Church of the Non-Believers

[Bonam]

Does science fully understand the human brain?

Nope, not yet, but we are learning more and more about it every day. Numerical simulations, artificial neural networks, brain scanning and reconstruction, are being done continually and are rapidly growing fields. We understand the brain vastly more today than we did 10 years ago, and this will of course only continue. Discovering the detailed workings of the human brain is a major goal of scientists from a variety of fields today, whether those interested in computation, artificial intelligence, neurobiology, psychology, and others, and rapid progress in technology is allowing us to unlock many of its secrets at an unprecedented pace. Within a decade or two, it will be no more mysterious than any other organ.

[betsy]

Why would you even ask such a dopey question?

Dre, why would you even ask such a dopey question?

Do you know that most, if not all scientific theories and experiments where motivated by questions?

Gee, you'd think there's a trap or the bogeyman....or worse, God, lurking around the corner. What's so scary about the question?

C'mon, take a little step outside that box. Afraid to even take a guess?

[betsy]

Betsy asks:

Does science fully understands the human brain?

You know very well that they don't.

No it does not, but there's still no evidence for telekinesis.

Nope, not yet,

Then why is it that Dawkins dismisses the possibilities?

[Oleg Bach]

Science's purpose is to first, figure out what we don't understand then try to find a way to understand it. There is an infinite number of things that science doesn't "understand".

You've got all the answers though. Scientists can stop looking.

Science is a hobby...all the science in the world will not solve all the problems - nor will all those ideas put forth by religion solve our problems - It might get down to "keep it simple" stupid. God is goodness..which sustains life - and science is God given human ability to cope and understand what God is up too..but the big boss in the sky will never give up all of his trade secrets. If God revealed all through science - That would leave us with nothing to do - and would take the wonder out of living...and it is a wonderful world.

[ToadBrother]

Then why is it that Dawkins dismisses the possibilities?

What any scientist would do with an unevidence claim is apply the null hypothesis until evidence was found. That's what a lot of scientists are doing with string theory, for instance. Lovely theory, but until someone can actually find some evidence to support it, it's little more than a very interesting mathematical model.

[WIP]

Yad-yada-yada about the medium/occult! Nevertheless, mediums are mentioned in the Bible. Christians are supposed to avoid those! I'm just stating the fact that they're mentioned in the Bible. Then you rant again....bringing in witch-burning!

No, you are backpedaling because you didn't check into what your anti-Dawkins source had to say or why he was mad at Dawkins. And there are attacks and even witch-burnings going on in Africa, many of which are conducted by evangelical churches with association with American churches; so this is not a hypothetical. Your Bible says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and just because Christians i the West have become secularized and resist carrying out Biblical law, there are other places in the world taking fundamentalist logic seriously. This is the fallout of people believing that we live in a magical world full of spirit forces.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence my foot! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since there are no extraordinary evidence that things such as telekinesis are not possible (simply because we don't fully understand the capacity of the brain)....it is therefore irresponsible (to say the least) of Dawkins to dismiss it as not true!

There have been hundreds of tests for psychokenesis, and they've all turned up empty of proof of mentally being able to move objects. Past negative test results should have an influence for how seriously we take claims now. So, we can rule out the existence of any real psychic phenomena until some actual proof is presented that passes scientific testing.

[cybercoma]

Then why is it that Dawkins dismisses the possibilities?

Because he cannot disprove the null hypothesis. It's very simple. Show me a study in any peer-reviewed academic journal that shows evidence of telekinesis in a controlled setting. Where the null hypothesis being that telekinesis is not possible or does not exist, it's really quite simple to disprove. All you have to do is point to its existence in a credible way.

[cybercoma]

I don't get this ridiculous fascination with believing in myths or unproven hypotheses, but specifically that some take precedence over others. It would be patently absurd to believe there are invisible gnomes living in your home that would protect you resurrect you from illness or even death, so you're perfectly free to engage in risky behaviours. Nuts, right? Well the same goes for telekinesis. Until you can show that it actually exists, then its nuts. There's no point in saying, "well it's possible." Sure. Anything is possible. But is it very highly imporbable, for instance to the order of < 0.0000000000000000000001? Yeah. So why even kid ourselves or pretend that it's a possibility? Then you want to take your crazy-assed superstitions and base childhood education and government policy on it because the remotest possibility of being correct gives you some kind of "moral" authority. Do yourself a favour and get your head around probabilities. Just because there's no evidence for something's existence does not mean it has an equal probability of existing or not existing.

Edited April 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

Jesus appeared to me on a sandwich and it has special powers.

-k

[WIP]

Jesus appeared to me on a sandwich and it has special powers.

-k

Could be! Or it just might be another example of paredolia...our tendency to see faces in vague, or random objects. These mistakes are likely caused because of an area in the brain that is tasked with facial recognition: ventral fusiform cortex.

[betsy]

What any scientist would do with an unevidence claim is apply the null hypothesis until evidence was found. That's what a lot of scientists are doing with string theory, for instance. Lovely theory, but until someone can actually find some evidence to support it, it's little more than a very interesting mathematical model.

That doesn't answer the question.

Why is Dawkins making what's tantamount to a conclusion in his dismissal of telekinesis and other possibilities of the paranormal...when the human brain isn't fully understood by science. There's still much to explore.

This supports my contention that Dawkins is not credible. If he can be as sloppy as this - and that's being generously kind and the least to say , then he can be sloppy in his own so-called "scientific works" as well.

[betsy]

Because he cannot disprove the null hypothesis. It's very simple. Show me a study in any peer-reviewed academic journal that shows evidence of telekinesis in a controlled setting. Where the null hypothesis being that telekinesis is not possible or does not exist, it's really quite simple to disprove. All you have to do is point to its existence in a credible way.

Nope. There is still much to explore. Just like the ID-proponents in creation/evolution, there are other scientists who support the possibilities of the paranormal....positive-thinking used in healing, another example.

This close-minded approach that Dawkins and his ilk are trying to pass off as "science,"

which is acctually very unscientific. Guessworks! That's what it is if you make conclusions without fully doing exhaustive research.

[betsy]

Science Finally Tackles Hypnosis

October 20, 2006

“When they use hypnosis to alter perception, the subjective experience is altered in measurable changes in just the right part of the brain,” Spiegel said. “When people say they are feeling less pain, they really are feeling less pain.”

“It’s providing objective evidence that hypnosis is real,” he continued.

But scientists still lack what would be the ultimate validation of this sort of research: a distinct neurological signature of hypnosis. So far, it has been difficult to disentangle the effects of hypnotic suggestion from those of suggestion alone. Researchers must also differentiate between the brain structures that play a role in hypnosis and those that are merely involved in the perceptual tasks subjects are asked to perform in these studies.

However, scientists are beginning to make some intriguing observations, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for the brain’s so-called executive functions: integrating the work of other brain structures, governing decision making, and, perhaps most relevantly, regulating attention. Researchers have long noted that hypnosis can be characterized as an extreme, narrowly focused form of attention.

Some researchers have found that areas in the prefrontal cortex—particularly the anterior cingulate cortex, which seems to be involved in attention, error detection, and resolving conflicts—change their activation patterns during hypnosis.

Scientists are hoping that, as more studies help pin down the brain structures involved in hypnosis, the phenomenon will become a more popular—and acceptable—focus of research, especially since the work could help illuminate other neurological phenomena.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/science_finally_tackles_hypnosis/

There's still much to explore! Science shouldn't be perverted by the likes of Dawkins who's only more willing to endorse close-mindedness to suit his fanatical belief against God or gods.

[bloodyminded]

He [Dawkins] should've been Agnostic. The probability is still there.

And yet he is "confident" that God does not exists. I guess it's more lucrative to be an atheist!

The majority of self-styled atheists are, technically speaking, agnostic. One can be both agnostic and atheist.

From the great Bertrand Russell:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration.

[ToadBrother]

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/science_finally_tackles_hypnosis/

There's still much to explore! Science shouldn't be perverted by the likes of Dawkins who's only more willing to endorse close-mindedness to suit his fanatical belief against God or gods.

This is truly the pot calling the kettle black.

[WIP]

The majority of self-styled atheists are, technically speaking, agnostic. One can be both agnostic and atheist.

From the great Bertrand Russell:

Personally, I don't really care for the "atheism is my belief" but "agnosticism is my statement based on knowledge" definition.

For one thing, I am really skeptical about whether such a thing as a metaphysical absolute knowledge claim can be made, considering the weaknesses of human cognition and perception. I would prefer ranking beliefs on a scale of likelihood; alot of which would be determined by the general acceptance of the claim.

Also, some people really aren't sure what to believe about the existence of a higher power, and consider the atheist/agnostics to be encroaching on their description of their personal beliefs. I read some time ago that the creator of the term "agnostic" was Thomas Huxley; and he coined the term at a time when there were at least a few atheists in intellectual circles, but didn't consider himself one of them, and wanted a better descriptive term for his uncertainty.

[cybercoma]

Could be! Or it just might be another example of paredolia...our tendency to see faces in vague, or random objects. These mistakes are likely caused because of an area in the brain that is tasked with facial recognition: ventral fusiform cortex.

I absolutely love your dead serious answer here.

[bloodyminded]

Personally, I don't really care for the "atheism is my belief" but "agnosticism is my statement based on knowledge" definition.

I don't either, but I think Russell has it about right here. It's just that he's trying to be impossibly exact "when speaking to philosophers," as he rather oddly puts it.

Russell's notion basically comes down to what most of us have been saying repeatedly: yes, I cannot prove there is no God, so in a sheerly technical sense, I must admit the possibility, and call myself an agnostic. However, there is no good reason to pretend that agnosticism is actually more useful as a descriptor; and I'm agnostic only so far as I don't 'know' that Zeus doesn't exist."

For what it's worth, WIP, I do consider myself an atheist; I don't consider it a "belief"; and the typical "agnostic" argument I've heard can be perfectly and precisely translated this way:

"You don't know there are no faeries living in Cape Breton; so really, you're simply stating a belief. My claim to not-knowing is superior and more rigorous than your atheism."

That's what they're saying. There's no difference at all between that statement, and replacing faeries in Cape Breton with God.

And, first, it's a wholly specious argument; I could use precisely the same logic to inform them that they can't know, for certain, that we were even discussing atheism, agnosticism, or anything at all.

And second, they don't believe the argument themselves, the very one they're making (unless they're semi-closeted Christians, which might sometimes be the case). Which makes them a little irritating.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

That doesn't answer the question.

Why is Dawkins making what's tantamount to a conclusion in his dismissal of telekinesis and other possibilities of the paranormal...when the human brain isn't fully understood by science. There's still much to explore.

This supports my contention that Dawkins is not credible. If he can be as sloppy as this - and that's being generously kind and the least to say , then he can be sloppy in his own so-called "scientific works" as well.

It's dismissed because it has been investigated and found wanting. Furthermore, where did you get the idea that researchers investigate every single crazy claim. Are you sure you don't have massless invisible trolls living in your sock drawer?

[betsy]

It's dismissed because it has been investigated and found wanting.

Support your claim. Cite a credible reference.

[GostHacked]

Support your claim. Cite a credible reference.

No use trying, no amount of evidence (even if it buries you) will be enough for you.

[M.Dancer]

Support your claim. Cite a credible reference.

You want him to prove a negative?

[kimmy]

I want him to prove that it wasn't really Cheesus on my sandwich.

-k

[cybercoma]

In Soviet Russia, sandwich is on Cheesus.

[ToadBrother]

Support your claim. Cite a credible reference.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497