For any remaining mind/body dualists out there: neuroscientist Patrick Haggard builds magnetic coils that he can hold close to your head, and use them to control your body via signals to your brain. “Transcranial magnetic stimulation” would be the technical term. (He thinks it means you don’t have free will, because he’s a neuroscientist and not a philosopher.)
The machinery can’t force Prof Haggard to do anything really complicated – “You can’t make me sign my name,” he says, almost ruefully – but at one point, Christina is able to waggle his index finger slightly, like a schoolmaster. It’s very fine control, a part of the brain specifically in command of a part of the body. “There’s quite a detailed map of the brain’s wiring to the body that you can build,” he tells me.
We sometimes say “the Large Hadron Collider is the most complex machine ever built,” but I’m not sure how it would directly compare to a human being. All part of the great bootstrap up to greater complexity, which will continue for a while until it all inevitably deteriorates into empty space.
“A non-Cartesian mund/body duality can be demonstrated in a theoretical account that also explains […] quantum wave/paricle duality ”
No it can’t.
(1) there is no such thing as non Cartesian dualism. If you believe in dualism you are a Cartesian of some kind. (2) Saying things doesn’t make them so. You have to actually make the argument and not just claim that one exists. (3) Repeating magic jargon gleaned from popular books on QM that you’ve read doesn’t mean you understand them or that your application of the term makes any sense. Wave/particle duality does exist but it is totally unrelated to the philosophical dualism Descartes advocated.
“(1) there is no such thing as non Cartesian dualism. If you believe in dualism you are a Cartesian of some kind. (2) Saying things doesn’t make them so. You have to actually make the argument and not just claim that one exists. (3) Repeating magic jargon gleaned from popular books on QM that you’ve read doesn’t mean you understand them or that your application of the term makes any sense. Wave/particle duality does exist but it is totally unrelated to the philosophical dualism Descartes advocated.”
Sounds merely like the opiniated and unjustifiable assumpotions of a closed mind to me.
Try wikipedia on mind-body dualism for a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_dualism
I say a dualism that that has nothing to do with the pineal gland and that does not postulate the mind to be a detachable “immaterial substance” implying a soul that with a heavenly or hellish afterlife, is quite straight forwardly deducible from the evidence of q1uantum physics, and by relating a certain quantum hypotghesis to certain simply describable problems of mind and consciousness.
This being a causal conception of subjectivity that can be backed up by an equally straightforward general theory of the behaviour of living organisms.
Prove me wrong.
“Try wikipedia on mind-body dualism for a start.” — I am fully aware of the history and that the beginnings of Cartesian dualism have their roots in the Greeks. Everything does. But Descartes is the acknowledged originator of dualism and indeed the mind/body problem itself. If you ever happen to attend university and you are asked on a test who is the founder of dualism any answer other than Descartes is *wrong*.
“I say a dualism […] does not postulate the mind to be a detachable “immaterial substance'” — You should try reading some philosophy some time and attending university level lectures. Reading Wikipedia just doesn’t give one the whole story. That way you could avoid saying laughably ignorant things like the above.
The immaterial soul “is quite straight forwardly deducible from the evidence of q1uantum physics” — That’s quite a strong claim. By all means please show us your proof. But what you have given so far is not an argument, deductive or otherwise. All you have done is to state claims that you *say* you can prove. Well then please do so.
“Prove me wrong.” — You have it backwards. It is you who needs to give an argument for your position and you have not provided one. I cannot disprove your assertions. They are mere assertions.
The moon is made of green cheese — Prove me wrong.
The author here, a senior nuclear physicist, advocates the development of non-Cartesian dualism: http://www.newdualism.org/why.htm and here: http://www.newdualism.org/newtheory.htm
“Non-Cartesian Dualisms of mind/body and divinity/nature…seeking to understand how minds and bodies are distinct, but intertwined and causally connected at many levels.”
He also takes certain afterlife evidence seriously which is interesting.
His approach reminds me a little of David Bohm’s (I did his quantum theory course at Birkbeck) who advocates various “levels” informing one another continuously and the idea of active information as an example of this in his ontological QT interpretation (quite valid BTW as it reproduces *all* QT results).
Here too: Psycho-Physical Dualism Today: An Interdisciplinary Approach with the author above as a contributor.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Psycho-Physical-Dualism-Today-Interdisciplinary-Approach/dp/073912384X
So the idea of some kinds of “forms”, which can under certain circumstances have their own independence and which interact with what we call “physical” (and of course be part of them for our normal purposes), is being tackled head on.
“I say a dualism […] does not postulate the mind to be a detachable “immaterial substance’” — You should try reading some philosophy some time and attending university level lectures. Reading Wikipedia just doesn’t give one the whole story. That way you could avoid saying laughably ignorant things like the above.”
As a matter of fact I have studied philophy at university and on my own account, and at no time was I told” (1) there is no such thing as non Cartesian dualism. If you believe in dualism you are a Cartesian of some kind.”
I have also taken a university course on quantum physics and studied it in depth on my own account.
The big trouble is both in the philosopy of mind and in the interpretation of the quantum evidence one is assailed by many and various a priori opinions, and especially from proclaimed experts. And of the connection between the quantum evidence and mind you can only find woolly arguments anywhere.
My claims of a definite quantum-mind connection is based from my own independently developed cause and effect theory that requires an extended methodical and systematic argument that I’m still working on after some 29 years. Although the basics of what might be called a general theory of natural organisation are quite clear and simple, given an unorthodox quantum hypothesis.
But I hope to show some time fairly soon, in a paper I”m presently working on, that a lot of problematic philosophy and scientific theory can be resolved by sufficently justifying and representing enough details of a nonlocally acting cause from its observable and detectable effects upon matter and energy, and on all scales in the natural world.
I can describe new experiments of kind that could be performed to support this theory, but having worked quite independently for so long on my own account, I need contacts with the appropriate academics, which I’m currently attempting to make.
“The author here, a senior nuclear physicist” — Argument from authority fallacy. Nuclear physicists are crappy philosophers. The fact that someone has a degree in nuclear physics doesn’t make him an expert in philosophy nor does it mean the goofy theory he came up with all by himself is correct.
He says: “The challenge discussed at this website is to develop a Non-Cartesian Dualism. — We can begin by acknowledging that complete theory of dualism should show how dual substances may be intertwined and contiguous at many levels and at many scales.”
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If one proposes that the world consists of two substances you simply ARE a Cartesian dualist. He may think he has improved on Descartes idea by comparing it to the Mandelbrot set but that is still good old fashioned substance dualism and it is still easily refuted by the usual arguments.
Coming up with ideas on how dualism *could* be reinterpreted under QM doesn’t really solve dualism’s inherent LOGICAL flaws. How can a non-causal substance causally interact with matter? When I form the intention to raise my arm in my MIND, how does my mind, which is according to dualism non material and non causal, manage to CAUSE my arm to be raised? How does the concept of a non material material, what minds are presumed to be made of, make a lick of sense?
Here is where he goes wrong:
“The fundamental idea for ‘Generative Dualism’ is that, where there are two discrete degrees ‘mind’ and ‘body’:”
Sure, that’s straight up classical Cartesian dualism. There are only two things in the universe, minds and bodies. Ok so far.
“1. The dispositional features (propensities) of the body are generated (derived, produced) from the actions of dispositions of the mind.”
Begging the question fallacy. You cannot assume what you are trying to prove. My “dispositional features”, the fact of my arm being raised, is generated or *caused* by actions of the mind. Well yeah, that is the dualist’s claim. What he and you need to do is to show how it is that a non causal entity, the mind, can cause a material entity, my arm, to be raised. You are not allowed to just declare that, according to your super duper brand new theory about dualism that is like totally brand new and fancy, that actions in the body are “generated” (caused) by minds. THAT’S WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SHOW.
“He also takes certain afterlife evidence seriously which is interesting.”
It may be to you but it just means he’s a goof to me. There simply is NO EVIDENCE for an afterlife. And yes I know about super special near death experiences that you’ll no doubt want to trot out here. They have all been debunked.
“His approach reminds me a little of David Bohm’s “ — The idea that the brain is a hologram doesn’t solve your problem because holograms are material objects. Penrose and Hameroff have failed to show how quantum events occurring at extremely brief time scales could possibly interact with big slow neurons. It can’t be done, quantum events are just too small and fast to be captured by the macro world of proteins and neurons.
“So the idea of some kinds of “forms”, which can under certain circumstances have their own independence and which interact with what we call “physical” “
HOW!??? How does pure form (ideas, which occur in the mind) interact with the physical world? HOW?????? According to him minds and brains are intertwined like values in the Mandelbrot set. So what? What difference does that make? HOW do they interact?
B.N. Pointing to websites where I have to read several pages just to find out what your argument is, isn’t really *arguing*. It’s just pointing like a child and asking “What about that? Ok, What about this other thing huh? What about that?” I shouldn’t have to do your work for you. You have a responsibility to understand the argument you believe in and be able to sum it up clearly and concisely and then defend it with rational arguments. It isn’t my job to present your case for you, that’s your j0b.
” It isn’t my job to present your case for you, that’s your j0b.”
Never said it was.
Noen
The evidence above I gave above (Scole etc.) including physical phenomena seen by dozens, inc. scientists nails non-physical intelligence (NPI) as real. The only argument *stated*, never considered seriously by anyone involved deeply is fraud. Never shown – ever. Your last refuge above was electronic video cameras not being allowed – a childish defence considering the *range* of what was seen.
NDE studies, well I don’t think you are aware of Dr. Melvin Morse’s studies, Prof. Pim Van Lommel, Dr. Peter Fenwick, the current massive AWARE study by an international team of doctors (results pending). All address your issues here but results point to powerful veridicality here for some experiences. The shared experiences where several are witnesses may be too much for you.
So from two directions, totally different, evidence for NPI.
As to how mind makes your arm move, who knows? There are models, Dr. Henry Stapp has tried a quantum Zeno effect approach and devoted a lot a time to this. Interestingly he is the consulting physicist on the AWARE study and has also made an *actual statement* on survival on his website. So there’s an actual model for you (a HOW) to chew on, for a problem you seem to regard as intractable.
“quantum events are just too small and fast to be captured by the macro world of proteins and neurons”. You are a little behind here.
http://www.ias.surrey.ac.uk/workshops/quantumbiology/ and in fact Vlatko Vedral has argued quite well I think, with experimental data, how you get macroscopic biological effects from quantum processes.
The reason I posted the “Psycho-Physical Dualism Today: An Interdisciplinary Approach” book is precisely because new forms of dualism may be able to avoid Descartes’ problems (which are thought to be invalid anyway – not surprising as he only had classical physics to hand).
You misread on Bohm BTW above – his ideas before he died were pointing at possible autonomous levels, which could still interact with lower levels, and his active information idea (within known quantum physics) showed an example of this. So there are ideas which may show how simple dualism can be extended – it’s an active field, in physics and philosophy.
“The evidence above I gave above (Scole etc.) including physical phenomena seen by dozens, inc. scientists nails non-physical intelligence (NPI) as real. “
It most certainly does not. You gave no evidence. The Scole experiment was conducted with no controls, no safeguards at all. People who make their living through fraud were allowed complete freedom to do as they please and *surprise!* were able to dupe gullible scientists.
“The only argument *stated*, never considered seriously by anyone involved deeply is fraud.”
The fact that those involved never considered they might be victims of fraud does not prove there was no fraud.
“Your last refuge above was electronic video cameras not being allowed – a childish defence considering the *range* of what was seen.”
The fact that people saw a range of odd lights whose true origin might have been exposed by video cameras does not prove that video cameras could not have exposed the true nature of those lights nor that they must be unembodied minds.
“NDE studies, well I don’t think you are aware of ….. (results pending)”
Citing unpublished studies by people already highly suspect of if not still active in fraud does not constitute evidence.
“All address your issues here but results point to powerful veridicality here for some experiences.”
(1) Saying that someone else has answered all my objections does not constitute YOU answering my objections. (2) Again, saying something is so does not equal it actually being so. And yes, I am aware of those people and I am also aware of the criticisms by Shermer and others and I find their critique more credible.
“As to how mind makes your arm move, who knows?”
Dualists need to provide an account for how non-causal entities can produce causal effects. You can’t because the very concept is self contradictory and therefore MUST be false. You are not allowed to hand wave my request to give a logical coherent explanation for how dualism could work. I reject dualism because it is, in it’s very formulation, incoherent and self contradictory. You need to respond honestly (1) to maintain your own personal integrity and (2) keep some semblance of being an educated person living in the modern era.
I have given you a good deal of my time by now. I have addressed your claims and given honest criticism. I have not engaged in personal attack or ad hom. You need to respond in kind. You are in fact doing damage to your own personal integrity in your own eyes when you engage in dishonest or specious argument.
It seems unlikely what I say will ever sway you. Do you have iTunes? I suggest that you subscribe to “Critical Reasoning for Beginners” from Oxford University by Marianne Talbot available through iTunesU. Highly recommended.
“Dr. Henry Stapp has tried a quantum Zeno effect approach and devoted a lot a time to this. “
Well goody for him. Perhaps he could come around and explain his ideas. It doesn’t seem like you ever will.
He “has also made an *actual statement* on survival on his website.”
Everyone on the planet has a website AND an opinion. Sorry but stating one’s opinion does not constitute an actual argument and citing someone else’s opinion as proof that your opinion is true is not valid. You seem to think that just pointing to the opinions of important people (or people *you* think are important) some how justifies your beliefs. It does not.
OWN your beliefs. Don’t steal them from other people. Ground them in clear rational argument backed up with real evidence (find out what counts as evidence) and defend them logically. Then you will have something!
From your link to Vlatko Vedral:
“Centres of quantum theoreticians and experimentalists on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to understand how fragile quantum mechanical phenomena previously thought to be confined to highly rarefied laboratory systems at temperatures close to absolute zero, manage to survive in the wet, warm biological world.”
Uh yeah, that is the question. It’s highly controversial. What is your argument in favor? I have given mine against, that QM events are too fast and at too small a scale to have an effect on us here in the middle scaled world. Just pointing to someone who agrees with you does not equal YOU giving me your reasons in favor of the proposal.
“The reason I posted the “Psycho-Physical Dualism Today: An Interdisciplinary Approach” book is precisely because new forms of dualism may be able to avoid Descartes’ problems “
Ok, you’ve read the book, I haven’t. How does the author respond to the traditional refutations of dualism? You can’t seriously expect me to read the book, divine your agreements with it, compose a summary and then present it here? That’s not my job, that’s YOUR job. YOU need to do that and I am not required to move on until you do. I will simply keep repeating my critique, that dualism is self contradictory and incoherent. Pointing at authoritative people or books or studies is you being unresponsive.
“as he only had classical physics to hand”
Quantum mechanics does not validate dualism, classical or “new”.
“You misread on Bohm BTW above – his ideas before he died were pointing at possible autonomous levels, which could still interact with lower levels”
(1) it isn’t my job to give your argument for you. If you wish me to correctly understand it you must make it clear and not depend on other people to make it for you. I did my best but I don’t know what “levels” refers to. Levels of what? HOW does a higher level of spirit stuff interact with lower levels of matter?
“his active information idea”
What is active information? I know what information is but this sounds like a back handed way of getting “spirit stuff” in the discussion without examining what it is. What is spirit stuff? What is it made of? How does it interact with matter? If it is composed of particles moving in lines of force that causally interact with other particles (matter) then you have not solved your problem. All you’ve done is propose there exists some other stuff *in this universe* that can account for conscious minds. Worse, you have no evidence for this new substance.
I don’t have to do that. I can fully account for what is called the mind. Mental events are brain states. Simple! I do not have to invent some new stuff to give an explanation and by the law of parsimony my account is therefore the correct one.
“So there are ideas which may show how simple dualism can be extended”
And maybe some day someone will come by who can give an argument as to why I should accept dualism.
BTW, we have a name for quantum biology, it’s called biology.
You are very strange. You see fraud everywhere – if you watch the documentary you see light phenomena *on film*, in your face, on recorded tape. And you call professors and doctors investigating NDEs “people already highly suspect of if not still active in fraud”.
You call two husbands and two wives frauds – the Scole mediums.
“Mental events are brain states. Simple!” Then what is this? Witnessed by scientists and others in a bare stone cellar:
“The first phenomena that I saw were small points of golden light dancing in the corner of the room…they danced animatedly upwards and downwards…Shortly following this, there appeared a ball of diffused light, which I estimated to have a diameter of about 20 cm, close to the ceiling in the same corner…as the lights. The ball had no physical boundary: it was simply a three-dimensional orb of diffused golden light. It hung suspended for a moment in the corner about 30 cm beneath the ceiling. Slowly the orb moved toward the centre of the room, pausing above the centre of the table round which we were all sitting. It lowered itself by about 17 cm, remained still, then retreated slowly upwards and backwards into the corner…There were no beams of light to the orb, and the light was not reflected onto a surface; it moved independently in space. This occurred twice in succession, and I became aware of an overwhelming feeling of gentleness and love which seemed to accompany this phenomenon or, more accurately, which this phenomenon seemed to embody.”
It seems to be an intelligent light form and is typical of non-physical intelligence observed.
Where is your comment “Mental events are brain states. Simple!” In tatters frankly because many observations indicated a relation to *this* life, a life lived previously by humans.
Where did it come from? Why does it choose to appear in front of six people? Is there a relation between this and people (natural questions – all these, questions people find it difficult to ask including myself). That is intelligent behaviour! You would see this as well. Would you deny your eyes? And the rest? Writing on closed plastic films? Levitating crystals? Sitters in shirt sleeves and light dresses throughout? How did they all manage it noen? Over several years.
Ockham’ Razor, the Law of Parsimony: the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.
What is the simplest explanation for this, as fraud is ruled out? Well, NPI is what it is – origin unknown and the conclusion of the investigators. Needs a theory.
“You see fraud everywhere “ — I see the potential for outright fraud because there is money to be made duping people into giving you their money. I also see the potential for self delusion. It’s called critical thinking.
“You call two husbands and two wives frauds – the Scole mediums.” — Yes I do.
“Then what is this?” — It’s anecdote, it’s a narrative, a story and stories are not evidence.
“Where did it come from?” — From the hands of those who perpetrated the deception. Any magician will tell you those effects are trivial to perform.
“That is intelligent behaviour!” — Yes it is. Con artists are intelligent people.
“Would you deny your eyes?” — I have noticed that when I watch Star Trek there are not really FTL space ships, phasers and teleporters. I have also noticed that there are many optical illusions that can deceive my eyes. So yes, part of intelligent critical thinking is to doubt your first perceptions. They are sometimes wrong.
“What is the simplest explanation for this, as fraud is ruled out?” — Fraud isn’t ruled out. Your incredulity that someone would accuse psychics and spiritual mediums of being frauds does not make them honest.
We are done here. It is clear you are incapable of arguing your case. You simply repeat the same unsubstantiated claims over and over without the slightest attempt to give a rational account of them. I’ve explained my side and I’m happy with that.
Wow – this is getting scary. “Any magician will tell you those effects are trivial to perform.”
Expert magician comments here by James Webster (witness and Associate and Silver Medal Holder of the Inner Magic Circle – UK), Professor Richard Wiseman (noted UK sceptic), Professor Arthur Hastings of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology. Verdict: impossible to reproduce.
http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/artcl_01.htm
So somehow, a pair of husbands and wives, in light shirts and dresses, in front of dozens of witnesses including scientists who were experienced investigators (and others), *you say* duped them all over 3 years and at multiple locations (BTW the four travelled to the US – California – at their own expense). Incredible.
*sigh* If I may briefly sum up what noen already said… maybe it helps to boil thinks down.
Anecdotal evidence sucks. Eye witness testimony is unreliable. In fact, it’s pretty much the weakest evidence that is still allowed in court. In science, it isn’t. Sometimes they’re used as PRELIMINARY hint that something might be going on (especially in medicine), but then a large well controlled study must be performed to bear things out and in most cases they turn out to be wrong, statistically insignificant.
It’s like arguing that a, OH MY GOD, pilot saw an UFO. Pilots are cool guys. Therefore aliens are invading the earth…
Pilots are humans and human perception sucks. Not only does human perception suck, human memory isn’t even a static recording. Every time you access a memory it changes.
Quite simply, if you do not have reproducible evidence… well, bad luck.
And while we’re at it. You shouldn’t misrepresent what other people say. Professor Richard Wiseman, who is indeed a noted skeptic, who wrote many great books, had the following to say after the session he attended: “It was a load of rubbish!”
Which nicely sums up my opinion of the scientific strictness of the report.