48. Jonathan Balcombe on Animal Rights (Podcast)

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Blackmore sucks, why does anyone listen to her? I'm so glad she left parapsychology.

Please - this is not a heavy metal forum!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Blackmore makes flawed arguments such as .... psi in experiments is often unconscious/subconscious therefore, she reasons, psi has nothing to do with consciousness. Her reasoning is flawed, if the brain evolved to filtered psi out (and there are strong arguments why that would occur) ... psi will leak from an unconscious (i.e. filtered consciousness) level into the consciousness.

First of all, you really ought to explain how this psi filter theory is falsifiable. In particular, why do we never seen brain damage that suddenly allows the victim to be a mind reader? After all, you say the brain evolved to filter psi, so there must be mechanisms in the brain that do it.

In any event, Blackmore says:

But note that by consciousness I am referring to the really interesting aspects of consciousness, that is subjectivity, or the "what it is like" to be something.

She is talking about qualia. I have never read a psi experiment in which the subjects knew when they were making hits and when misses, let alone described their hits in terms of qualia. If anything is going on, it's almost always nonconscious.

Sure, some therapeutic touch practitioner might describe how it feels to read the qi energy lines or whatever it is she claims to be doing, but is therapeutic touch one of psi's poster children? I don't think so.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

I think it is a mistake to cream off the top layer of consciousness, and claim that the rest doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion. I am sure there are processes of edge detection in the visual system that are utterly below conscious introspection. However, when people talk about "the unconscious" they seem to be talking about something barely beneath the level of full consciousness. For this reason, I would certainly support Open Mind's view on SB's work.

Regarding Open Mind's theory of the brain as filtering Ψ, I would say that it is at least a viable theory of what is going on. However, as I am sure OM would agree, it is only a theory. Paul, you always say you would like a theory of Ψ in order to take it more seriously - well his is one such theory.

Just to flesh out what he means by this theory (obviously as I see it), imagine that our true nature is as mental creatures that interact directly. For whatever reason, we limit ourselves by running flesh machinery, and we do our best to suppress the raw communication links that we really possess......

Paul, I have no doubt you will claim that the above is unsubstantiated twaddle - but that is in the nature of a theory. You can't ask for a theory of some phenomenon, and then dismiss it immediately because it is not well supported!

David

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

In particular, why do we never seen brain damage that suddenly allows the victim to be a mind reader?

We do.

Here are a couple of references I have at hand about military remote viewers:

"Psychic Warrior" by David Morehouse who developed psychic abilities after his helmet stopped a bullet.

"Stargate by Joseph McMoneagle" who's existing intuitive abilities developed to a much greater extent after he suffered brain damage from a drug overdose caused by someone spiking his drink.


Also, the nde literature is all about this.

While Maria's body was being worked on by the medical staff she experienced leaving her body. She floated upwards some 4 stories and came out onto the roof of the hospital. There on the ledge of the roof she saw an old sneaker with a worn little toe and one lace tucked under the heel. When the resuscitation procedure had proved successful Maria came to and was quite preoccupied with her vision of the sneaker. ... She managed to persuade the social worker Kim Clark to go check and directed her to a window from which the shoe could be seen when leaning out. ... Clark easily found the correct window and there, indeed, lay the sneaker on the ledge with the worn little toe and the lace tucked under the heel just as Maria had described it.
http://www.deathisanillusion.com/page.pl?id=2&cid=2

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

It has always seemed strange to me that 'science' would seriously question if animals were conscious.

It is a defence mechanism that allows scientists to experiment on animals without feeling guilt.

There are some scientist who think that humans are not conscious.

If you study animal behavior (ie if you are an expert) you can easily identify so many behaviors that are instinctual you can get tunnel vision. Most of what we see in animals that tells us they have emotions are really instinctual involuntary behavior. But that is true about humans too. For example, with facial expressions you don't think: I'm sad so I'll frown or I'm happy so I'll smile. You just do it. Same with posture and other body language.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by anonymous

We do.

I mean that suddenly allows lots of people to be obvious mind readers, without resort to anecdote and discredited sneaker stories.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I think it is a mistake to cream off the top layer of consciousness, and claim that the rest doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion. I am sure there are processes of edge detection in the visual system that are utterly below conscious introspection. However, when people talk about "the unconscious" they seem to be talking about something barely beneath the level of full consciousness. For this reason, I would certainly support Open Mind's view on SB's work.

What is consciousness if not the "top layer," the awareness, the phenomenal experience? If we get to count as consciousness some brain functions of which we are not aware, the word becomes useless.

Regarding Open Mind's theory of the brain as filtering ?, I would say that it is at least a viable theory of what is going on. However, as I am sure OM would agree, it is only a theory. Paul, you always say you would like a theory of ? in order to take it more seriously - well his is one such theory.

Super! Now what sort of hypotheses can we derive from it so that we can try to falsify it? And how come we haven't found a shred of evidence for the filter?

Just to flesh out what he means by this theory (obviously as I see it), imagine that our true nature is as mental creatures that interact directly. For whatever reason, we limit ourselves by running flesh machinery, and we do our best to suppress the raw communication links that we really possess......

Uh oh, so now we're into metaphysics.

Paul, I have no doubt you will claim that the above is unsubstantiated twaddle - but that is in the nature of a theory. You can't ask for a theory of some phenomenon, and then dismiss it immediately because it is not well supported!

It is unsubstantiated twaddle, just like the rest of metaphysics. However, I'm all ears: substantiate it.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

First of all, you really ought to explain how this psi filter theory is falsifiable. In particular, why do we never seen brain damage that suddenly allows the victim to be a mind reader?

Paul, it is falsifiable ..... I think I have already listed for you experiments in this very forum? I will copy and paste them for you later as a reminder (But it is 3.40am here in the UK right now)

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am sure OM would agree, it is only a theory. Paul, you always say you would like a theory of Ψ in order to take it more seriously - well his is one such theory.

Yes I do agree David, it is only a theory, if future experimental results did not support it after various trials, I would abandon the theory

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Super! Now what sort of hypotheses can we derive from it so that we can try to falsify it? And how come we haven't found a shred of evidence for the filter?

I have already given you suggestive evidence but you reject all psi .... I might post some as reminder .

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I mean that suddenly allows lots of people to be obvious mind readers, without resort to anecdote and discredited sneaker stories.

~~ Paul

I didn't know the sneaker story was discredited. How was that done?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I have already given you suggestive evidence but you reject all psi ....

I mean neurophysiological evidence.

~~ Paul