Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 9

[Soupie]

One might respond:

"Because emergent properties cannot be reduced to smaller parts and are instead a combination of smaller parts and their interactions, the properties come from primary properties but aren't found in primary properties."

So when we look at the parts of a brain--the neurons--we can't see the emergent property. Likewise, if we look at the individual water molecules that combine and interact to realize a wave, we will not see a wave. So molecule is to wave as neuron is to green.

But a difference remains: When we observe combinations of interacting molecules was see waves. But when we observe combinations of interacting neurons we do not see green.

Why is this? It seems very, very intuitive that phenomenal consciousness emerges from combinations of interacting neurons. There are heaps of evidence that combinations of interacting neurons are crucial to phenomenal consciousness, and yet this curious distinction remains.

 

[smcder]

One might respond:

"Because emergent properties cannot be reduced to smaller parts and are instead a combination of smaller parts and their interactions, the properties come from primary properties but aren't found in primary properties."

So when we look at the parts of a brain--the neurons--we can't see the emergent property. Likewise, if we look at the individual water molecules that combine and interact to realize a wave, we will not see a wave. So molecule is to wave as neuron is to green.

But a difference remains: When we observe combinations of interacting molecules was see waves. But when we observe combinations of interacting neurons we do not see green.

Why is this? It seems very, very intuitive that phenomenal consciousness emerges from combinations of interacting neurons. There are heaps of evidence that combinations of interacting neurons are crucial to phenomenal consciousness, and yet this curious distinction remains.

We've covered the ground on this thread in terms of consciousness with two exceptions:

1. dualism
2. the "paranormal"

As for the latter, evidence continues to collect on Dr. Radin's site

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

I spent quite a bit of time reading and working through the papers collected there and I've offered to go through in detail any or all of the studies found there, including the impressive work of Professor Jessica Utts of UC Irvine JESSICA UTTS' HOME PAGE

 

[Constance]

We've covered the ground on this thread in terms of consciousness with two exceptions:

1. dualism
2. the "paranormal"

Agreed.

As for the latter, evidence continues to collect on Dr. Radin's site

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

I spent quite a bit of time reading and working through the papers collected there and I've offered to go through in detail any or all of the studies found there, including the impressive work of Professor Jessica Utts of UC Irvine JESSICA UTTS' HOME PAGE

I'm ready for this change of emphasis. I will look through both those sites and find specific topics I'd like to see us explore here. Since there is bound to be a great deal on offer at those sites by this point in time, I hope you'll go ahead and take up that which interests you most among the studies cited there to get us started.

One suggestion: it might be most useful, perhaps at the outset, to also repost the outlines you provided earlier of topic sections of Kelly and Kelly et al, Irreducible Mind. If you'd like me to search them out and copy them here I'll be glad to.

 

[smcder]

Agreed.



I'm ready for this change of emphasis. I will look through both those sites and find specific topics I'd like to see us explore here. Since there is bound to be a great deal on offer at those sites by this point in time, I hope you'll go ahead and take up that which interests you most among the studies cited there to get us started.

One suggestion: it might be most useful, perhaps at the outset, to also repost the outlines you provided earlier of topic sections of Kelly and Kelly et al, Irreducible Mind. If you'd like me to search them out and copy them here I'll be glad to.

That would be good, Constance - thank you!

 

[smcder]

We've covered the ground on this thread in terms of consciousness with two exceptions:

1. dualism
2. the "paranormal"

As for the latter, evidence continues to collect on Dr. Radin's site:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

I spent quite a bit of time reading and working through the papers collected there and I've offered to go through in detail any or all of the studies found there, including the impressive work of Professor Jessica Utts of UC Irvine JESSICA UTTS' HOME PAGE

Dean Radin's page http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm has a section labelled "Theory" with some interesting papers, I read some of these but it's been a little while, I'll have a look through and see what is promising.

Theory

Josephson & Pallikari-Viras (1991). Biological utilisation of quantum nonlocality
ABSTRACT
The perception of reality by biosystems is based on different, and in certain respects more effective principles than those utilised by the more formal procedures of science. As a result, what appears as random pattern to the scientific method can be meaningful pattern to a living organism. The existence of this complementary perception of reality makes possible in principle effective use by organisms of the direct interconnections between spatially separated objects shown to exist in the work of J.S. Bell.

May et al (1995). Decision augmentation theory: Towards a model of anomalous mental phenomena
ABSTRACT: Decision augmentation theory (DAT) holds that humans integrate information obtained by anomalous cognition into the usual decision process. The result is that, to a statistical degree, such decisions are biased toward volitional outcomes. We introduce our model and show that the domain over which it is applicable is within a few standard deviations from chance. We contrast the theory's experimental consequences with those of models that treat anomalous effects as due to a force. We derive mathematical expressions for DAT and force-like models using two distributions, normal and binomial. DAT is testable both retrospectively and prospectively, and we provide statistical power curves to assist in the experimental design of such tests. We show that the experimental consequences of our theory are different from those of force-like models except for one special case.

Houtkooper (2002). Arguing for an observational theory of paranormal phenomena
Abstract—The problem of devising a theory for paranormal phenomena (psi) may be separated into, first, the basic physical mechanism and second, the psychological aspects of how and when people are able to elicit psi. Observational theory addresses primarily the first aspect, the basic physical mechanism of psi. A problem is that the known types of physical interaction do not fit the existing data. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics can be used to hypothe- size an observer who adds information at the collapse of the wave function. For each random event one of the possible outcomes becomes realized as the event is being observed. The basic tenet of observational theory is: the statistics of single events become biased if the observer is motivated and prefers one of the possible outcomes over the other. Features of observational theory are: its predictive power, proven with re- gard to retroactive psychokinesis (PK); parsimony: the same mechanism ex- plains ESP as well as PK; fruitfulness, as there is a direct relationship with quantum mechanics; and openness to crucial experiments. The falsifiability criterion poses some problems: these are discussed in relation to Lakatos’ methodology of research programmes. Observational theory is a solution to the problem of the mediation of psi, thus providing a framework for the psychological problem of the manifestation of psi. Henceforth, the observation of the outcome should be regarded as formal part of parapsychological experiments. There is reason for cautious, patient optimism about the acceptance of observational theory.

Bierman (2003). Does consciousness collapse the wave-packet?
The “subjective reduction” interpretation of measurement in quantum physics proposes that the collapse of the wave-packet, associated with measurement, is due to the consciousness of human observers. A refined conceptual replication of an earlier experiment, designed and carried out to test this interpretation in the 1970s, is reported. Two improvements are introduced. First, the delay between pre-observation and final observation of the same quantum event is increased from a few microseconds in the original experiment to one second in this replication. Second, rather than using the final observers’ verbal response as the dependent variable, his early brain responses as measured by EEG are used. These early responses cover a period during which an observer is not yet conscious of an observed event. Our results support the “subjective reduction” hypothesis insofar as significant differences in the brain responses o fthe final observer are found, depending on whether or not the pre-observer has been looking at the quantum event (exact binomial p < 0.02). Alternative “normal” explanations are discussed and rejected. It is concluded that the present results do justify further research along these lines.

 

[smcder]

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Theory

note many of these theoretical approaches to Psi are based on quantum mechanics, there are some interesting exceptions - I believe Radin tends toward explanations based in QM. His book conscious minds develops this idea.

Dunne & Jahn (2005). Consciousness, information, and living systems
Abstract -The possibility of a proactive role for consciousness in the establishment of physical reality has been addressed via an extensive 26-year program investigating physical anomalies in human/machine interactions and non-sensory acquisition of information about remote geographical locations. Empirical databases comprising many hundreds of millions of random events confirm that information can be introduced into, or extracted from, otherwise random physical processes solely through the agencies of human intention and subjective resonance. Much of the evidence mitigates the likelihood that the anomalies are manifestations of neo-cortical cognitive activity. Rather, they may be expressions of a deeper information organizing capacity of biological origin that emerges from the uncertainty inherent in the complexity of all living systems.

Henry (2005). The mental universe

Hiley & Pylkkanen (2005). Can mind affect matter via active information?
Abstract
Mainstream cognitive neuroscience typically ignores the role of quantum physical effects in the neural processes underlying cognition and consciousness. However, many unsolved problems remain, suggesting the need to consider new approaches. We propose that quantum theory, especially through an ontological interpretation due to Bohm and Hiley, provides a fruitful framework for addressing the neural correlates of cognition and consciousness. In particular, the ontological interpretation suggests that a novel type of “active information”, connected with a novel type of “quantum potential energy”, plays a key role in quantum physical processes. After introducing the ontological interpretation we illustrate its value for cognitive neuroscience by discussing it in the light of a proposal by Beck and Eccles about how quantum tunneling could play a role in controlling the frequency of synaptic exocytosis. In this proposal, quantum tunneling would enable the “self” to control its brain without violating the energy conservation law. We argue that the ontological interpretation provides a sharper picture of what actually could be taking place in quantum tunneling in general and in synaptic exocytosis in particular. Based on the notions of active information and quantum potential energy, we propose a coherent way of understanding how mental processes (understood as involving non-classical physical processes) can act on traditional, classically describable neural processes without violating the energy conservation law.

Lucadou et al (2007). Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory
Abstract Synchronistic or psi phenomena are interpreted as entanglement correlations in a generalized quantum theory. From the principle that entanglement correlations cannot be used for transmitting information, we can deduce the decline effect, frequently observed in psi experiments, and we propose strategies for suppressing it and improving the visibility of psi effects. Some illustrative examples are discussed.

Rietdijk (2007). Four-dimensional physics, nonlocal coherence, and paranormal phenomena
Abstract
1. We note that, as soon as retroaction and nonlocality (in an ordered way) interfere with physical phenomena, we may get the impression of “miracles” (paranormal phenomena) from a local causal point of view: the latter cannot explain them.
2. We start from some well-known processes, such as Young’s double-slit experiment and EPR, in order to extend relevant feedback processes and nonlocal coherence to living organisms and their influence on the environment.
3. We explain how retroaction emanating from living organisms may take the shape of goal orientation and make psychokinesis (PK) and clairvoyance easier to understand. We discuss concrete models of PK and clairvoyance and of striking coincidences and telepathy.
4. Our physical model joins with the “observational theory” that dominates in professional parapsychology.
5. We investigate how far such a model implies humankind to be a four dimensional organism up to a certain degree, taking into account hitherto unknown interindividual unconscious communications. 6. In all, our theory implies a change of paradigm, which also leads to an integration of deterministic “God does not play dice” and antireductionist “A microprocess acts as a whole.” That is, it introduces nonlocal determinism in which the psychological dimension is inherent.

Bierman (2010). Consciousness induced restoration of time symmetry (CIRTS ): A psychophysical theoretical perspective
ABSTRACT: A theoretical framework is proposed that starts from the assumption that information processing by a brain, while it is sustaining consciousness, is restoring the break in time symmetry in physics. No specifics are given with regard to which physical formalism, either quantum or classical, is the basis of the subsequent apparently anomalous consequences: “apparent” because the proposed model doesn’t require a radical extension or modification of existing physics. Rather it is argued that time symmetry that is already present in current physics should be taken seriously, and a simple initial mathematical formulation is given that allows for specific quantitative predictions. The elusiveness of psi phenomena, the experimenter effect, and the relationship of psi to other theoretical frameworks like decision augmentation theory (DAT), observational theory, and several others, are discussed. One of the major advantages of CIRTS is that it offers handles to link this theory to psychological theories that might explain individual differences. Specific testable predictions are given.

Tressoldi et al (2010). Extrasensory perception and quantum models of cognition.
Abstract The possibility that information can be acquired at a distance without the use of the ordinary senses, that is by “extrasensory perception” (ESP), is not easily accommodated by conventional neuroscientific assumptions or by traditional theories underlying our understanding of perception and cognition. The lack of theoretical support has marginalized the study of ESP, but experiments investigating these phenomena have been conducted since the mid‐19th century, and the empirical database has been slowly accumulating. Today, using modern experimental methods and meta‐analytical techniques, a persuasive case can be made that, neuroscience assumptions notwithstanding, ESP does exist. We justify this conclusion through discussion of one class of homogeneous experiments reported in 108 publications and conducted from 1974 through 2008 by laboratories around the world. Subsets of these data have been subjected to six meta‐analyses, and each shows significantly positive effects. The overall results now provide unambiguous evidence for an independently repeatable ESP effect. This indicates that traditional cognitive and neuroscience models, which are largely based on classical physical concepts, are incomplete. We speculate that more comprehensive models will require new principles based on a more comprehensive physics. The current candidate is quantum mechanics.

Tressoldi (2012). Replication unreliability in psychology: elusive phenomena or “elusive” statistical power?
Abstract The focus of this paper is to analyze whether the unreliability of results related to certain controversial psychological phenomena may be a consequence of their low statistical power. Applying the Null Hypothesis StatisticalTesting (NHST), still the widest used statistical approach, unreliability derives from the failure to refute the null hypothesis, in particular when exact or quasi-exact replications of experiments are carried out. Taking as example the results of meta-analyses related to four different controversial phenomena, subliminal semantic priming, incubation effect for problem solving, unconscious thought theory, and non-local perception, it was found that, except for semantic priming on categorization, the statistical power to detect the expected effect size (ES) of the typical study, is low or very low. The low power in most studies undermines the use of NHST to study phenomena with moderate or low ESs. We conclude by providing some suggestions on how to increase the statistical power or use different statistical approaches to help discriminate whether the results obtained may or may not be used to support or to refute the reality of a phenomenon with small ES.

 

[smcder]

I pulled this out from the list above ... a very short read, I've posted it before, but it is timely to the discussion and packs a punch:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Henry2005Nature.pdf

"Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental. In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived. This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists. To come to terms with the Universe, we must abandon such views. The world is quantum mechanical: we must learn to perceive it as such. One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe. We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true. Beyond the acquisition of this perception, physics can no longer help. You may descend into solipsism, expand to deism, or something else if you can justify it — just don’t ask physics for help. There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze. The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University

 

[smcder]

http://deanradin.com/evidence/vanLommel2006.pdf

@Soupie writes It seems very, very intuitive that phenomenal consciousness emerges from combinations of interacting neurons. There are heaps of evidence that combinations of interacting neuron s are crucial to phenomenal consciousness, and yet this curious distinction remains.

Greyson (2003) writes in his comment that no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain

 

[Constance]

I pulled this out from the list above ... a very short read, I've posted it before, but it is timely to the discussion and packs a punch:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Henry2005Nature.pdf

"Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental. In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived. This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists. To come to terms with the Universe, we must abandon such views. The world is quantum mechanical: we must learn to perceive it as such. One benefit of switching humanity to a correct perception of the world is the resulting joy of discovering the mental nature of the Universe. We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true. Beyond the acquisition of this perception, physics can no longer help. You may descend into solipsism, expand to deism, or something else if you can justify it — just don’t ask physics for help. There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze. The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University

I'm quite overwhelmed by the abstracts of the papers you've linked so far. I intend to read all of them in the next few days. I wish you could transmit into my mind your understanding of all of these and evidently much more that you've absorbed in your reading in parapsychology, especially because my own brain is very much on the fuzzy side this week (I think as a result of switching from tobacco cigarettes to an electronic one that produces a vapor containing nicotine. If this fuzziness continues I'll probably go back to the tobacco).

The first paper (brief one) I read this morning was the one you linked last, Richard Conn Henry on the Mental Universe. I sense that it will be a long time before I'm able to give up the conviction that the universe we live in is physical as well as mental, but I'll try. The next two I'll read are the last one you linked (vonLommel) and this one:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bierman2010CIRTS.pdf

>Bierman (2010). Consciousness induced restoration of time symmetry (CIRTS ): A psychophysical theoretical perspective
ABSTRACT: A theoretical framework is proposed that starts from the assumption that information processing by a brain, while it is sustaining consciousness, is restoring the break in time symmetry in physics. No specifics are given with regard to which physical formalism, either quantum or classical, is the basis of the subsequent apparently anomalous consequences: “apparent” because the proposed model doesn’t require a radical extension or modification of existing physics. Rather it is argued that time symmetry that is already present in current physics should be taken seriously, and a simple initial mathematical formulation is given that allows for specific quantitative predictions. The elusiveness of psi phenomena, the experimenter effect, and the relationship of psi to other theoretical frameworks like decision augmentation theory (DAT), observational theory, and several others, are discussed. One of the major advantages of CIRTS is that it offers handles to link this theory to psychological theories that might explain individual differences. Specific testable predictions are given.

I'm impressed by the Greyson comment apparently following Von Lommel that you quote in your post to @Soupie:

"Greyson (2003) writes in his comment that no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain."

Two other types of experience near death are equally significant. One is the suddenly increased clarity of thinking and speaking (and apparent vividness of experience) on the part of many grievously ill/dying persons in the day or two before death as witnessed by family members, nurses, and doctors, often in response to visions or hallucinations of the presence of long-deceased family members. The other is the phenomenon observed by doctors and medical technicians of a sudden and significant increase in EEG measurements of persons long in coma states, occurring at the point when a decision has been made, and preparations are under way, to shut down their life support systems. Von Lommel reports this phenomenon toward the end of his book Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. I'd quote from that section of the book but no longer have it and can't remember who I lent or gave it to.

I also think that Greyson's first statement quoted above -- that "no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE" -- likely also applies to other 'paranormal'/psi experiences, and that investigating all these experiences is the next step that needs to be taken in understanding the nature of consciousness.

 

[Constance]

Soupie @Soupie writes It seems very, very intuitive that phenomenal consciousness emerges from combinations of interacting neurons. There are heaps of evidence that combinations of interacting neuron s are crucial to phenomenal consciousness, and yet this curious distinction remains.

@Soupie, I still believe that neurons are 'real'-- real parts of my real body which includes my brain. I also believe that my senses are real and that they have evolved like the senses of all animals to enable my orientation to and survival in a real world/environment. But why should we think that everything we experience originates only from neurons/neural nets in the brain, given that our neural nets could not exist and develop without our bodies/our bodily being, our senses, our desires, will, and intentions in exploring the tangible situations we encounter in the 'world' as we experience it -- and on the basis of which we invent the concepts of world, life, and mind?

 

[smcder]

I'm quite overwhelmed by the abstracts of the papers you've linked so far. I intend to read all of them in the next few days. I wish you could transmit into my mind your understanding of all of these and evidently much more that you've absorbed in your reading in parapsychology, especially because my own brain is very much on the fuzzy side this week (I think as a result of switching from tobacco cigarettes to an electronic one that produces a vapor containing nicotine. If this fuzziness continues I'll probably go back to the tobacco).

The first paper (brief one) I read this morning was the one you linked last, Richard Conn Henry on the Mental Universe. I sense that it will be a long time before I'm able to give up the conviction that the universe we live in is physical as well as mental, but I'll try. The next two I'll read are the last one you linked (vonLommel) and this one:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bierman2010CIRTS.pdf

>Bierman (2010). Consciousness induced restoration of time symmetry (CIRTS ): A psychophysical theoretical perspective
ABSTRACT: A theoretical framework is proposed that starts from the assumption that information processing by a brain, while it is sustaining consciousness, is restoring the break in time symmetry in physics. No specifics are given with regard to which physical formalism, either quantum or classical, is the basis of the subsequent apparently anomalous consequences: “apparent” because the proposed model doesn’t require a radical extension or modification of existing physics. Rather it is argued that time symmetry that is already present in current physics should be taken seriously, and a simple initial mathematical formulation is given that allows for specific quantitative predictions. The elusiveness of psi phenomena, the experimenter effect, and the relationship of psi to other theoretical frameworks like decision augmentation theory (DAT), observational theory, and several others, are discussed. One of the major advantages of CIRTS is that it offers handles to link this theory to psychological theories that might explain individual differences. Specific testable predictions are given.

I'm impressed by the Greyson comment apparently following Von Lommel that you quote in your post to @Soupie:

"Greyson (2003) writes in his comment that no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain."

Two other types of experience near death are equally significant. One is the suddenly increased clarity of thinking and speaking (and apparent vividness of experience) on the part of many grievously ill/dying persons in the day or two before death as witnessed by family members, nurses, and doctors, often in response to visions or hallucinations of the presence of long-deceased family members. The other is the phenomenon observed by doctors and medical technicians of a sudden and significant increase in EEG measurements of persons long in coma states, occurring at the point when a decision has been made, and preparations are under way, to shut down their life support systems. Von Lommel reports this phenomenon toward the end of his book Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. I'd quote from that section of the book but no longer have it and can't remember who I lent or gave it to.

I also think that Greyson's first statement quoted above -- that "no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE" -- likely also applies to other 'paranormal'/psi experiences, and that investigating all these experiences is the next step that needs to be taken in understanding the nature of consciousness.

The material on Radin's page is challenging. It follows the peer review process and meets the criteria of scientific research. I've spent quite a bit of time with this material and on Jessica Utts page and I think there is some validity in saying that if we reject this research, we need to think about why we would not reject a lot of other "mainstream" research.

We've discussed problems with scientific research and recent recognition of how widespread it is - in the social and physical sciences. The same complaints made about Psi research might be applied to much of mainstream research.

Radin does a good job in his book discussing paradigm change in science and he also notes that lack of a theoretical basis for Psi is another problem - for mainstream science one can broadly point to a materialistic paradigm to justify findings, even without having a specific theory. But is it science to reject evidence because it doesn't fit status quo? Kuhn and others says this is normal in the history of science. Hansen in his book on the Trickster also discusses problems with scientific research into Psi.

Finally, look at the criticism of Thomas Nagel for his teleology in Mind and Cosmos.

Sometimes it feels like the game is to explain the world while arbitrarily limiting the explanatory "mechanisms" we can use - "why, Mother Nature dear, I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back."

 

[smcder]

I'm quite overwhelmed by the abstracts of the papers you've linked so far. I intend to read all of them in the next few days. I wish you could transmit into my mind your understanding of all of these and evidently much more that you've absorbed in your reading in parapsychology, especially because my own brain is very much on the fuzzy side this week (I think as a result of switching from tobacco cigarettes to an electronic one that produces a vapor containing nicotine. If this fuzziness continues I'll probably go back to the tobacco).

The first paper (brief one) I read this morning was the one you linked last, Richard Conn Henry on the Mental Universe. I sense that it will be a long time before I'm able to give up the conviction that the universe we live in is physical as well as mental, but I'll try. The next two I'll read are the last one you linked (vonLommel) and this one:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bierman2010CIRTS.pdf

>Bierman (2010). Consciousness induced restoration of time symmetry (CIRTS ): A psychophysical theoretical perspective
ABSTRACT: A theoretical framework is proposed that starts from the assumption that information processing by a brain, while it is sustaining consciousness, is restoring the break in time symmetry in physics. No specifics are given with regard to which physical formalism, either quantum or classical, is the basis of the subsequent apparently anomalous consequences: “apparent” because the proposed model doesn’t require a radical extension or modification of existing physics. Rather it is argued that time symmetry that is already present in current physics should be taken seriously, and a simple initial mathematical formulation is given that allows for specific quantitative predictions. The elusiveness of psi phenomena, the experimenter effect, and the relationship of psi to other theoretical frameworks like decision augmentation theory (DAT), observational theory, and several others, are discussed. One of the major advantages of CIRTS is that it offers handles to link this theory to psychological theories that might explain individual differences. Specific testable predictions are given.

I'm impressed by the Greyson comment apparently following Von Lommel that you quote in your post to @Soupie:

"Greyson (2003) writes in his comment that no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain."

Two other types of experience near death are equally significant. One is the suddenly increased clarity of thinking and speaking (and apparent vividness of experience) on the part of many grievously ill/dying persons in the day or two before death as witnessed by family members, nurses, and doctors, often in response to visions or hallucinations of the presence of long-deceased family members. The other is the phenomenon observed by doctors and medical technicians of a sudden and significant increase in EEG measurements of persons long in coma states, occurring at the point when a decision has been made, and preparations are under way, to shut down their life support systems. Von Lommel reports this phenomenon toward the end of his book Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. I'd quote from that section of the book but no longer have it and can't remember who I lent or gave it to.

I also think that Greyson's first statement quoted above -- that "no one physiological or psychological model by itself could explain all the common features of NDE" -- likely also applies to other 'paranormal'/psi experiences, and that investigating all these experiences is the next step that needs to be taken in understanding the nature of consciousness.

I smoke occasionally as I am one of the few people who honestly has the excuse that it is "for my health". At the least, it alleviates some of the symptoms of my condition and I even have sign-off from my doctor for nicotine patches - but it turns out the CO2 may also play a role and I've found it more effective to buy a pack and smoke away the more acute symptoms. I've tried the vaping and it works fine but I tend to consume a lot of nicotine that way. With regular cigs I can put them down as soon as I feel better. I'm not surprised that you notice some fuzziness but I think that would probably go away in time.

 

[smcder]

An excerpt from Radin's The Conscious Universe

The Conscious Universe: Chapter 1

"In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy."

 

[Constance]

The material on Radin's page is challenging. It follows the peer review process and meets the criteria of scientific research. I've spent quite a bit of time with this material and on Jessica Utts page and I think there is some validity in saying that if we reject this research, we need to think about why we would not reject a lot of other "mainstream" research.

I could not agree more with the underscored statement. I need and want to read much more -- all, if possible -- of the more recent peer-reviewed research linked by Radin and also the Utts material. I spent several years reading extensively in the archives of the SPR archives including the mediumship research and other studies of paranormal communication and experience. I think we need reason inductively from the data obtained since the late 19th century in order to appreciate how widespread such experiences are in the modern era and have been far back in our species recorded history.

Re the limitations of standard materialist/objectivist science of the modern era are easily recognizeable as effects of foundational presuppositions dominant in the last 200-300 years that have had the effect of closing off inquiry rather than expanding it. It will take a long time for the dominant paradigm to be replaced, but that process is clearly beginning in our time.

Radin does a good job in his book discussing paradigm change in science and he also notes that lack of a theoretical basis for Psi is another problem - for mainstream science one can broadly point to a materialistic paradigm to justify findings, even without having a specific theory. But is it science to reject evidence because it doesn't fit status quo? Kuhn and others says this is normal in the history of science. Hansen in his book on the Trickster also discusses problems with scientific research into Psi.

I just finished reading the von Lommel paper and find his reasoning and resulting theory persuasive -- that consciousness in lived, bodily experience is interconnected with a universal non-finite, nonlocal, consciousness that is holographic in nature. Reincarnation research, regression therapy, hyposis, drug-induced altered states, and NDEs all support the reality of nonlocal aspects of consciousness presented in the various forms of psi described in our species' history.

Finally, look at the criticism of Thomas Nagel for his teleology in Mind and Cosmos.

Yes, all so predictable given the "mind-forged manacles" sustained by the dominant paradigm.

Sometimes it feels like the game is to explain the world while arbitrarily limiting the explanatory "mechanisms" we can use - "why, Mother Nature dear, I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back."

I'll never understand how and why so many scientists, and ordinary people, find comfort in that hubris, as if their lives depended on it.

 

[Constance]

I smoke occasionally as I am one of the few people who honestly has the excuse that it is "for my health". At the least, it alleviates some of the symptoms of my condition and I even have sign-off from my doctor for nicotine patches - but it turns out the CO2 may also play a role and I've found it more effective to buy a pack and smoke away the more acute symptoms. I've tried the vaping and it works fine but I tend to consume a lot of nicotine that way. With regular cigs I can put them down as soon as I feel better. I'm not surprised that you notice some fuzziness but I think that would probably go away in time.

I've never tried the nicotine patches; had read that they can provoke nightmares. Is CO2 part of what one inhales with cigarette smoke? I've found that vaping makes me feel kind of 'cocooned', insulated, from the world, less alert. Maybe I [or my neurons] need the CO2 and some other stuff in my Capris to feel 'normal'. I'll probably use some of both devices from now on. I did have to smoke a few real cigarettes to lose the fuzziness today, and I sure do like them.

 

[Constance]

it might be most useful, perhaps at the outset, to also repost the outlines you provided earlier of topic sections of Kelly and Kelly et al, Irreducible Mind. If you'd like me to search them out and copy them here I'll be glad to.

Steve, I've tried a search for the outlines of Irreducible Mind that you posted several 'parts' back in this thread but haven't found them. I'll try again going back farther into the past. In the meantime I've found a reference in my Word files to an excellent review article on IM that you linked previously:

http://anti-matters.org/articles/12/public/12-12-1-PB.pdf

 

[Constance]

Steve, I've tried a search for the outlines of Irreducible Mind that you posted several 'parts' back in this thread but haven't found them. I'll try again going back farther into the past. In the meantime I've found a reference in my Word files to an excellent review article on IM that you linked previously:

http://anti-matters.org/articles/12/public/12-12-1-PB.pdf

It seems that I can't search for the outlines of IM any farther back than Part 5 of the thread. Flagging @Gene Steinberg to find out if there's some limitation on how far back the search function goes.

 

[smcder]

What the evidence page means for me personally, after examining a large number of the studies, is that I find there is at least some evidence that, to my non-expert eye, is as convincing as the evidence found for some other effects in the social and physical sciences. Jessica Utts statistical work would be a key place to look as she has presented her work transparently and also included the response to her work by skeptics. So, either I need to be more skeptical about scientific publication generally, or I need to give as much weight to the evidence for Psi as I do for some other phenomena in the mainstream literature.

This means that if I think about what consciousness is, I need to bear in mind that there is evidence that it is non-local or non-physical or not entirely tied to the brain - and so I can not as easily hold to physicalist theories of the mind. It's one thing to be uneasy because of the philosophical arguments that we are all so familiar with by now - it is another to take seriously that there is evidence that the mind is not physical. My job then is to either account for this evidence in more conventional terms - for example, if people show consciousness when the brain appears to be non-functional, then perhaps the biological "mechanisms" of consciousness are yet beyond our ability to detect, perhaps consciousness requires very little in the way of physiological activity or perhaps it is more widely dispersed across the brain - at a minimum it seems we can't take for granted the current descriptions of what is required to maintain consciousness. How extensively that means we would have to re-evaluate what we think about the brain, I don't know - I suspect in some cases it could be pretty substantial. Or perhaps people are able to very rapidly assemble richly detailed descriptions, NDE type stories as they are coming to consciousness and then able to repeat them both on awakening and consistently afterward? And where there is veridical evidence that somebody knows something from a time and place they could not have access to - well, there we may have to be the most creative in coming up with alternative explanations.

 

[smcder]

Steve, I've tried a search for the outlines of Irreducible Mind that you posted several 'parts' back in this thread but haven't found them. I'll try again going back farther into the past. In the meantime I've found a reference in my Word files to an excellent review article on IM that you linked previously:

http://anti-matters.org/articles/12/public/12-12-1-PB.pdf

I'll see if I can find the links.

 

[smcder]

Still looking but there is a chapter summary of I.M. on the

AntiMatters

website, Issue 1

AntiMatters > Issue 2 Contents