Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Consciousness vs. Brain
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Storm
SFN Regular

USA
708 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  15:35:49  Show Profile  Visit Storm's Homepage Send Storm a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Does brain generate mind or vice versa? so when the braind dies mind does as well? quoted from the Journal of Psychical Research,
"However, although too many issues are involved to be fully addressed here, it is incorrect to assume that because brain and mental activity are linked the former necessarily causes the latter. This link would equally be present if mind works through brain. The link simply demonstrates correlation, and correlation alone does not tell us which of two variables is primary. The point was effectively made over a century ago by Professor Schiller, who was SPR President in 1914. Schiller wrote in 1891:-
. . . Materialism is a hysteron proteron, a putting of the cart before the horse, which may be rectified by just inverting the connection between Matter and Consciousness. Matter is not that which produces Consciousness, but that which limits it ... material organisation does not construct Consciousness out of arrange­ments of atoms, but contracts its manifestation within the sphere which it permits. This explanation . . . [fits] the facts alleged in favour of Materialism equally well, besides enabling us to understand facts which Materialism rejected as 'supernatural'. It explains the lower by the higher . . . and thereby attains to an explanation which is ultimately tenable, instead of one which is ultimately absurd.

William Roll psychologist and fromer president for the Society States, " The brain is a filtering organism. Many scientists believe that its primary function is not to produce experiences but to filter them out. The brain stem . . . regulates the flow of sensory information ... If we were sensitive to all the energies that surround us ... we would be unable to find our way in the world . . .
Roll proposes that "as death approaches, the filters in the brain dissolve, and the Self becomes aware of realities formerly blocked out.
Until we have conclusive evidence that the brain's electro-chemical activity can give rise to complex mental events, we are unjustified in assuming that brain is primary to mind. In the meanwhile, it might be argued that the occur­rence of psychokinesis (PK) gives at least some hint that mind may be able to influence matter directly. In the light of present knowledge, the conclusion reached by Velmans, one of the leading psychologists involved in consciousness research, is appropriate: "no discovery that reduces consciousness to brain has yet been made" (Velmans, 2000). Nobel Prizewinner, Sir John Eccles (1989), put it even more strongly: "Regardless of the complexity of electrical, chemical and biological machinery" in the brain there is "in natural laws" no statement as to how the mind can emerge. "The self-conscious mind must have some non-material existence". Tart (1996) points out that that good science must take account of all the facts, and the . . .
. . . equation of the mind with nothing but brain simply does not [do this] . . . the brain has a lot to do with mind . . . But it is not all that there is to mind. It is bad science simply to accept materialism without having looked at all the evidence ... It is clear to me that whatever mind is—mind, soul, essence, whatever you like to call it —it is not equivalent to the brain, or the body.

Food for thought

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  17:20:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The link simply demonstrates correlation...


Sure. And the link between me turning the key in the ignition in my car and the car staring is also correlation.

Materialism sure is absurd...

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  19:05:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Show me one instance of PK that has been verified as being anything but a trick.

William Roll was a parapsychologist whose most famous case according to Wiki was the Columbus Poltergeist case which involved Roll's assertion of PK activity around a little girl, Tina Resch.
The story lost some of its credibility when a video camera that had accidentally been left on by a visiting television station crew revealed Tina knocking over a lamp, an event that had been ascribed to the poltergeist. Tina claimed she had done that to get the reporters to leave. James Randi accused the Resches and parapsychologist William Roll of denying him a look at the phenomena.




In a review of an Robert Anton Wilson book The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science by Jim Lippard, there is this criticism of Wilson's account of the Columbus Poltergeist:

On pp. 52-53, Wilson talks about the Columbus, Ohio poltergeist case. His description of James Randi's involvement is to say that "Then Mr. Randi of CSICOP arrived and, without entering the house, announced that it was all a fraud. The Resch family, offended, refused to let Mr. Randi into the house, whereupon he left, presumably still knowing it was all fraud." In fact, the CSICOP team of James Randi and professors Steven Shore and Nicholas Sanduleak of Case Western Reserve University were refused admittance upon identifying themselves as representatives of CSICOP. Parapsychologist William Roll, on the other hand, was admitted. The CSICOP team questioned most of the participants--the parents of Tina Resch (the girl around whom the poltergeist activity occurred), the reporters, photographers, TV cameramen, and others who were at the house. CSICOP also obtained a contact sheet of photographs from Fred Shannon of the Columbus Dispatch which showed evidence of fakery. Wilson fails to note these photographs, a videotape filmed by WTVN-TV of Cincinnati which shows Tina Resch knocking over a lamp, or testimony from several reporters who observed Tina cheating (see "The Columbus Poltergeist Case: Part I" by James Randi in the Spring 1985 Skeptical Inquirer).
Bolding is mine.

I can get more on this case, but I think it's pretty interesting that when a research team from CSICOP showed up, Including James Randi, William Roll was one of the people who denied them entrance. So much for science...


Monster Talk Episode:

THE COLUMBUS POLTERGEIST (featuring James Randi)


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Storm
SFN Regular

USA
708 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  19:31:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Storm's Homepage Send Storm a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Not sure on the bolding thing...but i am not interested in william Rolls thing with james Randi..not familiar with the incident and you have that old thing of he said she said..In the Skeptical Inquirer there were quite a few Skeptics themselves that altered tests so and so..In fact I still have that issue. Anyway other than all that bullshit I just want you to think of what william Roll said. What Schiller said. There are many tests done in labs all over on pk. Look through the Society of Psychical research Journals they have done hundreds and continue too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  19:51:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Storm

Not sure on the bolding thing...but i am not interested in william Rolls thing with james Randi..not familiar with the incident and you have that old thing of he said she said..In the Skeptical Inquirer there were quite a few Skeptics themselves that altered tests so and so..In fact I still have that issue. Anyway other than all that bullshit I just want you to think of what william Roll said. What Schiller said. There are many tests done in labs all over on pk. Look through the Society of Psychical research Journals they have done hundreds and continue too.
Really? And not one time has anyone wanted to claim the million dollars if they could demonstrate that pk is possible? Dang!

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Storm
SFN Regular

USA
708 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  20:08:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Storm's Homepage Send Storm a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Kil, i don;t think there really interested in James Randi and his million dollars. I don't think they even think about it. The Society admits in many testings that some things they cannot prove. Some they can observe outside the laboratory some not.
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2012 :  08:14:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Storm

Kil, i don;t think there really interested in James Randi and his million dollars. I don't think they even think about it.
Oh! their interested all right, they're interested in avoiding it and the negative exposure that would insue, after it proved them to be fraudsters and con men/women. Exactly like has happened to every single charlton or deluded challenger that has been foolish enough to attempt accepting Randy's challenge. You could safely bet every dollar you got that if they were able to prove their claims they would rellish being able to shut Randy up, walk away with Randy's million dollars and publicly humiliate him. I would think they would do that for free but obviously they can't.

The Society admits in many testings that some things they cannot prove. Some they can observe outside the laboratory some not.


And exactly what does "The Society" claim they can prove? Outside of they're private and closed tests? That would be?????
So far they can't even prove they're not shysters.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Edited by - sailingsoul on 02/17/2012 08:15:51
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13467 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2012 :  13:43:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Storm

Kil, i don;t think there really interested in James Randi and his million dollars. I don't think they even think about it. The Society admits in many testings that some things they cannot prove. Some they can observe outside the laboratory some not.
Well. My point was that William Roll doesn't really seem to be interested in science so much as he is in supporting his own bias. Otherwise he would have no problem with allowing the CSICOP team into a paranormal investigation. That's why I said, "So much for science." I was talking about him.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.55 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000