In the closed thread titled "Cont'd from Tal's thread about Dawkins", Henry Bemis quoted part of a paragraph from the book "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, see

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1381790,1382073#msg-1382073

I believe the quote is deliberately deceptive, and it appears to be extensively used by the very pseudoscientific community that Carl was criticizing in his book. Here is the entire paragraph from which Henry's misquote was carefully extracted:

"Perhaps one percent of the time, someone who has an idea that smells, feels, and looks indistinguishable from the usual run of pseudoscience will turn out to be right. Maybe some undiscovered reptile left over from the Cretaceous period will indeed be found in Loch Ness or the Congo Republic; or we will find artifacts of an advanced, non-human species elsewhere in the Solar System. At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong."

Also, Carl Sagan compared the phrase "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to an "appeal to ignorance". He was criticizing the idea that whatever has not been proven false must be true.

Predictably, Christians get this completely wrong and use "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as an excuse for God being true by virtue of having no evidence whatsoever.

O.K. Fair enough. But let's look at the entire quote, and analyse what it means coming from a committed skeptic like Sagan.

SAGAN: "Perhaps one percent of the time, someone who has an idea that smells, feels, and looks indistinguishable from the usual run of pseudoscience will turn out to be right. Maybe some undiscovered reptile left over from the Cretaceous period will indeed be found in Loch Ness or the Congo Republic; or we will find artifacts of an advanced, non-human species elsewhere in the Solar System."

COMMENT: This introductory comment acknowledges that that there may well be ideas that appear "on the surface" to be mere pseudoscience, that nonetheless may turn out to be right. He is apparently suggesting that we need to be careful when dismissing phenomena that do not fit neatly into our materialist paradigm. The examples he gives in this introductory statement are curious, because both involve physical evidentiary findings in keeping with standard scientific discovery, rather than the paranormal mental phenomena he then goes on to list as deserving "serious study." For me, this is possibly revealing a materialst bias such that he really does not know how even to approach matters of mind, and evidence related thereto.

SAGAN: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

COMMENT: Without equivocation, all three of these claims are worthy of "serious study." They are deemed worthy of serious study specifically because there is some (even if perhaps questionable) evidence that such phenomena actually occur. Again, according to Sagan, this evidence is impressive enough not to hastily conclude that it is mere pseudoscience.

SAGAN: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong."

COMMENT: Now we have a caveat. Apparently SAGAN assumes that upon "serious study" the evidence for all of these claims will turn out to lack credibility, or otherwise be explanable in physical terms. The final acknowledgement of "I could be wrong," indicates that upon serious study the items mentioned may in fact turn out to be valid, which, of course, would significantly undermine the materialist worldview.

O.K. so what can me make of Sagan's comments today, some 18 years later? First, we can note that mainstream materialist science has still refused to take Sagan's three points seriously. Second, those scientists that have taken these items seriously have shown them to be valid--not dubious, as Sagan expected. In other words they have been repeatedly confirmed, albeit subtley, and materialist science has not provided any credible materialist explanation for the phenomena. Those who deny this are either unfamiliar with the relevant literature, or are biased against it, possibly because of its implications.

In any event, the fact that Sagan, a committed scientific skeptic, made the above comments is remarkable in itself, particularly in a book that is written specifically to challenge pseudoscience. The point is that the standard knee-jerk reaction rejecting such phenomena is, according to Sagan, misplaced.

Here are some suggested readings:

Dean Radin, The Conscious Universe:The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena (1997)

Robert G. Jahn, Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey (2011) (Note: "PEAR" stands for "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research")

Edward F. Kelly, Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology FOr the 21st Century (2007)

Jim B. Tucker, Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's Memories of Previous Lives (2005)

I respect your right to interpret Carl's words any way you want to, but for the record I believe he meant that points 1 to 3 were almost certainly not true, but unlike other ESP related claims they could be empirically tested.

Obviously most scientists don't think further research is required. I don't think further reasearch is required either, because I think that before doing an experiment you should have valid theories to explain all of the possible outcomes. That brings me to the "Green Potato challenge", to come up with a theory that explains what "spirituality" is and how it interacts with the known universe.

Taking #1 as an example, let's assume that it can be shown that humans have a small influence on random numbers generated by radioactive decay, and let's assume that immaterial "consciousness" is thought to be involved. There would therefore be 2 interfaces between the material world and the immaterial "consciousness". Your theory would therefore need to explain how consciousness interacts with the brain, and how consciousness interacts with the nucleus of radiactive material. Additionally you would have to explain why the "consciousness"/material world interface only occurs in the brain and radioactive material, and not in other circumstances. You would then need to show why the effect has never been detected in previous experiments. You would also need to explain why the impact on the random numbers is as strong as it is, ie with a mathematical formula. Calling "consciousness" immaterial does not excuse you from explaining how immaterial things work and why they get involved in the material world.

Saying that we don't know how it works therefore it could still be true is unacceptable. There are a limited number of ways for the material/immaterial interface to occur without prior detection. I believe that if you examine each possibility in detail you will find that all of them are self contradictory.

IGP: "Obviously most scientists don't think further research is required. I don't think further reasearch is required either, because I think that before doing an experiment you should have valid theories to explain all of the possible outcomes."

COMMENT: What drives scientific experiment in the first place is the data of experience, not theories; in this case the data of paranormal experience. Denying the data in the face of substantial evidence on the basis that there is no theory to expain it, and therefore it must not exist, is patently unscientific. Sagan minimally was acknowledging the data, and stating the need for further experiment and "serious study."

IGP: "That brings me to the "Green Potato challenge", to come up with a theory that explains what "spirituality" is and how it interacts with the known universe.

"Taking #1 as an example, let's assume that it can be shown that humans have a small influence on random numbers generated by radioactive decay, and let's assume that immaterial "consciousness" is thought to be involved. There would therefore be 2 interfaces between the material world and the immaterial "consciousness". Your theory would therefore need to explain how consciousness interacts with the brain, and how consciousness interacts with the nucleus of radiactive material."

COMMENT: I agree with you here. But remember, your challenge was merely to articulate a theory, not to prove it. But again, the data presupposes an explanation, even if that explanation is currently unknown. Lack of a theory is no excuse to deny the data. Maxwell (and others) showed that the speed of light was constant from all reference points (data), notwithstanding the fact that this was inconsistent with Newtonian physics. Instead of simply denying the constancy of light, science sought for an explanation, which was manifest in Einstein's relativity.

IGP" "Additionally you would have to explain why the "consciousness"/material world interface only occurs in the brain and radioactive material, and not in other circumstances."

COMMENT: Well this is a false assumption. As indicated in the prior post, it is well established from experiments in cognitive psychology that mind (consciousness), in the form of mental effort, can have physical effects on the brain.

IGP: "You would then need to show why the effect has never been detected in previous experiments."

COMMENT: No. Valid confirmation with modern sophisticated experimental devices is sufficient. It is nothing more than an afterthought to then consider why it was not previously discovered.

IGP: "Saying that we don't know how it works therefore it could still be true is unacceptable. There are a limited number of ways for the material/immaterial interface to occur without prior detection. I believe that if you examine each possibility in detail you will find that all of them are self contradictory."

COMMENT: That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is data to be explained. Whether we have a viable existing theory for such an explanation is irrelevant to the existance of the data, and the need for explanation.

To claim that any such explanation must be "self-contradictory" is ridiculous. I have proposed the general basis for an explanation, and you have yet to show why it, or any other type of explanation, must be self-contradictory. If you mean "inconsistent" they you should be able to provide an argument to support this. You can't.

I appreciate you thoughts and discussion, IGP.

Generally it is easier to come up with a theory than it is to conduct an experiment. It would certainly be easier to get funding for an experiment if you have a theory to test, even more so if there are potential benefits should the theory be true. Unfortunately lots of funding goes into futile efforts to stop us from dying (half joking about that), so lower priority research might have to wait.

I believe that if it was possible to come up with a theory to explain the "data" (you call it data, I call it flawed experiments), then such a theory would already exist.

This is what I think is happening with consciousness theories: the original consciousness theories started when everything was made of 4 elements and the sky had 7 levels. Consciousness controlled the heart and the heart controlled all bodily functions. Consciousness was the difference between living things and non-living things. Consciousness was made primarily of the element air. When not controlling a body consciousness would float up into the sky. The theory was elegent and had enormous explanatory power.

Fast forward to modern times and consciousness has nothing to do, nothing to be made of and nowhere to go. Driven by a hardwired need to distinguish between living and non-living things, and an ego that refuses to accept that we are nothing more than dodgey analogue robots, the consciousness paradigm has been resurrected as some sort of immateriality that makes no sense in a universe that is made up of observable matter and energy.

Let's be honest, if Carl Sagan's 3 points were proven to be false, consciousness theories would live on. If proven true, consciousness theories would be in no way confirmed. There could be other materialist theories that explain the data. Unless you have a theory that can be confirmed or denied by the experiment, there isn't much point in doing it.

I should declare that I have a vested interest in Carl Sagan's 3 points being proven false. If proven true, point 1 would mean that terrorists could potentially detonate every nuclear weapon in the United States and melt down every nuclear reactor, killing hundreds of millions of people. That would have an unpleasant impact on interest rates where I live. Even worse, it would mean that God COULD have made it look like the earth is much older than it really is just to tempt us. The strength of radiometric dating led me out of TSCC so if radiometric dating is wrong then I would have to go back to church. Elsewhere I have mentioned my utter disdain for wearing a suit and tie on a Sunday.

If point 2 was proven true then advertisers could sell us products in our sleep, forcing us to make bad underwear purchasing decisions, the subject of a very informative Futurama episode.

If point 3 were proven true, then the mess known as "forever families" would be even worse. I really don't want to be my own grandfather for all of the eternities. Fry from Futurama was his own grandfather and he suffered from a severe lack of brain delta waves.

IGP: "Generally it is easier to come up with a theory than it is to conduct an experiment. It would certainly be easier to get funding for an experiment if you have a theory to test, even more so if there are potential benefits should the theory be true. Unfortunately lots of funding goes into futile efforts to stop us from dying (half joking about that), so lower priority research might have to wait."

COMMENT: Yes, I agree that theories are a dime a dozen, and that conducting experiments requires imagination (linking the experiment to the theory), and funding, as you say. Note, however, that as for Sagan's points (1) and (2) there was scientific funding, and experimentation. See the above cited source from Princeton University. (Robert G. Jahn, Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey (2011) (Note: "PEAR" stands for "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research") The Princeton researchers (scientists) found the phenomena to be valid. Other researchers, academic and independent, have made similar findings. So, the conclusion that these points have proven invalid (as Sagan assumed they would) is now know to be false. And for whatever reason one might steadfastly deny it, for example, because it does not fit with one's post Mormon worldview, it does not change that fact.

IGP: "I believe that if it was possible to come up with a theory to explain the "data" (you call it data, I call it flawed experiments), then such a theory would already exist."

COMMENT: What possible grounds could you have for a comment like this? If science has demonstrated anything it is that it often takes, years, decades, or even centuries for theories to emerge that explain well known data. Moreover, you are calling "flawed experiments" something that you have no knowledge of. It is nothing more than a convenient assumption on your part.

IPG: "Fast forward to modern times and consciousness has nothing to do, nothing to be made of and nowhere to go. Driven by a hardwired need to distinguish between living and non-living things, and an ego that refuses to accept that we are nothing more than dodgey analogue robots, the consciousness paradigm has been resurrected as some sort of immateriality that makes no sense in a universe that is made up of observable matter and energy."

COMMENT: This statement suggests that you have little familiarity with modern physics, cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology, not to mention the well-established field of consciousness studies. From almost any discipline in science (even physics), the role of consciousness and mind in scientific discourse has increased not diminished. Moreover, your reference to the universe as simplistically describable as "matter and energy" dismisses in one stroke quantum field theory and particle physics, which essentially acknowledges that "matter" and "energy" are not terms that have definitive, reductive, meanings in modern physics. And the common view that "we are nothing more than dodgey analogue robots," is in my view false, and dangerous, which is the main reason I participate on this Board; namely, to fight against such knee-jerk conclusions that I believe are misinformed.

IPG: "Let's be honest, if Carl Sagan's 3 points were proven to be false, consciousness theories would live on. If proven true, consciousness theories would be in no way confirmed. There could be other materialist theories that explain the data. Unless you have a theory that can be confirmed or denied by the experiment, there isn't much point in doing it."

COMMENT: The point of the first two items is that consciousness, through its ability to effect the material world, has ontological (real) status that in some sense is independent of the (classically described) physical world. This would suggest a "theory of consciousness" that transcends mechanistic, classical brain processes. Whether such a theory turns out to be "physical" from a broad, modern view of what "physical" might mean, remains to be seen. But, since there now is clear reason to believe consciousness has such properties, experiment is appropriate to refine such knowledge in view of postulating potential theories that explain it, and experiments that might either confirm or falsify such theories.

IPG: "I should declare that I have a vested interest in Carl Sagan's 3 points being proven false. . . .

COMMENT: Well, none of these phoney "concerns" follow at all, and this is just either paranoid nonsense, or an attempt at humor.

Henry, if you seriously believe the accuracy of PEAR's research, you might want to have a VERY good explanation for the criticisms of it on its wikipedia page:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab

I am so certain that a valid theory of consciousness cannot be produced because I know that small quantum effects are not large enough to make a neuron fire and therefore have the smallest possible effect on the brain. A quantum effect large enough to have an impact on the brain would also be large enough to be detected in one or more of the many very precise quantum physics experiments that have been conducted. If it is possible to produce a valid theory then please do so and prove me wrong.

Just to clarify, I said "a universe that is made up of OBSERVABLE matter and energy" (emphasis added) because last time I checked, quantum fields have not been directly observed. Sure, we don't fully understand what "matter" and "energy" are, but the terms are still useful when talking about observations that are most commonly done by using matter to detect photons.

In what way is the statement "we are nothing more than dodgey analogue robots" false or dangerous? We are the product of accumulated random mutations that happen to work most of the time, and we have serious design flaws that are too hard for random mutations to fix, for example the blind spots in our eyes. How is that not dodgey? Brains are a type of analogue computer. Muscles and bones etc work mechanically. How are we not a type of analogue robot? In what way is it dangerous to think of ourselves like that? Far more dangerous is to have the arrogance to think that we will continue on after death, or that injustices in this life are okay because everything will be sorted out after we die.

My "phoney concerns" are underexaggerations of the dire consequences should the research be proven true, then methods refined. Luckily the research is easily proven to be false.

IGP: "Henry, if you seriously believe the accuracy of PEAR's research, you might want to have a VERY good explanation for the criticisms of it on its wikipedia page:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab";

COMMENT: I am well aware of the criticisms of PEAR, and have considered them, as have the PEAR researchers in depth. It is not unusual, or unexpected, that there would be push-back against any kind of paranormal experimentation. But, again, the conclusions of the PEAR researchers are consistent with the conclusions of other researchers on the paranormal by competent scientists. You cannot sweep all such research findings under the rug of "faulty methodogical" or "misuse of statistics." In most cases these are merely catch phrases for the simple statement, "I don't believe it."

IPG: "I am so certain that a valid theory of consciousness cannot be produced because I know that small quantum effects are not large enough to make a neuron fire and therefore have the smallest possible effect on the brain. A quantum effect large enough to have an impact on the brain would also be large enough to be detected in one or more of the many very precise quantum physics experiments that have been conducted. If it is possible to produce a valid theory then please do so and prove me wrong."

COMMENT: But, don't you see, "a valid theory," implies a theory that you find acceptable, i.e. one that is already proved. I cannot do that. But, there are many scientific theories that have not been proven, and that are known to be deficient, including the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

Note also, that we are not talking just about quantum effects. You talk as if quantum mechanics is the last word on physical reality, which is ludicrous. Moreover, mental effort produces real, measurable, and significant effects on brain states, as well-established from neural imaging. Whether such effects are ultimately quantum based, or based upon some other theory remains to be seen.

IGP: "Just to clarify, I said "a universe that is made up of OBSERVABLE matter and energy" (emphasis added) because last time I checked, quantum fields have not been directly observed. Sure, we don't fully understand what "matter" and "energy" are, but the terms are still useful when talking about observations that are most commonly done by using matter to detect photons."

COMMENT: Well, if you limit the universe to "observable" matter and energy, you eliminate essentally everything below the atom, if "observable" is to be taken literally. Most of subatomic physics is based upon inferences and mathematical models, not observations, including quantum field theory. The fact that "matter" and "energy" are useful does not provide us with an understanding of their ontological status beyond what is useful. Moreover, it does not tell us at all what the underlying ontology of reality is at rock bottom, including what natural computational units that might exist below quantum "qubits" that might support consciousness; e.g. the strings of string theory.

IPG: "In what way is the statement "we are nothing more than dodgey analogue robots" false or dangerous? We are the product of accumulated random mutations that happen to work most of the time, and we have serious design flaws that are too hard for random mutations to fix, for example the blind spots in our eyes. How is that not dodgey?"

COMMENT: Well, it is false on physical grounds, as well as my own metaphysical assumptions about consciousness. Human beings (and other animals) at the very least exhibit emergent properties (consciousness and sentience, for example) that place them beyond "robots." When you think about biological life strictly in terms of robotics you diminish life in multiple ways, including the failure to appreciate, and tendancy to minimize, human and animal suffering. This is socially dangerous.

IGP: "Brains are a type of analogue computer. Muscles and bones etc work mechanically. How are we not a type of analogue robot? In what way is it dangerous to think of ourselves like that? Far more dangerous is to have the arrogance to think that we will continue on after death, or that injustices in this life are okay because everything will be sorted out after we die."

COMMENT: Again, see above. As for your last statement, I think that worldviews that elevate human and animal life, beyond their evolutionary heritage and mechanistic nature, would tend to be more sensitive to human suffering. But, I admit, this is debatable on historical grounds.

IGP: My "phoney concerns" are underexaggerations of the dire consequences should the research be proven true, then methods refined. Luckily the research is easily proven to be false."

COMMENT: But you have provided no support for your alleged "dire consequences," which appear intuitively to be "phoney." Moreover, you have not made a single argument supporting the claim that the conclusions of paranormal research are "easily proven to be false." All you have done, from my perspective, is to betray a bias based upon your preconceived view that paranormal phenomena must be false, and we must stick to this position because the alternative invites dire consequences. This is not science.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...

All you have done,
> from my perspective, is to betray a bias based
> upon your preconceived view that paranormal
> phenomena must be false, and we must stick to this
> position because the alternative invites dire
> consequences. This is not science.


Forgive my interrupting an interesting exchange, but that last line strongly reminded me of something Jerry Coyne said (feared), which perhaps revealed a dogmatic rather than a scientific mind. This is Massimo Pigliucci blogging the "Moving Naturalism Forward" conference:


"At this point I asked Weinberg (who has actually read my blog series on emergence on his way to the workshop!) why he thinks that the behavior of complex systems is “entailed” by the fundamental laws. He conceded two important points, the second one of which is crucial: first, he readily agreed that of course nobody can (and likely will ever be able to) actually reduce, say, biology to physics (or even condensed matter physics to sub-nuclear physics); so, epistemic reduction isn’t the game at all. Second, he said that nobody really knows if ultimate (i.e., ontological) reduction is possible in principle, which was precisely my point; his only argument in favor of greedy reductionism seems to be a (weak) historical induction: physicists have so far been successful in reducing, so there is no reason to think they won’t be able to keep doing it. Even without invoking Hume’s problem of induction, there is actually very good historical evidence that physicists have been able to do so only within very restricted domains of application. It was gratifying that someone as smart and knowledgeable in physics as Weinberg couldn’t back up his reductionism with anything more than this. However, Levin agreed with Weinberg, insisting on the a priori logical necessity of reduction, given the successes of fundamental physics.

"Weinberg also agreed that there are features of, say, phase transitions that are independent of the microphysical constituents of a given system; as well as that accounts of phase transitions in terms of lower level principles are only approximate. But he really thinks that the whole research program of fundamental physics would go down the drain if we accepted a robust sense of emergence. Well, maybe it would (though I don’t think so), but do we have any better reason to accept greedy reductionism than fundamental physicists’ amor proprio? (Or, as Coyne commented, the fact that if we start talking about emergence then the religionists are going to jump the gun for ideological purposes? My response to Jerry was: who cares?)"

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ca/2012/10/from-naturalism-workshop-part-i.html


That Coyne fears talking about emergence because "then the religionists are going to jump the gun..." is exactly what Science does not need.

Of course this bit also sheds a little light on the "analogue robot" idea. Material reductionism simply assumes this for what seems to me dogmatic rather than scientific reasons.

Carry on...

Human

Henry, accepting as "data" the results of thoroughly discredited research is NOT the level of skepticism advocated by Carl Sagan.

Let's be honest, consciousness philosophy makes no testable predictions. It is not falsifiable therefore it is not a scientific theory. At best it is philosophy, at worst it is a con.

I have to ask, If consciousness philosophy was false, would you want to know? If you do want to know, how would you find out?

Please, please, please fill in the blank: The observed impact of thought on electronic random event generators was 0.1% according to the formula _________. I bet you can't do it.

If you believe that modifying quantum randomness with thought is not the end of the universe then you don't understand quantum physics. Try not to think about it too much because it might ruin your pet theory.

The theory that the body is made up of mechanical bits has led to practically every medical discovery. How many discoveries has the theory that the body is magical led to?

IGP: "Henry, accepting as "data" the results of thoroughly discredited research is NOT the level of skepticism advocated by Carl Sagan."

COMMENT: If Sagan thought it was "thoroughly discredited research" he would not have made the comment he did. Your suggestion that such research is fully discredited appears to be just wishful thinking.

IGP: "Let's be honest, consciousness philosophy makes no testable predictions. It is not falsifiable therefore it is not a scientific theory. At best it is philosophy, at worst it is a con."

COMMENT: What is "consciousness philosophy?" Is that the belief that we have consciousness? If so, I can make a prediction? Tomorrow morning, after you have slept, you will "wake up" and find a continuing subjective sense of self, with continuing and connected sense experience, and a full range of emotions. Let me know if this prediction comes true. If it does the "consciousness philosophy" sought has been vindicated--at least for you! Now, the real question is whether "materialist philosophy" can explain it. Consciousness is (again) the data of experience. It exists. Intuitively it is independent of the physical body. (Did you dream last night?) So, if it is not independent, the burden is on you, as a materialist philosopher, to explain just what conscious experience is in relation to the purely physical brain.

IGP: "I have to ask, If consciousness philosophy was false, would you want to know? If you do want to know, how would you find out?"

COMMENT: Again, what philosophy? My only philosophy of consciousness is that it exists, and is in some sense independent of the physical brain. This is not only intuitively correct, but by principles of cause and effect, shown by science.

IGP: "Please, please, please fill in the blank: The observed impact of thought on electronic random event generators was 0.1% according to the formula _________. I bet you can't do it."

COMMENT: I don't know what you are getting at here, but I can say that the impact of thought on random number generators was shown to be statistically significant, by established scientific standards. Now, I agree fully that this is not a theory as to why or how this works. It is just data. Nor is it justification to conclude that human beings have "paranormal" powers by any significant measure. All it suggests is that mental effort is causally efficacious on the physical world. But really we know that anyway. My mental effort affects the physical world all the time. Doesn't yours? Isn't this just common everyday experience--until we get immersed in materialist philosophy?

IGP: "If you believe that modifying quantum randomness with thought is not the end of the universe then you don't understand quantum physics. Try not to think about it too much because it might ruin your pet theory."

COMMENT: Here is a quote from the book, "Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, by Michael A. Neilsen and Isaac L Chuang:

"Because the laws of physics are ultimately quantum mechanical, Deutsch [David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality] was naturally led to consider computing devices based upon the principles of quantum mechanics. . . It is possible . . . that some effect of quantum field theory or an even more esoteric effect based in string theory, quantum gravity or some other physical theory may take us beyond Deutsch's Universal Quantum Computer, giving us a still more powerful model for computation. At this stage, we simply don't know.

What this quote is acknowledging is that Quantum Computation, as based upon the laws of quantum mechanics, is what we now have to work with, but that perhaps an even more refined understanding of quantum theory, "or some other physical theory" may yet provide an even more powerful model of computation. Thus, if we assume the obvious, namely that cognition is in some sense "computational" such capacities might well be based upon computational structures of which we are not yet aware.

IGP: "The theory that the body is made up of mechanical bits has led to practically every medical discovery. How many discoveries has the theory that the body is magical led to?"

COMMENT: Oh please, "the body is magical?" Give me a break. Take a look at the voluminous literature on cognitive therapy any you will find application of the principle that human beings can change their behavior by their own volition. THis implies that the physical structures underlying behavior change too! Surprise, Surpise, we are autonomous "conscious" beings whose mental efforts and decisions can affect the material world!

Game, set, match. I'm out!

Henry, I believe I provided a link to the wikipedia page that thoroughly discredited the work of PEAR. Do you actually have any response to those criticisms or do you have a Holland style empty briefcase with all the answers in it?

I readily admit that how the 100 billion neurons in our brain work is not fully understood. That is no reason to believe that "consciousness" is in any way a separate "thing" to the brain. Every observable function of a human being can be wiped out through brain damage. Consciousness as a separate thing to the brain has zero evidence for it, other than pseudo-scientific research that has failed on peer review.

Since you didn't answer the question, I will ask again, If consciousness philosophy (defined as a theory where consciousness is separate to the brain) was false, would you want to know? If you do want to know, how would you find out?

Let me give you a formula that would explain the results of the PEARS research. O = M + R, where O is the observed result, M is the minimum result required to be statistically significant, and R is a random factor to make the results look like they weren't fudged. Can you come up with a better formula?

I have no problem with you believing whatever wishy washy philosophies you find appealing, but don't try to pretend that science backs them up.

This is NOT over, I will start another thread to look in detail at the evidence for affecting random numbers using the power of the mind. Get ready to open your briefcase.

Just admit you misused the quote and pledge to do better next time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2014 10:35AM by steve benson.

I don't see why any of those things being real phenomena would refute a materialist worldview. None of these seem weirder than any of the other things already accepted within materialism, such as the force between a proton and an electron, or gravity, or the force holding a proton together.

CHADD: "I don't see why any of those things being real phenomena would refute a materialist worldview. None of these seem weirder than any of the other things already accepted within materialism, such as the force between a proton and an electron, or gravity, or the force holding a proton together."

COMMENT: "Materialist worldview" in this context generally refers to a worldview that reduces consciousness, mind, and the mental, to strictly physical phenomena. Thus, on this view, consciousness is nothing more than brain processes, and all mental events are identical with physcial events in the brain. Consciousness or mind, is at best a property of the brain, having no causal power independent of brain processes.

If, however, consciousness, or mental effort, can affect the physical world, or otherwise have independent properties, then we are left to wonder just what consciousness is, ontologically, meaning, what exactly is it, and how does it relate to other aspects of reality, including quantum mechanics, cognitive psychology, and other aspects of reality that we might not be aware of because our scientific intruments are not refined enough to access that reality.

Finally, it is not about "weirdness" per se, although there are much "weirder" aspects of science than the example you provide. "Weirdness" in science represents an intuitive instinct to reject established scientific fact, like quantum non-locality, quantum indeterminism, or quantum complementarity (Einstein's dilemma), and the space-time implications of general relativity. The non-intuitive nature of such phenomena represent a reminder that human beings simply do not have access to the whole of reality, notwithstanding their scientific achievements.

To those who doubt but are truth seekers it is not hard to try to test the 3 areas Sagan mentioned. I cannot prove but have tested and found 2 of the areas (haven't tried the 3rd), to my satisfaction, seem to be valid although still testing and evaluating my tests and results.

There are books in most public libraries of any size on ESP, PSI, and mainly psychics. The psychic books I have studied usually include exercises to test your psychic abilities and cover moving objects mentally, seeing the future, and a few cover past lives/reincarnation. You can try these things for yourself and if you want special help their are hypnotists that can help you discover past lives, etc.

One book, more collegiate level, discusses the tools they use in a University for psychology students to experience these type of things for themselves. The Llewellyn Complete Book of Psychic Empowerment ----- large book at low cost.

To all truth seekers ------ some of these things will blow your mind! To those who find it easier to continue to believe in others because they have some notoriety ---- good luck in life!

Stormin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those who doubt but are truth seekers it is not
> hard to try to test the 3 areas Sagan mentioned.
> I cannot prove but have tested and found 2 of the
> areas (haven't tried the 3rd), to my satisfaction,
> seem to be valid although still testing and
> evaluating my tests and results.

James Randi is offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove the things you claim to have proven. What are you waiting for? That's a lot of cash....

Let's not put words in Carl's mouth.

His respected friend and colleague who he never thought would get taken in on the Alien visitation nonsense eventually got caught up in it. His friend was pulled in because the believers "seemed sincere", not because of evidence.

I think that pretty much shows what Carl's was trying to get across to folks. "Even the very elite can be deceived" This ring a bell?

Never ever underestimate the power of human imagination and persuasion. Especially under hypnosis.

I can't control it yet ----- still working on it. But it is verifiable to be able to see into the future periodically and I have predicted at least 10 stories that made the news on 3 different nights from events in Utah. I also predicted almost 100 vehicles I would see on my 10 min trips to somewhere. However, control is the issue for me ----- sometimes I get nothing concerning the news which is more amazing to me (don't know why as there were plenty of news events), sometimes my ego forces a mental picture that did not come from the Universe but me (I can usually screen these out. My review of Randi's methods requires 100% and using his terms ---- not the psychics. So if I get the answers one way then Randi will make sure that I have to use another way to get answers and must get 100%. Again, I challenge any 'truth seeker' to experiment on their own and see if they can control it ----- plenty of books with exercises in most major libraries.

Stormin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't control it yet ----- still working on it.
> But it is verifiable to be able to see into the
> future periodically and I have predicted at least
> 10 stories that made the news on 3 different
> nights from events in Utah.

OK, how about posting 10 stories you think will make the news tomorrow night?

I can predict there will be one on ISIS and another one that has something to do with Obama. There will also be one about Ukraine, another one about Vladimir Putin, and one about China. Oh, I predict there will also be something about Ebola.

That's only six but let me know if those come to pass which will mean I have ESP.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1383951



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2014 11:20AM by steve benson.

Yes, quote mining is often used by those promoting claims for which there is no reliable evidence.

No, none of the three he mentioned have been proven to have any validity. That's the reason the "rest" of the scientific community has been uninterested since Sagan wrote that -- not because they're "materially biased," or because they're closed-minded, but because there is still NO evidence to back the claims up. And the "further reading" listed is typical psuedo-scientific, dishonest nonsense.

How does any of this relate to recovering from Mormonism? One way many of us "got out" of TSCC was by abandoning what the church wanted us to do -- accept their claims without critical assessment or comparison to evidence, to believe their dishonest, apologetic "explanations," and to start to rationally, honestly compare claims against evidence. By doing that, it was clear the church's claims were either clearly shown false by evidence, or lacked any supporting evidence, making the claims worthless.

Having done so, we learned how to more reliably assess outrageous claims about the supernatural. And we apply those same methods to other claims about the supernatural -- including the ones HB is so fond of and wrongly thinks are "proven." They're not.

First of all I only mean this as an interesting aside. I have no dog in this fight. I am not a proponent of "the paranormal". I love Sagan, but I'm a bit of a "fact checker" in my day job, so this snippet jumped out at me:

>>>>>(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.<<<<<<

I think there could be other ways. How about an undiscovered method of genetic memory?

I know it doesn't hurt his point at all; it's the rhetorical equivalent of a minor typo, but I'd flag it as a false dichotomy if I were his editor.

Well, with respect to past lives studies, the only materialist explanation is either fraud, or an unknown transfer of information through natural processes (the senses). There have been a number of "paranormal" explanations that reject a reincarnation hypothesis.

EXDRYMO: "I think there could be other ways. How about an undiscovered method of genetic memory?"

COMMENT: There is no evidence that memories of individuals (past life or otherwise) are inherited, and based upon modern genetics there are very good reasons to know that they cannot be. In short, from a scientific perspective, memories are instantiated in the neurons of the brain, not in "genes" which encode physical traits, and in some instances corresponding psychological tendancies.

exdrymo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there could be other ways. How about an
> undiscovered method of genetic memory?


"Other ways" maybe, but not genetic or otherwise inherited. Most reincarnations are of famous people?! who are not related.

Where's the evidence that it was "previous"?

The basic problem with the paranormal is that you would expect to see more if it really existed, and would expect the reported events to be more universal across cultures instead of being dependent on the culture, as we see now.

Guys, the term "science" is very specific, it's validation through experimentation. The main thing to take away from Sagan's quote is that as a good scientist he is willing to change his views based on evidence.

All he has said is that 1% of the time something that looks implausible will turn out to be plausible after all, based on the evidence.

Evidence is of course subject to certain standards, it has to be controlled, repeatable, and free from external influences. This is why proper experimentation has double-blind tests, control groups, peer review, etc.

I too am willing to believe anything based on the evidence, as gathered through properly controlled experimentation. Put someone in a room, hand them a spoon that was checked and validated and have them bend it without touching it, and I'll start believing in telekinesis. In all the years of claims it hasn't happened, so I don't believe in telekinesis.

You know why Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster have fallen out of vogue? Because it's too easy to gather quality evidence these days. Nothing happens these days that won't be caught in reasonable quality on a camera phone. If UFOs were real we'd have quality footage all over YouTube by now.