From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: OOBE or just vivid imagination
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:15:35 GMT

| > Original-Sender: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
| >
| > So it turns out that Robert McGrath and I are not in agreement about some
| > things.  Oh well.  Here we go, then...
| >
| > In <1992Nov6.214534.6660@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
| > 	(Robert McGrath) writes:
| >
| > > In article <1992Nov6.055629.21882@gnosys.svle.ma.us>, gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
| > 	(Gary S. Trujillo) writes in part:
| >
| > >> Yes, I know, these hypotheses sound fantastic, but I find Dr. Sheldrake's
| > >> gedanken experiment which demonstrates the fallacy in our conventional
| > >> assumptions to be a particularly fascinating one...
| >
| > >> ...The state of brain science is simply
| > >> not sufficiently advanced to demonstrate that what we observe about our
| > >> own mental functioning all takes place "inside the box."
| >
| > >    1.  There is substantial evidence of what psychologists would call
| > >    the "Neural-identity-hypothesis".  There are 150 years of research,
| > >    thousands of studies, which show that mental experiences are corellated
| > >    to physilogical events in the nervous systems.  This body of evidence
| > >    cannot just be dismissed as "occam's razor".
| >
| > I am not disagreeing with correlations, but with any statment that says that
| > consciousness has been proven *to reside* within the confines of the physical
| > organ of the brain.  

You are the only one who has used the word 'prove'.  But let me point
out that there is PLENTY of evidence that is consistent with the 'consciousness
resides in the brain' hypothesis.  There is very little, if any, evidence
that it doesn't.  In such a situation, it is only reasonable to work
on the assumption that the hypothesis supported by the evidence is
reasonably correct, and work from there.

|>  Further, I don't know any way to establish that it does.
Since I don't know what you want to define as 'consciousness', I
can't possibly speculate on how to establish facts about it.  Many
cognitive skills that make up critical parts of human personality
definitely ARE due to brain functions. These include memory, visualization,
and language.

| > Sheldrake's interpretation of certain experiments would seem to suggest that
| > consciousness may not be localized to the brain.  
Sheldrake is wrong.  It is as simple as that.

| The crux of this problem rests on whether you posit the existence of
| paranormal events.  

I was unaware that I have to 'posit' your hypotheses.  If you want
to argue for these hypotheses, I'll entertain such arguments.

| To state my position, I personally cannot confirm
| such, but there is so much anecdotal evidence that it is at least worth
| the effort to include it, and see what that does to the problem (I'm
| obviously relating the paranormal to OOBE for the same reason).
There is a difference between 'including' anectdotal evidence and
accepting it naively.

| If you don't/won't posit the paranormal, then this particular
| discussion isn't for you, since I'd say all conventionally studied
| mental phenomena fall under the cognitive sciences' paradigm
| sufficiently (for Occam's razor, anyway).  There's no point in
| discussing whether or not all phenomena are localized in the brain if
| you don't believe there is anything outside the brain.  

This is rather unfair.  If I don't agree in advance to your argument,
you will not try to convince me.  Why can't you be sensible and
try to show me why I'm wrong rather than writing me off as a sub-human
who is to be ignored because he refuses to see things your way.

| I bring this up because the person (Robert, I think) arguing against
| the TV analogy appears to be generally skeptical to the idea of
| metaphysical OOBE models.  I think in one previous article, you/Robert write:
| 
|   >IMHO, it is a mistake to start speculating on the relation of OBEs to
|   >hypothetical psi-phenomena.  This will serve to obscure the study of
|   >OBEs in the smoke and confusion of ESP research.
| 
| It obviously states a position which denies paranormal axioms for
| logical arguments.  

If you READ what it says, it says that ESP research is a confused mess.
This is not at all the same thing as 'denying paranormal axioms'.  If
you want to discuss 'paranormal' hypotheses, fine.  But be prepared
to show how they relate to OBEs, and be prepared to defend them with
EVIDENCE.


| because "carrier waves" for metaphysical phenomena are by definition
| technologically unmeasurable.  
This stipulation was not in the original posting.  This is, of course,
complete BS.  If you can stipulate stuff that by definition noone
can disprove, than you can say and prove anything at all.  Why not
let me postulate the existence of "anti-carrier waves" that by
definition cannot be detected and completely cancel out all effects
of your undetectable carrrier waves.  Now your carrier waves don't
exist anymore and we are back where we started.

| The reason that paranormal events have this important role to the TV analogy
| (IMHO, of course) is that it provides the central mind-brain contradiction.
| How can it be that nearly everything about day-to-day experience be tweaked by
| physically manipulating or measuring the brain, and yet the paranormal is
| in direct contradiction (by definition) to this physical causal link?
| The only model that seems to me to to encompass this situation is that of "the
| brain as receptacle", which is the TV analogy.  You can twiddle the
| knobs on the TV, mess with the tubes(!), and it all has an effect as if
| the whole phenomenon is local, but in this case we know it isn't.

Well, I have a completely different model that covers the case, too.
'Paranormal' events are psychological illusions created by normal
human psychology.  The perceived events and links are due to mental
hypotheses which take things that really happen and create 'impossible'
explanations for them.


| > >    2.  The gedanken experiment you describe is faulty, at least as you
| > >    describe it.  It would not be difficult for a cognitive psychologist
| > >    to determine that the TV is a receiver not the originator of the
| > >    signals.  In fact, psycholgists would quickly determine the wavelengths
| > >    and basic forms of the signals received by the TV.  This is called
| > >    "perceptual psychology"!
| >
| > Please don't take the analogy too literally.  We happen to be lucky enough to
| > have equipment which can detect the signals being received by the television
| > receiver - which is no great surprise, since TV is a human invention.  We may
| > not have any means of reliably detecting whatever it is that relates the
| > brain to Sheldrake's "morphogenetic field," however.

Sheldrakes' "morphogenetic field" is pure nonsense.  

Why should I take your word that there are undetectable signals?  Which 
is more plausible, that there are totally mysterious mechanisms that noone 
has ever found a way to measure, or that people have reached erroneous 
conclusions about the world?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body