Yes you are correct, correlation does not indicate causation.
More precisely "correlation does not necessarily indicate causation". Correlation is an important part in determining causation. However, care must be taken, There are several possibilities when A and B appear correlated.
- A causes B or B causes A
- There is no actual correlation between A and B, the apparent correlation is coincidental, or
- A and B are both caused by C
(there may be others, that's just off the top of my head).
The key is, to determine if there is a true correlation, you have to test specifically for that, and there are various methods designed to do that. In a case where A does cause B - there is going to be a very close correlation.
In the case of the brain causing conciousness, one manner to test whether the correlation is direct is to manipulate one and see if it changes the other. You can do so in various ways, and track the results. The more manipulating one variable affects the subject, the more confident one can be that there is a true correlation.
When it comes to the brain, there is a very close correlation.
Now- you may argue that that correlation can't definitively answer the question. That's true of almost any scientific correlation. But it is unquestionably evidence in support of the proposition being examined.
The question then becomes does it also provide evidence in support of the proposition that manipulating the brain actually influences some C and that that C always, and consistently causes the conscious sensation (or variations of that proposition). I think we'd be hard pressed to make that argument.
What is possible, though, is that while it is not evidence in support of that proposition, it may be evidence that is consistent with that proposition. That is: it doesn't help us figure out whether that C is there, but it might be consistent with that C being there.
That's where the evidence from parapsychology comes in.
There is certainly evidence from parapsychology that has the potential of providing sufficient and reliable evidence of C. But as JCearley and I were discussing in the other thread, the evidence of parapsychology, for various reasons, is still largely at the exploratory stage. There is very little that has reached the high quality confirmatory stage. That's not to say that it can't get there. Only that it hasn't yet.
So what we have so far is a very very close and highly reliable correlation between brain manipulation and consciousness experience in humans. Strong, though albeit not determinative, evidence. On the other hand we have some intriguing, exciting, but so far mostly exploratory evidence for something else being involved. Evidence that should seriously evaluated, kept in mind, and kept in the running, but currently not as a leading contender at this stage.
We should continue to reevaluate this assessment as the evidence continues to develop across the board. We should support further parapsychological research to give us the best chance at finding reliable evidence of C, but also continue the course of exploring the mind/brain connection.
I asked you to provide me a summary of your conclusions regarding the NDE research, as I question your knowledgeability on the subject. Arouet for example here, apparently knows all about the subject, and yet I doubt he has even met a medium in person, or has been involved in any kind of parapsychological or NDE research.
So his opinion is pretty much based on his materialistic faith and nothing more. (Unless he surprises me and actually provides me an account of him actually speaking to an authentic medium - but I doubt this is the case.)
Well, I've already demonstrated the lie to your personal accusations of my declaring myself an expert in the other thread (unsurprising that you haven't acknowledged it).
That said, I'd like to address the proposition that going to a medium is necessary if one's aim is to draw reliable conclusions about mediumship. Now, I'm not going to suggest that it is a negative thing to go to a medium as part of a study of mediumship - it can be helpful to have some personal experience of the context of the topic. However, in terms of obtaining reliable information, unless one is going to take the trouble to develop a solid, low risk of bias protocol, and properly carry it out, the chance of being able to draw reliable conclusions about the visit is relatively low. Even then, the best you will have is one set of data points to study - likely a very small sample size.
We're talking about a lot of work, including finding a medium willing to participate who is of sufficient quality, and still have limited results.
Doesn't sound like an efficient use of resources.
Second is the contentention that one must actively be a practicing parapsychologist. Also, hopefully for reasons that are clear, not a very practical solution.
There are a vast number of topics out there that have been studied, over the years, and across the planet. We recognise that it is not possible for every person to actively participate in every one. We have developed methods of sharing information, funnelling it down the chain from the people who study it up close out into the general public. Empirically, I think we can say that people have had a great amount of success in learning about the work of others by studying the reports, etc. that the scientists produce. With the advent of the internet the lay person is exposed to more sources than every before. The methods of information sharing are broader than ever. The ivory tower has been replaced with one of glass.
The upshot is that we don't have to do our own research in order to draw conclusions. We can look at the research of others. And we can utilise techniques to evaluate that research and draw the best conclusions that we can.
In terms of my conclusions - I generally try to state as clearly as I can what I base my conclusions on. When it comes to my views on parapsychology I've documented those opinions in this forum and the old one. I can't recall every citing "materialistic faith".
So I am asking about your knowledge regarding the 65 studies conducted in the last two decades in NDE research. We can narrow it to that field. And since you already apparently have an opinion, I asked you what your summary of that opinion was. Now, since you have yet to provide a single fact regarding what causes consciousness, nor have you seriously addressed the hypothesis that the brain may act as a transceiver for consciousness, which is what I established early on here on this thread as an alternative hypothesis to the materialistic insistence that consciousness must be only a product of the brain - I am not really sure whether I wish to engage in a discussion with someone who bases his knowledge on faith like Arouet (not science) and who possesses very little knowledge or experience with science related to NDEs or now well established attributes of consciousness demonstrated by parapsychology or the psychology of the unconscious.
My Best,
Bertha
I can't tell you if I've read all 65 of the studies you've referred to. I've read a lot of studies over my time with skeptiko. If an NDE study was posted on this forum, you can be sure I read it, plus I've read some that were not posted. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some you are thinking of that I haven't read. (I can't recall if you've posted the list. If not, then do so, I'll read any that I don't have to pay for).
But in terms of discussing the research, why don't you read my analysis of the Lancet NDE study and the posts that follow, then make your contribution to the discussion:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-van-lommel-lancet-nde-paper.110/