89. “God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathic Link in Lab Exp

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

That's because there is no way to study something that is immaterial. I've asked at least 50 times what science should do to open the door to the immaterial, but I've never once received an answer.

~~ Paul

This is a subject I wish we would discuss more. I wish the skeptics would discuss this as well - even if they still think everything is ultimately physical.

As I have said before, I think the true distinction is non-mechanistic rather than non-physical. If you have a mechanism, Penrose's Godel argument (at least probably) comes into play. A mechanism also seems to rob us of free will - at least if you avoid philosophical subtleties.

Conventional physics tells us that if you measure a system not in an eigenstate, you will get one of a number of possible answers - you can't know which in advance. That is already a huge step - notably hated by Einstein. Now suppose that either consciousness interacts with matter using Stapp's scheme, or it actually biases the quantum probabilities themselves - either way, we actually have a physical model of how non-physical influences could exert control!

On the experimental side, you could start with Persinger's new observation.

The thing that really makes you balk (I think) is that it is hard to see how to 'take to pieces' non-physical conscious entities. Maybe you can't - maybe you can only study them, like an ornithologist who doesn't want to injure any birds - or indeed like an astrophysicist!

As I said, I wish we could focus on this issue - perhaps we should start a new thread devoted to this - do you want to start one?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Conventional physics tells us that if you measure a system not in an eigenstate, you will get one of a number of possible answers - you can't know which in advance. That is already a huge step - notably hated by Einstein. Now suppose that either consciousness interacts with matter using Stapp's scheme, or it actually biases the quantum probabilities themselves - either way, we actually have a physical model of how non-physical influences could exert control

What nonphysical influence? You still have a large blob of magic fooling around at the quantum level. How does science study that magic?

The thing that really makes you balk (I think) is that it is hard to see how to 'take to pieces' non-physical conscious entities. Maybe you can't - maybe you can only study them, like an ornithologist who doesn't want to injure any birds - or indeed like an astrophysicist!

I don't even know how to locate them, let alone study them. Oh wait, we can't locate them, because if we could then they would be materialistic.

As I've said, the immaterialists have a vested interest in keeping the immaterial magically inaccesible. As soon as it's accessible, it's mechanistic.

As I said, I wish we could focus on this issue - perhaps we should start a new thread devoted to this - do you want to start one?

Please do; I promise to participate. Let's start by describing how we can have an immaterial thing that is neither locatable nor mechanistic, yet somehow can be studied by science.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Please do; I promise to participate. Let's start by describing how we can have an immaterial thing that is neither locatable nor mechanistic, yet somehow can be studied by science.

~~ Paul

Couldn't be studied by science in the narrow definition of the word. We need to introduce other types of causes as explained by Aristotle and elaborated upon by Aquinas. In particular end causes or teleology. In short we need to abandon the mechanistic picture of the world.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

All of your observations regarding Persinger - combined with the fact that he is obviously a bright guy - gave me the impression that he was just avoiding dumping himself in deep, grant-sapping waters! Did you also noticed that he never justified his assertion that all consciousness is produced inside the head - he just produced it as an axiom! Towards the end, he did weaken that idea slightly be proposing that consciousness could reside inside a suitably complex electromagnetic field, or inside a computer, but I guess we have flogged ideas like that to death here already

David

One thing about Persinger that I find really amazing is that he funds his own work. Laurentian University provides space, and he does get paid as a professor, but he funds the research himself. Apparently he doesn't like the restrictions placed on research funded by government grants. He pays his own way and does what he wants.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Couldn't be studied by science in the narrow definition of the word. We need to introduce other types of causes as explained by Aristotle and elaborated upon by Aquinas. In particular end causes or teleology. In short we need to abandon the mechanistic picture of the world.

Then what prevents us from simply making it up as we go along? Perhaps some people don't care.

~~ Paul

[Sandy B]

I think Persinger's work is really important to both sides. Knowing how the brain functions and why it functions the way it does is just as important if you consider it a receiver for an non-local consciousness or if you believe the brain is the source of consciousness.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Couldn't be studied by science in the narrow definition of the word. We need to introduce other types of causes as explained by Aristotle and elaborated upon by Aquinas. In particular end causes or teleology. In short we need to abandon the mechanistic picture of the world.

Yes - science has been introducing new kinds of causation down the centuries - that is what Paul doesn't seem to get.

I also think that Paul should realise that we have to deal with the world as it is - if there are 'blobs of magic' (Paul's terminology) involved, we are going to have to face up to that, or just get stuck! I'd say attempts to explain consciousness are VERY stuck right now. Donald Hoffman - himself a neuroscientist - puts this very well.

Even if we only think of Penrose's argument as a plausibility argument, it suggests that mechanistic consciousness is impossible. This corresponds well with our normal intuition. OK, intuition doesn't always serve us well in science, but it is probably the best guide we have in questions of consciousness.

However, in a way, science has already dabbled with non-mechanisms. We call it psychology, and other related disciplines. We simply 'sanitise' this research by pretending that it could all be reduced to neuro-chemicals diffusing across synapses, etc! Unfortunately, this sanitisation comes at a price, because anything that could obviously not be reduced in this way - even in principle - such as ESP, becomes taboo. Without that taboo, people would be falling over themselves to repeat (or potentially refute) Persinger's experiment.

David

[Ian Holfield]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

We simply 'sanitise' this research by pretending that it could all be reduced to neuro-chemicals diffusing across synapses, etc! Unfortunately, this sanitisation comes at a price, because anything that could obviously not be reduced in this way - even in principle - such as ESP, becomes taboo.

David

Though historically people have saught to fit it into 'mechanistic' models. 'Mental Radio' etc......the idea that psi effects could be explained by some sort of energetic field effect generated by or linked to the brain.

This is all very well, (apart from experimental results showing that it doesn't seem to comply with inverse square reduction) but it doesn't fit precognition at all.

That would require precognition to be a non energy-mediated 'power'.......

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Ian Holfield

Though historically people have saught to fit it into 'mechanistic' models. 'Mental Radio' etc......the idea that psi effects could be explained by some sort of energetic field effect generated by or linked to the brain.

This is all very well, (apart from experimental results showing that it doesn't seem to comply with inverse square reduction) but it doesn't fit precognition at all.

That would require precognition to be a non energy-mediated 'power'.......

Exactly, and physical models always seem to miss the point - you don't just need an interaction, it has to somehow convey meaning!

For example, looked at conventionally, a brain stores its memories as a complex pattern of connections. Memories include just about every concept we have. These connections are supposed to have formed stochastically, and one person's set of connections should not be meaningful to another - so even given a physical brain-brain link, you still would not get ESP.

Again thinking about ESP, there is the problem as to how a brain would be able to focus on one other brain and ignore the rest - every brain would need its own frequency!

As you say, precognition - which seem particularly well established in the form of presentiment - defeats any physical interpretation.

I've long felt that either every bit of evidence for psi is somehow junk, or there is a big hole in our present picture of how the universe operates!

David

[FastEddieB]

As you say, precognition - which seem particularly well established in the form of presentiment - defeats any physical interpretation.

Why?

Interesting take here:

Is Time an Illusion?: Scientific American

If time is, in fact, an illusion, what would preclude jumping slightly ahead? In the real, physical world? And if not there, where?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - some Shakespeare guy