Challenge to debunkers: Can you prove hallucinations are generated inside brain :-)

[Open Mind]

This is a fun challenge for anyone to attempt to prove by logic or by evidence that hallucinations are generated by the brain (materialism) and not by an external mind functioning through the brain (dualism)

Debunker's dismiss paranormal phenomena as delusions / illusions of the mind, sensory deceptions, false memories, the brain filling in the gaps, lucid dreaming during sleep paralysis, wishful thinking, etc. Yet none of these arguments are that meaningful ....... until they prove one thing ..... the brain is producing these hallucinations.

So let me argue (for fun) the case that hallucination points to an external mind/consciousness..

(1) Materialists do not seem to be able to give a good enough reason for dreaming to evolve via natural selection, the incredibly complex capacity to dream, fantasize or hallucinate ..... at all.... period.

Yet we dream every night. If we are deprived dreaming, we can become seriously ill, the result of deprivation of sleep or dreams results in hallucinations when awake. Why are these seemingly worthless illusions so vital to our sanity and consciousness? What was the evolutionary advantage of a dream, fantasy or hallucination?

The challenge for materialists is to say how through natural selection we developed the capacity to dream, name the evolutionary advantage of the brain creating false cinematic like experiences that do not match the physical world and therefore offer no evolutionary advantage. If sceptics are going to claim dreaming is an epiphenomenon of some other vital evolutionary advantage, what specifically?

(2) Are skeptics willing to agree if a hallucination can be shared to any degree with another person simultaneously, we should view these as semi-real or virtual reality type experiences?

Is there evidence? Yes, between 1966 and 2004, 1270 controlled trials of dream telepathy experiments, 9.1% above chance creating odds of 22 billion to one. The capacity to share a dream or hallucination is also a definition of a weak virtual reality.

So debunkers can no longer state with total confidence any hallucination is 100% false. What we commonly consider 'hallucination' can now be viewed as potentially semi-real even if these do not match our physical world experience, our common (physical) sense viewpoint.

(3) Are skeptics willing to agree that *if* dream telepathy exists and *if* in other circumstances dream telepathy becomes stronger, this would indicate a stronger, more vivid virtual reality theoretically could evolve?

(4) If psi is not a brain function but an external mind function being filtered by the brain, then upon brain death psi may become much stronger, our previously weak virtual reality becomes a much strong virtual reality, vividly real and probably shared ..... yes, life after death may have evolved to become a vivid virtual reality Nature may have simply beaten us to evolving virtual reality long before we do so on any computer system.

(4)Are skeptics willing to agree that *if* the brain is a filter of a consciousness (and hallucination), not the source of consciousness, people will hallucinate/imagine when any sort of brain interface disruption occurs whether via alcohol, drugs, oxygen deprivation, brain damage, etc. so the arguments by materialistic neuroscientists that they can trigger hallucination by various means, isn't conclusive evidence the brain is generating these hallucinations and these can alternatively be viewed as little more than a spanner in the brain workings? . Hallucination may just be a fundamental aspect of an external consciousness when isolated from senses and brain interface?

(6) Therefore even if out of the body experiences or Near Death Experience do not perfectly match our common (physical) sense reality, the claim by materialists that this proves OBE/NDEs are false, is unproven until they prove hallucinations are a brain function. NDEs seem to occur even when the brain is electrically dead. . The information achieved during OBEs and NDEs do NOT need to perfectly match our physical world, all that matters is that the information is statistically beyond chance.

(7) If an external mind's natural state is to dream or fantasize, Upon physical brain death some people theoretically may become confused, become unaware they have physically died, some may enter a virtual illusion of their own making. This matches the long-standing claims of hauntings, ghosts and those trapped in tragic like dream experiences upon physical death . ....... who apparently eventually escape to the light (similar to the tunnel of light in NDE?) to enter a shared reality with others, reportedly a very pleasant virtual reality. Remember our physical world is rather virtual like too, nothing is really solid, our shared [physical senses make it appear so..

Conclusion
Debunkers, if you wish to dismiss paranormal claims, just calling these hallucinations is NOT enough. You cannot call hallucination evidence of absolutely no psi or absolutely no consciousness external to brain ...... first you have to prove a mechanism in the brain that makes people hallucinate!

Open Mind

PS Let me make it clear, I also agree with skeptics there needs to be empirical evidence for psi. However, the point of this topic is, skeptics should not dismiss psi claims because these contain fanciful elements, the only important thing is that the psi information should be beyond chance in a properly controlled experiment. The hypothesis that psi is brain filter leakage dates back to the 1890s and expects psi to be commonly weak.. It doesn't expect psi to be commonly astoundingly accurate, just slightly better than chance.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

(2) [b] Are skeptics willing to agree if a hallucination can be shared to any degree with another person simultaneously, we should view these as semi-real or virtual reality type experiences?

At Medjugorje, a group of kids (at the beginning) said they were seeing the Virgin Mary. At first, we can think it's a good exemple of "shared hallucination", but after investigation, we realise that in fact there is no "shared hallucination" at all. It's only "shared confabulations". See "Les Guerres de la vierge : Une anthropologie des apparitions" by Elisabeth Claverie.

In the ufo phenomena, we see also a lot of those cases. There is several witness. They see a mondane stimulus, but one of the witness will transform the observation by adding amazing features (very common mecanism in the ufo phenomena, of altering a mondane stimulus and transforming it in a "flying saucers"). The other witness saw the mondane stimulus. But when the ufologist comes and asks questions, he will go for the guy having the most weird testomony. And after that, he just have to say that the others "confim" what the first witness have said.

Well, in both cas, we're far from having a really "shared hallucinations".

But anyway, if people can talk together, it's maybe possible to have "shared hallucinations". Like for exemple when they are takins drugs... Suggestion is a very powerfull psychological mecanism.

[Open Mind]

Of course confabulation occurs but it cannot explain the parapsychology dream studies.

In the Maimonides dream studies mentioned above, 'confabulation' is practically impossible. One person (the receiver) sleeps in a soundproof, electromagnetically shielded room. Electrodes monitor the receiving person's brainwaves and a technician also monitors eye movements. When person enters REM sleep (that means dreaming has begun)

The sender opens a randomly selected envelope containing a picture (one of 8 others), the sending person has no contact with the sleeper and only has communication with others via a buzzer, once getting a buzz the sender tries to transmit image to sleeper.

The sleeper is then woken, their dream audio taped and independent judges who have no clue which picture was used choose the best match from the 8 pictures.

A meta-analysis of those experiments from 1966-2004 resulted in psi being found, with odds of 22 billion to 1 with a 99.999999996% confidence level the results exclude chance. But still a weak effect, only around 9% above chance

The point I am trying to make is that if psi and consciousness is not a brain function, upon brain death, shared hallucinations will increase in accuracy, vividness and detail......and we have some sort of evolving virtual reality

So it doesn't matter whether Virgin Mary existed or not, upon brain death strong belief (or faith) amongst believers may allow such an illusion to evolve, until they begin to realize they are creating it It might even mean skeptics certain there is no life after death become unaware they have died and dream they are still alive on earth.

I am NOT religious. I am probably less keen on organized religion than you are but *if* psi is not a generated by the brain, *if* hallucination is not generated by the brain and the brain is an device that evolved holding our sense of (shared) reality together through the physical senses. Then something resembling religious claims could be occurring... whether materialists like it or not.

[Open Mind]

Venom, you have used 'sleep paralysis' in some topics to dismiss paranormal claims.

Sleep paralysis is thought to be a mechanism to prevent sleepwalking, physically acting out one's vivid dreams/hallucinations.

I ask you what is the evolutionary advantage of lying down hallucinating dreams that have no obvious correlation to physical reality in a paralysed state? Leaving oneself open to attack from predators? How and why did sleep paralysis evolve through natural selection?

Materialists tell us that consciousness is a by product created by physical processes. Here we have materialists now telling us the opposite that sleep paralysis (a physical process) evolved to stop dreams being acted out (a mental process). If paralysing the body evolved to prevent accidents due to sleepwalking, as materialist seem to believe, would it not have been far simpler evolutionary step/advantage just to stop vivid imagination during sleep?

Yet if we take the hypothesis that the brain is a filter of an external consciousness that naturally hallucinates. If consciousness disassociates from the physical body (a sign might be physical paralysis) one would predict the hallucination should increase (and yes sleep paralysis is associated with particularly vivid or lucid dreaming).

So once again 'sleep paralysis' explanation cannot be used to dismiss paranormal claims. One must prove the brain is generating hallucination. Can you do that?

[Rudism]

Firstly, there are several logical fallacies you have employed in your discussion of the evolution of dreaming:

Psi of the gaps? Just because science can't currently explain something, does not automatically mean that random explanation X wins. The same tactics are used by creationists, thinking that pointing out holes in the theory of evolution is positive proof in support of a creator god. It doesn't work that way.

Personal incredulity. Science does give explanations for how dreaming developed, and there are theories about its purpose. But you say these reasons aren't "good enough." Parallels could again be drawn to creationists saying how they couldn't possibly imagine how they came from monkeys.

Straw man. You presume that every single function of the human brain must have a specific evolutionary advantage. This isn't necessarily true--consider our ability to play the piano. Clearly, the ability to play the piano could not have emerged or developed due to evolutionary pressures--pianos did not even exist until some time in the 1700s. The ability is an emergent one resulting from baser abilities that did survive and flourish due to evolutionary forces (math ability, pattern recognition, etc.) Who's to say dreaming isn't a similar emergent property?

Secondly, the fact that we can reproduce hallucinations and waking dream-like states using chemical and electrical stimulation of the brain, as well as track the different areas of the brain that are in use when this is happening (using fMRI machines) does seem to indicate pretty solidly that these things are strictly functions of the brain.

You keep saying that the burden of proof is with the scientists to "prove" a materialist explanation for dreams, hallucinations, NDEs, and so on, but that's really not how science works. I'm not familiar enough with any of the studies you allude to as evidence to be able to specifically comment on those, but if they really do exist and imply what you are claiming they imply, then it is up to those scientists to continue their work, progress their theories, run more experiments, and build up a body of evidence to support their claims. If scientists had to "disprove" every crackpot claim ever made, they'd have no time to do any real science.

[David Bailey]

Rudism (and certain other skeptics),

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. Every 'gap' is available to be filled with an orthodox explanation or supply evidence for a better theory. This process has gone on throughout the scientific process.

Since we have a physics Nobel prize winner 'on our side', it really is a bit rich to write in such a condescending fashion. There is a lot of scientific uncertainty here - not least because of the enormous difficulty in explaining consciousness itself, so why don't we all accept that intelligent humans can come to different conclusions.

Can't we disagree in a more agreeable way

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Rudism

Straw man. You presume that every single function of the human brain must have a specific evolutionary advantage. This isn't necessarily true--consider our ability to play the piano. Clearly, the ability to play the piano could not have emerged or developed due to evolutionary pressures--pianos did not even exist until some time in the 1700s.

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'?

When we are denied dreaming, a hallucinatory world seems to increasingly take over normal physical sense reality. Unlike piano playing, dreaming seems to have been so unstoppable or so necessary, sleep paralysis evolved to prevent sleep walking (or alternatively the consciousness on partially reducing interaction with the brain interface and physical senses increases a vivid/lucid creative dream state and the ability to consciously move the physical body is simultaneously reduced or lost at such times).

The same tactics are used by creationists, thinking that pointing out holes in the theory of evolution is positive proof in support of a creator god. It doesn't work that way.

I am not a creationist. I believe in natural selection. I don't believe in the 'God of the Gaps' , but yes I do think what you call 'psi of the gaps' is a serious possibility (even if a weak effect) and it is legitimate to speculate until Neo Darwinism overcomes its 'luck of the gaps' or 'denial of the gaps'

Science does give explanations for how dreaming developed, and there are theories about its purpose.

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.

Secondly, the fact that we can reproduce hallucinations and waking dream-like states using chemical and electrical stimulation of the brain

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?

, as well as track the different areas of the brain that are in use when this is happening (using fMRI machines) does seem to indicate pretty solidly that these things are strictly functions of the brain

Yes same here, 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

You keep saying that the burden of proof is with the scientists to "prove" a materialist explanation for dreams, hallucinations, NDEs, and so on, but that's really not how science works.

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.

[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.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Rudism

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.

This is an extremely powerful argument - possibly the only decent argument in favour of a purely physical basis for consciousness. However, my view is that purely materialistic explanations for consciousness ultimately run into contradictions - as I have been arguing with Mszlazak. Let me offer a few suggestions as to how dualism may be able to survive this argument:

1) The non-material part of consciousness does not need to be a single entity. Damaging the physical brain may disrupt the balance between such entities. Schizophrenic patients do actually report multiple entities in their heads. Even normal people often find that they are pulled in several directions, as if by two individuals with different motivation. Again, the orthodox interpretation is that is just an analogy, but maybe it isn't

2) Science, and in particular medical science, always interprets evidence from a materialistic standpoint. Thus, for example, the multiple personalities of schizophrenia are simply considered as some sort of vague disorder of the brain - orthodox science never even considers that this may be evidence of multiple (non-physical) entities occupying the same brain. This bias may distort some of the facts considerably.

3) The TV analogy is only an analogy - but it is amusing that if the signal to a digital TV(at least in the UK), as opposed to analog, degrades, the effect is more interesting. The image can become jerky, and faces can sometimes look horribly distorted. This is obviously the effect of noise on digital image compression process, but it illustrates that the relationship can be more complex than one might think.

4) Maybe an intact brain communicates with just one non-physical entity, but when it is damaged, other entities tune in to a greater or less extent. A damaged or badly tuned TV (or at least radio) can pull in more than one station at once.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Rudism

This is an argument in favor of the evolutionary development of dreaming, which I thought you were arguing against?

Rudism, materialists do not own 'natural selection' Do dreams evolve? Possibly in content but it doesn't mean the dreamer is created inside the brain. To clarify, I am arguing here the case the brain filters our conscious awareness (and is not the source of consciousness) and the brain filter evolved via natural selection.

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.

It is poorly supported, most people recall less than 1% of their dreams and the content of most dreams are hardly hazardous real-life' scenarios, many dreams poorly model physical reality.

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.

This theory has even bigger problems, how can the unconscious decide which are useful or harmful memories? What is the criteria used for a useful or useless memory? Surely that requires consciousness? The materialist argument enters further problems here because during lucid dreaming the consciousness seems to guide the dream but according to materialism 'consciousness' is an 'user illusion' of an unconscious neurological processes.

....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.

The problem here is that dreams do not model physical reality well at all, one might dream we are swimming through the air, knocking over a building with a sweeping brush .. and so on ...

Yet if another mind shares those same thoughts simultaneously, via telepathy, it doesn't matter how far fetched or how poor the dream matches our physical 'reality', we have a virtual reality of sorts that could theoretically evolve if telepathy becomes stronger upon brain death..

Does an external mind model virtual reality but due to the brain filtering out telepathy, the consciousness generate personal illusions during sleep , practical creativity during waking (when the physical sense are not resting) And upon brain death vivid viritual (shared) realities?

I hear this metaphor a lot, but it doesn't really work.

Well no metaphor works perfectly but let me defend the TV metaphor by just substituting words .....

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.

This could also be phrased as ' The brain is a mechanism for receiving and filtering the external consciousness, which when removed or disabled, renders the rest of the brain components completely useless...'

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.

There is evidence and it is called psi :-) Psi is commonly weak, logically it is weak due to the brain filtering.

For example, if memories are stored outside of the brain, why does damage to the hippocampus affect our ability to form memories?

Because the brain filter pathways to external memories are damaged?

Why are scientists able to develop drugs that can target and remove specific individual memories (see here for an example)?

Because the brain filter neural pathway to that external memory is disconnected?

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

Because the brain filter damage prevents the normal physical expression of personality and awareness?

The configuration of the brain is obviously extremely important in how we perceive the world, how we perceive ourselves, and how we behave

If the brain filter evolved to 'perceive' and interact with the physical world, it would affect how we perceive ourselves.

--so where's the evidence that there's outside information involved in any of this?

100 years of psychical research, 80 years of parapsychology......controversial for sure.... but can it all be explained away as error, fraud and deception? Personally I don't think so.

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.

But the brain scientists cannot make an actor (or even ghost) consistently appear in the wrong setting either. Can they?

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.

Agreed.