They're in my re-cycle bin.
They're in my re-cycle bin.
Precisely.
Most paranormal anecdotes do not contain enough information to offer much of an explanation; since there isn't any credible evidence of such phenonmena, I don't much care if a naturalistic conclusion is a default position. Provisionally of course.
I ever so slightly disagree. There is plenty of evidence of anomalous experience and that is what the science should and does investigate. However, I agree that the arguments put forward for paranormal events is best explained by the scientific counter position.
Dont confuse the need to explain paranormal experiences with paranormal events. These are different issues requiring different forms of explanations. The two are not the same.
There is a growing literature (neurology / psychology / brain-imaging / cognitive science / neuroscience) on anomalous experience, hallucination, and delusion all of which is directly relevant here.
No.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
You're obviously much more interested in telling me how much more of an understanding you have of this subject than I do than you are in honestly discussing it, so I'll leave you to it.
OK - thank you for that. So just to be clear you stated the apophetic reponse was emotional - but have no empirical evidence for this view.
I do think you are right - and I too struggle to find direct evidence for this, which is why i said, many posts ago, that this still requires investigation. Definately a study and a paper in it. However, I'm not as convinced as you about it (because the evidence is not there).
I am aware of the papers and research on indirect semantic priming (semantic mediated priming as it is also known) which has often been recruited as evidence of 'apophetic thought processes' - but semantic knowledge is not directly the same as perceptual processes and emotional processing per-se. I also have struggled to replicate these findings for years.....So I am still on the fence about these issues.
Of course you will leave me to it - i could see no other option for you. You basically entered a discussion, vomitted everywhere, and then stopped. That's fine - but in future perhaps it would be a commonly decent thing to do to actually read what people are saying before lambasting them.
if you required clarification at any time - all you needed to do was ask. To my mind you fell into the common trap of thinking I was attacking the skeptical position simply because i dared to question some of the approaches of some self-claimed wannabe skeptics. That is not true.
I've been actively involved in science and skepticism all my adult life. I dont think calling oneself a skeptic means you cannot be challenged on how you arrived at your ideas (as i did with the skeptics in my opening example). All i originally commented on was that i have met many skeptics that cling to views, because others do, as they cannot seem to argue for some of the claims they cling to. Its up to skeptics to ensure, as much as possible, that skepticism remains of high quality.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
If you like.
Still ducking then?
The really telling thing is you have just demonstrated the exact type of approach I was criticising in my initial post on how some skeptics use labels as explanations.
Anyway, just to diffuse matters a bit - I think debates litke this raise a interesting tangential question - "what counts as explanation?". This is not just an issue for the philosophy of science, but for scientists themselves when studying their topic areas. Explanations vary in scope, depth, explicitness, predictive power, and level of support. Its important to keep that in mind when evaluating science against science, and science against non-science.
Your points above seem to sugges that 'apophenia' alone is an explanation. My point is that it is far from it. Its a statement - the start of the explanation not the end of it. At the very least it is insufficient as it currently stands. You would think that many self-claimed skeptics would be interested in investigating the matter further - perhaps running some experimens to make the argument more explicit and powerful - but i guess you have to acknowledge the problem first.
Evolved Wookie
A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 601
I'm at work and so have too little spare time to do the judicial research on this, but I found (admittadely via Cracked.com) this article.
Seems intersting and relevant.
Seems intersting and relevant.
Thanks for that. I am very familiar with Blanke's work and that of Arzy - who did the sensed-presence work in the official first article in the journal.
Its nothing new however, and has been known to neurologists for decades - but it is interesting.
I am currently running a study on sensed-presence hallucinations and some of the experiential components alongside measures of corticial hyper-excitation. The results suggest an association in the nonclinical and non-pathological brain between increased levels of cortical irritability / hyper-excitation and predisposition to anomalous perceptions. What is particularly striking is that the findings show a strong effect even in the absence of epilepsy and migraine - so it may help to explain a wider set of findings and experiences
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
Still ducking then?
The really telling thing is you have just demonstrated the exact type of approach I was criticising in my initial post on how some skeptics use labels as explanations.
Anyway, just to diffuse matters a bit - I think debates litke this raise a interesting tangential question - "what counts as explanation?". This is not just an issue for the philosophy of science, but for scientists themselves when studying their topic areas. Explanations vary in scope, depth, explicitness, predictive power, and level of support. Its important to keep that in mind when evaluating science against science, and science against non-science.
Your points above seem to sugges that 'apophenia' alone is an explanation. My point is that it is far from it. Its a statement - the start of the explanation not the end of it. At the very least it is insufficient as it currently stands. You would think that many self-claimed skeptics would be interested in investigating the matter further - perhaps running some experimens to make the argument more explicit and powerful - but i guess you have to acknowledge the problem first.
I interpret your argument to be that "Apophenia" as an answer to "Why do people see ghosts?", is akin to answering "An Engine" to the question "How does my car work?" Broadly correct, but there's a LOT more to it than that.
I am very interested in what you have to say. I am leaning toward a more emotional-based explanation for apophenia, personally, but I would be very interested in reading more about it - what would you suggest as a good start?
Cainkane1
Philosopher
If "ghosts" do exist they aren't dead. They're alive living on energy. To discover this would be a mind boggling event. A creature that uses electric power to live would be so unique it would change our ideas about the nature of life itself.
Sadly no such creature existsd.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
No there is no evidence of anomalous experience. None.
What we have is report or anecdote of anomalous experience. Plenty. Indeed we have no evidence whatsoever that anything beyond brain mechanism are involved.
Hi SMVC
Yes - that would be a fair conception. I agree there is indeed a lot more to the science of it. My points above were more directed towards the debates I've had with some celebrity-following wannabe skeptics that are more than happy they have provided a counter explanation by simply saying 'apophenia' while being totally incapbale of providing an argument for why they hold that view (even though i agree with the conclusion - i have my reasons - I am interested in what theirs are).
As you rightly note, there is a lot more to it than that - but alot of these people are not aware of that information and as such, i often wonder what are the reasons people hold for proposing that view. I guess I am saying, I am skeptical of skeptics that hold conclusions that are not supported by viable reasons. I am not saying those viable reasons do not exist - just that many may not be aware of them and as such would never generate, what i see as an important development in that, looking at differences between perceptual contributions and emontional ones in experiments of apophetic thought or perception would be worthwhile.
I think you are right - I think it is more a bias in emotional processing and posisble not early perceptual processing per-se that differs across people. I would be interested in reading more about it as well, but the direct studies do not appear to have been carried out (in relation to an explanation for belief in the paranormal) - or at the very least are thin on the ground. Indeed, you will struggle to find apophenia directly studied as a perceptual or emtional phenomena in the scientific literature. There are a few papers looking at perception in noise (like degraded faces, or embedded noise / music etc) and how hallucinatory prone individuals are more prone to say 'yes' when in fact, in some conditions, its just noise. So this suggests a response bias component as well, that is completely independent early perceptual processes. So this might not be evidence in support of apophenia as it shows no differences between groups in terms of perceptual thresholds.
Early work with hallucinators by Bentall and colleagues supports a response bias interpretation of hallucination proneness in general (rather than a bias in perception). This would be consistent with a more higher-level (and possible emotional) account - but those early studies did not investigate the matter directly.
There are also studies on semnatic priming and mediation (indirect semantic priming) underlying what they call apophetic thought processes - these studies show more diffuse and disinhibited processing in semantic systems in hallucinators and deluded samples. Again, this is arguably a higher level of processing than a basic bias in perception. Check out early stuff by Peter Brugger on this. I will try and return with some additional refs for you.
There is research on perceptual processing (illusions / perception in noise etc) that speak to the issue - but not much that is my point...
Last edited: