"Thats utter (and proveable) nonsense.
He's specularing merely because the cerebral cortex is the most evolved part of the human brain.
In practice though, a person can have the vast majority of their Cerebral Cortex removed and still remain completely self aware, so his theory goes out the window."
I'll partially concede to you on this one, but only partially. I agree with you that there is a fair amount of speculation involved BUT it is speculation based on very sound principles. I'd also like to highlight your use of the term "vast majority", a general statement like this cannot precede the conclusion "the theory goes out the window." Can you point me in the direction of any studies where someone has had the "vast majority" of their cerebral cortex removed?
A huge problem we face in discussing these ideas, however, is that there is no firm consensus on what 'consciousness' actually means.
I have read about a study demonstrating that electrical activity in the brain preceding an action begins 500-600 milliseconds before the subject is aware of "thinking about making that action", then there is another 200-300 milliseconds before the action takes place. The exact reference eludes me at the moment but, should you be interested, I am sure I can find it for you. The implications of taking this study at face value appear to be, and this is a mindfuck, that your brain just follows complex protocols in response to complex sensory stimuli - protocols based on memory mediated, conditioned, aversion or reward pathways which "we", the consciousness, have absolutley no power over. Consciousness is, according to this model, just an "afterthought", a quirk that simply exists as a side effect of our capability for language. It may or may not, the argument goes, have some kind of evolutionary benefit in providing some kind of cohesion in our experience as social animals.
"This also ties in to your question on an Alzheimer's patient:
I believe that we don't think with our brain but through it, it's a computer interpreting this five sense reality."
I also think the brain is a 'computer interpreting this five sense reality' but not in the way you do. You're saying, again, correct me if i'm wrong, that consciousness somehow exists nebulously 'outside' of the body and the brain is an organ which can harness and put it to use (or vice versa, ie the consciousness harnesses the brain and puts
that to use). First of all, and I know I'm deferring to science here but i've explained my reasons for that in my post yesterday, there is absolutley NOTHING we know about neurones which suggests they have this kind of property and they are understood fairly well. You can't argue against this with the "Ahhh, we don't know it
yet" position because this can be used uselessly to make any claim at all, eg "Ahhh, who's to say that we won't in a few years find something that proves that neurotransmitters can interact with invisible, undetectable, teleporting pixies?" The new-age/quantum physics hybrid argument doesn't float here either because what new age hijackers of physics fail to point out is that quantum effects do not apply to brain chemistry. Here is an explanation: "
University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential."
Argue the case for nebulous, physically independent consciousness if you want but keep it metaphysical, you can't bring physics or any true science into the picture.
"For example, a sub atomic particle called the anamoalon has been proven to have different properties in every laboritory. This is essentially equal to the colour of a car changing according to who is driving it."
It's called an "anomalon", which is derived from the word "anomalous" (ie deviating from normal rules), your use of the words "proven" and "every laboratory" are fairly liberal here as "Not all physicists can find them experimentally; and far from all believe they exist" (Science Frontiers). The fact that where physicists
claim to have found and studied them they have often discovered contradictory properties is simply symptomatic of the fact that they are all starting off with different ideas of what they are looking for.
"What use is this dogmatic demand for scientific evidence when "faith healers" (as you called them) really do get results?"
They don't really get results, they just don't. Testimonials and anecdotal evidence are not results. My dogmatic demand is because THE best way of determining the probability of something being effective or ineffective is the scientific method, there is no other sensible or reasonable way.
"ancient Egyptians, Indians and Chineses ALL practiced it [reflexology], and drew up the same charts, linking the same parts of the foot to the same parts of the body."
Show me a credible source for this statement.
"This also explains certain "miracles" performed by individuals:
be it walking on coal, lying on glass or that woman who (dazed by a crash) lifted the best part of a road vehicle which she thought was just a bar of metal in order to save her son from the road accident."
Walking on coal and lying on glass are not 'miracles' they are entertaining 'tricks' performed upon a sound framework of physics. Take firewalking for example;
"A firewalk of short length is something any physically fit person could do and that it does not need a particular state of mind. Rather, it is the short time of contact and the
low thermal capacity and conductivity of the coals that is important, and it is not necessary for the feet to be moist nor callused, although either may be of slight benefit. Longer walks appear to be possible if a layer of insulating ash is allowed to build up on a well packed down bed, where the temperature has been allowed to fall significantly from what it was when the coals were at their hottest. " (David Willey, University of Pittsburgh)
Our body has a high thermal capacity, the coals or charcoal have low thermal capacity. Basic physics says it is difficult for heat to travel from an object of low heat capacity to one of high. Nothing to do with mind over matter (apart from the confidence needed to step out onto the burning coals of course!).
The case of the woman lifting the car, possibly made up. If it's true it's probably an example of stress hormones temporarily making muscles super-efficient which has been exaggerated as the story passed from person to person. I can't find anything about Mirin Dajo on the net in a language I understand and can only find little bits and pieces in literature which basically just repeat what you said. No eye-witness reports just an anecdote. He appears to be a 'fakir', 'fakirs' have time and time again been exposed as elaborate tricksters (go to
www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/dont-try-this.html for a short introduction to fakir-exposing).
" not instinctively feel it but think that you instinctively felt it."
What's the difference?
"My most recent example of this is last night the phone rang and I expected it was my friend Suzy before I picked up, I guessed correctly.
I had said she could come over about 10 on her way home and given it was around that time it was reasonable to assume, there was a good chance it was her.
A couple of days earlier though, the phone rang and stopped, as I went to press 1471 I instinctively whose number it was going to be
I had no reason to guess or clue as to who it might be and I know it wasn't the same as guessing because I was as sure of it as I was of my own name, and similar incidents have happened to me before, every time I've predicted the future in some small way it has been with absolutely no uncertainty on the matter. Thats an instinct."
You can't just define an instinct as something that is verified by following events. Instincts can be wrong. I have also experienced similair phenomena, the phone thing happens reasonably frequently and I, as do many other people, seem to have uncanny ability to predict if a shop is going to be unexpectedly closed while I am still some distance from it. I don't find these things paranormal however, even though I can't absolutely explain them. I would suggest that the phone phenomenon is caused by unconscious knowledge of the probabilities of certain people contacting you this, I'm suggesting, is reinforced by a bit of selective memory and confirmation bias, ie the occasions where it does happen seem so uncanny that you prioritise them over the much more frequent occasions where you didn't make these 'predictions' (or illusions of prediction). The shop thing could be similair, perhaps the behaviour of others in the street or consciously disregarded sound cues gives me the feeling that the shop may be closed.
Anyway, I'm enjoying the debate. Now I got to get back to work. We should get that pint sometime!
