Richard Dawkins

[untermensche]

Didnt read a report did we?
If the phenomena is real it does not only exist in those reports.

Again, why is the US government not using this to find bin Laden?

Saying the phenomena is real, but the US government simply chooses to ignore this real phenomena is not an answer.

[kiwimark]

This thread is degenerating into one-liners. Do we anticipate some content, or should I just close it?

RBH, E/C Moderator

I apologise, I just dont see the point in spending time and energy on putting forward a case when people believe they know everything....its similar to having a discussion with creationist fundies.

Im starting to believe there may be truth in developmental psychology model of spiral dynamics with lower altitudes not having the ability to grasp the ideas of higher altitudes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_dynamics

[Djugashvillain]

It's not a matter of us believing we 'know everything'. You just need to demonstrate that the things you are expounding exist. At the moment, it's a lot of what-ifs and maybes. That's simply not good enough. These are the sorts of claims that can, in theory, be measured and demonstrated. Until this occurs, my acceptance is pending. Nobody here will, or should, accept as extant things whose proof of existence currently rely exclusively on anecdotes and unreproducable events.

[kiwimark]

It's not a matter of us believing we 'know everything'. You just need to demonstrate that the things you are expounding exist. At the moment, it's a lot of what-ifs and maybes. That's simply not good enough. These are the sorts of claims that can, in theory, be measured and demonstrated.

Hence the link to stephans website which contains research (see Alexandria project) which has been peer reviewed.

[kiwimark]

If the phenomena is real it does not only exist in those reports.

Again, why is the US government not using this to find bin Laden?

Saying the phenomena is real, but the US government simply chooses to ignore this real phenomena is not an answer.

According to this book the Government havent ignored it
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440614058/ref=ase_theremoteview-20/103-87901

[untermensche]

According to this book the Government did invest money into research.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0440614058/ref=ase_theremoteview-20/103-87901
That is plausible.

It is a power governments wished they had.

[Oolon Colluphid]

yes they are ;) :rolleyes:
see...

http://www.parapsych.org/members/s_a_schwartz.html
Uh, yeah, I suppose so. 'Peer reviewed' in the same way that ID papers are reviewed by their peers... ;)

[Mike Elphick]

the research of Stephan Schwartz may be worth a look
http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/home.htm
I am sure Dawkins hates bad science. I happened upon this one (http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/PDF/Healing%20Final%20Report.pdf) from Schwartz's list of publications, simply out of interest. Assuming I was a reviewer of this paper (and I have refereed papers in the past) I would chuck it out instantly. It would be rejected on the grounds that the experimenters were unable to show any statistically significant alteration of 'Treated Samples' compared with their 'Session Control Samples'. There is no suggestion of any deception by the scientists, but their abstract does fail to mention this crucial fact.

Abstract
Through standard techniques of infrared spectrophotometry, sterile water samples in randomly selected sealed vials evidence alteration of infrared (IR) spectra after being proximate to the palms of the hands of both Practising and Non practising Therapy Practitioners, each of whom employed a personal variation of the Laying on of Hands/Therapeutic Touch processes. This pilot study presents 14 cases, involving 14 Practitioners and 14 Recipients. The first hypothesis, that a variation in the spectra of all (84) Treated spectra compared with all (57) control spectra would be observed in the 2.5 3.0 micrometer range, was confirmed (p = 0.02). Ten per cent (15) of the spectra were done using a germanium Internal Reflection Element (IRE). Ninety per cent of the spectra (126) were done with a zinc selenide IRE, and the difference in refractive index between the two IREs skews the data. The zinc selenide IRE spectra alone yield p = .005. The authors believe the most representative evidence for the effect appeared in the sample group of Treated vs. Calibration Controls using the zinc selenide IRE (p = 0.0004). The second hypothesis, that there existed a direct relationship between intensity of effect and time of exposure was not confirmed. This study replicates earlier findings under conditions of blindness, randomicity, and several levels of controls. Environmental factors are considered as explanations for the observed IR spectrum alteration, including temperature, barometric pressure, and variations dependent on sampling order. They do not appear to explain the effect.But looking at their Table Five we see: -

ALL TREATED vs CALIBRATION CONTROLS p = 0.0004
ALL TREATED vs SESSION CONTROL p = 0.3
CAL. CONTROLS vs SESS. CONTROLS p = 0.002Thus there is a fatal discrepancy between their Calibration Controls and their Session Control samples, even though it would appear they were treated in the same way. A point they make much of in their discussion (my bolding): -
The central difficulty in interpreting this experiment's results lies in the Session Controls, a few of which also show evidence of having been acted upon. For reasons discussed in the results section, we do not feel that environmental effects provide a compelling explanation for either the overall effect, or for the changes in the Session.Control sub-population specifically. However, eliminating temperature as a cause does little to advance our understanding of what affected the water samples. If the effect is not the result of environmental factors, what could have caused the change in the IR spectra? In seeking an answer to this question, the fact that only some Session Controls were affected lends possible support to two explanatory models: They go on to invent excuses for this, that it was the emotion of one of the researchers or there was bottle to bottle interaction. So it seems in paranormal research, one can explain away 'wrong' results and still publish, complete with abstract that does not mention this fact.

Just to keep this in context of the OP, I think Dawkins would approve that we fight poor science like this. On a related point, invited papers and publications of proceedings are not peer reviewed, at least not in my experience.

[breezanne]

Dawkins isn't unique... no one likes bad science. That's no excuse for misusing science to prop up your own entrenched beliefs. With our minds (and no other thing), we study the behavior of the shared observable material world, and construct and share abstractions/theories that explain and predict our observations. In no way does the existence of the comparatively predictable realm of "observables" invalidate the existence or import of the far less predictable realm of mind/Mind (observers) in which ALL is held. The material world is a subset of reality, folks. Reality is only ever a reality to some kind of mind, to some kind of knower of that reality.

And kiwimark is right "on the mark" by mentioning that it can be a waste of time and energy trying to reach people who are hindered by their beliefs/assumptions. Fundies come in all flavors (some even taste like atheists), and materialism is one famous culprit that keeps people from realizing that their view of reality is unnecessarily narrow, unnecessarily dismissive of the real experiences of others, unnecessarily dogmatic, clinging to the fundamentals of their faith (whatever happens, "MatterDidIt"). It is a great challenge to eventually get beyond "challenging" people to prove you wrong... and beginning to grow your understanding of a bigger reality on your own instead.

[breezanne]

By the way, when [professed] materialism is common among one's peers, one's peer-reviewed journals will most certainly reflect a materialist bias. This is neither equivalent nor necessary to the reductionist tools we use in actual material science. Material science is relatively simple stuff compared to the minds that construct it and contain it and expand it. No amount of conflation will turn that container inside out.

Try to remember that materialism is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact, regardless of who else currently "believes" in it (like Dawkins). Beliefs change, often for the better.

[Mike Elphick]

Dawkins isn't unique... no one likes bad science. That's no excuse for misusing science to prop up your own entrenched beliefs.I mention Dawkins primarily to keep to the subject matter. Forget all that nonsense about logic and cool clinical remoteness; to be a good scientist you've got to be passionate about it, illogical and human. You have colleagues with whom you collaborate and other that are competitors with alternative ideas, and ideas come from imagination.
With our minds (and no other thing), we study the behavior of the shared observable material world, and construct and share abstractions/theories that explain and predict our observations. In no way does the existence of the comparatively predictable realm of "observables" invalidate the existence or import of the far less predictable realm of mind/Mind (observers) in which ALL is held. The material world is a subset of reality, folks. Reality is only ever a reality to some kind of mind, to some kind of knower of that reality.I'm inclined to agree, but having never had an experience that I could possibly describe as non-material, I don't feel able to comment. Attempting to measure purely physical manifestations of what are claimed to be the result of spiritual activities seems bizarre in the extreme. If such were true, then all scientific observations are the result of inadvertent psychic manipulations of the physical world (scientists are also keen to obtain results that confirm their pet ideas). Measurements would change to reflect what we wish to observe, or are psychic powers denied to scientists? Of course that has to be wrong, as in science, experiments and observations can be repeated by persons with different expectations.

And kiwimark is right "on the mark" by mentioning that it can be a waste of time and energy trying to reach people who are hindered by their beliefs/assumptions. Fundies come in all flavors (some even taste like atheists), and materialism is one famous culprit that keeps people from realizing that their view of reality is unnecessarily narrow, unnecessarily dismissive of the real experiences of others, unnecessarily dogmatic, clinging to the fundamentals of their faith (whatever happens, "MatterDidIt"). It is a great challenge to eventually get beyond "challenging" people to prove you wrong... and beginning to grow your understanding of a bigger reality on your own instead.I have some sympathy with your view, but most here would disagree. I've no experience of a 'bigger reality' so can't comment on that.

I don't think science alone is capable of bringing happiness and fulfilment to people and that's basically why I disagree with Dawkins. It certainly gives us useful knowledge about the world we live in, but the 'truth' it reveals is not really what we wish to hear, and it is all getting far too complex for ordinary folk to understand. The application of science, simply to create wealth (and weapons of war), may destroy the planet as we desperately search for the type of happiness that consumerism cannot satisfy.

[gregor]

Well, it's tough to discuss the NOMA betwixt science, writ large, and personal, subjective happiness. It you wish to discuss the relative neuro-chemical components to the perceived emotional states of happiness or satisfaction, and how it can be induced, measured, and altered - it's science. If you want to talk about general feelings of worth on a philosophical level, that's been discussed since before Socrates.

The problem with Kiwi and breez's position is that skeptics won't be convinced without demonstrable evidence and repeatable tests, and believer's arguments won't be disuaded for the same reason. And for the attack on 'materialism,' paging Dr. Sokal. . .

Could it be that some people are not mis-understood supergeniuses whose research is groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting and who won't be appreciated in their own time? Could it be that they are just wrong? Just wondering? How would we determine the outcome? Maybe science could help.

[Mike Elphick]

By the way, when [professed] materialism is common among one's peers, one's peer-reviewed journals will most certainly reflect a materialist bias. This is neither equivalent nor necessary to the reductionist tools we use in actual material science. Material science is relatively simple stuff compared to the minds that construct it and contain it and expand it. No amount of conflation will turn that container inside out.

Try to remember that materialism is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact, regardless of who else currently "believes" in it (like Dawkins). Beliefs change, often for the better.I'd have preferred it if you'd used the word 'naturalism' rather than 'materialism', for I would indeed profess to be a naturalist, though I don't think science is capable of discovering absolute truths or laws of everything, but that it does go some way to explain things. It would be surprising indeed if our mental abilities were capable of grasping and understanding it all. So I am an agnostic -- I don't pretend to know.

I'm not quite sure if you are complaining about my dismissal of the paper by Schwartz, or whether this is a broadside aimed at everyone who does not believe in the supernatural.

[Mike Elphick]

Well, it's tough to discuss the NOMA betwixt science, writ large, and personal, subjective happiness. It you wish to discuss the relative neuro-chemical components to the perceived emotional states of happiness or satisfaction, and how it can be induced, measured, and altered - it's science. If you want to talk about general feelings of worth on a philosophical level, that's been discussed since before Socrates.Point taken, but that is not what science is actually doing. Adjusting 'relative neuro-chemical components' is achieved by science with pills, like Ritalin (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/Ritalin.html), which is prescribed to millions of school kids to keep them manageable. Doping people like this, including the elderly to keep them quiet, is not the progressive advance towards health that science should be providing. Pumping animals full of hormones and antibiotics has to be a perversion of science. True, science develops expensive wonder drugs that one day might benefit me personally, but science should be concentrating on prevention of disease rather than cure. To be healthy individuals we need love, education, exercise, good nutrition, clean water, sanitation and so on. Most of this is basic parenting and engineering, though I suppose science has its part to play, but us Brits were healthier during the war years than we are now, living then on very limited rations (thanks in part to the excellent science of the time). I am sad to see an apparent decline in the quality application of science. I'm generalising here as this does not apply to all science, as there are some truly amazing discoveries being made.

As for happiness, is it the job of science to find out how to achieve 'perceived states of happiness'? And what is the difference between happiness and 'perceived states of happiness'? It sounds like the latter might be an induced state driven by a money-saving bureaucracy gone mad -- and, naturally, the scientists would be on hand to help out :Cheeky:.

[kiwimark]

Uh, yeah, I suppose so. 'Peer reviewed' in the same way that ID papers are reviewed by their peers... ;)

the Alexandria Project Findings were reviewed by Archaeologist

Professor Mieczyslaw Rodziewicz, Director, University of Warsaw Archaeological Mission in Alexandria
"As an archaeologist with twenty years experience working in Alexandria, I would say the discoveries are of the highest importance."

[breezanne]

The problem with Kiwi and breez's position is that skeptics won't be convinced without demonstrable evidence and repeatable tests, and believer's arguments won't be disuaded for the same reason. And for the attack on 'materialism,' paging Dr. Sokal. . .The problem with the position that kiwi and breez are skeptical of is that... the inaccurately self-described "skeptics" won't be convinced that their beliefs could possibly be "just wrong," even by demonstrable and abundant evidence (over history and across the globe). One true case and their position crumbles. So they must ignore or deny ALL cases ("I see nothing...")... and best if they adopt a derisive tone to discourage possible defectors from their own camp. But there is life outside of that camp... in every sense of the word.

This rigidity is best attributed to an unshakable belief that the answer to every question is "MatterDidIt." Why does this post appear to you exactly as it does? Matter did it. And why do you find yourself looking at it and trying to interpret it and find fault with it? Matter did it. But why does it have any meaning to your mind? Matter did it. But why does matter bother to do any such thing? Matter did it... so who cares why?
Could it be that some people are not mis-understood supergeniuses whose research is groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting and who won't be appreciated in their own time? Could it be that they are just wrong? Just wondering? How would we determine the outcome? Maybe science could help.No delusions of grandeur here. How about there?

Maybe science could help us determine how matter itself "benefits" from having evolved forms capable of embodying awareness... (hint: this is a trick question).

[breezanne]

I'd have preferred it if you'd used the word 'naturalism' rather than 'materialism', for I would indeed profess to be a naturalist, though I don't think science is capable of discovering absolute truths or laws of everything, but that it does go some way to explain things. It would be surprising indeed if our mental abilities were capable of grasping and understanding it all. So I am an agnostic -- I don't pretend to know.

I'm not quite sure if you are complaining about my dismissal of the paper by Schwartz, or whether this is a broadside aimed at everyone who does not believe in the supernatural.
My posts were not aimed at you, Mike. I find you rather balanced and reasonable... as opposed to many reactionaries in the room.

[gregor]

[QUOTE=breezanne;3830436] why do you find yourself looking at [this post]? QUOTE]

There's really no reason to. Instead, I've got to go dowzing for some penta water to mix with my homeopathic medicine.

[Ted Hoffman]

I repeat my question to breezane:
Why must it have and include these things you claim substance must have?
Explain why the causal closure thesis is incorrect.

[breezanne]

monism:it does seem that there must be one basic substance of reality (simplest that way)... but also logically, that substance cannot be limited to "observable" things, it must also include the stuff of the "observer/mind/knower." It must have mindlike aspects as well as matterlike aspects, and probably many more aspects that we cannot even begin to imagine from our tiny perch.Why must it have and include these things you claim substance must have?
Explain why the causal closure thesis is incorrect.
Too simple. Because minds clearly exist. If there is one basic substance, that substance is also obviously the stuff of experiential mind (which, btw, already contains all knowable concepts of material/observable objects anyway).

Happy to explain. Well, "type physicalism" (the idea that mental properties/kinds can be equated with physical properties/kinds) has been cast off even among most physicalists. As Kim puts it, that view can be characterized as "I say that sensations are identical with brain processes. Refute me if you don't like it!" Not very persuasive. Not to mention the sensor itself, which is also the "knower" of objects like brains.

If you cannot pretend that a mind or a mental purpose IS the same thing as a bit of otherwise meaningless brain activity, then you have to acknowledge the existence of what can authentically be call "mental" causation. Top down. Matter has no purposes, and no goal-directed causes. What does? Many are led astray by the fact that mind/brain correlate so well... while alive. But that's the point of being "alive." Mind/matter may well correlate to various degrees... at every level. Cuz they are of the same primary "stuff," remember?

As Kim admits, physicalism is defective, although he still believes it is "near enough" to the truth. Everything can be [essentially] reduced to physical causes ... except ... that it cannot. Not that which cares to speculate about things like "causes" and "truth." Supervenience? Different semantics, same problems.

The question physicalists fail to ask (Dawkins too, methinks) is ... what closes the loop? What might physical properties/kinds/causes reduce to?

[Clivedurdle]

Reduce - reductionism. Are not whole systems being ignored. Can you predict water from hydrogen and oxygen? Does time have a direction?

As water is emergent from hydrogen and oxygen, are not minds emergent from the interactions of several very complex biological chemical and electrical systems?

Its material all the way down, but the point is it is quite good at climbing mount improbable!

Actually, instead of positing a dualism of mind and matter or other versions like natural and supernatural, maybe things reduce to a quantum fluctuation, which might be an evolved system from another universe....

[Ted Hoffman]

Minds exist as a higher-level emergent property of matter arranged in a certain state. No matter (brain), no mind. No matter, no life.
Value-laden expressions like "meaningless brain activity" appeal more to emotions (the intuitive thirst for meaning) than to facts.
Lets not be too reductionist now: the mind is more than activity: it includes memory, predispositions, personal values and brain activity.
There is no standard point of being alive any more than a tree has a point of growing on a mountain. I assume you mean "human life" when you ask the question. It is clear that the vast, uncaring universe wouldnt lose anything if all life on planet earth was wiped out.
What is the point of a cockroach being alive? If you have an answer to that, you should be knowing the point of being alive?
We can create a purpose if we want, but that purpose means nothing as far as the question of the nature of the fundamental component(if any) of everything that exists, is concerned.
There is no loop if mind is a higher-level emergent proprerty of matter. A loop incorrectly presumes a gap between mind and matter. Mind and matter are not of the same primary stuff because matter is the primary stuff. Your statement is supported by a false dichotomy (even a "loop" presupposes this false dichotomy). Try mind/body. Not mind/matter.
Show us a mind without matter as we will have a starting point.
And don't tell us that, because Physicalists haven't been able to create consciousness in a lab, Physicalism is therefore false.

[breezanne]

Minds exist as a higher-level emergent property of matter arranged in a certain state. No matter (brain), no mind. No matter, no life.
Value-laden expressions like "meaningless brain activity" appeal more to emotions (the intuitive thirst for meaning) than to facts.
Lets not be too reductionist now: the mind is more than activity: it includes memory, predispositions, personal values and brain activity.
There is no standard point of being alive any more than a tree has a point of growing on a mountain. I assume you mean "human life" when you ask the question. It is clear that the vast, uncaring universe wouldnt lose anything if all life on planet earth was wiped out.
What is the point of a cockroach being alive? If you have an answer to that, you should be knowing the point of being alive?
We can create a purpose if we want, but that purpose means nothing as far as the question of the nature of the fundamental component(if any) of everything that exists, is concerned.
There is no loop if mind is a higher-level emergent proprerty of matter. A loop incorrectly presumes a gap between mind and matter. Mind and matter are not of the same primary stuff because matter is the primary stuff. Your statement is supported by a false dichotomy (even a "loop" presupposes this false dichotomy). Try mind/body. Not mind/matter.
Show us a mind without matter as we will have a starting point.
And don't tell us that, because Physicalists haven't been able to create consciousness in a lab, Physicalism is therefore false.You state your beliefs well. "Mind is a higher-level emergent property of matter... matter is the primary stuff" (although your knowledge of matter exists only in mind, which itself is simply not explained by physicalism... I do not think you read my last post very well).

No appeal to emotions... you missed the point. Is brain activity "meaningful" to anything beside mind? Is anything?

If there's no point in being alive, why do we continue? Why is there a "will to survive"? Because we do find at least one point. Experience... which is an end in itself. The better the experiences, the better. Matter has no experiences. Mind does.

So, when do you think that matter acquired this ability to "experience"... and to construct things like purposes? As a physical scientist, I can tell you that "awareness" and "purpose" do not arise from physical laws. Never did. So what do they arise from? Life? Mind? So what do life/mind arise from? Or do they simply exist? Like you imagine "matter" to simply exist? Which holds which completely within itself? Keep thinking.

Physicalism is false, but not for the simplistic reason you offer. Move your mind on over to the split thread in Philosophy, on mind being more than a product of the brain (clue: it's not comparable to arguing that energy and excrement are products of digestion).

[breezanne]

p.s. Systems loop.

[Bermenstein]

Dawkins being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about "The God Delsuion". (http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=richard+dawkins&edition=i&go.x=33&go.y=17)

[metacristi]

Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is out now.
Also, have people seen this:

http://richarddawkins.net/index.php


Very good ('The God Delusion') in the part in which exposes the dogmas of existing religions and defend the State-Religion + Science-Religion separation. But Dawkins is not at all convincing in the part which tries to make atheism (at least weak atheism) the only rational stance for all would be rational people. His argument 'from complexity' (God has to be very complex) is weak, I don't think it is sound (not because science cannot investigate ultimate questions but simply because we are not entitled for the moment at least to draw such strong conclusions about possible transcendental levels of Reality - which could be ‘guided’ by totally different laws, if there really are laws).

Dawkins says that God is not exempt from requiring an explanation. This is correct in principle but don't make his argument particularly strong, after all there are enough theoretical constructs in science which are merely posited as existing (and considered fundamental at least provisionally) which are not testable in isolation (Holton's themata).

These theoretical constructs are indeed absolutely necessary to explain the empirical success of the theories they are part of (something which God hypothesis is not currently; though it can be argued that in Berkeley's version God hypothesis is absolutely necessary, being very coherent with the rest of assumptions).

But nothing we are aware of really impede God hypothesis to become necessary in the above mentioned sense sometime in the future. At most we can say that God hypothesis is not necessary to explain observed facts, its introduction in science being ad-hoc and redundant currently (thus methodological naturalism is the best methodology to use currently in science).

Other objections of mine to Dawkins worldview are here.


Even if all existing religions disappeared now (assuming ceteris paribus in all other parts) I'm afraid there would still be religion in a form or another in the future (even without dogmas, after there is no need of dogmas in order to believe in a God). Some of these forms would be still rational (though rather at limit)...not to mention 'weak' agnosticism (I agree with Dawkins that 'strong' agnosticism, a la Huxley, is not the most rational solution, for example if a successful Theory of Everything (in physics) is ever found that will certainly lower the probability which we can assign to a omni-all God, interested in human affairs).

[Jet Black]

mm, the two most acerbic people in Britain talking to one another? how is it (the internet connection is being used to watch TV here, so I can't look.

[RAFH]

Whoa, did this bus suddenly turn into the Magical Mystery Tour?

[JPD]

I think its a timely summary. I immensely enjoy some parts but then wonder why Dawkins doesn't go further. For example, in the chapter 'The roots of morality - why are we good?' there wasn't a reference to the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.
I don't find all of his arguments convincing but I do like his style and I think the book will serve well as an introduction from which readers can launch into specific areas that they find themselves especially interested in.

[Dean Anderson]

Those of you who have watched The Root Of All Evil? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F) may be very entertained by this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=185240) and the recent revelations in it...