Is physicalism / materialism a dangerous belief?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Might be, but I'd expect to have seen at least some glimmers of that mindon, psychon, or psion peaking through already.

~~ Paul

It may be a mistake to automatically assume that a theory of mental stuff would look so much like physical theory.

However, what is needed to begin with is to collect some quality data rather than bicker over existing experiments! For example, determine once and for all if presentiment is an artefact or a genuine phenomenon. Do the same for some of Sheldrake's experiments. These experiments are fairly easily reproducible (i.e. they don't need long series of experiments to build up statistical significance), and could be exhaustively explored if it were not for the taboo.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

It may be a mistake to automatically assume that a theory of mental stuff would look so much like physical theory.

All I'm assuming is that there will be some mechanism underlying consciousness, as opposed to entire human minds just existing out of nothing.

However, what is needed to begin with is to collect some quality data rather than bicker over existing experiments! For example, determine once and for all if presentiment is an artefact or a genuine phenomenon. Do the same for some of Sheldrake's experiments. These experiments are fairly easily reproducible (i.e. they don't need long series of experiments to build up statistical significance), and could be exhaustively explored if it were not for the taboo.

David, you're dreaming. You're living in a conspiratorial world in which some universal taboo is preventing the discovery of one of the most important aspects of human existence. This conspiracy has been going on for over 150 years, in spite of other paradigm-smashing discoveries that replaced entire chunks of science in less than 30 years. You're assuming that scientists give a flying crap about "prevailing philosophical ontologies" and care to protect some bit of philosophy that is basically irrelevant to their work.

The experiments are not fairly easily reproducible. There is no standard parapsychology experiment that can be performed by freshman parapsychologists at Duke University. It was going to be zener cards. Then it was going to be remote viewing. Then the Ganzfeld. Now it's supposed to be presentiment. The experimenter effect was rock-solid, except then Wiseman and Schlitz's third set of experiments failed to produce result for either of them.

Skeptics can come up with reasons to ignore some successful psi experiments, and believers can come up with reasons to ignore some failures. And that is precisely the reason we say that the experiments are not replicable.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Skeptics can come up with reasons to ignore some successful psi experiments, and believers can come up with reasons to ignore some failures. And that is precisely the reason we say that the experiments are not replicable.

~~ Paul

That is the point - it would clear the air if one or two well know experiments of this sort could be resolved exhaustively, rather than simply critiquing the work that has been done.

I honestly don't know how you can say there is no taboo. For example, unless you think he is a liar, Dean Radin says his experiment has been reproduced independently by several groups, but they are still deciding if they dare publish! Nobody remotely connected with science likes to admit an interest in Ψ.

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

All I'm assuming is that there will be some mechanism underlying consciousness, as opposed to entire human minds just existing out of nothing.

Aren't there other possibilities? For example, simpler consciousnesses that come together to form what we know as the human mind.

As we have discussed, physics has retreated from giving a truly satisfying explanation of phenomena - perhaps at some level - maybe lower than the whole human mind - consciousness is not decomposable. I don't think it can be a 'mechanism underlying consciousness' because if there were, we would be back with the standard physicalist setup.

My point is that saying that consciousness may ultimately be irreducible doesn't mean there might not be a lot of interesting things to discover before we got there.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

That is the point - it would clear the air if one or two well know experiments of this sort could be resolved exhaustively, rather than simply critiquing the work that has been done.

I agree, so tell all the parapsychologists of the world to do just that, rather than changing the paradigm du jour every few years.

I honestly don't know how you can say there is no taboo. For example, unless you think he is a liar, Dean Radin says his experiment has been reproduced independently by several groups, but they are still deciding if they dare publish! Nobody remotely connected with science likes to admit an interest in ?.

So everyone who has been doing parapsychology experiments for the past 150 years was not remotely connected with science? Why, that might lead me to believe that parapsychology is a pseudoscience.

Sorry, they've just got to suck it up and grow some balls. To whatever extent there is a taboo, moaning and groaning about it isn't going to help.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Aren't there other possibilities? For example, simpler consciousnesses that come together to form what we know as the human mind.

Which would require a mechanism.

As we have discussed, physics has retreated from giving a truly satisfying explanation of phenomena - perhaps at some level - maybe lower than the whole human mind - consciousness is not decomposable. I don't think it can be a 'mechanism underlying consciousness' because if there were, we would be back with the standard physicalist setup.

So your "simpler consciousnesses" form human consciousness without any underlying mechanism for doing so?

My point is that saying that consciousness may ultimately be irreducible doesn't mean there might not be a lot of interesting things to discover before we got there.

Agreed.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Well, that's half the story: The brain filters an external conscousness. Now how does that external consciousness work and why can't we detect it?

Well the most obvious way to detect it would be consciousness experienced during brain electrical inactivity, as indicated in many Near Death Experiences... here is another video clip example ....
Dr Allan Hamilton

Can you point me to a concise description of Bergson's theory so I can determine whether it is falsifiable at all?

Bergson had many theories on perception, memory, freewill, time, evolution etc. ... all interrelated but specifically what we are mostly interested in here is his concept that psi is being filtered out by the evolution of the brain.
See - 'Phantasms of the living and psychical research' (1913) – Henri Bergson
Note: Bergson wrote comparitively little on psychical research/parapsychology. So the theory is often associated with William James, Myres, etc. However Bergson's theories in 'Matter and Memory', 'Time and Freewill' , 'Creative Evolution' lead to it.

His theories can be explored in various different directions........for example
The Holographic Theory of Mind

Do tell how we are going to test morphogenetic fields when Sheldrake will not specify which systems have them and which do not.

I said Sheldrake's 'formative causation' hypothesis can be tested..First things first

Well, those folks who established the Society of Psychical Research in 1882 sure thought they were doing real science.

And they were but I was replying to your comment 'Yet somehow 150 years of research has not come up with a theory ' Finding a theory was not their initial priority, more often they were checking whether claims were actually objectively true and the majority of esteemed scientists came to the conclusion, yes. However they were not testing hypotheses, they were doing observational field research, following claims of witnesses etc. The research moved to labs around 1930, which was better for testing theories on how psi might work.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Which would require a mechanism.


So your "simpler consciousnesses" form human consciousness without any underlying mechanism for doing so?


Agreed.

~~ Paul

As with my example of gravitational fields - science teaches us that sometimes we have to accept explanations that don't seem complete. Newton didn't have a 'mechanism' for gravity, he just had an equation.

Regarding experimentation, unfortunately Sheldrake can perform experiments as much as he likes and most scientists will not believe him. The need is for others to do these experiments and resolve exactly what is going on. I am sick of reading critiques (sometimes by people who don't seem to have even read the original papers!) of this research. I would love to see some resolution. If presentiment is an artefact, how exactly does it work, and does it relate to Libet's neural timing results?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Well the most obvious way to detect it would be consciousness experienced during brain electrical inactivity, as indicated in many Near Death Experiences...

So you're suggesting that the way to accumulate evidence for an external consciousness is through the reports of people's inner experiences? That doesn't do it for me.

Bergson had many theories on perception, memory, freewill, time, evolution etc. ... all interrelated but specifically what we are mostly interested in here is his concept that psi is being filtered out by the evolution of the brain.
See - 'Phantasms of the living and psychical research' (1913) – Henri Bergson

Have you got a link to the content of this paper?

I said Sheldrake's 'formative causation' hypothesis can be tested..First things first

I think morphogenetic fields are first:

"The hypothesis of formative causation proposes that morphogenetic fields play a causal role in the development and maintenance of the forms of systems at all levels of complexity. In this context, the word 'form' is taken to include not only the shape of the outer surface or boundary of a system, but also its internal structure."

But I'd love to discuss the falsifiability of any of this if you care to give a link to a primary source.

And they were but I was replying to your comment 'Yet somehow 150 years of research has not come up with a theory ' Finding a theory was not their initial priority, more often they were checking whether claims were actually objectively true and the majority of esteemed scientists came to the conclusion, yes. However they were not testing hypotheses, they were doing observational field research, following claims of witnesses etc. The research moved to labs around 1930, which was better for testing theories on how psi might work.

I think you can make proposals without needing a lab, but anyway, now it's been 78 years in the lab and I still can't find a theory.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

As with my example of gravitational fields - science teaches us that sometimes we have to accept explanations that don't seem complete. Newton didn't have a 'mechanism' for gravity, he just had an equation.

Okay then, call me when the math appears.

Regarding experimentation, unfortunately Sheldrake can perform experiments as much as he likes and most scientists will not believe him. The need is for others to do these experiments and resolve exactly what is going on. I am sick of reading critiques (sometimes by people who don't seem to have even read the original papers!) of this research. I would love to see some resolution. If presentiment is an artefact, how exactly does it work, and does it relate to Libet's neural timing results?

Wiseman replicated the experiments and came to the conclusion that nothing is happening. However, all the psi mongers dismiss his experiments. I guess that happens on both sides of the fence.

~~ Paul