|
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2012 : 15:35:49
|
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]
|
| 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! |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 19:05:56 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 19:31:49 [Permalink]
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 19:51:34 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 20:08:06 [Permalink]
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 08:14:32 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 13:43:41 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consciousness vs. Brain
