New Scientist’s about face on the placebo effect

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 27, 2015

Mind, Neuroscience, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In 2005, New Scientist listed the placebo effect as Number 1 among 13 things that do not make sense.

Now they are trying to figure out how to harness it over there:

How you can harness the placebo effect

…

“It’s hard to believe that sham surgery can produce a long-lasting effect,” says Luana Colloca, who studies the placebo effect at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. But it can. More.

We don’t make this stuff up, you know. If we had that kind of imagination, we’d be getting rich writing screenplays.

See also: Royal Society meet on paradigm shift in evolution? Many of the 50 or so scientists associated with The Third Way of Evolution will attend.

Comments

Born "Exactly how is it that a belief in my mind can have real physiological effects on my body if, as atheistic Darwinists hold, my mind is merely emergent from, or an ‘illusion’ of, my brain?" Excellent Born. Indeed, if the mind emerges from or is an illusion from the Brain then how can that then in turn have any control over the cause? It makes no logical sense of course. Materialism really is a busted flush.Jack Jones_{December 29, 2015
December
12
Dec
29
29
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

goodusername, Did 'you' freely choose to write your own post or did the molecules randomly bouncing around in your skull via the laws of physics write your post and inform the 'illusion of you' of the matter after the fact?
Human consciousness is much more than mere brain activity, - Mark Vernon - 18 June 2011 However, "If you think the brain is a machine then you are committed to saying that composing a sublime poem is as involuntary an activity as having an epileptic fit. ...the nature of consciousness being a tremendous mystery." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/17/human-consciousness-brain-activity Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
Although Dr. Nelson alluded to writing an e-mail, (i.e. creating information), to tie his ‘personal agent’ argument into intelligent design, Dr. Nelson’s ‘personal agent’ argument can easily be amended to any action that ‘you’, as a personal agent, choose to take:
“You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t open the door. Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t raise your hand. Physics did, and informed the illusion you of that event after the fact.” “You didn’t etc.. etc.. etc… Physics did, and informed the illusion of you of that event after the fact.”
Dr. Craig Hazen, in the following video at the 12:26 minute mark, relates how he performed, for an audience full of academics at a college, a ‘miracle’ simply by raising his arm,,
The Intersection of Science and Religion – Craig Hazen, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xVByFjV0qlE#t=746s
What should be needless to say, if raising your arm is enough to refute your supposedly ‘scientific’ worldview of atheistic materialism/naturalism, then perhaps it is time for you to seriously consider getting a new scientific worldview? Might I suggest the Christian worldview which launched the scientific revolution in the first place?
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,,, —not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. A few related notes:
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devoted Christian from early life, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God.
bornagain77_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Vy,
The vast majority of materialists I’ve discussed with deny the existence of the self.
Wow, we’ve obviously been hanging out in different places – I have yet to personally meet anyone that believes that the self doesn't exist (I only know of atheists that supposedly claim as such from the same few that are listed over and over again ad nauseum).
In fact, materialism denies the existence of the self.
How so?
Materialism provides no foundation for the existence of the “self”.
If you mean that no one has yet come up with how the self/consciousness/mind results from the physical brain, I completely agree. But I haven’t seen any non-materialists come up with a theory for how the self/consciousness/mind exists in their worldview either.
Bad analogy. Materialism doesn’t provide a basis for the existence of the self.
So far there’s no worldview that provides a basis for the existence of self. Even if one believes in God and believes that “God did it” – God did what? How? What is the self made of? If you say a “soul”, that’s just a label. But even with this utter lack of a basis for the existence for the self, I certainly wouldn’t say that under theism that the self doesn’t exist – only that they have no explanation for how it exists.
Er, what?
There’s a world of difference between saying “the self/mind/consciousness doesn’t exist” and “there are aspects of the self/mind/consciousness that aren’t what they appear to be”.
It couldn’t be any clearer that he’s referring to the self in all its glory.
It’s been a very long time since I read any books by Harris, and I don’t recall him speaking about this subject in the books, so I’m not familiar with his views on this subject. I looked up the video that the quote above comes from and just watched it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0 For most of the video he speaks plainly as if the self and consciousness exist, and he talks a lot about the illusion of the self or consciousness being separate from the body. There are a couple of sentences where he speaks of the self and “I” being an illusion… by that does he mean that they don’t exist? That wouldn’t make sense considering the rest of the video. But if I ever meet him I’ll ask him. :-) If there’s a book where he talks about this in depth I might read it. If that is what he’s saying I obviously disagree with him. One of the other common names brought up of those who say that “consciousness/mind/self doesn’t exist” is Susan Blackmore. Googling around I came across this: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm “First we must be clear what is meant by the term 'illusion'. To say that consciousness is an illusion is not to say that it doesn’t exist, but that it is not what it seems to be” Well, then, don’t say that! Instead say that there are aspects of consciousness that are an illusion, or aspects of consciousness that aren’t what they appear to be. But they probably realize that those claims don’t get as much attention. I’ve noticed that many places with a headline or quote that has “the mind doesn’t exist” or such are just for attention or to get quoted, and then when you read the article it’s like, “Ok, now that I have your attention, here’s what I really mean...”.
Dan Dennett argues that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes.
I suspect you got your quotes from here: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en If you watch the talk it should be obvious to you that he believes that consciousness exists. I’ve also watched a couple of lengthy talks he’s given on his work “Consciousness Explained”, and it’s quite clear in the in the talks that he believes that the mind/consciousness/self exists. (I haven’t yet read the book though.) Do you think it’s relevant that he believes that consciousness is the “result of physical processes”? Do you equate that with him claiming that consciousness doesn’t exist? If so, I could use the same logic to claim that you don’t believe in consciousness (since I disagree with you on the origin of consciousness). And that YECs don’t believe in the moon.goodusername_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

A slightly OT follow-up Dawkins Delusion video for post 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEisjuwilker_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Here's another materialist denying consciousness:
Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us. --- Dan Dennett argues that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes.
His Yoda Complex won't let him see that based on his own babble, hi...its words are useless!Vy_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

That the self exists is something that non-materialists and (the vast majority) of materialists agree on.
The vast majority of materialists I've discussed with deny the existence of the self. In fact, materialism denies the existence of the self. The materialists that claim not to try to use mental gymnastics to get the self and materialism to play nice.
It’s something that self-evidently exists.
yes! Yes!! Yes!!! :D For the gold medalists in mental gymnastics, e.g. Sam Harris, such an amazingly obvious thing seems impossible to grasp.
The disagreement is on the source (is it the soul? Just the brain? A mix of the two? etc).
Materialism provides no foundation for the existence of the "self".
If someone is going to claim that under materialism that the self is an illusion, it’s up to the person making the statement to explain what the statement means.
Exactly! But it's at that point where it's clear why people like Sam Harris have gold medals in mental gymnastics.
There has to be a self to have any illusions.
Exactly!
So it’s a (seemingly) contradictory statement.
There's no "seemingly", it's 100% suicidal. Full Stop.
but it’s just strange to say that with materialism that it doesn’t exist.
Materialists say that. We just try to make sure they are consistent with their worldview when necessary.
I disagree with YECs on the origin of the moon – but I wouldn’t tell a YEC that under their worldview that the moon doesn’t exist.
Bad analogy. Materialism doesn't provide a basis for the existence of the self.
But I’ve never had a chance to speak with him. If I ever run into Sam Harris, I’ll ask him the question.
As BA @12 shows, you have more than one "Harris" to talk to.
But from what I’ve seen, it sounds to me that he’s merely saying that there are aspects of the self that are an illusion, rather than claiming that the “self” itself is an illusion.
Er, what?
What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body.
It couldn't be any clearer that he's referring to the self in all its glory.Vy_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Besides Sam Harris, you might want to talk to a litany of other atheistic materialists.
Could Consciousness be an Illusion? June 30, 2014 Excerpt: "I recently participated in a conference which was unusual for a couple of reasons. Firstly it was held in a sailing boat in the Arctic. Secondly the consensus view of the conference was that consciousness is an illusion. This view, ‘illusionism’, is about as far removed from my own perspective in philosophy of mind as it is possible to get. Me the panpsychist, Martine Nida-Rümelin the substance dualist, and David Chalmers who splits his opinion between these two views, formed the official on board opposition to the hard-core reductionist majority. Somehow we managed to avoid being made to walk the plank.",, Illusionism is even less plausible than solipsism: the view that my conscious mind is the only thing that exists.,,, http://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2014/06/30/could-consciousness-be-an-illusion/ "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does." - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne Nancy Pearcey: ,,,philosopher Galen Strawson, the denial of consciousness “is surely the strangest thing that has ever happened in the whole history of human thought.” It shows “that the power of human credulity is unlimited, that the capacity of human minds to be gripped by theory, by faith, is truly unbounded.” It reveals “the deepest irrationality of the human mind."
at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. to repeat, ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins himself agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
"consciousness is an illusion"
A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins
”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
And in the following article Dawkins admits that it is impossible to for him live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
bornagain77_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Vy, That the self exists is something that non-materialists and (the vast majority) of materialists agree on. It's something that self-evidently exists. The disagreement is on the source (is it the soul? Just the brain? A mix of the two? etc). If someone is going to claim that under materialism that the self is an illusion, it's up to the person making the statement to explain what the statement means. There has to be a self to have any illusions. So it's a (seemingly) contradictory statement. It's fair to challenge materialists on the origin of the self - but it's just strange to say that with materialism that it doesn't exist. I disagree with YECs on the origin of the moon - but I wouldn't tell a YEC that under their worldview that the moon doesn't exist.
Just in from a quick google search.
Yeah, I can google too. But I've never had a chance to speak with him. If I ever run into Sam Harris, I'll ask him the question. But from what I've seen, it sounds to me that he's merely saying that there are aspects of the self that are an illusion, rather than claiming that the "self" itself is an illusion. If that's what he actually means then my advice to him would be that he should be more careful with his wording.goodusername_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

No, that is the absurdity that the claim that materialism means that the self is an illusion leads to.
Or your denial that that's what it leads to.
If someone claims that under materialism that the self is an illusion, than the logical question to ask is: Who is having the illusion?
Exactly! That's one reason why materialism is a suicidal fairytale for grownups.
I’d ask materialists who make the same claim that question too, but I have never personally run into one
From Atheist Horseman, Sam Harris:
I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.
Just in from a quick google search.Vy_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

News,
We don’t make this stuff up, you know. If we had that kind of imagination, we’d be getting rich writing screenplays.
What "stuff" are you referring to? It sounds like you're referring to the placebo effect, but you've always sounded like you believe in the effect before, so I doubt you mean that. Is there something in this article that you disagree with? Is there anything in the 2005 article that you disagree with? It's not clear what it is that you have a problem with in either article.goodusername_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Jack Jones,
To do scientific investigation already presupposes the existence of the self, So it makes no sense to try and use science to demonstrate the existence of the self. These materialists to be consistent have to say they are experiencing an illusion of doing scientific investigation, but then the question is, who is having the illusion? They would have to hold they are illusions having illusions. That is the absurdity strict materialism leads to.
No, that is the absurdity that the claim that materialism means that the self is an illusion leads to. If someone claims that under materialism that the self is an illusion, than the logical question to ask is: Who is having the illusion? I've asked that of many ID proponents and Creationists who make the claim, but I never receive an answer. (I'd ask materialists who make the same claim that question too, but I have never personally run into one.)goodusername_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

To do scientific investigation already presupposes the existence of the self, So it makes no sense to try and use science to demonstrate the existence of the self. These materialists to be consistent have to say they are experiencing an illusion of doing scientific investigation, but then the question is, who is having the illusion? They would have to hold they are illusions having illusions. That is the absurdity strict materialism leads to.Jack Jones_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

as to: "It is easy to see how the mind can have real physiological effect if the mind itself is a material process." It may be easy for you personally, as an atheist, to imagine how something you claim to be imaginary, i.e. your mind, your sense of self, your very personhood, can have a 'real' effect on your body, since you in fact hold that the most real thing you can know about the world, i.e. that you really exist as a real person, is merely imaginary, but in the real world, imaginary things do not have effects on real things. i.e. Just because you can falsely imagine that imaginary things can have real effects does not make it logically true. Moreover, it is impossible for atheists to live their lives as if their atheistic materialism were actually true. i.e. As if they had no mind nor free will. Therefore atheistic materialism is, of logical necessity, a false view of reality, i.e. a delusion.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html podcast - Are Humans Simply Robots? Nancy Pearcey on the “Free Will Illusion” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/08/are-humans-simply-robots-nancy-pearcey-on-the-free-will-illusion/#more-30001 Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

markf @1, you would hardly need to write to say that if you didn’t know change is in the wind.
I wrote my response because what you wrote was false. There was no “about face”. Why does that require a change in the wind?markf_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Exactly how is it that a belief in my mind can have real physiological effects on my body if, as atheistic Darwinists hold, my mind is merely emergent from, or an ‘illusion’ of, my brain?
You have it the wrong way round. It is easy to see how the mind can have real physiological effect if the mind itself is a material process. It is much harder to see how it can have an effect on the material world if it is something completely different. Where is the interface? How does it work?markf_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Exactly how is it that a belief in my mind can have real physiological effects on my body if, as atheistic Darwinists hold, my mind is merely emergent from, or an 'illusion' of, my brain?
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994
A few notes to go with the placebo effect: 'Brain Plasticity' to a person's focused intention has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as among other researchers.
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic thought, 'mind' has been now been shown to be able to reach all the way down and have pronounced effects on the gene expression of our bodies:
Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
bornagain77_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

markf @1, you would hardly need to write to say that if you didn't know change is in the wind. Shd be fun.News_{December 28, 2015
December
12
Dec
28
28
2015
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

There is no reason why the New Scientist should not write two different articles about the Placebo effect 10 years apart. This is thing about science - you look at the results, you learn, and sometimes you change your mind. However, in this case the two articles are compatible. The first is about how we don't understand the mechanism of the placebo effect. The second article is about using it. Neither deny it exists. That would be daft, as scientists have known about it for decades.markf_{December 27, 2015
December
12
Dec
27
27
2015
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply