49. Craig Hogan, Your Mind Is Not Your Brain (Podcast)

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

This is misuse of Occams Razor, it is to choose between working hypotheses, not unworking ones.

The unworking ones would be the idea that consciousness exist "somewhere" outside of out the brain right?

I mean that's the one who doesn't make any sense.

From that perspective, I agree that Occams Razor cannot cut between a scientific model (the consciousness is a by-product of the brain) and a unscientific one (the consciousness exist in a state that is outside of our reality, in a supernature place, and just correlates sometimes with brain activity). Said like that, I agree with you. The supernatural explanation is just non scientific (then no need of Occams Razor).

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

I agree that saying consciousness exists "somewhere" is incoherent. Consciousness isn't a "thing" like a rock. It's existence itself. Rocks, and other "things" that have locations, are constructed from consciousness, i.e., they are experiences that form structured relationships (or perhaps we just conceive of as having formed relationships).

That's my take on all this anyway...

You're definition of consciousness is like the Force in Star Wars. But where talking about individual consciousness here. If someone dies, but his consciousness survive, where can I observe it (or if you don't like the "where" question, at least answer the "how" one: how can I observe it?)? If during OBE the consciousness goes outside, how can I detect the fact that a consciousness is moving around the room for exemple?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Alex,

This is another valuable interview, and in a way I think Craig and you are pretty close in your viewpoints. Here are a few more detailed points:

I do think it is vital not to equate atheism and materialism! I consider myself to be 95% atheist and yet not convinced by materialism at all! The evidence for a larger non-material world in no way implies that everything is run by a God. The very concept of God seems to be uncannily close to the political structure of the Church!

- I find it difficult to accept the existence of NDE and deny the content of the information... seems like God is the implication.

I also have enormous sympathy with his concept that the endless piling up of additional Ψ-data is not moving us forwards. I think perhaps the answer is to find a Ψ-effect that is really useful. In an era of fast communications, Ψ-communication is never going to compete, but dowsing and maybe psychic detectives do seem to offer the possibility of offering a useful TECHNOLOGY. I mean, the real reason we all believe in science, is because it seems to deliver the goods! I would suggest that these might be areas that you should explore.

- I agree that application would have an enormous effect on swaying opinion. Then again, remote viewing has had some very practical applications and is still ignored.

I thought you made a good point that incorporating spiritual data is made difficult by the fact that much of it is contradictory. I think the best way to view such data is rather like early scientific data - fallible and sometimes wrong-headed but ultimately going somewhere exciting.

- yet you're 95% atheist... explain

[scomsjw]

I thought this was a very good episode. I liked the way Alex challenged Craig Hogan over some of his more outrageous assertions. How can someone believe that remote viewing has been conclusively proved?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

I'm not sure that is a logical conclusion. Lets take the well known analogy of the radio set (which I'm not a fan of by the way).

Yes, the analogy of the TV set is vastly superior

BTW is it appropriate to call it an analogy rather than a simile? Anyone know? I've just about finished this essay I'm going to put up on my blog addressing the question whther we are obliged to conclude that consciousness is a product of the brain, and I wasn't sure whether to label it an analogy or simile.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I am not religious, yet I believe materialism is false. I do not believe in the western or eastern religion model of God, therefore I am an atheist. I believe mind or at least consciousness survives physical brain death.

- I guess I'd ask you the same question I asked David... how do you square your atheism with the content of NDE (not to mention death-bed vision, after-life encounters and medium communication).

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

- I find it difficult to accept the existence of NDE and deny the content of the information... seems like God is the implication.




- I agree that application would have an enormous effect on swaying opinion. Then again, remote viewing has had some very practical applications and is still ignored.



- yet you're 95% atheist... explain

The NDE content seems to involve a moving on to a new stage of existence, sometimes with meetings with loved ones, and sometimes with something bigger and loving.

Even if we accept all of this, the word 'God' has some pretty awful connotations, and words end up meaning what people use them for. Whatever there is out there, I somehow doubt that it will bear a close resemblance to a primate group with its hierarchical power structure!

As I understand it, fundamentalist Christians don't really like NDE's because there doesn't usually seem to be a judgment, so they do not match their teachings!

My feeling is that any understanding of what may be out there will involve dropping a lot of preconceived notions - scientific and religious. I particularly liked Craig's notion that the Church has hijacked the entire discussion of spirituality - (my comment) creating a carbon copy of an earthly power structure!

Regarding applications, I guess we need something non-military - I mean for all we know, the US military trashed remote viewing in order to continue with a more secret version of the same program! Dowsing might be a fun area because some people believe there could be orthodox (if far fetched) explanations for some of it - so it blurs the distinction between Ψ and non-Ψ a little.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

BTW is it appropriate to call it an analogy rather than a simile? Anyone know? I've just about finished this essay I'm going to put up on my blog addressing the question whther we are obliged to conclude that consciousness is a product of the brain, and I wasn't sure whether to label it an analogy or simile.

If you say "the brain is like a TV set," then it's a simile. If you say "my brain received the signals broadcast by the TV of god," then it's a metaphor.

But if you actually take the idea seriously, then it's an analogy.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

- I guess I'd ask you the same question I asked David... how do you square your atheism with the content of NDE (not to mention death-bed vision, after-life encounters and medium communication).

If one defines 'God' as a collective term for all evolving lifeforms then I am probably not an atheist.

If by 'God' ones means the Christian idea that God exists as a human like form ... then I am an atheist. (If a Christian sees a human being in intense light during an NDE etc. perhaps they assume 'God' since they have been conditioned to view God as a man like being?)

I would tend to view the situation as lifeforms evolving God rather than God evolving lifeforms. Religion doesn't like the concept of an evolving God (even if it is the same outcome) they want an unchanging eternally perfect creator ... so I just prefer to avoided using their terms altogether.

[Venom]

I've listened to the last part of the interview.

I must say I was happy to hear Alex clearly stating that the reason why he's promoting parapsychology is because he wants to have spirituality and science merged. I had that impression before, with his previous episode when he interviewed an ID proponent. No this interview is even clearer about his agenda.

At least now it's cristal clear.

And it's also the big problem.

[Larry Boy]

I found Hogan's views to be somewhat simplistic and unnuanced, taking all too many things for granted and lacking a skeptical perspective. Great to hear you challenge some of his assumptions, Alex.