Esp trick

You favor a certain perspective as do I, but I listen to what you say and what is said here. As far as I can tell by your not answering the question indicates you do pick cherries. K9, it's not possible to have a conversation with you knowing your extreme prejudice towards people you know are trolls. So toodle-loo.
My data set seems to be much larger than yours. I went outside the box.
upload_2014-7-3_14-58-46.png
 
You are a hoot. But you deserve props for your rad graphic skills.
The next time I come across another neuroscience article I'll be sure to notify you so you be able to add it to your ignore list.

I have to say, Steve, that is rather rich coming from you. You tend to go rather silent when it comes to parapsychology papers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
You are a hoot. But you deserve props for your rad graphic skills.
The next time I come across another neuroscience article I'll be sure to notify you so you be able to add it to your ignore list.
I read the neuroscience articles. And I bet I've met with and talked to more neuroscientists than you ever will. BTW, have you renewed your subscription to the Journal of Parapsychology yet?
 
All of it you say an no pickin' of the cherries. Do you incorporate the data I sometimes post on the lastest neuroscience research? Research that shows the brain can do all of the things brain /= mind deny it can.
There's something very selective about this interpretation. No matter which neuroscience research you refer to, if it is said to demonstrate that mind==brain, then clearly it cannot include such things as non-local (in either time or space) consciousness, or consciousness in the absence of brain activity, and so on. It seems a rather empty argument, since it relies upon cherry-picking which aspects of consciousness are to be explained rather than including all of the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I have to say, Steve, that is rather rich coming from you. You tend to go rather silent when it comes to parapsychology papers.
Don't lose sight of the claim made by k9. The claim is, the best explanation is not mind = brain. It's just a easy to look at the same data and take the position of three of the major faiths which is your essence survives death and to postulate the brain has the ability to reach out to perceive the world out there by other means during life. I post such articles in direct opposition to this idea the brain can't create the mind. The article you posted early today suggests the same, though it's too preliminary at this time to state it does.
 
Don't lose sight of the claim made by k9. The claim is, the best explanation is not mind = brain. It's just a easy to look at the same data and take the position of three of the major faiths which is your essence survives death and to postulate the brain has the ability to reach out to perceive the world out there by other means during life. I post such articles in direct opposition to this idea the brain can't create the mind. The article you posted early today suggests the same, though it's too preliminary at this time to state it does.

I don't actually think my essence survives death, whilst I think consciousness is something intrinsic to the universe. It is pretty clear that personality is dependent on the brain structure and its function.
 
Don't lose sight of the claim made by k9. The claim is, the best explanation is not mind = brain. It's just a easy to look at the same data and take the position of three of the major faiths which is your essence survives death and to postulate the brain has the ability to reach out to perceive the world out there by other means during life. I post such articles in direct opposition to this idea the brain can't create the mind. The article you posted early today suggests the same, though it's too preliminary at this time to state it does.
I'd suggest reading Irreducible Mind. Plenty of evidence there that shows mind does not necessarily equal brain.

It strikes me that so much of what I see from skeptics is an inability to look at all the evidence. Once you go outside the box, you will be forever changed by what you see. I can completely understand that doing so may be scary, like moving out of mom's basement. Perhaps that is why most skeptical arguments seem to be less about the data and more about why they don't want to leave the safe confines of the box. It's OK with me if you want to stay where it's safe, Steve. But don't pretend that the evidence supports your POV. You haven't looked at all the evidence. You are too busy trying to come up with reasons to stay inside the box.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest reading Irreducible Mind. Plenty of evidence there that shows mind does not necessarily equal brain.

It strikes me that so much of what I see from skeptics is an inability to look at all the evidence. Once you go outside the box, you will be forever changed by what you see. I can completely understand that doing so may be scary, like moving out of mom's basement. Perhaps that is why most skeptical arguments seem to less about the data and more about why they don't want to leave the safe confines of the box. It's OK with me if you want to stay where it's safe, Steve. But don't pretend that the evidence supports your POV. You haven't looked at all the evidence. You are too busy trying to come up with reasons to stay inside the box.
I love the box analogy.

Many people grow up in a fundamentalist religion, then find that it isn't quite right, and become atheist materialists. When that happened to me, it felt like a opening of the mind - a release into a more open mindset. It was moving from a small box into a larger box. Looking back from my new perspective, the religious upbringing looked very confining.

The interesting thing is that moving from a skeptic to a curious agnostic felt exactly the same. It's moving from a small box into a larger box. There are more possibilities, and the world becomes more alive.

But - it's good to remember that when I am inside one box, I can't see it as a box. It's just "Reality". So maybe there are even larger boxes yet to come, ones that I can't recognize yet? Maybe someday my current viewpoint will look like a small confining box? I hope so, because that is what expansion looks like, and each expansion brings greater mental freedom and flexibility.

IMO, if you can't dream of leaving your box behind, you're stuck. Maybe skeptics should try basing their worldview on what "may be" possible, instead of preaching what "can't be" done.
 
That quote from Harris is a perfect example of argument from inability to conceive. At least he admits it.

~~Paul

I think it's a bit more than inability to conceive. He's making a metaphysical argument, which is why he likens conscious from non-conscious to something from nothing.

There's no explanatory power there, which is pretty much the same issue Chalmers has with it.

(MaverickPhilosopher notes the same issue in Thinking Meat.)

Feser IMO presents the clearest distinction between stating an inability to conceive and asserting a metaphysical impossibility - I'll look it up and post the link later.
 
I think it's a bit more than inability to conceive. He's making a metaphysical argument, which is why he likens conscious from non-conscious to something from nothing.

There's no explanatory power there, which is pretty much the same issue Chalmers has with it.

I can't imagine a scenario where an "inability to conceive" isn't entirely consistent (even interchangeable) with "no explanatory power". We can have no way of distinguishing between the two.

BTW, Great blog post by Harris. All on here should read it if they haven't already.
 
Don't lose sight of the claim made by k9. The claim is, the best explanation is not mind = brain. It's just a easy to look at the same data and take the position of three of the major faiths which is your essence survives death and to postulate the brain has the ability to reach out to perceive the world out there by other means during life. I post such articles in direct opposition to this idea the brain can't create the mind. The article you posted early today suggests the same, though it's too preliminary at this time to state it does.
Actually, neither Christianity or Judaism claim that you survive bodily death. Both strictly detail a death, in which the time you are dead you are basically nonexistent. Everyone is then resurrected and judged, and those that are unworthy die a second permanent death while those that are worthy are resurrected in new bodies.

Really, though, what RP asked is a decent question. Why don't you ever contribute to discussions about parapsychology papers posted here? You seem to have a penchant for believing your opinion is informed; so why not indulge us and see if it really is?
 
What's clear is many people do not; k9 being one of them.

So at this stage in the game you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation? How is this possible? Anyway, since you're a slave to intellectual and professional authority, you do realize there are neuroscientists and plenty of neurosurgeons who are not materialists? But maybe they don't understand the research as well as you do.

Have you ever realized how many people go from being materialists to not being materialists? (and there are rarely reversals, if ever) Materialists in general have been only materialists. Does this reveal anything in particular about boxes?..
Belief is pretty malleable. You can try different ones on and see how they fit. It just requires a temporary suspension of a given belief set, along with a little imagination. Immerse yourself in one, then another, and another. Then step back and see them for what they are. I understand how convincing materialism can be. Your problem is that you don't.

You are an enigma, Steve. Maybe that's why I find you so loveable.
 
I get that... but it's the 'magicness' of esp and walking on water that makes us gasp and enjoy the trick. Nobody gasps at somebody swimming and there is the difference.

I guess it comes down, at least in part, to the absence of a mechanism. If we are to postulate esp without a mechanism, only for a magician to come along and show us a mechanism to acheive the same effect, can we be forgiven for invoking friar William and his blade.

Well of course there isn't a mechanism, because ESP would not be called ESP if it had a mechanism, it might be called something like "Using a mobile phone", or, "Communicating by drumming loudly in code on the wall"!

The whole point about ESP is that it doesn't have a mechanism under materialist interpretations.

Remember that a lot of ESP happens in quite different circumstances - someone becomes aware that a loved one is in danger, or is dead when they can't know in a conventional way.

I dare say you could get magicians to fake science experiments - maybe with bizarre differences - but what the hell does that prove - what the hell has it ever proved?

Now, if a magician could score highly in a Ganzfeld experiment run by ESP researchers, and then explain how he did it, that would be significant!

David
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I love the box analogy.

I dunno. I suspect there's only so far you can take it.

I remember when I first did the nine dot puzzle (which popularized the phrase "thinking outside the box"). The puzzle seemed dead easy, and I couldn't understand why it was supposed to be tricky until somebody explained to me that people would assume that you had to stay within the "box" defined by the nine dots. I didn't even notice that there was a box (which made me feel a bit stupid, rather than open-mnded, to be honest).

So what is that supposed to mean under your analogy? :)

I think of it more as a form of symmetry...the same information forms different pictures depending upon your perspective, and it is the breaking of that symmetry which is useful. (The story of the six blind men and the elephant might be helpful in that regard.)

Linda
 
Now, if a magician could score highly in a Ganzfeld experiment run by ESP researchers, and then explain how he did it, that would be significant!

David

As far as I know, there hasn't been an individual who can score highly in a Ganzfeld experiment on demand, so I'm not sure how asking a magician to do so is relevant. If there were such an individual...well, you know what they'd say. ;)

Linda
 
I think it's a bit more than inability to conceive. He's making a metaphysical argument, which is why he likens conscious from non-conscious to something from nothing.
But the entire argument is merely to say that it's something from nothing. The Maverick talks of the "unintelligibility of the notion."

~~Paul
 
So at this stage in the game you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation? How is this possible? Anyway, since you're a slave to intellectual and professional authority, you do realize there are neuroscientists and plenty of neurosurgeons who are not materialists? But maybe they don't understand the research as well as you do.
I find it curious that you accuse me of not knowing correlation does not equal causation, yet you do not not level the same admonishment to those whom cite such an such psi positive article of the same mistake. I do understand the difference the former does not indicate the latter. However the former can and often does lead to the latter especially when it can be repeated over and over.
I'm no slave to it, but I do trust that science is the best way to understand nature. That includes parapsychological research. By the way, I do not recognize anyone as an authority. Professional expert is the appropriate term and there I do defer to professional expertise as does everyone else on this forum. I do not recognize anyone as an intellectual authority. You'll never see me cite Bernardo Kastrup, Chalmers et.al. yet many members often do defer to these intellectual authorities.

Have you ever realized how many people go from being materialists to not being materialists? (and there are rarely reversals, if ever) Materialists in general have been only materialists. Does this reveal anything in particular about boxes?..
I could not care less how many people go from being materialist to immaterialists. Frankly, I'd be very happy never to hear those words ever again. They are divisive words.
I "love" the thinking outside of the box fallacy as if that gives great insight to what is plausible and true. What that actually means is: imagine all of the possibilities and choose the ones you like best and believe them to be true, that's what it means.
Belief is pretty malleable. You can try different ones on and see how they fit. It just requires a temporary suspension of a given belief set, along with a little imagination. Immerse yourself in one, then another, and another. Then step back and see them for what they are. I understand how convincing materialism can be. Your problem is that you don't.
I cam imagine all sorts of things even the things people imagine here. I don't make the mistake of thinking possibilities are plausibilities. When it comes to how nature works belief has no presence in my perspective. Either something is true or it's not. I have no need to hope there are other possibilities. If any of those other beliefs turn out to be true then I'll incorporate them.

I do my bestYou are an enigma, Steve. Maybe that's why I find you so loveable.
I do what I can to be "lovable".
 
Back
Top