[Rudism]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I don't understand why so many skeptical arguments at this forum are couched in vaguely disparaging language - you talk of fallacies, ψ of the gaps, and yet another reference to creationism.

I didn't mean for it to sound disparaging, I was simply pointing out some flaws that I perceived in the line of reasoning that was given. I don't tend to sugar-coat when involving myself in discussions of this nature, but I do try to remain constructive and emotionally neutral.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I've never known someone to die from lack of piano playing. Not everyone has to play the piano but we all dream during sleep at night, whether we want to or not. If we don't sleep and dream then illness leading to death can occur. Would you consider avoidance of death an 'evolutionary advantage'?

This is an argument in favor of the evolutionary development of dreaming, which I thought you were arguing against? At any rate, we all also have the ability to learn to play the piano (assuming we have a fully functioning, healthy brain). My point was simply that even in the absence of specific evolutionary pressures to select for a given ability or trait (such as playing the piano), the ability or trait can still emerge as a result of evolutionary pressures in other areas.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Well let's hear these, let's see how they could have evolved via natural selection. I accept natural selection, let's see how well they fit.

I'm not too educated in this area, but I have heard of theories that say that dreams do have an evolutionary advantage, namely the ability to play-act different potentially hazardous real-life scenarios and consider potential outcomes.

Other theories state that dreaming is a byproduct of some kind of "memory defrag," during which the brain reconfigures various neural pathways to rid itself of useless or potentially harmful information or memories.

I'm not sure where the scientific consensus is (or if there even is a consensus), but the explanation that seems the most likely to me is that it's simply a form of sleep-thinking. There is an obvious evolutionary advantage for the ability to think ahead, and consider potential future outcomes of events. There is also considerable theory behind the evolutionary advantages of sleep in general. Dreams are probably just a side-effect of these two separately evolved traits occurring at the same time.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

On my TV set I can change the brightness, contrast, colour, volume, etc. ...... I can even add snow to the screen! I can make the moving pictures rotate too! ... does that mean TV prorgrammes are generated in the TV set?
...when I change channel on my TV set, a particular area of the circuit board is activated, this provides conclusive evidence TV programs are within the TV set! My neighbour has some strange 'radio of the gaps' theory but due to adopting debunker's philosophy I have applied occams razor to rule it out as unnecessary

I hear this metaphor a lot, but it doesn't really work. The TV has a mechanism for receiving and decoding the external information which, when removed or disabled, renders the rest of the components completely useless. You could experimentally verify this with a simple test--unplugging the cable, or blocking the signals with some kind of shielding. This is not analogous to the brain--there is no evidence of any kind of external signal, but there is tons of evidence supporting a more materialistic view.

For example, if memories are stored outside of the brain, why does damage to the hippocampus affect our ability to form memories? Why are scientists able to develop drugs that can target and remove specific individual memories (see here for an example)? If the self and consciousness are external to the brain, then why does damage to the prefrontal cortex so drastically change people's personality and awarenesses?

The configuration of the brain is obviously extremely important in how we perceive the world, how we perceive ourselves, and how we behave--so where's the evidence that there's outside information involved in any of this?

I would like to see a TV that, when you damage a certain circuit, starts showing more violent programming. Or a TV where removing a component results in actors showing up in the wrong shows, or causing the plots to become noticeably more disjointed and confused. This is the kind of stuff we see happening in the brain--this is the kind of evidence we have for these processes being entirely a function of processes in the brain. There is tons of empirical evidence to suggest that the brain is responsible for these things, and zero empirical evidence that there is any kind of external component to them.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Well if a debunker claims psi is false, they should accept the burden of proof either by experiment or logical argument. If however they say 'I doubt' psi is true (or 'I doubt the brain generates consciousness') well they don't have to accept any of the burden of proof, it is personal opinion, not a statment of fact. I think you would agree this is one of the fundamental differences between true scepticism and pseudo-scepticism.

I kind of agree with this. Personally, I don't claim to know that psi doesn't exist. My claim is that there's no compelling evidence to support it, and so I don't believe it to exist. I would say the same thing about God, ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns, aliens visiting earth, and so on. If someone wants to convince me (and others like me) that any of these things really do exist, then they need to show me good evidence that can be replicated and confirmed independently (by myself, if I so desired). The part I kind of disagree with is your characterization of this stance as a matter of pure personal opinion. Science never deals with "facts" in the sense of absolute truths--it deals more with probabilities and likelihoods given our current understanding of things, as supported by evidence.