(September 10, 2013 at 11:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Chuck, my intuition is more reliable than your certainty.

Wooters, if what you conceive to be your intuition fail to reveal to you that you are an poseur, ignoramus, and perveyor of piffle whose empty sail can - paraphrasing a description of another champion of piffle - be filled with any pass wiff of crank and cant, then that is absolutely reliable evidence that your so called intuition is no intuition at all but the wishful thinking of a moron.

(September 10, 2013 at 11:47 pm)cato123 Wrote: If one is incapable of accurately measuring a quantum system, how does one conclude that such an unmeasurable system is deterministic?

I would presume on how accurate measurements are. The problem (if I understand it) isn't the system per se, but that measuring it alters the system so you can't get an accurate picture of the system as a whole. It's more an epistemic issue I think than.

...Or I could be wrong? I defer to our resident physicist

(September 11, 2013 at 12:40 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(September 10, 2013 at 11:47 pm)cato123 Wrote: If one is incapable of accurately measuring a quantum system, how does one conclude that such an unmeasurable system is deterministic?

I would presume on how accurate measurements are. The problem (if I understand it) isn't the system per se, but that measuring it alters the system so you can't get an accurate picture of the system as a whole. It's more an epistemic issue I think than.

...Or I could be wrong? I defer to our resident physicist

Your notion is contrary to the copenhagen interpretation, which remains a major interpretation of the meaning of quantum mechanics.

Copenhagen interpretation states that quantum properties are fundamentally non-deterministic. It is the act of measurement which gives the property the appearence of being deterministic.

(September 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm)Chuck Wrote: You make a claim which I think no physicist would be prepared to do more than merely suggest as one of the possible alternatives.

I'm going to sound confrontational, but are you trolling? Did you ignore or misss all of my "I think"s and "I believe"s, and lastly my "Or I could be wrong" and deferring to one of the users here who is a physicist?

I've not claimed any certainty or more that bare knowledge on the topic. Don't straw man.

(September 11, 2013 at 12:53 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm)Chuck Wrote: You make a claim which I think no physicist would be prepared to do more than merely suggest as one of the possible alternatives.

I'm going to sound confrontational, but are you trolling? Did you ignore or misss all of my "I think"s and "I believe"s, and lastly my "Or I could be wrong" and deferring to one of the users here who is a physicist?

I've not claimed any certainty or more that bare knowledge on the topic. Don't straw man.

Hedging the claim does not change the fact you made the claim. A claim can be strong, or weak on its own merits, irrespective of whether the claimant professes to have adaquate knowledge or skill to substantiate his claim.

(September 9, 2013 at 8:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Lately, I have revisited my beliefs about cause. I came across the idea of 'probabilistic cause' wherein cause is examined as probable rather than deterministic outcomes. Most of what I have read seems focuses on epistemology, but I think it has far reaching implications.

Relationships of efficient cause are known only by induction. These causal inferences do not qualify as certain knowledge in the way knowledge gained by deduction is. This uncertainty allows you to consider some, if not all, examples of efficient cause as correlations that vary in strength. For example, in other threads I acknowledge a strong correlation between brain functions and mental states, without accepting a deterministic cause-effect relationship.

As a metaphysical concept, probabalistic causation seems more in line with modern quantum physics, as compared to mechanistic 18th century physics. Based on macroscopic experience you tend to think in terms of solid objects moving smoothly through space. But you know that time-space is pixelated and particles pop in and out of existence from the quantum vacuum. Motion is occurs when a particle cease to exist in one location and randomly appears at another within a field of probability. Despite this new scientific knowledge, the most prominent contemporary philosophers seem not to have reexamined the foundations of their theories about motion and change.

For a long time I have strongly intuited that the Aristotelian causes (final, formal, efficient, and material) still had relevance. As a methodological convention of scientific inquiry, excluding formal and final causes has proven enormously successful. This convention clearly does not give a full picture of reality. Anyone can see this from the fact that mathematics produces knowledge with form as its only consideration, to the exclusion of efficient and material cause.

Probabalistic [efficient] cause presents an opportunity to reintroduce final and formal causes into our understanding of reality. Both allow you to account for mental properties generally dismissed or unexplained by the scientism of materialistic monism.

Today even committed skeptics acknowledge that some rigorously performed psi experiments produce statistically significant results. The thoughts from a 'sender' to a 'receiver' can increase the hit rate of the receivers from 25% to 32%. Apart from fraud, no purely materialistic theory can account for these results. You could say that the sender's intention to send and the receiver's intention to receive qualify as an example of final cause.

Meanwhile, formal cause finds a place by accounting for the character of the probability field that defines objects, by either promoting or thwarting the likelihood of physical events. This solves the mind-body interaction problem of dualism. Brain activity is a highly chaotic system. If mind can manipulate chance, in the same way psi experiments have shown, a very small 'push' at the quantum level (Penrose, etc.) would affect how the
physical body behaves. In this process, mental properties, including free will, are preserved.

As usual, nice effort, but no cigar.

I like your arguments here because they are grounded in decent scientific research and I had to do quite a bit of research in order to point out the errors. You start off well, but end up reaching for the desired conclusion rather than arriving at it logically.

The first problem I see is your understanding of probabilistic causation theories. Contrary to what you seem to conclude here - they are not, in fact, more or less valid within the context of modern quantum mechanics.

The earlier understanding of causation was that the statement "A causes B" means the occurrence of event A is necessarily followed by occurrence of event B. Under probabilistic theory the statement "A causes B" means that occurrence of event A raises the probability of occurrence of event B. This difference isn't about quantum mechanics vs Newtonian mechanics or determinism vs probability. The uncertainty here refers to the gap in our knowledge. For example, under normal circumstances, when we talk about efficient cause, a high level of probability makes any mention of it superfluous. I can say dropping the vase caused it to break without adding the qualifier of 99% of the time because of the high degree of certainty involved. But in absence of this certainty - like with smoking and lung cancer - the inclusion of probability becomes necessary.


The second problem with your argument is your view of how methodological naturalism relates to Aristotelian causes. Our usage of the terms has changed since his times. What he called material cause, we refer to as 'composition'. His 'formal cause' became structure, 'final cause' became function (or intention behind it - where necessary) and his 'efficient cause' became just 'cause'. Therefore, the probabilistic theory of causation refers exclusively to 'efficient causes' - not the rest. This does not mean that the other causes are no longer relevant or significant withing methodological naturalism - we just don't call them causes anymore. Which is why, unfortunately, appealing to probabilistic theory of causation is not the gap you are looking for to reintroduce those causes - because those causes haven't been excluded in the first place.


Now we come to the crux of your argument - which is about psionic experiments and their relation to mind-body dualism. Specifically, you are referring to the Ganzfeld experiment where your quoted increase of 25% to 32% makes sense.

The premise of the experiment seems to be as follows. The subject A is placed in a state of of sensory deprivation. Another subject B observes the targets and tries to send the information mentally to A. A keeps talking about what he sees during this time (recorded for reference) and afterwards is shown the same target that B saw - along with 3 decoys - to see if it matches. The expected 'hit-rate' is 25%. The resulting 'hit-rate' was 32%. And the difference is statistically significant.

However, even if we were to rule out fraud, it is still a reach to go from there to dualism. One criticism of the experiment is the psi-assumption. That is, the assumption that any significant statistical deviation is caused by actual existence of telepathy. While the deviation is significant, the question of what it signifies is not that simply answered.

But, even if it were established as telepathy, your argument that "no purely materialistic theory can account for these results" would still be incorrect.

My first hypothesis in absence of fraud would be subconscious perception, i.e. relying on perceptions before or after the ganzfeld effect to make the judgments. This would, ofcourse, depend upon the experimental setup.

The second hypothesis would limited sensory perception. That is, even during the experiment the subject A's senses cannot be fully elimination and they might be working at a level he isn't aware of.

My third explanation would be to a monistic explanation of telepathy. The sender's brain generates weak electro-magnetic fields and when the receiver is in a state of sensory deprivation, his brain syncs with those fields to an extent.

So, you see, the problem is, even if you were to establish the existence of telepathy, using that as evidence for dualism would still be reaching.

(September 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm)Chuck Wrote: Hedging the claim does not change the fact you made the claim. A claim can be strong, or weak on its own merits, irrespective of whether the claimant professes to have adaquate knowledge or skill to substantiate his claim.

Your original statement was that I made a claim no physicist would make, aside from saying that it's a possible one. Now you're saying I was just hedging... Convenient backstep.

(September 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: This difference isn't about quantum mechanics vs Newtonian mechanics or determinism vs probability. The uncertainty here refers to the gap in our knowledge.

I did mention that the idea deals primarily with epistimology, or as you say gaps in our knowledge. I'm looking beyond that focus, to see if the idea could be extended in the metaphysics of causation. The cause-effect relationship seems easily taken for granted without much reflection on why causes are linked with effects. On this forum proofs that begin with the proposition "everything has a cause" presuppose that causation is a fully resolved problem. I do not think that is the case.

(September 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: ...the probabilistic theory of causation refers exclusively to 'efficient causes' - not the rest.

I completely agree. I did not mean that probablistic cause entailed the other forms or cause as well. Instead, I think it supplants deterministic cause-effect relations in such a way that in operates in conjunction with other types of cause, which I'll clarify next.

(September 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: Our usage of the terms has changed since his times. ...'material cause', we refer to as 'composition'...'formal cause' became structure, 'final cause' became function ...and his 'efficient cause' became just 'cause'.

You are correct in as much as the Aritotelian nomenclature needs updating. I stuck with those terms because a little research and any forum reader will learn their meaning. That said, I do not think the terms you chose fully capture the original concepts.

Material cause traditonally means indefinite primal matter - below quarks, below strings, all the way down at the bottom. I think, the best modern equivelent is "stuff", but that doesn't capture the idea of its infinite potency.

Formal cause seems best translated as essence, because a thing can change its structure and still retain its formal cause, like when an acorn becomes a fully grown oak tree. Formal cause, or essence is that which preserves its identity as a distinct entity throughout its existence.

Final cause is a bit more difficult to pin down. My understanding is that final cause serves as the motivating principle for all change. We know that things in the universe change, but why is there change at all and not perfect stasis? If I had to choose, I would call it 'intention' even with the connotation of consciousness.

(September 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: ...about psionic experiments and their relation to mind-body dualism...it is still a reach to go from there to dualism. One criticism of the experiment is the psi-assumption...

Psi is just a name for the phenomena not the explanation of it. It referes to facts that cannot be explained within a standard naturalistic paradigm. It seems to me the only assumption being made is that the results must have a physical explanation. It may be telepathy, or it could be something else. The point of serious psychical research, like the kind to which I point, is not about proving the existence of a specific means, like telepathy, but to narrow in on the source of the small but significant lab results, in the hopes that it may shed light on what is actually happening during unusual anecdotal events.

(September 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: But, even if it were established as telepathy, your argument that "no purely materialistic theory can account for these results" would still be incorrect. ..subconscious perception, i.e. relying on perceptions before or after the ganzfeld effect to make the judgments. ...limited sensory perception. ...weak electro-magnetic fields.

Most of these variables have been eliminated to conform to objections by skeptics. For example, many of the experiments put the 'receiver' in a Faraday cage.

I do not say that dualism is a natural conclusion of my points. Instead it eliminates one of the most persistent objections to it. That objection is the interaction problem: how can an immaterial mind interact causally with material brain.

(September 11, 2013 at 11:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Material cause traditonally means indefinite primal matter - below quarks, below strings, all the way down at the bottom. I think, the best modern equivelent is "stuff", but that doesn't capture the idea of its infinite potency.

I'm not knowledgable about the physics, so insert the appropriate qualifiers, but from what I understand, given our current understanding, the notion of something beneath it all essentially implies a local hidden variable theory, which consensus suggests is highly implausible. Resting any framework on an understanding that implies it seems rather ill-conceived. (Apologies if my understanding of the matter is incorrect or out-of-date.)

For the record, I once for kicks did a "psychic" experiment with a friend. It was simple-- we sat on opposite sides of his bedroom, not looking at each other. I would try to visualize a number from 1-100 and "send" it to him. He would then try to match my number.

At the first number, I was very disappointed to find that he got the wrong number. When we tried the second number, he guessed the first. When we did the third number, he guessed the second. We did this for 6 consecutive 1-100 numbers in a row-- with him in every case guessing the previous number, rather than the current one.

Now, this wasn't very scientific for many reasons. First of all, I didn't write it down-- so only I know for sure that he guessed all the numbers I was thinking; he can only choose to believe that I'm not BSing him.

Also, we had very many shared interests, as we were close friends: known birthdays, locker combinations, etc. We also had a shared interest in programming, so the numbers could have been from some project we had shared at some point. But even giving all of this, I thought that result was pretty amazing. It gave me the goosebumps.

Okay, /anecdote. But it was enough to make me wonder, for sure.

---

(September 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: But, even if it were established as telepathy, your argument that "no purely materialistic theory can account for these results" would still be incorrect.

First of all, I agree. It does not follow that telepathy, if proven, proves dualism. Although I can think of one case in which it might-- that the subjects are separated far enough in space that their "communication" (i.e. slight skewing of guessed objects or whatever) would break the c barrier. But even that has issues with a kind of entanglement: How could you run an experiment in which the two subjects are not somehow brought into a physical relationship first?