Response to Skeptics' Guide Host, Dr. Steven Novella (Podcast)

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Unless you can also describe how the brain can generate consciousness, you cannot definitively say destroying the brain, destroys consciousness.

Wrong. Argument from ignorance. Do you deny the empirical evidence that destroying the brain destroys consciousness? Jesus.

... I, like other scientists have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind. But now, perhaps, the time has come when we may profitably consider the evidence as it stands ......how I came to take seriously, even to believe, that the consciousness of man, the mind, is not something to be reduced to the brain-mechanism....' - Neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, famous for mapping the functions of various regions of the brain. (Few have attempted to repeat some of Penfield's experiments)

He died in 1976 at the age of 85. He never had an fMRI, and he's not the first scientist to turn into a nutbar in his latter years, as he approached his own impending mortality. And he also said something to the effect of, "There is no place in the brain where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide." The implication being that the brain is not involved in decision making. Which we now know today is completely wrong. Catch up.

Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.

Let's see...who's the more credible authority on the subject? A neurosurgeon born in 1891, or modern neurologists, using modern tools? Hmm....

Here is what you wrote 'I think that's a succinct slam-dunk of dualism'.

Ooooh. You got me. Provisional beliefs. That's skepticism. Sorry I can't remember every single rhetorical device I write.

I do not rate Paul Kurtz's political type of scepticism, there is little scientific about it IMHO.

Whatever. That's an ad hominem argument, and purely your opinion, as you admit. Truth is truth.

The origin of the word scepticism is consideration or doubt.

So you believe in prescriptivism re vocabulary? How quaint. Look up the origin of the word "dork." It has a decidedly different meaning today.

All of these prove that you have not read Radin's work. Radin has never attempted to prove 'some non-material aspect to our reality' Like you, Radin for many years has stated he thinks consciousness (and psi) is probably brain generated. But unlike you he is willing to consider it might not be.

Oh I've read Radin's work. Yeah, he always leaves a little crack in the exit door. "Maybe consciousness is stored in the environment in some unkown fashion," or whatever it is he says. Intentional chocolate, that's all I've got to say about Radin. And that's not an ad hominem argument. That speaks directly to his credibility as a scientist.

So what did you mean by 'I think that's a succinct slam-dunk of dualism'.

I clearly meant that the time has come to discard silly notions of dualism, as they aren't supported by any evidence, while materialism is supported by tons and tons of evidence. The time has come to discard silly notions of creationism, as it isn't supported by any evidence, while evolution is supported by tons and tons of evidence.

Where were these published before as predictions, if not, it is ad hoc.

The term you meant use is post hoc. This is not "post hoc" reasoning. Many, many falsifiable claims have been made by the materialist hypothesis, even going as far back as Aristotle. Not one has been proven false.

A further problem presented by the affections of soul is this: are they all affections of the complex of body and soul, or is there any one among them peculiar to the soul itself? ...If we consider the majority of them, there seems to be no case in which the soul can act or be acted upon without involving the body; e.g. anger, courage, appetite, and sensation generally. Thinking seems the most probable exception; but if this too proves to be a form of imagination or to be impossible without imagination, it too requires a body as a condition of its existence.
- Aristotle, De Anima. Translated by J.A. Smith

The claims of materialism are examples post hoc reasoning? Give me a break.

How do you know this, are you making psychic claim here to know the unknowable?

Come on man. Stop the coy BS. You know the proper response to this is to actually present some evidence. You have none.

Very difficult to falsify as you will claim any mental effect not measured physically did not really occur. However I referred to Libet reference that it could be occurring. As I previously mentioned Near Death Experiences are suggestive evidence of this, which are much harder to debunk than you might think

More vagueness. No references, as usual. In fact, near death hallucinations and out-of-body experiences are easy to explain as material phenomena.

Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.

What we fundamentally disagree on is .......you are saying the mind=brain with what sounds 100% certainty,

No, I'm saying clearly that just as the evidence shows that provisional acceptance of evolution is reasonable and creationism no longer tenable, provisional acceptance of materialism is reasonable, and dualism no longer tenable. Science is about probability. The evidence suggests that the probability that the dualist hypothesis is true is next to zero.

I am saying there is not sufficient evidence to be so confident that the mind and brain are the same thing..... at least yet.

Back to those rainbow farting ponies. Or Russell's Teapot, if you prefer.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
- Bertrand Russell

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by skidoo

He died in 1976 at the age of 85. He never had an fMRI, and he's not the first scientist to turn into a nutbar in his latter years, as he approached his own impending mortality. And he also said something to the effect of, "There is no place in the brain where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide." The implication being that the brain is not involved in decision making. Which we now know today is completely wrong. Catch up.

l

Skidoo - You really are insufferably arrogant! I suppose you are just getting ready to collect your Nobel Prize - or maybe you have never done any real science in your life - just acquired an attitude. There are other skeptiks here who manage to argue hard for what they believe without crossing the line into rudeness and disrespect.

David

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Skidoo - You really are insufferably arrogant! I suppose you are just getting ready to collect your Nobel Prize - or maybe you have never done any real science in your life - just acquired an attitude. There are other skeptiks here who manage to argue hard for what they believe without crossing the line into rudeness and disrespect.

No logical rebuttal. No contradictory references. Just an empty personal attack. Your opinion about my style of debate is of course your prerogative. But truth is truth. And evidence is evidence.

Just imagine there's a little smiley face after every paragraph.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Skidoo - You really are insufferably arrogant! I suppose you are just getting ready to collect your Nobel Prize - or maybe you have never done any real science in your life - just acquired an attitude. There are other skeptiks here who manage to argue hard for what they believe without crossing the line into rudeness and disrespect.

David

He's maybe arogant (so what?), but I don't see any "rudeness" or "disrespect" in his post.

He's taking more time to debunk what some of you are saying than more skeptic would do (because it's a waste of time), so good job skidoo. Keep on the good work.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Wrong. Argument from ignorance. Do you deny the empirical evidence that destroying the brain destroys consciousness? Jesus.

I do not deny that destroying other people's brains, certainly appears to destroy their consciousness from physical communication via physical senses. Do you believe you can go further than this?

If one looks into psychical research, witnesses claim empirical evidence of communication not via normal physical senses, of course materialists reject this a-priori or materialistic model becomes falsified.

He died in 1976 at the age of 85. He never had an fMRI, and he's not the first scientist to turn into a nutbar in his latter years, as he approached his own impending mortality. And he also said something to the effect of, "There is no place in the brain where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide."

The implication being that the brain is not involved in decision making. Which we now know today is completely wrong. Catch up.

But you should also note that those modern fMRI studies are seldom doing what Penfield was doing. Before brain surgery Penfield was electrically stimulating directly parts of the brain to see what would occur while the patient was still conscious, his experiments AFAIK have not been repeated in recent times, so Penfield's work remains valid

Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.

From what I can telling without buying subscriptions all of these are fMRI correlations that could be interpreted or reinterpreted in various ways (I will try to check some out later and comment if these are claiming more than correlations)

You now accept fMRI correlations does not prove causations. Again, arguably these are just like monitoring a driver and car, with a camera showing regions called the steering wheel and pedals are activated then physicalists claiming this as evidence the steering wheel and pedals are involved in decision making of the car driver. Correlation isn't enough, one needs to explain causation, how one aspect triggers another and so on

More vagueness. No references, as usual. In fact, near death hallucinations and out-of-body experiences are easy to explain as material phenomena.

Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.
Reference.

I am aware of most of these and they still do not falsify the brain as a filter of the mind hypothesis
Only one of those refers to recent research names I am not aware of ....... let me check it out.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

If one looks into psychical research, numerous cases of witnesses claiming empirical evidence of communication not via normal physical senses, of course materialists reject this a-priori or materialism model becomes at least partially falsified.

This is not empirical evidence, it's anecdotal evidence. Big difference. And again, you give no references.

But you should also note that those modern fMRI studies are seldom doing what Penfield was doing. Before brain surgery Penfield was electrically stimulating directly parts of the brain to see what would occur while the patient was still conscious, his experiments AFAIK have not been repeated in recent times, so Penfield's work remains valid.

Are you kidding me? Go read those studies. They were all done while the patient was conscious, and they provide empirical evidence for what regions of the brain are involved in decision making. If you damage these decision making centers, this affects the patient's decision making capacity. The ability of an independent agent (be it a homunculus or a transmission or whatever) to make decisions (AKA free will) is at the root of all dualist hypotheses. These studies CLEARLY show that decision making originates in the brain.

And you seem to like analogies so arguably these are just like asking/stimulating people to turn a car, with a camera showing regions called the steering wheel and pedals are activated then physicalists claiming this as evidence the steering wheel and pedals are involved in decision making of the car driver.

No, wrong. Alter the brain, alter the decision making abilities (lesions, scars, electro-magnetic suppression, etc.). I can't help it if you don't have access to the actual articles. Read the abstracts and the cross-references and the papers that cite THESE papers, and I'm sure at least some of them have the responses available online. Follow the actual evidence, and dispense with the fantastical speculation.

Correlation isn't enough, one needs to explain causation, how one aspect triggers another and so on

Bullcrap. Sailors->scurvy->limes. Nevertheless, cause is directly attributed to brain function in most of these studies.

I am aware of most of these and they still do not falsify the brain as a filter of the consciousness hypothesis

You're hopeless. You cited near-death experiences as evidence of mental phenomena occurring without brain function. I referenced a small sample of the multitude of studies which suggest far more plausible explanations. You're clinging to your faith by your fingernails.

Only one of those refers to recent research names I am not aware of ....... so let me check if I can obtain it;s content without a subscription.

More vagueness. Why not actually rebut the evidence?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I am aware of most of these and they still do not falsify the brain as a filter of the mind hypothesis

Like most studies they do not falsify superfluous and untestable hypotheses. The experiments can and do demonstrate that the phenomena that you claim support the brain filter hypothesis (not really a hypothesis yet) can be explained without superfluous supernatural causes.

I can't prove that Uri Geller doesn't have psychic abilities. When he is caught cheating on one occasion it doesn't prove that he is cheating on all other occasions. When Randi reproduces Geller's tricks by normal means that doesn't prove that Geller isn't using psychic abilities when he does the tricks. However, only an idiot would believe that Geller really does have psychic abilities. Everything can and is explained without superfluous supernatural abilities.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Like most studies they do not falsify superfluous and untestable hypotheses. The experiments can and do demonstrate that the phenomena that you claim support the brain filter hypothesis (not really a hypothesis yet) can be explained without superfluous supernatural causes.

I can't prove that Uri Geller doesn't have psychic abilities. When he is caught cheating on one occasion it doesn't prove that he is cheating on all other occasions. When Randi reproduces Geller's tricks by normal means that doesn't prove that Geller isn't using psychic abilities when he does the tricks. However, only an idiot would believe that Geller really does have psychic abilities. Everything can and is explained without superfluous supernatural abilities.

Well-said. Occam's Razor for.... Well, I don't want to get into trouble.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by skidoo

This is not empirical evidence, it's anecdotal evidence. Big difference. And again, you give no references.

It is empirical evidence, empirical means evidence by experience, observation or experiment.

You want Psychical Research references? I know I am probably wasting my time, since you won't accept lab based evidence, I doubt you will even consider these ....... like most hard skeptics you are more likely to choose to read a filtered versions (than original reports) through skeptic websites written by non-present debunkers i.e. non-empirical versions.

Nor am I claiming the below are easy to replicate scientific evidence, just empirical evidence, the sort that would be seriously considered evidence in a court of law.

Mediumship- Mental Phenomena
(1)Leonora Piper investigated by debunker and hard sceptic Dr Richard Hodgson.and numerous scientists. Eventually Hodgson changed opinion to conclude ' I cannot profess to have any doubt .....the personalities that they claim to be, that they have survived the change we call death, and they have directly communicated with us' . Also investigated by Professor James Hyslop who concluded ' I regard the existence of spirits scientifically proved and I no longer regard the sceptic as having any right to speak on the matter .... and do not propose to argue with him on the supposition he knows anything about the subject'

(2)Another intriguing claim of mediumship is Eileen Garrett tested by various scientists

(3) Controlled experiments on various mediums have had positive results under blind, double blind and triple blind conditions ....including Pratt/Birge (1940s), Professor Scmeidler (1950s), Professor Schwartz (2000s), Professor Roy (2000s),

(4) The Cross-Correspondences .... puzzling, complex and hard to debunk.

------

Unexplained physical or séance phenomena
Note: although I am more sceptical of such claims than above due to many past cases of fraud - yes I know about these cases .... but some remain unresolved and far from clear cut.....for example ..
.
(1) The case of Stella Cranshaw – investigated by debunker of many mediums and initially hard skeptic Harry Price, magician friend of Harry Houdini. (Incidentally Harry Price had a letter from Houdini saying he believed one case of another physical medium he investigated was real, suggesting Houdini was less certain in private than in public). Harry Price and others claimed Stella Cranshaw was genuine.

(2) Scole séance circle in 1990s (nothng to do with Colin Fry) investigated by many scientists and a magician, none could detect fraud. Sue Blackmore was invited (she refused the invitation) Richard Wiseman was invited (reportedly he couldn't manage) , others attended from around the world .....after a few years it ended. The leading researchers, all convinced, challenged debunker magicians to replicate the same reported phenomena under the same control conditions – no magicians took up the challenge.

-----

Apparitions
Over a 100 documented cases of more than one witness simultaneously perceiving an apparition – GMN Tyrell.

-----

Dr Ian Stevenson research
Many cases of young infant children reporting information from the past suggestive of reincarnation, discarnate mind unfleunce or past events.

-----
Near Death Experience Research
Investigated by scientists Parnia, Fenwick, Sabom, Greyson,, Ring, Moody and others .....I might comment on why those experiments you quoted do not invalidate their research.... time permitting... but. this has already been discussed a lot on this forum already ....

-----

But here is my 'empirical' experience - the reason why I am not a hard skeptic ...... In the 1980s, I was present when my grandmother, by then an old lady crippled with arthritis said she could see my other 'dead' grandmother Kate. I could see nobody there. My grandmothers had only met on a few occasions at weddings etc. in life. My grandmother said Kate (the 'dead' grandmother) was very worried about her son Robert (my uncle - still alive on earth) and she was telling us to get in contact with him as soon as possible. We did phone shortly later, Uncle Robert had just had heart attack a little earlier (had never been seriously ill before) and had been rushed into hospital . ......no one in the family knew, my grandmother had no direct contact with that side of the family. Just an astonishing coincidence?

------

Skidoo, I am sure you will dismiss these without much consideration. The above references I have selected (and there are many others, possibly better but less well known). Nor am I claiming all these are beyond questioning, open minded scepticism is essential However biased selective reporting on skeptic websites like 'skeptics dictionary' for skeptics to treat like some accurate reference point without reading the original reports really isn't scientific or fair. Anyone making a paranormal claim is sooner or later accused of fraud, some people too keen to debunk and too lazy to investigate are apt to think if they can imagine a fraudulent method it must have occurred. So rumour of fraud or hearsay of fraud isn't decent evidence of fraud.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Nor am I claiming the below are easy to replicate scientific evidence, just empirical evidence, the sort that would be seriously considered evidence in a court of law.

I hope we all agree here that the scientific process and a court of law have completely different standart of evidence.

You can seriously compare them.