48. Jonathan Balcombe on Animal Rights (Podcast)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by anonymous

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

I think Joe Nickell did an investigation, though I can't remember where he published it. He determined that you could see the sneaker from the ground.

I'd just like some evidence for the filter theory that is decoupled from the whole psi story with which it is entangled.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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.

Well for example I have heard Nicholas Humphrey argue that animals are not conscious (I think he has retracted that idea since) and operate rather like we do when we drive to work - in other words we perform a complex task without even thinking about it. Separating consciousness from routine activities like that seems a rather slippery argument. Sure your mind may be primarily focussed on something else, but it keeps track of the road situation as well. Probably the real difference is that it does not store details of the routine traffic situation for later recall.

David

[eyemsougly]

I thought it was Randi although it seems more like something Nickell would do. The problem with any NDE report is that they are anectdotal, I'm only interested in what can be done under controlled conditions.

What does Psi have to do with consciousness anyway?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

What does Psi have to do with consciousness anyway?

+1 I'm still wondering about it also.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

I thought it was Randi although it seems more like something Nickell would do. The problem with any NDE report is that they are anectdotal, I'm only interested in what can be done under controlled conditions.

What does Psi have to do with consciousness anyway?

I have read that something close an NDE is experienced by pilots in centrifuge training.

I don't think anyone suggests that NDE's don't happen - it is only the interpretation that is in doubt. The fascinating thing is that any mental activity happens - or is memorised - under the conditions of most NDE's.


David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Well for example I have heard Nicholas Humphrey argue that animals are not conscious (I think he has retracted that idea since) and operate rather like we do when we drive to work - in other words we perform a complex task without even thinking about it. Separating consciousness from routine activities like that seems a rather slippery argument. Sure your mind may be primarily focussed on something else, but it keeps track of the road situation as well. Probably the real difference is that it does not store details of the routine traffic situation for later recall.

Keeping track of something is not necessarily a conscious activity. Clearly the driving situation pops in and out of your consciousness while you're doing one of those "auto-drives," but while it's out of your consciousness, it's nonconscious.

What would be slippery would be to count as consciousness thing which do not involve phenomenal experience.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

I addressed why Susan Blackmore's first argument is flawed, she simply ignores the brain is a filter of consciousness hypothesis.

Her 2nd argument is equally flawed against the hypothesis that the brain is a filter of consciousness.. Here is why ...

Blackmore writes ....

'....... The second reason I doubt that the paranormal power of consciousness will ever be proven is more theoretical. As our understanding of conscious experience progresses, the desire to find the "power of consciousness" sets parapsychology ever more against the rest of science (which may, of course, be part of its appeal). The more we look into the workings of the brain the less it looks like a machine run by a conscious self and the more it seems capable of getting on without one. There is no place inside the brain where consciousness resides, where mental images are "viewed" or where instructions are "issued" (Dennett, 1991). There is just massive parallel throughput and no centre...

If anything this argument should be used against materialism, not in its defence! What Sue Blackmore neglects to mention, this is also known as the 'binding problem' one of the hard problems of any materialistic brain model of consciousness.

Nor can this argument be used against the brain is a filter of consciousness hypothesis. In such a theory the consciousness is not just generated in the brain.

To give analogy, Blackmore's point is rather like arguing since there is no centre of control in television circuit boards, therefore TV programmes, films etc. are generated all over the TV circuit boards. Yes not a perfect analogy (analogies never are). Although we view TV set as tuning in, it can also be viewed as filtering out other stations as unwanted interference. Similarly in creating any computer virtual reality of the future, the goggles, headphones, etc. do not just provide sensory input, to be most effective these need to block out (filter) the normal reality of room etc.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I addressed why Susan Blackmore's first argument is flawed, she simply ignores the brain is a filter of consciousness hypothesis.

And I responded to you by quoting Blackmore:

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 saying that psi experiments do not usually address the question of qualia. What does the brain filter hypothesis have to do with that?

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Nor can this argument be used against the brain is a filter of consciousness hypothesis. In such a theory the consciousness is not just generated in the brain.

So what? Blackmore said "... the more it seems capable of getting on without one [conscious self]." The brain appears to be capable of getting on without any source of conscious self, internal or external.

Blackmore is saying that she doesn't think psi is particularly useful in getting to an explanation of consciousness. You are saying that filtered consciousness may be useful for explaining psi. Those are two different things. But if you think that psi experiments are the royal road to evidence for filtered consciousness, by all means go for it.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Paul,

How can anyone take seriously a piece entitled "Why psi tells us nothing about Consciousness" that mentions Libet's timing results, but ignores Radin's presentiment results - even though she is talking about Ψ!

Such sloppiness would be inexcusable in any other scientific context, it is just that it seems permissible for skeptics to ignore any Ψ results, even if they are directly relevant to what the author is writing about!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

How can anyone take seriously a piece entitled "Why psi tells us nothing about Consciousness" that mentions Libet's timing results, but ignores Radin's presentiment results - even though she is talking about ?!

She wrote that paper in 1996. I believe Radin started his presentiment experiments after that. I certainly agree that her opinion may have been invalidated by experiments run after she wrote the paper. And once presentiment is no longer the psi poster child, the paper might be invalidated by the next big thing.

Such sloppiness would be inexcusable in any other scientific context, it is just that it seems permissible for skeptics to ignore any ? results, even if they are directly relevant to what the author is writing about!

If she writes a new paper, she should indeed discuss presentiment.

~~ Paul