A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[Darat]

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.


...snip...

Even the claim of "no brain" itself needs to be treated with some scepticism

See: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

....snip...

In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms."

...snip...

 

[Dr B]

Darat

I absolutely concur!!!!!!

 

[Ersby]

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

Sure, but one at a time. There's the two experiments run by Terry, if you'd care to take a look.

 

[Dr B]

I
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.

I agree in parts with your re-qualification of your points here. You are actually restating much of my earlier argument for me. However, this was not the form of your original argument - and it was that which i challenged. You claimed that if you made different assumptions an unfounded starting point makes a well-founded one untrue - it does not.

Indeed there are many starting points that are evidence to some degree in the world of science and therein lies the crucial bit - evidenced to some degree.

Dont confuse sufficient probability with equal probability and i would question that the argument the mind is separate from the brain has sufficient probability to be considered. Would you like to furnish this with some reasons and examples to establish this?

There is evidence for the other position.

Where and in what form? Is it of equal standing - or even close?

it is not solid reproducible evidence, but rather weak and anecdotal evidence.

I guessed as much. So - its not equal and not as viable and thus does not have the capacity to make the scientific stance i proposed false. Good - seems we are making progress.

Nevertheless, evidence does exist.

You just said it was weak and anecdotal.. ..Ive just seen a fairy....there you go, evidence of the same calibre as that which you recruit.

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.

some contradiction here - but i see what you mean. I still have not seen this evidence of which you speak that mind is separate from brain and thus a viable counter point. I note you have switched from arguing its an equal counter point to just a viable alternative for discussion. I am not arguing against this new, more mellow position.

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 and others here would consider all evidence that is offered in support of any argument,case or claim.

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.

Not true - what do you think is happening when selective parts of the brain are severed and selective parts of the mind die? This evidence is self-supportive

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.

I have said all along that different starting assumptions can lead to differening forms of evidence, questions, results and conclusions. Different assumptions warrent different questions - this can be used to great effect in science. We certainly both agree on that one. However, this does not mean 'all' assumptions are equally viable as a starting point and all questions have equal merit. This was inherent in your earlier posts.

Your conclusions are based on and biased by your starting assumptions.

But not constrained by them. I can make quite different assumptions and arrive at the same conclusions.

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

Inductive science might have something to say about that......its about probabilistic processes. Mathematics, due to its formal form of expression is perhaps the closest (but its more deductive). Other forms of science are more inductive in nature and would take issue with you on that point. However, this is all tangental to the main points we are discussing

 

[Dr B]

Beth

It is also arguable as to what extent something like "the mind is separate from the brain" is a starting point. Seems more like a conclusion to me and one full of sub-conclusions and assumptions. It assumes that which it sets out to show.

In contrast - the mind is what the brain does or mind is an emergent property of the brain in action does not buy into as much conceptual baggage (as well as being evidenced by better quality findings as you acknowledged above). In addition, my statement can be tested, empirically.

So, although all assumptions buy into some conceptual baggage - some are far less corosive on thinking than others and as such are endowed with a greater ability to reveal provisional truths about the world.

 

[Rodney]

Why is this relevant?

Because you stated in post #253: "If I damage a brain - the mind is impaired"

 

[Rodney]

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.

No, it's just that the ganzfeld experiments produce much weaker results than spontaneous psi.

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

So what do you attribute the positive effects in ganzfeld experiments to?

 

[Dr B]

Because you stated in post #253: "If I damage a brain - the mind is impaired"

I see you ignored the rest of my post which supports the question - why is this relevant?

tut tut....thank heavens for documented discussions.....

I reiterate this to your last comment - this is not a normal brain that has been damaged at all....it is highly questionable.....and i have explained a good deal more above. You may choose to ignore it - but these facts will not disappear because of that

 

[Beth]

I agree in parts with your re-qualification of your points here. You are actually restating much of my earlier argument for me. However, this was not the form of your original argument - and it was that which i challenged. You claimed that if you made different assumptions an unfounded starting point makes a well-founded one untrue - it does not.

er..no. I don't think I made that claim at any point. I think you inferred it - incorrectly.

Dont confuse sufficient probability with equal probability

I haven't. You just assumed I did and then proceeded to argue based on that erroneous assumption.

I would question that the argument the mind is separate from the brain has sufficient probability to be considered. Would you like to furnish this with some reasons and examples to establish this?

What is sufficient probability for you and for me no doubt differs. I consider certain personal experiences I've had to be sufficient evidence for giving the idea consideration. I don't think such evidence would be enough to convince anyone else to give the idea consideration nor do I care to share my personal experiences on this forum.

You just said it was weak and anecdotal.. ..Ive just seen a fairy....there you go, evidence of the same calibre as that which you recruit.

Different sources are assigned different levels of credibility. I'm afraid your credibility on the matter of sighting fairies is quite low.

some contradiction here - but i see what you mean. I still have not seen this evidence of which you speak that mind is separate from brain and thus a viable counter point. I note you have switched from arguing its an equal counter point to just a viable alternative for discussion. I am not arguing against this new, more mellow position.

I haven't switched my original argument at all, I've merely managed to successfully communicate to you that I was referring to a less strident position than you originally and incorrectly assumed.

Not true - what do you think is happening when selective parts of the brain are severed and selective parts of the mind die? This evidence is self-supportive

We're back to my original point. The evidence is indeed self-supportive - it's based on the assumption that the mind = "what the brain does". If you make this initial assumption, then it is a tautology that if the brain dies, so does the mind. If, on the other hand, you were to start with the assumption that mind != "what the brain does", then your conclusion does not follow.

Inductive science might have something to say about that......its about probabilistic processes. Mathematics, due to its formal form of expression is perhaps the closest (but its more deductive). Other forms of science are more inductive in nature and would take issue with you on that point. However, this is all tangental to the main points we are discussing

I was thinking of it as a well-defined statistical analysis problem. Traditionally the null hypothesis is defined as 'no difference' because the statistical computations are much easier with that assumption. It is possible to set up the null hypothesis to be that a difference exists and the alternative to be that it does not. However,such an analysis requires that 'no difference' be defined precisely - ie. an epsilon must be given and any difference of less than epsilon is considered to be "no difference". Then it requires the computation of a non-central t distribution (or F distribution in the multivariate case) to compute the p-value and then, the null can be rejected if the p-value is sufficiently low. Thus you can prove a negative, but it's much harder.

 

[Dr B]

Beth

This is the third time i have now highligted this point you said you never made and there are repeated other examples earlier in the discussion.

#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.

So, accepting an unfounded assumption as a starting point makes a well-founded one untrue?

You have changed your tune and i have not misunderstood you at all. However, i have enjoyed the debate. I agree with much of your more mellow comments more recently as they are actually the same poiints i was trying to make.

Trust me - i understand you very well, and it is because of that we have had this discussion. Your requalification of the issue is far better than your original statements on the issue - at least for me

PS - your statisitcal arguments do not really prove a negative statement - but thats another debate for another time. When i said negative i meant negative statement and null results dont 'prove' a negative statement (though i can see what you are trying to say about modeling the null). I think we did misunderstand each other on that one point - but again its a tangential one to the more interesting thrust that not all starting points are equally viable.

 

[Dr B]

er..no. I don't think I made that claim at any point. I think you inferred it - incorrectly.

No - I am correct please go back and read above and the last two pages.

I haven't. You just assumed I did and then proceeded to argue based on that erroneous assumption.

I have made no such assumption - i merely warned against the possibility (wrong again....)

What is sufficient probability for you and for me no doubt differs. I consider certain personal experiences I've had to be sufficient evidence for giving the idea consideration.

Not empirical dimensions then? I am sure i dont need to explain the problems with this. Anyway, it just goes to show why this 'evidence' is insufficient.

Different sources are assigned different levels of credibility. I'm afraid your credibility on the matter of sighting fairies is quite low.

But its anecdotal...so how do you know?

I haven't switched my original argument at all, ....

You have and you did - but thats fine as we are now perhaps agreeing more than we have before.

I've merely managed to successfully communicate to you that I was referring to a less strident position than you originally and incorrectly assumed.

No - its a definitve shift in emphasis and opinion within the argument.

We're back to my original point. The evidence is indeed self-supportive - it's based on the assumption that the mind = "what the brain does". If you make this initial assumption, then it is a tautology that if the brain dies, so does the mind. If, on the other hand, you were to start with the assumption that mind != "what the brain does", then your conclusion does not follow.

Not quite true for all the reasons already given - not repeating myself here.

I was thinking of it as a well-defined statistical analysis problem. Traditionally the null hypothesis is defined as 'no difference' because the statistical computations are much easier with that assumption. It is possible to set up the null hypothesis to be that a difference exists and the alternative to be that it does not. However,such an analysis requires that 'no difference' be defined precisely - ie. an epsilon must be given and any difference of less than epsilon is considered to be "no difference". Then it requires the computation of a non-central t distribution (or F distribution in the multivariate case) to compute the p-value and then, the null can be rejected if the p-value is sufficiently low. Thus you can prove a negative, but it's much harder.

I see what you are trying to say, but that was not what i was talking about and not sure at all that it 'proves' a negative (stats are based on assumptions too). However, as said above - this is tangental to the main debate above.

 

[Rodney]

I see you ignored the rest of my post which supports the question - why is this relevant?

tut tut....thank heavens for documented discussions.....

I reiterate this to your last comment - this is not a normal brain that has been damaged at all....it is highly questionable.....and i have explained a good deal more above. You may choose to ignore it - but these facts will not disappear because of that

I didn't ignore the rest of your post, it's just that I believe my example may contradict your assertion. We don't know for sure how the mind of the man in that example would have functioned without serious brain damage, but the damage did not seem to produce any obvious impairment.

 

[Dr B]

You are ignoring it and you clearly dont understand my posts above. Your example is not one where the patient has true 'damage' (in the neuropsychological use of the term) - so your example is irrelvant to the debate and adds nothing.

At best your example (though see Darat's link) shows a possible abnormality - but for all the reasons i have already given this might not be an issue in the way you are using it here. In addition, we have no idea this case is as bad as the pop-science suggests. I have encountered other claims like this - though note, severe cognitive impairments occur with these conditions in their extreme - so your argument still falls down based on these examples (as it kind of makes my point for me).

Once again - it does not necessarily constitute 'damage' to a once intact system.

 

[Rodney]

You are ignoring it and you clearly dont understand my posts above. Your example is not one where the patient has true 'damage' (in the neuropsychological use of the term) - so your example is irrelvant to the debate and adds nothing.

At best your example (though see Darat's link) shows a possible abnormality - but for all the reasons i have already given this might not be an issue in the way you are using it here. In addition, we have no idea this case is as bad as the pop-science suggests. I have encountered other claims like this - though note, severe cognitive impairments occur with these conditions in their extreme - so your argument still falls down based on these examples (as it kind of makes my point for me).

Once again - it does not necessarily constitute 'damage' to a once intact system.

Are you saying that the mathematics student never had a brain weighing more than 50-150 grams, and therefore had never suffered brain damage?

 

[Dr B]

Are you saying that the mathematics student never had a brain weighing more than 50-150 grams, and therefore had never suffered brain damage?

eeerrr No

Can you tell me specific figures of its weight and tell me what parts were active / inactive (i.e., a functional analysis). These would seem crucial for your position.

I am telling you that in other cases where the IQ is normal things are not quite as bad (neurally speaking) as the popscience suggests. As the IQ drops in these patients the brains look quite different - which i think you will find is entirely consistent with my approach and not yours However, feel free to dig away

You are still ignoring the more challenging theoretcial points I raised above.

 

[steenkh]

Are you saying that the mathematics student never had a brain weighing more than 50-150 grams, and therefore had never suffered brain damage?

I think Dr B differentiates between a brain that has had damage, and a brain that has always been like that.

 

[Dr B]

I didn't ignore the rest of your post, it's just that I believe my example may contradict your assertion. We don't know for sure how the mind of the man in that example would have functioned without serious brain damage, but the damage did not seem to produce any obvious impairment.

An IQ test would hardly constitute a detailed neuropsychological assessement. In addition, i told you earlier that i tested a subject once with major visuo-spatial neglect. This person passed many exams to get to University - but large parts of his brain (mainly in the parietal lobe) where not functioning. He never knew.....(this is not an isolated incident). However, our tasks revealed severe impairments to consciosuness when probed with a suitable measuring instrument like carefully controlled visual experiments...

The case you highlight does not seem to have been assessed in this manner - so i would reserve judgment on the 'eveything seems normal' claim.

 

[Dr B]

I think Dr B differentiates between a brain that has had damage, and a brain that has always been like that.

Absolutely!!!! Well spotted I thought i was talking to myself for a moment.... Glad someone can see what I am saying