Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 142 (423446)
09-22-2007 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 3:57 PM


quote:
But there is still so much about thoughts that seem almost transcendent-- separate from the brain.
Like what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx 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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 32 of 142 (423700)
09-23-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kitsune
09-23-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Another Woo Meister In Our Midst
LindaLou, I hope you don't let Molbiogirl's love for sarcasm and herrather condescending tone put you off too much.
You've been really decent since your arrival and I don't think you deserve that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kitsune, posted 09-23-2007 2:57 PM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 53 of 142 (428266)
10-15-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Larni
09-26-2007 5:31 AM


quote:
Nator I have been replying to posts in sequence and found that I seem to be echoing you quite accurately. From this I conclude that we must have some psychic connection. Shall we go to Mr Randi and claim our prize?
LOL!
Yes! I could use half a million dollars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 09-26-2007 5:31 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 54 of 142 (428267)
10-15-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 9:06 AM


quote:
"The need to believe" applies, in my case, to spirituality. I would be perpetually depressed if I thought that all there is to the world, is what we perceive. I love learning new things about physical reality, but I need the spiritual as well. But even there I do try to apply some skepticism. I stopped being a Catholic when I learned about other religions, and that the Bible is a historical work by a past culture and not the holy book of God that I'd been taught. I now consider myself an agnostic.
Skepticism is needed in a court of law. It is needed in any scientific or logical discipline. I feel that to apply it across the board in one's life, however, means that you stand to miss out on some otherwise unobtainable truths.
Again, I provide one of my favorite Feynman quotes:
Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars” mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is 'mere'. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 9:06 AM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 55 of 142 (428269)
10-15-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by petrophysics1
10-14-2007 4:59 PM


some problems with your testing protocol
An obvious problem with your test is that you are intimately aware of just about everything that has happened to your own child. It isn't a surprise that you would be able to be so specific, since the high points in a 9 year old's life are likely to be connected to his family, and his father is likely to know about them.
Another obvious flaw in your test was that you didn't write down your "reading" before asking him to tell you what he was thinking about. He could have changed his thought to conform to what you said yours was because he wanted his dad to be a real mind reader, or to please you.
Have you ever tested your ability on total strangers, where careful protocols are followed, like not speaking with the person at all beforehand and you both writing down your "results" before revealing them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by petrophysics1, posted 10-14-2007 4:59 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

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


Message 67 of 142 (428370)
10-16-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
10-15-2007 8:36 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
Because you're either a chicken-shit or a liar
Or deluded.
That's the most likely explanation.
Also a chicken-shit, though, for refusing to be tested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 10-15-2007 8:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 68 of 142 (428371)
10-16-2007 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 2:25 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
What happens is that you keep your inner skeptic alert and functioning, but you open yourself to admitting certain possibilities even if there is no proof from the 5 senses.
Anything is possible.
The thing that science helps us do, and that anecdote fails miserably at, is determining how probable something is.
What you are suggesting is that magic really does exist, but nobody can actually detect it.
There is no difference between magic we can't detect and no magic at all, so why believe in magic?
quote:
If someone tells me they have had moments of telepathy, I say "cool." Where is the harm in it, as long as they're not trying to scam anyone? They might just be right.
You don't think there's any harm in self-delusion?
No harm in believing a falsehood?
That very same sort of uncritical acceptance of fantastic claims is, truly, what makes people fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers.
The problem with your attitude is that it is intellectually lazy. It betrays an lack of curiosity in wanting to find out what is really going on and instead settles for what feels good or what we wish were true.
And just how do we determine if someone really does have telepathic powers and isn't self-deluded?
What sort of protocols should we follow to prevent cheating or bias?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 2:25 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:05 PM nator has replied

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


Message 72 of 142 (428437)
10-16-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 12:05 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
What seems to be the underlying issue here is people's idea of "the truth" and how it's arrived at. Many people here believe that it can only be done through empirical physical evidence which is quantifiable, and studies in prestigious journals. Maybe other ways aren't so trustworthy. You therefore always rule them out. I don't. You call it bad science. I call it being open-minded.
So, when Creationists use "other ways" of determining natural history, or Biological processes other than "empirical physical evidence which is quantifiable, and studies in prestigious journals", are they just being "open minded"?
Are all of us mean, ol' science-minded folks just ignoring all of these other paths to "the truth" about the natural world that Creationists are showing us?
You are using the identical argument as the Creationists do, LindaLou.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:05 PM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 73 of 142 (428438)
10-16-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 12:18 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
They see or know things when they don't expect to; but when they try hard, maybe it just doesn't happen sometimes. What if some of those people who Randi what's-his-name tested really do have some kind of gift, just not one that functions on demand? There are all the skeptics crowing that they've debunked another fraud.
What is the practical difference between undetectable magic and no magic at all?
How do we tell the difference between coincidence and real paranormal ability?
quote:
There are a lot of people around who aren't 100% skeptics and perhaps their lives are the richer for it.
"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?" Richard Feynman
quote:
Where else can evidence come from, if not the 5 senses? Meditation. The subconscious. The collective unconscious. The universe. Entities, ghosts, gods, I don't know. Where do ideas and inspiration really come from? What patterns might the world be working within, that we are not at all aware of? Don't know. Of course you won't take any of this seriously, you're a skeptic. But not being 100% skeptical doesn't necessarily make me deluded.
No. But it will often make you wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:18 PM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 95 of 142 (429956)
10-22-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by petrophysics1
10-18-2007 6:17 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Hey, Petro, any thoughts on my critique and questions found in message #55?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by petrophysics1, posted 10-18-2007 6:17 AM petrophysics1 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