The Girl with "X-ray" vision

[JRHart4]

As a UK citizen I have seen this girl in action on numerous occasions and I have to say that I think she is a fraud for the simple reason that when she "diagnoses" people she tells them within a few seconds what is wrong with them but when she was being scientifically tested she spent more than a few minutes on each person. My second point is that if she was conned by anyone why doesnt she come back and do it again and really show them? I would if I had such "powers". She got lucky with her 4 out of 7 or whatever it was. That is the most straightforward conclusion and therefore probably the correct one.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then it refutes materialism doesn't it. Consciousness cannot be one and the same thing as neural activity if it comes after it. If they do not occur at the same instant it follows that they cannot be the same thing.

Dude, come on. Consciousness is "one and the same thing" as some neural activity. The decision was made by different, nonconscious neural activity.

~~ Paul

 

[drfrank]

Italics are quotes by II:

If we are non-conscious then there are just physical bodies behaving in certain ways i.e we don't exist since we are defined by our consciousness
Well, the only reason that I think anyone else exists is by observing physical bodies behaving in certain ways and inferring that they are conscious purely due to the physical similarity between us, which is a fairly ropey inductive argument, to be honest

Then why bring it up? I assume no such thing, and no one else has assumed any such thing in this thread either.
It's a fair cop - point retracted. I obviously made incorrect assumptions about your argument, and I apologise.

Personally, I do tend slightly (as a belief) towards epiphenomenalism, although the impossibility of investigating it properly using the scientific method means that no real conclusions can be drawn.

However, the complete lack of scientific evidence for psychic abilities suggests that even if some non-material states do exist in some way, there is no way they may affect the material, or each other.

So, merely lumping in consciousness as `the paranormal', accurately or not, does not suddenly increase the standing of everything else in that category, and somehow get rid of the need to produce decent scientific evidence that any of the many claimed `paranormal' effects exist.

Consciousness is a special case, anyway, because some people would consider it axiomatic - whether or not this is valid is another matter, of course.

Back on topic, X-Ray girl is obviously a fake.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Dude, come on. Consciousness is "one and the same thing" as some neural activity. The decision was made by different, nonconscious neural activity.

~~ Paul

It's still epiphenomenalism since it denies that the relevant neural activity which is consciousness is causally efficacious in bringing about ones actions.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Personally, I do tend slightly (as a belief) towards epiphenomenalism, although the impossibility of investigating it properly using the scientific method means that no real conclusions can be drawn.

However, the complete lack of scientific evidence for psychic abilities suggests that even if some non-material states do exist in some way, there is no way they may affect the material, or each other.

As an epiphenomenalist that would be your position. I have a logical refutation of epiphenomenalism which I can provide if you like.

But anyway, I see no more reason why consciousness shouldn't be able to affect the physical than the fact that the physical can affect consciousness. It may of course just be the way the world is that only the physical can affect the mental, and not vice versa (although my logical refutation, if sound, entails otherwise), but I see no conceptual problems in supposing that consciousness affects the physical (and also that conscious states are causally efficacious in leading to other conscious states). Arguably to suppose that the mental and physical are distinct, and the mental affects the physical, means that the world is not physically closed i.e not all change in the world precedes by unbroken chains of physical causal and effect since then we would also have mental causes. But QM puts a large question mark over this.

So, merely lumping in consciousness as `the paranormal', accurately or not, does not suddenly increase the standing of everything else in that category, and somehow get rid of the need to produce decent scientific evidence that any of the many claimed `paranormal' effects exist.

I think some of these experiments suggesting anomalous effects are pretty tight. This is not something I'm interested in discussing though. Personal experiences of anomalous phenomena by oneself and others are all important here.

Consciousness is a special case, anyway, because some people would consider it axiomatic - whether or not this is valid is another matter, of course.

Back on topic, X-Ray girl is obviously a fake.

What? Consciousness is axiomatically natural?

I have no idea about the x-ray girl. It sounds prima facie improbable, but I have not looked at the evidence.

As a general point it seems to me that a unique one off anomalous phenomenon is prima facie far less to be genuine then a phenomenon which has been witnessed throughout human history and across all cultures.

 

[Interesting Ian]

It's still epiphenomenalism since it denies that the relevant neural activity which is consciousness is causally efficacious in bringing about ones actions.

Actually no it wouldn't be. But you are denying free will here which is absurd.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's still epiphenomenalism since it denies that the relevant neural activity which is consciousness is causally efficacious in bringing about ones actions.

Dude, come on. The nonconscious decision may very well have been caused, in part, by prior conscious activities.

Haven't we long ago agreed that epiphenomenalism, as defined philosophically, doesn't make any sense? Yes, we have. Can we move on now?

Actually no it wouldn't be. But you are denying free will here which is absurd.

That would be free will defined how? And no matter, are you claiming that every decision I make is conscious? Such a claim is refuted in all manner of ways, such as by the phenomenon of blindsight.

While you were away, we all agreed that the concept of libertarian free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Dude, come on. The nonconscious decision may very well have been caused, in part, by prior conscious activities.

So consciousness causes or partially causes something non-conscious (brain activity) which causes our actions?

Yeah you'll have no argument with me about that.

Haven't we long ago agreed that epiphenomenalism, as defined philosophically, doesn't make any sense? Yes, we have. Can we move on now?

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but I doubt for the same reasons.

That would be free will defined how?

That my consciousness is causally efficacious i.e it both causes other mental states to arise and it can affect the physical world, and also that my conscious state at any given time is not wholy caused by my physical environment (of course it will be partially caused).

And no matter, are you claiming that every decision I make is conscious? Such a claim is refuted in all manner of ways, such as by the phenomenon of blindsight.

If I walk to the shop is every step I make a decision?

While you were away, we all agreed that the concept of libertarian free will is incoherent.

~~ Paul

I don't understand what libertarian free will means. We either have free will or we don't. How can there be differing types?

 

[askolnick]

Didn't this joker just say he was leaving?

So he's flat out wrong. He should concentrate on the science and forget the philosophy because he ain't very good at it.

As Barnabas Kubiak astutely noted, "The job of the writer is to describe the rose; that of the poet to sing its virtues; that of the artist to convey its beauty; that of the lawyer to convince us that it's not a rose at all."

He should have added one more profession: "And that of the philosopher to convince us that there's no such thing as a rose."

I think Ian, should change his pretentious label from Philosopher to "Word Nihlist."

 

[askolnick]

Much more than just a few minutes.

As a UK citizen I have seen this girl in action on numerous occasions and I have to say that I think she is a fraud for the simple reason that when she "diagnoses" people she tells them within a few seconds what is wrong with them but when she was being scientifically tested she spent more than a few minutes on each person. My second point is that if she was conned by anyone why doesnt she come back and do it again and really show them? I would if I had such "powers". She got lucky with her 4 out of 7 or whatever it was. That is the most straightforward conclusion and therefore probably the correct one.

For her first guess, Natasha took an hour. The amazing thing is that she was ONLY asked to look at seven people in front of her and pick the one who was missing the top part of his or her left lung! She wasn't asked to examine them from head to toe and describe all the abnormalities she sees. She got it right, but only after staring at them for an hour and having them stand up and sit down a number of times. (Why she needed them to stand up to see the top part of their lungs is also a mystery to me.)

But I'm sure Ian has an answer. He always has answers.

 

[Bronze Dog]

He always has answers.

They typically aren't any good, but yes, he always has them.

 

[Mojo]

I think Ian, should change his pretentious label from Philosopher ...

I think he just gets called that as the default for having over 5,000 posts.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So consciousness causes or partially causes something non-conscious (brain activity) which causes our actions?

Yeah you'll have no argument with me about that.

Come on, dude, of course we'll argue, because I also stated that what we call consciousness is just other brain activity.

If I walk to the shop is every step I make a decision?

I should hope so. The point is that many decisions are nonconscious. The blindsighted person picks up the red cup without any conscious awareness at all. Surely that is a decision?

I don't understand what libertarian free will means. We either have free will or we don't. How can there be differing types?

There is "true free will" and then there is compatibilist free will, as you know. We decided that true free will is an incoherent concept. Needless to say, we couldn't find anything that anyone, including you, had ever said to define it in a way that made any sense.

~~ Paul

 

[drfrank]

But anyway, I see no more reason why consciousness shouldn't be able to affect the physical than the fact that the physical can affect consciousness.

That is not an unreasonable suggestion in itself, but I have never seen any scientific evidence supporting it. You say the evidence is tight, but the $1m is still sitting there unclaimed from anyone who could move a pin with their mind or read the shape on the card that someone else is looking at etc.

Personal experiences of anomalous phenomena by oneself and others are all important here.

It is indisputable that people can fool themselves to an astonishing degree, which is why objective testing is needed. Results, and methods, need to be open to the scientific community in general to criticise and correct as necessary, like the rest of science. If it can't be replicated, then it was probably done wrong in the first place.

What? Consciousness is axiomatically natural?

What I meant was that many people will accept consciousness as existing without needing explicit scientific evidence because they experience it constantly, whether they believe it material or not. That does not mean that all do, obviously, and does not mean that they are correct.

I have no idea about the x-ray girl. It sounds prima facie improbable, but I have not looked at the evidence.

If it looks like a faker, acts like a faker and gets results like a faker...

As a general point it seems to me that a unique one off anomalous phenomenon is prima facie far less to be genuine then a phenomenon which has been witnessed throughout human history and across all cultures.

And that phenomenon would be?

I'd be quite interested in the logical argument against epiphenomenalism, though - I don't often get chance to research the philosophy of mind, interesting though it is

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'd be quite interested in the logical argument against epiphenomenalism, though - I don't often get chance to research the philosophy of mind, interesting though it is.

The philosophical definition of epiphenomenalism is that qualia* have no effect on the brain. If this were the case, we would not be having this conversation, because we would have no way to make our mouths talk about qualia.

Corollary: The concept of p-zombies makes no sense under monism.

~~ Paul

* Or consciousness or mind or whatever.

 

[Flange Desire]

Originally by me:...
Have you read Pinker for a good (imho) hypothesis for 'consiousness'?
He suggests 'Mind is what the brain does'.

What the brain does is a physical activity, a sequence of causes and effects, a function. Consciousness is no more logically entailed than in any other physical process. So he's flat out wrong. He should concentrate on the science and forget the philosophy because he ain't very good at it.

I must bow to your superior wisdom.
Have you ever considered working as a book reviewer?

 

[Flange Desire]

...
If it looks like a faker, acts like a faker and gets results like a faker...

A great quote that I have seen displayed somewhere (quackwatch?) ...

"If it ducks like a quack ..."

 

[Flange Desire]

A great quote that I have seen displayed somewhere (quackwatch?) ...

"If it ducks like a quack ..."

Found it - http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
But anyway, I see no more reason why consciousness shouldn't be able to affect the physical than the fact that the physical can affect consciousness.

drfrank
That is not an unreasonable suggestion in itself, but I have never seen any scientific evidence supporting it.

You said there is no way the non-physical can affect the physical, or the non-physical. This suggests you believe there is some conceptual problem.

No scientific evidence? We don't need scientific evidence, we immediate experience our ability for our conscious states to lead on to other conscious states; for example our thought processes and our ability to move our bodies according to our will.

You say the evidence is tight, but the $1m is still sitting there unclaimed from anyone who could move a pin with their mind or read the shape on the card that someone else is looking at etc.

If proper tightly controlled peer reviewed research giving positive results is insufficient to provide any evidence whatsoever for the existence of such alleged phenomena, then a fortiori it would be wholly inconsistent to suppose that the failure to win this million dollars constitutes evidence against the existence of such phenomena.

And there are so many many other reasons why this challenge is utterly ludicrous I scarcely know where to begin. What's to prevent these guys from specifying a success level far to high to achieve? What bargaining power does the testee have? He or she has none whatsoever! The Randi organisation has a million to lose. The testee simply has to agree to whatever the Randi organisation specifies, and you can be sure that the success level will be sufficiently high so as to ensure failure. It's not a genuine attempt to try and establish whether this phenomena exists or not. It's a stunt to convince very very stupid people that this phenomena doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
Personal experiences of anomalous phenomena by oneself and others are all important here.

drfrank
It is indisputable that people can fool themselves to an astonishing degree, which is why objective testing is needed.

Is needed for what? Certainly not in order to have a justifiable belief. And if we fool ourselves to such an astonishing degree why believe anything at all. Perhaps I didn't go to my local shop a couple of hours ago. Perhaps I am not now sitting in front of my monitor typing out this message. Perhaps other people don't exist and I'm fooling myself in believing otherwise. Perhaps nothing is real and everything I have ever experienced or will ever experience is simply one long hallucination. Perhaps everything I have ever remembered did not actually take place.

Well perhaps, but if I were to experience a crisis apparition and later find out that the person which the apparition represented died more or less at the same instant I had the vision, then that would be sufficient evidence for me. At some point you have to be sensible and just accept your materialist metaphysic is hopelessly wrong.

Results, and methods, need to be open to the scientific community in general to criticise and correct as necessary, like the rest of science. If it can't be replicated, then it was probably done wrong in the first place.

Complete nonsense. You're dealing with human beings here, not with the entities dealt with in physics. Peoples' abilities can vary significantly with their psychological state.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
What? Consciousness is axiomatically natural?

drfrank
What I meant was that many people will accept consciousness as existing without needing explicit scientific evidence because they experience it constantly, whether they believe it material or not. That does not mean that all do, obviously, and does not mean that they are correct.

You really are hung up on this scientific evidence issue. In the 17th Century there was no scientific evidence that mobile phones could exist. There is no scientific evidence that consciousness exists (including ones own). There is no scientific evidence that I went to my local shop 2 hours ago. There is no scientific evidence for many many things. So what?

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I have no idea about the x-ray girl. It sounds prima facie improbable, but I have not looked at the evidence.

drfrank
If it looks like a faker, acts like a faker and gets results like a faker...

I know that people on here think this. I knew that before they ever said anything -- they always say the same to any alleged phenomenon that challenges their belief system. But that also means their assertions mean nothing.

Maybe she looks like a faker -- maybe not.

Maybe she acts like a faker -- maybe not.

Maybe she gets results a faker -- maybe not.

I can conclude absolutely nothing from such assertions. Skeptics say exactly the same, for example, regarding alleged mediums. They allege they are cold reading when the information they give could not possibly be obtained by cold reading. And what is more they say exactly the same as you. It's absolute sheer lunacy! No matter how astounding impressive someone was they would say that they are obvious charlatans. It's meaningless noise which I have learnt to ignore.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
As a general point it seems to me that a unique one off anomalous phenomenon is prima facie far less to be genuine then a phenomenon which has been witnessed throughout human history and across all cultures.

And that phenomenon would be?

Certainly ESP. Apparitions, reincarnation memories, NDEs, OBEs, people who appear to be able to communicate with the dead, the I Ching etc.

I'd be quite interested in the logical argument against epiphenomenalism, though - I don't often get chance to research the philosophy of mind, interesting though it is

Shall provide it tomorrow.

 

[askolnick]

A great quote that I have seen displayed somewhere (quackwatch?) ...

"If it ducks like a quack ..."

I may have coined that (although I may not have been the first). That was the title of two talks on quackery I gave at the Center for Inquiry early Summer 2004.