A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[Beth]

I would just like to clarify

You cannot place a well founded assumption alongside an unfounded one and claim they are equal in the eyes of science. This lies at the heart of your fallacy I feel.

I don't think I have done that. I think you have merely assumed that.

 

[Dr B]

Yes.
I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me what the 'these' are that you are claiming are not the same.

By 'these' I meant the differing statements. The mind is what the brain does is not equivalent to the others you suggest. Sorry to be unclear.

I never said that facts change. I said that conclusions differ based on the starting assumptions.

Can you think of a fact that did not come from a conclusion? I know what you are trying to say (I think) but it sounds more know like a bit of a fudge on your part. Conclusions do differ - but not all starting points are equally evidenced. I was talking about scientifically what starting points are reasonable. Your suggestions above are clearly distinct from that - or are you changing your mind again now?

You are correct that there is no reliable convincing evidence that the 'mind' (or soul or whatever you wish to call it) survives after brain death. However, there is no reliable convincing evidence the other way either. The current evidence we have is simply inconclusive.

Another fallacy. Carry on and you may get the record in one thread from Interesting Ian (god rest his electronic soul... ). You need positive evidence for a starting point, assumption, premise, claim etc. Evolution is not a fact because Creationism is bollocks. Evolution is a fact due to positive data in support of it. A lack of evidence is meaningless. But there is no lack of evidence for my starting point - I have provided four main reasons above - there are many more.

I agree that assumptions do not alter truths, but assumptions do alter the conclusions we derive from such evidence as is available to us. In particular, in the absense of sufficiently strong evidence, we cannot claim to know the 'truth'.

You are slightly fudging issues here. Yes, we agree that differing assumptions in contentious areas can lead to differing types of questions and differing forms of understanding (not always contradictory I might add). However, you are assuming here that we have a 'lack of sufficiently strong evidence' in the present argument - we dont - again see the four points above as examples. The evidence for my suggestions is overwhelming, the evidence for your so-called counter-argument struggles to be underwhelming.

'Since we do not know the 'truth' of whether or not there is more to the mind than 'what the brain does', whatever starting assumptions we make will effect the conclusions we derive from the evidence we have available to us'.

Science teaches us its a case of the most likely. So which account do you think is the most likely and why? You do not seem to be taking much of what i am trying to say in - because science can argue that it is far more likely that the mind is the brain in action than your version posted earlier. We may never know an ultimate truth but i gave you 4 provisional ones above - i saw no convincing retort.

Ideally, yes. Realistically, no. We are limited by both the evidence we have at hand and our ability to interpret it. Our world views, which underlie all of our assumptions and interpretations of data, are not constructed in a wholely rational manner, but integrated into our psyche as we grow and mature.

Not a viable explanation for the structure and content of the provisonal truths we have. I find this fluffy and vacuous

You err when you assume I am making the claim that an immortal soul exists. I am, rather, simply pointing out that if one starts with that assumption, one arrives at a different conclusion than if one starts with the assumption that the mind is 'what the brain does'. I do not wish to argue the plausibility of those different assumptions.

Go back and read the discussion - check out Darat's outstanding issues as well. I agree you make no specific and direct claim per-se, but you do strongly suggest (at the least) that a soul or whatever it is a viable counter argument or starting point. I have provided a reasoned case for why, in this case, the logic is flawed and the argument unconvincing.

 

[Dr B]

I don't think I have done that. I think you have merely assumed that.

Nice try No, you did. Above you mention that your so-called 'counter starting points' change conclusions. My argument is those are not viable counter starting points at all.

However, i can think of instances when what the essence of what you seem to be trying to say might be more relevant - but this argument is not one of them.

 

[Dr B]

Beth

Thought i would bring the evidence down to here so you can see for yourself just some of your earlier comments on how truth changes depending on your assumptions....

#4 is the controversial statement. It's true IF you start with the assumption that the mind is what the brain does. If you start with a different assumption - for example, the assumption that the mind is not just flesh and blood and neurons, but also contains an immortal soul which is not part of our physical body - then that statement would not be true.

 

[Beth]

By 'these' I meant the differing statements. The mind is what the brain does is not equivalent to the others you suggest. Sorry to be unclear.

Okay. That's a fair assessment. I'll stick to mind = what brain does versus mind != what brain does (although I find soul a much more succinct phrasing).

Can you think of a fact that did not come from a conclusion?

Fact: I like chocolate. What conclusion did that fact come from?

Fact: 1 + 1 = 2. What conclusion did that fact come from?

In general, I think conclusions come from facts, not the other way round.

I know what you are trying to say (I think) but it sounds more know like a bit of a fudge on your part. Conclusions do differ - but not all starting points are equally evidenced. I was talking about scientifically what starting points are reasonable. Your suggestions above are clearly distinct from that - or are you changing your mind again now?

I never said that all starting points are equally evidenced. Nor was I clear that you were limiting your discussion to reasonable assumptions based on scientific evidence. Thanks for the clarification.

Another fallacy. Carry on and you may get the record in one thread from Interesting Ian (god rest his electronic soul... ). You need positive evidence for a starting point, assumption, premise, claim etc.

I must disagree here. Starting points are where one is starting from. One may or may not have arrived at one's starting point with positive evidence. Also, one may consider weak evidence (such an anecdotal accounts) as positive evidence in favor of a starting assumption that mind != what the brain does.

But there is no lack of evidence for my starting point - I have provided four main reasons above - there are many more.

I agree that you have evidence for your starting position although I only take 1, 2 and 3 as such evidence. No. 4 lacks sufficient supporting evidence for me to accept it as such.

You are slightly fudging issues here. Yes, we agree that differing assumptions in contentious areas can lead to differing types of questions and differing forms of understanding (not always contradictory I might add). However, you are assuming here that we have a 'lack of sufficiently strong evidence' in the present argument - we dont - again see the four points above as examples. The evidence for my suggestions is overwhelming, the evidence for your so-called counter-argument struggles to be underwhelming.

Your starting position is clear. But I don't find point number 4 to have any direct supportive evidence - it is based rather on an absence of evidence to the contrary and in this case, it's fair to say that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Nor do I find the counter-arguments against it underwhelming. However, I don't find those counterarugments convincing either - which is why I do not choose to defend them as true - I merely find them plausible, not convincing.

Go back and read the discussion - check out Darat's outstanding issues as well. I agree you make no specific and direct claim per-se, but you do strongly suggest (at the least) that a soul or whatever it is a viable counter argument or starting point. I have provided a reasoned case for why, in this case, the logic is flawed and the argument unconvincing.

Yes, I think it is a viable starting point. Whether they are equally viable starting points, I'm not certain of nor am I interesting in discussing it at this time. Again, I would refer you to the religious forum for that discussion.

No, you did. Above you mention that your so-called 'counter starting points' change conclusions. My argument is those are not viable counter starting points at all.

Yes, you've been arguing that, but you have proven that point, at least not in a convincing way to me. Why isn't the assumption that mind != how the brain works a viable starting point? You can claim your starting point is better suited to scientific methodology (I agree) and that no current evidence exists to cause us to conclude it is incorrect (again, I agree) but I don't see either as sufficient to invalidate using the opposite assumption as a starting point.

 

[Rodney]

If I damage a brain - the mind is impaired

According to http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm --
"Is your brain you really necessary? The reason for my apparently absurd question is the remarkable research conducted at the University of Sheffield by neurology professor the late Dr. John Lorber.

"When Sheffield’s campus doctor was treating one of the mathematics students for a minor ailment, he noticed that the student’s head was a little larger than normal. The doctor referred the student to professor Lorber for further examination.

"The student in question was academically bright, had a reported IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all.

"Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column. The student was suffering from hydrocephalus, the condition in which the cerebrospinal fluid, instead of circulating around the brain and entering the bloodstream, becomes dammed up inside."

 

[davidsmith73]

That doesn't answer Darat's question. It isn't about rejecting an assumption. It's about where the evidence lead you to.

Where does the evidence lead you to?

That the physically defined thing we call the mind is defined by what the brain does, like I said before.

 

[davidsmith73]

.

That is the assumption you are making - you assume it exists in the absence of convincing, reliable evidence for it....You say the odds are in favour? Hyman and others have calculated these odds and it seems they are not.

No, I'm not assuming it. I'm basing my view on the evidence. You obviously disagree that the evidence shows anything anomalous. So this particular sub-section of the debate will turn into a debate about the evidence, which is fine, but perhaps you should take it over to the ganzfeld thread as Rodney suggested

Quite wrong actually. You need to demonstrate a phenomena exists before you model it....

...Not at all - you make a fallacy here. Its incorrect because a theory of consciousness does not have to explain a phenomena that is likely not to exist! How can your statement be logical in this sense?...

...Contradiction? You are saying that models of consciousness need to encompass something that does not exist.....why?

Again, I thought I had made it clear that I think its likely the phenomena exists? Look, we don't have to actually agree on the existence of psi to take this argument further. Perhaps it would make you happier of we were to both assume for arguments sake that ESP exists, and is defined by an anomolous means of information aquisition that can be recalled through declarative memory. If we pretend that experiments have shown ESP, as defined, to exist, then it is clear that any model of consciousness (physically defined) must allow such a phenomena. Thus, parapsychology is studying certain aspects human cognitive functioning.

Oh there are many - look at the imagery / obe stuff post-Blackmore. Its bloody awful.....Parapsychology seems almost totally blind to cognitive neuroscience (with one or two exceptions), its methods, frameworks, theories etc.

Perhaps you could give us an example to discuss? I don't doubt very much what you say but it would serve the discussion a little better I think.

 

[JMA]

Perhaps it would make you happier of we were to both assume for arguments sake that ESP exists, and is defined by an anomolous means of information aquisition that can be recalled through declarative memory.

Why don't you agree that the evidence is inconclusive and ambiguous?

That's a better assessment of the state of the litterature.

You believe the Psi exist. Fine by me. But I think here most people don't care at all what you believe... I know I do. Couldn't care less...

 

[steenkh]

If we were for argument's sake accepting that ESP is for real, we would have a great deal of trouble explaining why it is so difficult getting any evidence for it, and why an obvious evolutionary advantage has not honed ESP into a strong capability that would make the intentions of friends and foes clear before they act.

 

[Darat]

If we were for argument's sake accepting that ESP is for real, we would have a great deal of trouble explaining why it is so difficult getting any evidence for it, and why an obvious evolutionary advantage has not honed ESP into a strong capability that would make the intentions of friends and foes clear before they act.

And also why the only apparent effects that we have got bear no resemblance to what people have always claimed was "psi".

I'm often amused by the thought that apparently the reason to believe there is "psi" in the first place i.e. the reason why we should investigate is the reports from people throughout the ages of "psi" effects. Yet these reports are all of large scale effects yet apparently we have to look at reams and reams of huge amounts of tiny, tiny effects before we approach anything that might possibly indicate that there is an unaccounted for effect.

 

[steenkh]

And also why the only apparent effects that we have got bear no resemblance to what people have always claimed was "psi".

Quite true!

As far as I understand, the supporters of psi claim that the effects only appear when you do not expect them. This, of course, would also explain why it has not been an evolutionary advantage

 

[Dr B]

Fact: I like chocolate. What conclusion did that fact come from?

Fact: 1 + 1 = 2. What conclusion did that fact come from?

In general, I think conclusions come from facts, not the other way round.

Fact 1 is not an objective fact - you could be lying or deluded. I take your point to some degree in Fact 2 - but again i think the relationship between facts and conclusions are not as unidirectional as you imply.

I never said that all starting points are equally evidenced. Nor was I clear that you were limiting your discussion to reasonable assumptions based on scientific evidence. Thanks for the clarification.

You did - when you originally recruited your alternative you did so under the conetext of an equal and viable one. If not, why mention it at all in the context of this debate.

I must disagree here. Starting points are where one is starting from.

I agree

One may or may not have arrived at one's starting point with positive evidence.

Thats my point - and in the context of a scientfiic debate they are thus not equal and not viable as alternatives if they are not evidenced to some degree. By evidence i would also take logical prediciton and good reasoning even in the absence of evidence as well as facts, data, evidence, etc. They are not functionally equivalent

I agree that you have evidence for your starting position although I only take 1, 2 and 3 as such evidence.

Even if i agreed with you on this (which I dont - all four count as strong evidence - though 4 is not the strongest) you have three good reasons for accepting it as a starting point and still not one single useful shread for accepting the other alternative.

No. 4 lacks sufficient supporting evidence for me to accept it as such. Your starting position is clear. But I don't find point number 4 to have any direct supportive evidence - it is based rather on an absence of evidence to the contrary and in this case, it's fair to say that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

I am well aware of this type of fallacy but you seem confused over it - it only works if an argument is purely based on the absence of evidence to the contrary - points 1-3 show this is false here (i.e., positive evidence suggesting an alternative). Collectively, the evidence strongly suggests that when the brain is dead so is the mind. When certain parts of the brain are dead - so are the mental functions of that brain area. The other three aspects also speak to this issue (they are not unrelated points). You are entertaing a possibility on the absence of evidence so you seem to be making a fallacy. There is no evidence for mental survival - fine. From that your counters above suggest it is a viable alternative (though you do seem to have changed on that which is good). I simply go with the positive evidence. A mind without a brain begs a logical question - Where are all the minds without brains? I can't find them and I doubt you can. Now of course, logically it does not mean they dont exist - but as i said earlier - it does not mean they do either - so your argument is meaningless. Argumentium ad ignorantium? When you couple this to Points 1-3 they support point 4 so my position receives support there as well.

Note - i am not saying minds cannot survive without brains so much as i am saying there is no positive evidence to suggest they do (and lots to suggest viable other ideas). As such there is 'no reason' to assume they do and thus such assumptions are unfounded and unequal to evidence ones to the contrary - thats my whole point in a nutshell. Starting points should be reasoned ones Some reasons are better than others.

Nor do I find the counter-arguments against it underwhelming. However, I don't find those counterarugments convincing either - which is why I do not choose to defend them as true - I merely find them plausible, not convincing.

On what grounds? Do you find them as plausible and probably as my suggestions?

Yes, I think it is a viable starting point. Whether they are equally viable starting points, I'm not certain of nor am I interesting in discussing it at this time.

But this was what we have been discussing all along these recent threads. No good saying this now that the debate has gotten tricky. I have shown why they are not equal and not once have you given a reason for why they are - please do or, consider that I am right.

Yes, you've been arguing that, but you have proven that point, at least not in a convincing way to me. Why isn't the assumption that mind != how the brain works a viable starting point? You can claim your starting point is better suited to scientific methodology (I agree) and that no current evidence exists to cause us to conclude it is incorrect (again, I agree) but I don't see either as sufficient to invalidate using the opposite assumption as a starting point.

you cannot prove or indeed invalidate a negative. You furnish the positives with evidence which makes accepting the negative in the absence of evidence perverse (at least in the context of this debate)

 

[Rodney]

And also why the only apparent effects that we have got bear no resemblance to what people have always claimed was "psi".

I'm often amused by the thought that apparently the reason to believe there is "psi" in the first place i.e. the reason why we should investigate is the reports from people throughout the ages of "psi" effects. Yet these reports are all of large scale effects yet apparently we have to look at reams and reams of huge amounts of tiny, tiny effects before we approach anything that might possibly indicate that there is an unaccounted for effect.

Most spontaneous psi experiences involve a personal or emotional component, which is not present in a controlled psi test. See, for example, Lincoln's dream of his death; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52812&highlight=lincoln's+dreams

So, I don't think it can be concluded that, because the measured effects are small but statistically significant in a controlled psi test, the true explanation must be that the test is flawed. And, as far as I can tell, in many ganzfeld tests, skeptics have not been able to find any test flaw, but simply fall back on the notion that there must been one because otherwise the test would not have produced statistically significant results.

 

[Ersby]

And, as far as I can tell, in many ganzfeld tests, skeptics have not been able to find any test flaw, but simply fall back on the notion that there must been one because otherwise the test would not have produced statistically significant results.

That's an interesting claim. Care to discuss it further?

 

[Dr B]

According to http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm --
"Is your brain you really necessary? The reason for my apparently absurd question is the remarkable research conducted at the University of Sheffield by neurology professor the late Dr. John Lorber.

"When Sheffield’s campus doctor was treating one of the mathematics students for a minor ailment, he noticed that the student’s head was a little larger than normal. The doctor referred the student to professor Lorber for further examination.

"The student in question was academically bright, had a reported IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all.

"Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column. The student was suffering from hydrocephalus, the condition in which the cerebrospinal fluid, instead of circulating around the brain and entering the bloodstream, becomes dammed up inside."

Why is this relevant? Brains can organise themselves for survival based on various circumstances. No two brains are identical - but all are similar. It raises some interesting questions on what is necessary and suffcient for a brain to become conscious (and thus produce mind). However, the science on these cases is not quite the story the pop-science would want you to think.

I tested a student once who was 25 years old and perfectly normal, yet had a severe visual neglect of the left side of space (they never knew it). This person had never reported any problems and had a driving license!!!!! Vast sections of this persons brain were inactive - but those sections that remained appeared to be over-active and hyper-connected. These structural and functional changes act as neural compensations.

You seem to be assuming that mind / consciousness is based purely on brain mass alone. However, compensatory mechanisms can kick in if there are genetic or developmental abnormalities (at least in higher primates and humans). One secret to consciousness is most likely to be the connectivty of the brain, rather than its mass (though under normal circumstances these concepts can be related this is not always the case. You can have more neurons and more connections, fewer neurons and fewer connections, more neurons and fewer connections, fewer neurons and more connections). So the ratio of connectivity can be increased and yet mass can be reduced (few neurons more connectivity - because synapses are smaller than cells). Just a thought

 

[Darat]

Most spontaneous psi experiences involve a personal or emotional component, which is not present in a controlled psi test. See, for example, Lincoln's dream of his death; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52812&highlight=lincoln's+dreams

So, I don't think it can be concluded that, because the measured effects are small but statistically significant in a controlled psi test, the true explanation must be that the test is flawed. And, as far as I can tell, in many ganzfeld tests, skeptics have not been able to find any test flaw, but simply fall back on the notion that there must been one because otherwise the test would not have produced statistically significant results.

The reason in the first place for investigating so called "psi" is not compatible with evidence such as the "ganzfield" stuff, as your post demonstrates.

Therefore there is no reason to associate any positive effects (if any) from experiments such as "ganzfield tests" with so called "psi".

 

[Rodney]

That's an interesting claim. Care to discuss it further?

Sure. Feel free to detail on the ganzfeld thread the flaws you found in each of the ganzfeld experiments that produced statistically significant results.

 

[Beth]

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to address everything you posted. If there's something I missed that you particularly want answered, please bring it up again.

You did - when you originally recruited your alternative you did so under the conetext of an equal and viable one. If not, why mention it at all in the context of this debate.

To consider another option a viable one does not, to me anyway, imply that they are equal. Only that they both have sufficient probability to make them worth consideration. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my remarks as making that assumption.

Thats my point - and in the context of a scientfiic debate they are thus not equal and not viable as alternatives if they are not evidenced to some degree. By evidence i would also take logical prediciton and good reasoning even in the absence of evidence as well as facts, data, evidence, etc. They are not functionally equivalent.

There is evidence for the other position. it is not solid reproducible evidence, but rather weak and anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, evidence does exist. I don't consider them equal because the evidence is not of the same caliber, but I do consider the evidence sufficient to make the alternative a viable option for debate.

Even if i agreed with you on this (which I dont - all four count as strong evidence - though 4 is not the strongest) you have three good reasons for accepting it as a starting point and still not one single useful shread for accepting the other alternative.

Because you would not consider the evidence available for the alternative to be useful. It's not reproducible. It's not scientific. But it is evidence.

I am well aware of this type of fallacy but you seem confused over it - it only works if an argument is purely based on the absence of evidence to the contrary - points 1-3 show this is false here (i.e., positive evidence suggesting an alternative). Collectively, the evidence strongly suggests that when the brain is dead so is the mind. When certain parts of the brain are dead - so are the mental functions of that brain area. The other three aspects also speak to this issue (they are not unrelated points). You are entertaing a possibility on the absence of evidence so you seem to be making a fallacy. There is no evidence for mental survival - fine. From that your counters above suggest it is a viable alternative (though you do seem to have changed on that which is good). I simply go with the positive evidence. A mind without a brain begs a logical question - Where are all the minds without brains? I can't find them and I doubt you can. Now of course, logically it does not mean they dont exist - but as i said earlier - it does not mean they do either - so your argument is meaningless. Argumentium ad ignorantium? When you couple this to Points 1-3 they support point 4 so my position receives support there as well.

I disagree. Points 1 and 3 support point 4 only if you start with the assumption that mind='what the brain does". If you don't start with that assumption, then point 4 is not necessarily supported by the previous points.

Note - i am not saying minds cannot survive without brains so much as i am saying there is no positive evidence to suggest they do (and lots to suggest viable other ideas). As such there is 'no reason' to assume they do and thus such assumptions are unfounded and unequal to evidence ones to the contrary - thats my whole point in a nutshell. Starting points should be reasoned ones Some reasons are better than others.

You can reason your way to a starting point. Or not. My point is that given a different starting assumptions, you cannot presume that the same evidence will lead to the same conclusions. Your conclusions are based on and biased by your starting assumptions.

you cannot prove or indeed invalidate a negative. You furnish the positives with evidence which makes accepting the negative in the absence of evidence perverse (at least in the context of this debate)

By the way, you can indeed prove a negative. It's just a lot harder.

 

[Dr B]

No, I'm not assuming it. I'm basing my view on the evidence. You obviously disagree that the evidence shows anything anomalous. So this particular sub-section of the debate will turn into a debate about the evidence, which is fine, but perhaps you should take it over to the ganzfeld thread as Rodney suggested

You are not basing it on the evidence, you see something in the evidence that is in fact not there. I find the debate in the Ganzfield thread boring and would recommend most go and read the original and complex debates between people like Bem / Hyman / etc, etc.

I think at the least you should acknowledge that your so-called evidence is highly controverisal and far from clear. As a consequence any conclusion is on shaky foundations. I think we would all agree on that. However, convincing evidence for PSI it is not.

Again, I thought I had made it clear that I think its likely the phenomena exists?

You did - and i made it clear that your conclusion is betrayed by the facts- at least as they curently stand.

Look, we don't have to actually agree on the existence of psi to take this argument further. Perhaps it would make you happier of we were to both assume for arguments sake that ESP exists, and is defined by an anomolous means of information aquisition that can be recalled through declarative memory. If we pretend that experiments have shown ESP, as defined, to exist, then it is clear that any model of consciousness (physically defined) must allow such a phenomena. Thus, parapsychology is studying certain aspects human cognitive functioning.

'assume' and 'pretend' are the operative words here. I think a philosophical discussion would be helpful and yes - interesting in some circumstances. However, lets not use that as a license to fudge the fact that we are discussing something that is highly likely to not exist. Put it on the list with fairies and unicorns by your criteria.

In addition - your reasoning is circular. You assume that, to assume it is real necessatates a psychological discussion of it, because it is real. You need to make the intitial pretence and assumption to make things work here. This is not always unheard of, but in the context of absolutely no evidence, reason, logic - it is.

Perhaps you could give us an example to discuss? I don't doubt very much what you say but it would serve the discussion a little better I think.

I already have said where to look as an example. Contemporary UK / European OBE research is years out of date with contemprary cognitive neuroscience. Get Googling......it will require somne work on your part.