45. Researching Psychic Mediums (Podcast)

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Things are assumed to have a naturalistic explanation until someone comes up with compelling evidence otherwise. If we assume the opposite default, then scientists have to spend all their time convincing you that the horse fell over because it broke its ankle, rather than because a cadre of fairies played a joke on it.

While one can understand how a broken ankle could trip a horse, explanations of consciousness, dreams or hallucinations have no working explanation. So I don't think Occams Razor can be used, it is useful to choose the least complex theory but since no one knows how to model these, one cannot argue a brain model version is simpler or even practical from only raw material via natural selection alone.

Indeed, that's what objectivity is. The funny thing is that these objectively-agreed events keep happening even while we're not paying attention.

Quantum Zeno effect?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

While one can understand how a broken ankle could trip a horse, explanations of consciousness, dreams or hallucinations have no working explanation. So I don't think Occams Razor can be used, it is useful to choose the least complex theory but since no one knows how to model these, one cannot argue a brain model version is simpler or even practical from only raw material via natural selection alone.

I'm not invoking Occam. Science simply assumes a naturalistic explanation because no one can even explain what a supernatural explanation would be like, let alone propose one. There is no way for science to work other than by assuming naturalistic explanations.

I agree it's too early for Occam, since no one has a working model of consciousness.

Quantum Zeno effect?

I have no idea.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I'm not invoking Occam. Science simply assumes a naturalistic explanation because no one can even explain what a supernatural explanation would be like, let alone propose one. There is no way for science to work other than by assuming naturalistic explanations.

Paul I think psi is natural. I am not saying it is naturally conscious but I think it is unconsciously natural.

I don't like the term 'supernatural' at all .... it has traditionally been used to imply a God/creator outside the laws of nature, by the religious to scaremonger, by film makers to invent monsters and by *some* materialists to make psi sound super impossible.

I am suggesting psi will follow laws, natural laws, these just aren't understood yet.

I don't mind the term 'paranormal' (although some psi proponents dislike it). I think psi is not often normally conscious, more normal at the unconscious level, so i am happy with the term.

Edited to add, I think my use of 'unconscious' might confuse some casual readers in here. By 'unconscious' I mean the brain is filtering out information that was not a clear evolutionary advantage and sometimes an evolutionary disadvantage to individual human consciousness

I agree it's too early for Occam, since no one has a working model of consciousness.

I am pleased you are willing to acknowledge this. I think that makes you more reasonable 'skeptic' than the majority claiming the title.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Science simply assumes a naturalistic explanation because no one can even explain what a supernatural explanation would be like, let alone propose one.
~~ Paul

Yes, but as I have pointed out before, in the past, science has repeatedly expanded its scope of acceptable explanations - fields, intrinsic probability, new properties of matter, ever more abstract mathematical formulations, etc. It is only in this one area that any expansion seems off limits because somehow the dominant view has become that because matter at ordinary temperatures and pressures is thought to be well understood at the physical level, no further fundamental change is possible!

Even Roger Penrose got a lot of flak for suggesting that new physics might be needed to explain consciousness - and he never once mentioned Ψ in his two main books!

What is so incredible to me, is that people can be so dogmatic without being able to offer an adequate explanation of their own!

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Yes, but how would this be different under some other metaphysic? Would ethics someone become a scientific question under dualistic science?


I don't see why science under any metaphysic would do anything other than study the origins of morality. I don't think anyone wants to see science as the arbiter of ethics and morals.

~~ Paul

This might be naive. The idea that values and science just don't mix is rather reminiscent of the whole mind/body dualism. Once you really start to understand consciousness - for example understand what physical or psychological pain actually is, then maybe ethics would start to emerge from that science!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Paul I think psi is natural. I am not saying it is naturally conscious but I think it is unconsciously natural.

Then we just have to keep on looking.

I am pleased you are willing to acknowledge this. I think that makes you more reasonable 'skeptic' than the majority claiming the title.

Most people don't think we have a working model. We just think it's going to turn out to be brain function.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Yes, but as I have pointed out before, in the past, science has repeatedly expanded its scope of acceptable explanations - fields, intrinsic probability, new properties of matter, ever more abstract mathematical formulations, etc. It is only in this one area that any expansion seems off limits because somehow the dominant view has become that because matter at ordinary temperatures and pressures is thought to be well understood at the physical level, no further fundamental change is possible!

Who says it's off limits to come up with a naturalistic explanation of psi? No one. What they say is that they don't think the evidence for psi is compelling in the first place.

Even Roger Penrose got a lot of flak for suggesting that new physics might be needed to explain consciousness - and he never once mentioned ? in his two main books!

If you can't stand the flak, get out of the science.

What is so incredible to me, is that people can be so dogmatic without being able to offer an adequate explanation of their own!

David, you're just as dogmatic in your insistence that consciousness can't be brain function, and you have no explanation at all. Just because you're not going with the status quo doesn't mean that you're open-minded.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

This might be naive. The idea that values and science just don't mix is rather reminiscent of the whole mind/body dualism. Once you really start to understand consciousness - for example understand what physical or psychological pain actually is, then maybe ethics would start to emerge from that science!

Values and science do mix, because values have origins and laws of operation. I'm just not sure people want to see science as the arbiter of morals. I should say, as the final arbiter. It will be an arbiter.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Values and science do mix, because values have origins and laws of operation. I'm just not sure people want to see science as the arbiter of morals. I should say, as the final arbiter. It will be an arbiter.

~~ Paul

Do they really! So how do we derive:

1) The length of time a human embryo can grow under research conditions without violating ethical values.

2) How much suffering it is acceptable to subject an animal to in the cause of medical research.

3) Acceptable standards of sexual morality.

4) Which (if any) kinds of military research are immoral.

Science can't say anything about these questions - merely perhaps quibble with the choice of people brought in to answer those questions!

It is sad really, if, say the church says contraception is wrong, even in an overcrowded world, there is nothing that science can say against that - except to enumerate the practical consequences.

Never mind whether people want to see scientists as the absolute arbiter of morality, what can science as currently formulated possibly say about such questions!

There is a morning current affairs radio program called 'Today' in Britain. One day, they had a 'scientist' on the show, who claimed to have proven that homosexuality was wrong! Fortunately the interviewer was quick to pick up on the irrationality of such a claim, and the guy lost the argument - but it also makes my point!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Do they really! So how do we derive:

1) The length of time a human embryo can grow under research conditions without violating ethical values.

By agreement.

2) How much suffering it is acceptable to subject an animal to in the cause of medical research.

By agreement. Our decision will be affected if we learn that an animal has aspects of consciousness similar to humans.

3) Acceptable standards of sexual morality.

By agreement.

4) Which (if any) kinds of military research are immoral.

By agreement.

Science can't say anything about these questions - merely perhaps quibble with the choice of people brought in to answer those questions!

It can says some things: When does an embryo start having brain function? Are rats conscious in ways similar to humans?

It is sad really, if, say the church says contraception is wrong, even in an overcrowded world, there is nothing that science can say against that - except to enumerate the practical consequences.

Scientists can laugh at the Catholic church, but I'm not sure how much weight that carries.

Never mind whether people want to see scientists as the absolute arbiter of morality, what can science as currently formulated possibly say about such questions!

It can provide information to add to the pool of information that we use to make our moral decisions.

~~ Paul