 of 142 (423515)
09-22-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kitsune
09-22-2007 3:33 PM


adding links
an easy way to add a link to a thread or message is to use:
type [msg=12,485,16] and it becomes:
Message 16
You can leave off the first two numbers if you are referring to the same thread.
You can find the numbers by looking at the URL at the top of your browser window when you are positioned in the message you want to link to.
Ther is more on this under the dbCodes On (help) -- see the "linking to..." topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 3:33 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 4:39 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 19 of 142 (423518)
09-22-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AdminNosy
09-22-2007 4:13 PM


Re: adding links
Sorry to go off topic here but although your info is quite clear, this is what I'm ending up with:
Message 1
Can't find the "linking to . . . " topics either, or any general "help" topic. Am I missing something obvious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 09-22-2007 4:13 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 09-22-2007 7:10 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 142 (423535)
09-22-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Kitsune
09-22-2007 2:30 PM


quote:
We know pretty well how electricity behaves when it runs through a cable. But how it functions at low levels in the human body-? Largely a mystery still, to science, though those who do e.g. reiki or acupuncture would say they know one or two things.
The thing about reiki and acupuncture is that the traditional practitioners don't talk about synapses or electricity, but of "chi", described as a universal "life force" that they say they can "balance" and that having this chi out of balance is the source of illness. There is no evidence that "chi" exists, and there is virtually no evidence that reiki or accupuncture is effective against any disease.
Second, we atually do know, in very, very great detail, how electricity works in the human body, including the CNS. In fact, Hodgkin and Huxley won the 1963 Nobel Prize for their work on the basis of action potentials in nerves.
Some great reading on electrophysiology can be had here, and also any of the external links provided at the bottom of the page are excellent.
quote:
Some people believe that one's thoughts help to create the very reality that one lives in. If you are full of negativity then you draw negative events into your life, and the converse is true for positive thoughts. I think this idea has some validity, though of course it's difficult to prove in any way with science.
Actually, I would say that it would not be terribly difficult to design a social psychology study that would measure such a thing, i.e. people who are pessimists tend to perceive things as negative, thus would tend to notice and classify things as negative, and also repel positive people, and vice versa. In fact, I am willing to bet that such studies exist right now.
However, this would not in any way suggest that thoughts are trancendent, just that our perceptions inform our overall worldview, which in turn affects every other aspect of our lives; social, political, emotional, even our health.
quote:
Telepathy may be some good evidence of this. It's likely that many of us here have had experiences where we've been thinking about a certain person, maybe someone we haven't thought about in a long time, and suddenly the phone rings and we find we are talking to them. Some people have dreams or visions of friends or loved ones when they are in a crisis or are dying. Can we send our thoughts out in such a way that others can pick up on them? I think there is evidence that yes, we can.
Well, no, there really isn't, as far as we have been able to tell.
The fallacy that you are falling prey to here is a type of selective thinking called confimation bias. It does seem incredible when such coincidences like the ones you mention occur. Most people have not kept track of how many times they thought about a person and that person didn't call. Most people don't keep track of how many dreamed premonitions or "visions" they have had of their friends or loved ones when nothing at all was amiss. We only notice the "hits" and almost always ignore the "misses".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 2:30 PM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by molbiogirl, posted 09-22-2007 7:31 PM nator has not replied
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 09-26-2007 5:31 AM nator has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 142 (423536)
09-22-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kitsune
09-22-2007 4:39 PM


Re: adding links
The problem is that there is no 713 thread in forum 31 (Bible Study).
The URL is a bit tricky to read but the current threads in Bible Study seem to be in the mid 90's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 4:39 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 142 (423537)
09-22-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
09-22-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Mary's Room experiment
quote:
I'm wondering if perhaps the mind and the brain are different things-- that the mind needs the brain in the physical in order to express itself, but that when the brain dies, the mind can live on. Of course, this is all pretty much conjecture. But I wanted to know what you guys might think about it.
The mind is a product of the brain.
If you change the function of the brain, what the brain produces (the mind), also changes.
Just ask Phineas Gage.
No reason to think anything else is going on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 3:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 142 (423539)
09-22-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kitsune
09-22-2007 3:33 PM


Re: Mary's Room experiment
quote:
The fact of the matter is that science still knows very little about the brain, so perhaps all we can really do is speculate about the nature of consciousness.
It is accurate to say that there is still much left for science to learn about the brain.
It is quite inaccurate, however, to say that science knows very little about the brain.
We actually know a great deal about the brain.
quote:
I believe that philosophy and religion have more to say about this than science at this time.
That's just an argument from ignorance, really. Just because science doesn't know everything about our Biophysiology doesn't mean that philosopy or religion have anything valid to contribute to our understanding of it.
I mean, there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the extreme deep parts of the oceans, but nobody would take seriously philosophical or religious explanations for what we might find there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 3:33 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 6:52 AM nator has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 24 of 142 (423543)
09-22-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
09-22-2007 7:05 PM


Actually, I would say that it would not be terribly difficult to design a social psychology study that would measure such a thing, i.e. people who are pessimists tend to perceive things as negative, thus would tend to notice and classify things as negative, and also repel positive people, and vice versa. In fact, I am willing to bet that such studies exist right now.
Nator, tho you are absolutely right, LL isn't talking about pessimist/optimist.
She's talking about "The Law of Attraction".
Lindalou, thought is not an unknown, ethereal substance that occupies the physical body. Thought is a chemical reaction. Nothing more, nothing less.
Telepathy is bunk.
"The Law of Attraction" is bunk.
Were it otherwise, James Randi would be out a million bucks.
JREF - Home
(If you'll notice, a number of "telepaths" have tried for the million. All have failed miserably.)
Edited by molbiogirl, : awkward grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:05 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 6:26 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 25 of 142 (423604)
09-23-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by molbiogirl
09-22-2007 7:31 PM


"The Law of Attraction" is bunk.
The more I hear about this, the more I agree, as I said above. It sounds like the sort of idealism that people who live in a well-off country might be tempted to engage in. It's a version of the American Dream really, isn't it?
Lindalou, thought is not an unknown, ethereal substance that occupies the physical body. Thought is a chemical reaction. Nothing more, nothing less.
Telepathy is bunk.
I'm not so sure there. I call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist because atheism implies, to me, the belief that the universe consists of concrete reality and what we glean from our 5 senses. I do firmly believe that there is much we don't understand, much that is still left to learn, and it is the height of hubris to suppose otherwise. Now when we consider so-called paranormal phenomena, my guess is that things we label as being spiritual, ghostly, godly, etc might well be explicable one day by scientific processes that at the moment we have little or no understanding of. When that happens I'll want to be first in line to hear all about it. However, I think we dismiss some of these things as "bunk" a bit too readily because we think we know they must be made up, delusions, hallucinations, lies, misunderstandings, and so forth. I could mention poltergeist phenomena here because this is something I know a little about and have studied. Some well-documented cases include instances where the poltergeist acquired a voice and said things about people in the room that no one else but those people knew. I can give more specifics on this if anyone wants.
I have to admit that I'd never heard of James Randi before now. If I read that they have convincingly "debunked" various people I've heard of, then I'm certainly open to that. I heard a lot, for example, about a woman called Nina Kulagina who is said to have performed feats of psychokinesis in front of Russian scientists, but James Randi subjects the test conditions to quite a lot of criticism. I find myself asking, though, what James Randi's objectives are, and why they have an interest in this. It can be easy to take any sort of paranoral or religious phenomenon and dismiss it as "bunk." Granted, much of it probably is, but you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You may be aware of an organisation called Quakcwatch, which claims to "debunk" practitioners of alternative medicine. Anyone who is a critic of allopathic medicine seems to be fair game. I'm sure there are indeed plenty of quacks out there, but not all of them practice alternative medicine, and not all alternative medicine is "bunk."
I'm finding this a tricky issue to discuss here actually. I came here because I wanted to learn more about evolution and the many areas of science it touches, because I was amazed at some of the claims I'd heard creationists make on another forum. Yet here I find myself saying that I believe science has its boundaries, at least for now, and that there are some things it has so far failed to explain. Maybe one day everything we consider "spiritual" will be explicable through known scientific laws, and processes in the brain. But I do think that there's more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of. There are plenty of evolutionists who are also theists and they presumably think this as well.
Maybe part of the reason that various paranormal phenomena are so poorly understood is because many scientists fear for their reputations. Weird things happen though, and I for one would like to understand how and why. Maybe there really is nothing spiritual or transcendent about thought, but I also think that if we label it as being chemical processes in the brain and nothing more, we shut the door on a world of possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by molbiogirl, posted 09-22-2007 7:31 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 09-23-2007 9:21 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 29 by molbiogirl, posted 09-23-2007 1:25 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 26 of 142 (423605)
09-23-2007 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
09-22-2007 7:20 PM


Re: Mary's Room experiment
It is accurate to say that there is still much left for science to learn about the brain.
It is quite inaccurate, however, to say that science knows very little about the brain.
We actually know a great deal about the brain.
It depends on what you mean by "a great deal."
We're learning more all the time, yes. Where I'm coming from here, though, is thinking about psychiatry, and what psychiatrists have done to "treat" what they have labelled as mental illnesses, in the 20th century alone. Without knowing a lot about what they were doing, they practised lobotomy and electroshock. ECT is still offered as a "therapy" today. They have prescribed psychotropic drugs for decades without a thorough understanding of how they actually work in the body and what they do to the brain. Either the people who are responsible for these "treatments" think they know more than they actually do about how the brain works, or they disregard the fact of their ignorance and go ahead and risk damaging people anyway.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that philosophy and religion have more to say about this than science at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just an argument from ignorance, really. Just because science doesn't know everything about our Biophysiology doesn't mean that philosopy or religion have anything valid to contribute to our understanding of it.
Ouch. As many times as I've seen the argument from ignorance applied to creationists, I hadn't expected to be accused of the same. I see what you're saying here I think -- that I'm ascribing something supernatural to a process that we simply do not understand now, but may understand in the future. Well, possibly. The jury's out with me until we learn more. And I do want to learn more. I may be a layperson where science is concerned, but I enjoy reading about new discoveries where and when I can, and I'm willing to change my views of the world and of reality if new knowledge comes along. I will have a look at your link on electrophysiology.
The thing about reiki and acupuncture is that the traditional practitioners don't talk about synapses or electricity, but of "chi", described as a universal "life force" that they say they can "balance" and that having this chi out of balance is the source of illness. There is no evidence that "chi" exists, and there is virtually no evidence that reiki or accupuncture is effective against any disease.
Have you ever done anything to work with or raise your chi? I suspect not, as you don't seem to think it exists. Why don't you give it a try sometime. I do tai chi. I can feel my hands tingling when I am done. When I am in a natural place like a park or a forest, I swear to you that I can feel the chi. Trees have a lot of chi. Maybe this sounds like religious nonsense to you. Chi is central to many Eastern philosophies and to Chinese medicine; many people accept its existence just as they accept that the sun shines and the tides come and go. Maybe no one will ever be able to prove that a god, or gods, exist, but I think it's possible that science might be able to gain an understanding of chi one day. I don't know that anyone has tried to study it in that way before.
The fallacy that you are falling prey to here is a type of selective thinking called confimation bias. It does seem incredible when such coincidences like the ones you mention occur. Most people have not kept track of how many times they thought about a person and that person didn't call. Most people don't keep track of how many dreamed premonitions or "visions" they have had of their friends or loved ones when nothing at all was amiss. We only notice the "hits" and almost always ignore the "misses".
OK, I can't deny the logic here. How about synchronicity then? Do you think Carl Jung was mistaken about meaningful coincidences?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 09-23-2007 9:45 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 09-26-2007 5:37 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 142 (423616)
09-23-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kitsune
09-23-2007 6:26 AM


quote:
Now when we consider so-called paranormal phenomena, my guess is that things we label as being spiritual, ghostly, godly, etc might well be explicable one day by scientific processes that at the moment we have little or no understanding of.
What leads you to believe we have little or no understanding of "paranormal phenomena"?
Quite literally, every single time such phenomena have been tested properly, something perfectly mundane has been going on.
quote:
However, I think we dismiss some of these things as "bunk" a bit too readily because we think we know they must be made up, delusions, hallucinations, lies, misunderstandings, and so forth. I could mention poltergeist phenomena here because this is something I know a little about and have studied. Some well-documented cases include instances where the poltergeist acquired a voice and said things about people in the room that no one else but those people knew. I can give more specifics on this if anyone wants.
Please, start a new thread. I will be there with bells on.
quote:
I find myself asking, though, what James Randi's objectives are, and why they have an interest in this.
Randi is a magician, and his motives stem from his outrage at flim-flam artists, frauds, and charlatans who are simply using illusions but pass them off as "real" paranormal abilities. Sometimes these people are self-deluded, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still making money off of the gullible.
There are very real negative consequences to accepting paranormal and pseudoscientific claims without some seriously rigorous investigation.
quote:
It can be easy to take any sort of paranoral or religious phenomenon and dismiss it as "bunk."
The thing is, he doesn't just handwave away or dismiss anything. He has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal ability under basic, standard scientific protocols and methodology that any scientist would use. The protocol is agreed upon, in writing, by all parties before the testing commences.
So far, no takers, though many have tried.
quote:
Granted, much of it probably is, but you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So far, there is no evidence that a baby even exists.
quote:
You may be aware of an organisation called Quakcwatch, which claims to "debunk" practitioners of alternative medicine. Anyone who is a critic of allopathic medicine seems to be fair game.
That's not actually true. Quackwatch criticizes quackery and pseudoscience. How is it the website's fault that there aren't nearly the levels of fraud, magical thinking and pseudoscience in science-based medicine compared to so-called "alternative" methods? Indeed, if you actually read the site, you can find quite severe criticisms of the "allopathic" pharmeceutical industry in the section called Pharmawatch.
quote:
I'm sure there are indeed plenty of quacks out there, but not all of them practice alternative medicine, and not all alternative medicine is "bunk."
Nobody denies that there are quacks practicing science-based medicine. The thing is, there are a lot of systems and standards in place to hold such people up to critical review and expose them. There are really no such systems and standards for "alternative" practitioners. No required record keeping or reporting of problems or incidents, no testing their methods for efficacy and safety before being allowed to prescribe them, etc.
quote:
I'm finding this a tricky issue to discuss here actually. I came here because I wanted to learn more about evolution and the many areas of science it touches, because I was amazed at some of the claims I'd heard creationists make on another forum. Yet here I find myself saying that I believe science has its boundaries, at least for now, and that there are some things it has so far failed to explain.
Well of course there are things that science can't currently explain. However, I think that some of the things you think it cannot explain actually have been, and you just don't know about it.
However, just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it has a paranormal or supernatural explanation. I mean, people used to believe that the sun was pulled across the sky by Apollo in his firey chariot, but now we know better.
Science does have boundries. Science cannot make moral or aesthetic judgements, for example. It cannot tell you if something is right or wrong, it cannot tell you "that flower is pretty".
If you were truly an agnostic, you wouldn't simply fill in paranormal, pseudoscientific, or supernatural explanations for phenomena you don't think science fully understands. You would simply notice the lack of evidence and accept that we don't know.
quote:
Maybe one day everything we consider "spiritual" will be explicable through known scientific laws, and processes in the brain. But I do think that there's more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of. There are plenty of evolutionists who are also theists and they presumably think this as well.
Again, just because we don't know something doesn't mean that the spiritual or paranormal exist. It just means that we don't know something.
There's no intellectual need to fill in the gap in our knowledge with anything. For many, there is an emotional need, however.
quote:
Maybe part of the reason that various paranormal phenomena are so poorly understood is because many scientists fear for their reputations.
Bullshit.
Look, paranormal stuff has been studied scientifically for a really, really long time, and just like the concepts of ether and phlogiston in physics, Alchemy, Lamarkism, the canals on Mars, free energy machines, and cold fusion, it has been found to be lacking in scientific merit and therefore rejected due to being an unfruitful line of inquiry. The reputations of scientists are bound up in the quality of their science. In fact, any researcher who produced reliable, high-quality evidence of some paranormal phenomena that was able to be replicated by other labs would instantly be catapulted into academic superstardum.
quote:
Weird things happen though, and I for one would like to understand how and why.
Great! Learn to be a critical thinker. Learn to say "show me" before you believe. Read some psychology to learn about how easily we humans can be fooled and, more importantly, fool ourselves. That is when you will start to be able to get to the how and why.
I suggest you read this essay by famous former para-psychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore about her reasons for giving up that line of inquiry. Another by Paul Kurtz, found also on her website, is excellent.
quote:
Maybe there really is nothing spiritual or transcendent about thought, but I also think that if we label it as being chemical processes in the brain and nothing more, we shut the door on a world of possibilities.
If there is evidence of "other possibilities" then bring them forth.
If there isn't evidence, then it's really just unsupported speculation and wishful thinking, isn't it?
Also, why do you seem to consider it so mundane and boring that "mere" chemical processes can produce "thought"? Personally, I think that the purely physical functioning of the brain in procing the mind is amazing, incredible, and awe-inspiring.
Why does this need exist in so many people to ascribe magical properties to something that is, in observable fact, quite fantastic already?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 6:26 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 4:32 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 142 (423620)
09-23-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Kitsune
09-23-2007 6:52 AM


Re: Mary's Room experiment
quote:
We're learning more all the time, yes. Where I'm coming from here, though, is thinking about psychiatry, and what psychiatrists have done to "treat" what they have labelled as mental illnesses, in the 20th century alone. Without knowing a lot about what they were doing, they practised lobotomy and electroshock. ECT is still offered as a "therapy" today. They have prescribed psychotropic drugs for decades without a thorough understanding of how they actually work in the body and what they do to the brain. Either the people who are responsible for these "treatments" think they know more than they actually do about how the brain works, or they disregard the fact of their ignorance and go ahead and risk damaging people anyway.
OK, so what's your point?
You said that science knows very little about the brain, I countered that while we still have much to learn, we actually do know a great deal about the brain.
I don't see how the above addresses my rebuttal.
quote:
I see what you're saying here I think -- that I'm ascribing something supernatural to a process that we simply do not understand now, but may understand in the future. Well, possibly.
Well, no, that's exactly what you were doing.
quote:
The jury's out with me until we learn more. And I do want to learn more. I may be a layperson where science is concerned, but I enjoy reading about new discoveries where and when I can, and I'm willing to change my views of the world and of reality if new knowledge comes along. I will have a look at your link on electrophysiology.
Excellent.
quote:
Have you ever done anything to work with or raise your chi? I suspect not, as you don't seem to think it exists. Why don't you give it a try sometime. I do tai chi. I can feel my hands tingling when I am done.
So? How is that evidence of chi? Couldn't it simply be something having to do with your circulation?
AbE: I just returned from my run this morning, and I paid special attention to my hands as I finished. They tingled slightly for about a minute or two immediately after I broke into a walk. I have also felt them "pulse" in the past. I always interpreted those feelings as having to do with blood circulation. Isn't that a much more plausible reason for tingling compared to a mystical energy force?
quote:
When I am in a natural place like a park or a forest, I swear to you that I can feel the chi. Trees have a lot of chi.
And the evidence for this is...?
quote:
Maybe this sounds like religious nonsense to you.
Yep.
Which is more likely; that an undetectable, yet powerful and manimulatable energy force permeates all living things in the universe, or that people are simply taught that it exists, believe that it does without much or any questioning, and interpret mundane events through the filter of that belief?
Let's see, we have lots of evidence that the latter happens, and no evidence at all that the former exists...
quote:
Chi is central to many Eastern philosophies and to Chinese medicine; many people accept its existence just as they accept that the sun shines and the tides come and go. Maybe no one will ever be able to prove that a god, or gods, exist, but I think it's possible that science might be able to gain an understanding of chi one day. I don't know that anyone has tried to study it in that way before.
If chi is a real force that produces real effects, then we should have been able to detect by scientific means it a long time ago.
Here's a good skeptical look at chi.
quote:
How about synchronicity then? Do you think Carl Jung was mistaken about meaningful coincidences?
Jung had an interesting philosopy but none of his work is empirical in nature.
In other words, he pulled it out of his backside.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 6:52 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 29 of 142 (423646)
09-23-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kitsune
09-23-2007 6:26 AM


Another Woo Meister In Our Midst
I have to admit that I'd never heard of James Randi before now. If I read that they have convincingly "debunked" various people I've heard of, then I'm certainly open to that. I heard a lot, for example, about a woman called Nina Kulagina who is said to have performed feats of psychokinesis in front of Russian scientists, but James Randi subjects the test conditions to quite a lot of criticism. I find myself asking, though, what James Randi's objectives are, and why they have an interest in this. It can be easy to take any sort of paranoral or religious phenomenon and dismiss it as "bunk." Granted, much of it probably is, but you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
From randi.org
Kulagina, Nina (1925-1990) This Russian psychic made a handsome career of reading while blindfolded, using the standard methods. She was also famous for making a compass needle move, and moving small objects like matchboxes, using a very fine nylon thread.
In 1978, the USSR Academy of Sciences was so convinced of her powers that they declared her genuine, in spite of the simple and obvious solutions for her conjuring tricks.
When the newspaper Pravda declared her to be a trickster, she sued the editors and won, largely on the basis of testimony given by Soviet parapsychologists.
In films made in the 1950s by the parapsychologists, Kulagina can be seen standing with her back to a wall while experimenters place very large letters, numbers, and shapes on the wall. She holds her right hand up to her eyes for a while, then announces what is on the cards. See dermo-optical perception for an explanation of the trick.
This. This is your Wonder Woman.
A twelve year old can do this trick.
dermo-optical perception (DOP; in Russia referred to as “bio-introscopy”) In the 1950s, this was a popular subject for sensational news stories and for parapsychology. It was claimed that some persons were able to “see” without using their eyes, scanning printed matter with their fingertips, with their noses, or even with their feet. At one point, in 1990, it was even claimed that some children in China were able to “read” bits of paper crumpled and placed in their armpits or their ears, or even by sitting on the paper!
In Mexico, the Instituto Mas Vida (“More Life Institute”) took up teaching DOP to the children of wealthy patrons. Blindfolded, the children specialized in reading large-type books opened at their feet while they were seated. It seems no accident that this is the perfect position in which to peek down the sides of the blindfold. When a piece of blocking paper was inserted below the chin, the child was always struck blind.
One famous practitioner of the art was a Russian psychic named Rosa Kuleshova, who, like the Chinese children, also read with her posterior. Another Russian, also famous for moving small objects with fine, invisible nylon threads, was Nina Kulagina, who can be seen in a black-and-white film made decades ago at a Leningrad laboratory, reading letter cards posted on the wall behind her. To a conjuror, the method is obvious: She brings her right hand up before her eyes, then it dips into her pocket, emerges and is casually shown empty. This suggests that she was peeking into a small mirror held in that hand, then the mirror was dumped when she'd had her glance. As if to verify this theory, she read off the cards””and even one two-digit number””in reverse order. Certainly there was no reason for her to have held her hand before her eyes, except to accomplish the trick as described.
The Chinese children were found at one point to be using a one-ahead method with the crumpled papers, and since the controls were nonexistent in any case, they had no problem cheating, if they had wanted to, when their magical powers failed them.
James Randi is a magician. And it pisses him off when con artists use conjuring tricks and sleight of hand to dupe the gullible. So he's chosen to expose the frauds.
Just like Harry Houdini did oh so many years ago.
You got a problem with Houdini too?
Here's the promised explanation of the Moving Compass trick that I did last week on the popular ABC-TV program, "The View." After I performed this simple party trick, I was asked by the hosts to explain my modus operandi, but I declined to do so, asking that viewers think about the possibilities, and referring the curious to this web page. The well-known "psychic" Uri Geller, presently on a tour of the USA extolling his "healthy living" book, had demonstrated on that show how, when he and the hosts had commanded a compass pointer to deviate by saying "Move!" in a determined tone of voice, it had moved about three degrees! There was much astonishment at this fact.
However, a sufficiently strong magnet, or even a piece of non-magnetized iron brought near to even the best magnetic compass will cause it to move. Very strong and quite small ceramic magnets are now easily available. Therefore, any trickster who wanted to mimic the demonstration that Mr. Geller did -- and that he has done on countless occasions, all over the world -- would merely have to introduce a magnet, and it would then be impossible to differentiate between the demonstration done by Mr. Geller, and a simple trick done by a magician!
I take this occasion to clearly state that when I did it, it was done by means of a small concealed "rare earth" magnet which I brought near the compass to make it move. I used no special powers, no enchantments, no prayers, nor did I use such means when more than 50 years ago I did the stunt for the new campers who were in my charge at Camp Lagakelo, in the Canadian wilderness.
My trick method is not of my invention; it has been around for a long, long, time. It was written up in children's books well over a hundred years ago, under titles like, "Magical Experiments, or Science in Play," by Arthur Good, 1890. At least one prominent performer of the past who claimed to have psychic powers apparently used trickery to cause compass needles to deflect, thus casting doubt on his validity. This was Henry Slade (1840-1905), a famous "psychic" who was enthusiastically endorsed by very prominent scientists in Europe and England despite several exposures of his tricks, until a British conjuror, J. N. Maskelyne, took him to court in 1876. Slade was convicted of fraud, fled to the USA, and died in a sanatorium. An exposure of Slade doing the compass trick appeared in the Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research, volume 5, 1921. It reads, in part:
"[The investigator] also discovered, by using his handy little mirror [he had a small mirror in his lap, so as to see beneath the table], how Slade operated a `mysterious needle' which was supposed to move by spirit power. But every time it moved Slade's foot rose until it almost touched the under side of the table. Doubtless the needle was magnetized and there was iron in the make-up of the shoe. . . . [The investigator reported this and another of Slade's tricks, going to] prove yet more conclusively that the most celebrated [spiritualist] of his time was an all-round fraud."
Folks debunked this crap over 100 years ago, Lindalou.
LL writes:
You may be aware of an organisation called Quakcwatch, which claims to "debunk" practitioners of alternative medicine. Anyone who is a critic of allopathic medicine seems to be fair game. I'm sure there are indeed plenty of quacks out there, but not all of them practice alternative medicine, and not all alternative medicine is "bunk."
Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the evidence offered on quackwatch.org instead of dismissing it wholesale. Any "allopathic medicine" that is featured on that site is bunk I assure you. That said, "alternative medicine" is for another thread. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at Holistic Doctors, and medicine. Nator and I did quite a number on "naturopathy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 6:26 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 2:57 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 30 of 142 (423662)
09-23-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by molbiogirl
09-23-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Another Woo Meister In Our Midst
Thanks for the affectionate nickname; quite a warm welcome to the forum.
I wouldn't argue with any of the things you quoted about paranormal claims being debunked. You guys are probably used to talking to others here who stridently stick to their beliefs no matter how obviously they fly in the face of reality. I am no such person, and no I don't "have a problem with" Houdini.
I am very familiar with the Quackwatch website and I do not dismiss it wholesale. How familiar are you with it, its authors, and its particular claims? I will say a bit more about this in a post to Nator here but as you say, discussion does belong in another thread. I will check out the one you linked to.
BTW before you call allopathic medicine "bunk," you ought to know that allopathic medicine refers to mainstream Western medicine -- the doctors and drugs we are all familiar with, and the practices that the authors of Quackwatch advocate wholeheartedly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by molbiogirl, posted 09-23-2007 1:25 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 09-23-2007 7:53 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024