Ref Empirical Challenges to Conventional Mind-Brain Theory

[mszlazak]

What consequences would a falsified but popular mind-brain theory have for pain research and treatment?

The question isn't specifically answered in this paper but it argues that one notion of the mind-brain relationship has essentially been falsified.

Empirical Challenges to Conventional Mind-Brain Theory


---

[Diane]

I'm on page 3, and so far I haven't seen anything that can't be explained by brain processes, in particular human pareidolia. Why did you post this?

[Diane]

Zoned-out rats may give clue to consciousness (Oct 12/11, New Scientist)

Zoned-out rat consciousness (Oct 29/11, Conscious Entities)

[Frédéric]

Here we refer to experimental and field observations systematically adduced in the course of over a century of effort by workers in “psychical research” and its modern descendent, “parapyschology.” The phenomena in question involve, by definition, correlations occurring across physical barriers that should be sufficient, on presently accepted physicalist principles, to prevent their formation. This occurs, for example, when person A spontaneously experiences an apparition of his friend B, as B unknown to A lies dying from a fatal accident. Over a thousand detailed cases of this sort – carefully documented experiences that are not dismissible en masse as mere “anecdotes” – have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. It also occurs when an experimental subject consistently succeeds in identifying randomly selected forced-choice targets displayed in a remote location. It is not difficult to set up controlled experiments of this sort and to evaluate their outcomes using rigorous statistical procedures. A large amount of careful experimental work has been carried out along these lines, with results more than sufficient, in our opinion, to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt to open-minded persons that the sheer existence of the basic input/output phenomena – “extrasensory perception” (ESP) and “psychokinesis” (PK) in the popular vocabulary, or in more theory-neutral terminology, “psi” – is a fact of nature with which we must somehow come to scientific terms.

This is enough for me to stop reading...

[Diane]

Yeah, that's when my already low interest flagged completely, too, Fred.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Frédéric

This is enough for me to stop reading...

It's to bad you feel that way but I know where you are coming from.

My "conversion" into parapsychology came by accident when listening online to the talks given at the Tuscon II conference on consciousness around about 1997. There happened to be a session on the subject of parapsychology and transpersonal psychology. That was shocking but these were enough to interest me further.

As one gets more into the serious scientific evidence for these phenomena (as opposed to pop culture) then one gets more surprised not only by their high quality but also by the continual use of deception and misdirection by certain groups when talking about these topics (i.e. so-called skeptics).

Parapsychology aside, there are simple logical reasons that a physical framework can't fully or even partially explain the mind.

Every example I've ever seen on this forum only deals with correlations (neural correlates of mind) and we all know correlation does not equal causation.

One should grow-up, face the music and become open to the very real and highly probable realm beyond the physical just from the failure of the physical to explain the mind.

Once there then one can move onto the topic of the paranormal. I suspect some placebo effects are in fact really paranormal phenomena.

This article isn't something to ignore just because it rattles your cage and suggests you are wrong.

[Diane]

That's nice, but I suggest that however sophisticated the studies may be that you find so compelling, they are based on some or a lot of extrapolation, what if's, wishful thinking, and not actual solid, compiled irrefutable interlocking conclusions based on evidence gathered and condensed over time.
So, what are you still doing here? If you don't like it here, what makes you stick around bringing stuff here that no one else finds particularly interesting or helpful, stuff that makes everyone else yawn because they are no longer impressionable children?

[Jon Newman]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

This article isn't something to ignore just because it rattles your cage and suggests you are wrong.

I didn't get the impression that that's why people are ignoring it.

[Bas Asselbergs]

One should grow-up, face the music and become open to the very real and highly probable realm beyond the physical just from the failure of the physical to explain the mind.

This smacks of an ad hom. Condescending and misplaced.

and suggests you are wrong.

Funny; it seems this is directed at people who have begun their path to scientific maturity by willing to be wrong and welcoming proof that they are wrong. In which "proof" is stronger logical arguments or research findings or more plausible points.

Why the mix of confrontational language and almost missionary zeal to bring us the "light" of your philosophy? You know by now who we are and how we approach discussions like this.

[Diane]

Good post Bas. To add further:

This article isn't something to ignore just because it rattles your cage and suggests you are wrong.

This suggests to me that you may feel obliged to take on a role of perpetually cage-rattling. (It kind of fits with the whole chiro thing, in ways, doesn't it? - iconoclastic, embattled anti-statusquo lone ranger hero, etc.)
Or, it could reflect a more genuinely intrinsic, personal need to be reflective, stand outside the circle in order to think.
Guess what? Each person here already is outside the circle, thinking.

What you have brought in this thread does not contribute anything very meaningful to anyone's thinking process. Maybe you could take that as a hint to quit bringing stuff like this here: while your gusto for singing may be admirable, the music is way off-key.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Diane

Good post Bas. To add further:

This suggests to me that you may feel obliged to take on a role of perpetually cage-rattling. (It kind of fits with the whole chiro thing, in ways, doesn't it? - iconoclastic, embattled anti-statusquo lone ranger hero, etc.)
Or, it could reflect a more genuinely intrinsic, personal need to be reflective, stand outside the circle in order to think.
Guess what? Each person here already is outside the circle, thinking.

What you have brought in this thread does not contribute anything very meaningful to anyone's thinking process. Maybe you could take that as a hint to quit bringing stuff like this here: while your gusto for singing may be admirable, the music is way off-key.

It's very simple as to why one should pay attention.

If the fundamental theory is flawed then the practical consequences maybe flawed. Here this means implications for the diagnosis and treatment of subjective and mind-related states, and their physical consequences. The two primary categories endlessly talked about here are pain and placebo are just these sorts of things.

Mesodermists and brainiacs could be two sides of the same coin.

[Diane]

Sure. In the end it doesn't matter. But it matters a lot how we get there, so that when we look back we can feel we accomplished something by being more logical, less mystical.

Then we will all be back to undifferentiable stardust and none of it will matter anymore.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Diane

Sure. In the end it doesn't matter. But it matters a lot how we get there, so that when we look back we can feel we accomplished something by being more logical, less mystical.

Then we will all be back to undifferentiable stardust and none of it will matter anymore.

Sounds like you are agreeing with me. The logic is about the fallacies of materialist theories of mind which are in the final analysis mystical.

Undifferentiated stardust is also a falsified notion from materialist thought. The concepts and evidence in current physics don't even support "dust" ideas as necessary beings. See if anyone in physics will claim that a fundamental particle is a necessary being. Ockham's Razor would shudder at the pruning job need for such a bloated ontology.

[Diane]

No, I definitely do not agree with you. Never have. To me you sound like someone trapped inside a disco ball in which the mirrors are all on the inside, reflecting toward the center. Have a nice day.

[Frédéric]

Natasha Demkina, then 17 years old, claimed that she could look deep inside peoples’ bodies, examine their organs, and spot when something was wrong. As part of a test broadcast on television by the Discovery Channel, Natasha was given a set of seven cards, with a medical condition indicated on each. Medical subjects with these seven conditions (one of which was “no condition”), each bearing an identifying number, stood in a row and Natasha had to mark each card with the number of the person whom she thought had the condition indicated on the card. Under the tightly-controlled conditions imposed by the experimenters, she identified four of the seven correctly. The odds of getting 4 hits or more out of 7 by chance are more than 50 to 1 against. Another way of expressing this would be to say the probability that the null hypothesis is correct – that is, that Natasha displayed no genuine ability but merely got lucky – is less than 2 percent.

The odds of winning the 6/49 jackpot here in Québec are 1 in 14 000 000, yet, on this game alone there are around 35 winners a year. Are all the winners psychics for guessing the right numbers?

The odds of dying on a plane crash are 1 in 9.2 millions, yet people die every year on plane crash.

So 2% isn't that much lucky. Could be just sheer luck, it happened before.

But lets assume she actually is able to "look deep down in people's body". What does that tell us exactly? Perhaps she knows Claire Bear, Peter Petrelli or Hiro Nakamura, they all have powers of their own...