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

[alextsakiris]

Guest: R. Craig Hogan, author of Your Eternal Self claims studies unmistakably point to the finding that the mind is separate from the brain.





Transcript for this episode coming soon.

Click here to read more ...

[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!

It was interesting near the end of the interview to hear how Craig's ideas had evolved massively from the time when he was an fundamentalist Christian! I like his notion that the Church has hijacked spirituality.

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 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.

David

[Open Mind]

Enjoyed this interview. I found Craig's confidence in the mind not being the brain entertaining to listen to ....but Alex was right to question Craig on the way forward .... ignoring skeptics doesn't work IMHO... dialogue makes them confront the evidence to some degree .... whether they accept it or not is another matter, some will, some won't..

I do agree with Criag, the mind is most probably not the brain. Although many in parapsychology still try to shoehorn psi phenomena into a brain function ....it is not the most parsimonious solution IMHO

Originally Posted by David Bailey

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 completely agree.

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.

To some readers that will sounds a totally mixed up viewpoint... so let me try to explain why I do not believe it is....

Nobel laureate philosopher Henri Bergson in the 1890s proposed the brain was a filter of consciousness (and filter of telepathy too) Bergson suggested if there was a God of evolutionary process, this was not an external God but a God who was created in the very process of evolution.

Whilst religions believe a perfect God designed imperfect lifeforms. Bergson viewed imperfect lifeforms as evolving within a collective network. To use a modern day analogy .... perhaps like an evolving internet of individual computers can appear more powerful than any individual computer, this in no way implies the internet created the computers or exists independent of the computers, as religion persistently assumes.

People instinctively feel they are part of something greater than themselves, perhaps something resembling God exists but I doubt the old western or eastern religious models work... there are alternative such as Bergson's (and other alternatives too).

[Venom]

Interresting interview, even if I think that he misinterpret and misrepresent the state of parapsychological research, and also the state of neuropsychological research.

At some point at the beginning of the interview, Alex tries to ask him about all the studies that support the "consciousness is a by-product of the brain" point of view, and he answers that there are none, with it's obviously completely BS.

On one side you have millions of research in neuropsychology who shows that consciousness correlates with brain activity. Ok, we all know, correlation is not causation. But according to Occam's Rasor, the logical conclusion must be that consciousness is a by-product of the brain.

On the other side, you have a bunch of studies, who have a HUUUUUGGGGGEEEEEE problem of replication, and the scientific community has good reason to be skeptical of those researchs.

So on one side, a very strong argument for "consciousness is a by-product of the brain" on the other side a really, but really weak argument that's not the case.

But he just fly over that like it's nothing, because blablabla... BS!

Anyway, does it even occur to those psi-believers that saying that if consciousness exist outside of the brain, we should be able to observe consciousness in that state (and not by testimonies of any sort, I'm talking about direct observation). Or do they claim that consciousness just exist outside our reality, in a supernatural world. If they do that, do they realise that they just left the realm of science and enter the realm of... I don't know... religion?

I mean, if supernature exist, can we observe it directly? And can we explain the process that occurs in it? I don't think so (well, because I don't think that a supernature do exist anyway).

He says that claiming that consciousness exist "somewhere" (but where?) outside the brain solve the question of what is consciousness. I find that really not to be the case. It raises thousands of question about that "where?" (the first one is where is that "where?") and how that "where?" works.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I also have enormous sympathy with his concept that the endless piling up of additional ?-data is not moving us forwards. I think perhaps the answer is to find a ?-effect that is really useful. In an era of fast communications, ?-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.

The problem is that dowsers, psychic detectives and remote viewers can't actually do what they say they can do.

Despite Hogan's absolute conviction in his own abilities he can't tell me what book is on the far right of the top shelf of my bookshelf.

Hogan is a classic example of the vast discrepancy between the strength of people's belief in "psi" and the objective evidence to support it.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The problem is that dowsers, psychic detectives and remote viewers can't actually do what they say they can do.

Despite Hogan's absolute conviction in his own abilities he can't tell me what book is on the far right of the top shelf of my bookshelf.

Hogan is a classic example of the vast discrepancy between the strength of people's belief in "psi" and the objective evidence to support it.

This is a fair point - but you have to consider that there may be an answer. Ψ seems to be most powerful when it is associated with emotion - which your book presumably isn't. BTW, did he attempt and fail, or tell you that he could not for some reason?

Anyway, my point is not to promote the idea of psychic detection or dowsing - which I know very little about - but to make the point that Ψ needs a TECHNOLOGY. Really we only believe in science because it results in technology - the whole subject would have been impossibly arcane if it didn't do something!

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

Anyway, does it even occur to those psi-believers that saying that if consciousness exist outside of the brain, we should be able to observe consciousness in that state (and not by testimonies of any sort, I'm talking about direct observation). Or do they claim that consciousness just exist outside our reality, in a supernatural world. If they do that, do they realise that they just left the realm of science and enter the realm of... I don't know... religion?

I mean, if supernature exist, can we observe it directly? And can we explain the process that occurs in it? I don't think so (well, because I don't think that a supernature do exist anyway).

Now there is a proposal - how do you reckon we could tackle that? I mean, it could be that such detection is impossible, but suppose we take the idea half seriously - perhaps trying to study various physical processes in close proximity to a head as compared to further away. Maybe such a study would delineate a region round the body roughly in the shape of an aura!

Would you like to do such a study and try to publish it - particularly if you found an effect! My point is that your proposal might be feasible, but there is absolutely no serious effort being directed to finding out.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Venom

On one side you have millions of research in neuropsychology who shows that consciousness correlates with brain activity. Ok, we all know, correlation is not causation. But according to Occam's Rasor, the logical conclusion must be that consciousness is a by-product of the brain.

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

For example .... one correct use of Occams Razor would be to choose Einsteins' Special Relativity over Lorentz Ether Theory ... both models give the same accurate predictions, both work, it is just Einstein's works without an ether at rest, so until it is measured, it is shaved away. (In J.S. Bell’s book "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" Bell shows all of the equations of special relativity can also be derived using arguments of Lorentz).

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Venom

Ok, we all know, correlation is not causation. But according to Occam's Rasor, the logical conclusion must be that consciousness is a by-product of the brain.

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).

Let's say I fiddled about with the insides of a radio and found that the sound became distorted. I then fiddle away further and find that the sound disappears. Assume that I don't have any mechanistic theory about how the radio works. All I am doing is fiddling with some internal bits and seeing what happens.

From my observations, would it be logically correct to conclude the pattern of sound waves that I hear do not have an external source?

Don't we need a theory of how consciousness could be a by product of the brain, that makes predictions just like other scientific theories, before we can make your logical conclusion?

It seems to me, from reading neuroscience literature, that all we really have right now is some fiddling about (pretty intricate fiddling nonetheless).

Yet most neuroscientitst make the working assumption that the mind is indeed a by product of the brain. Double standards?

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Venom

He says that claiming that consciousness exist "somewhere" (but where?) outside the brain solve the question of what is consciousness. I find that really not to be the case. It raises thousands of question about that "where?" (the first one is where is that "where?") and how that "where?" works.

I think we should take heed of Confusius when he said, "the hardest thing of all to find is a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat."!

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...