Mediumship vs. Religion

[jallenecs]

originally posted by Clancie
Hi Jallenecs,

I see the thread seems to be wrapping up, but I hope you won't mind a quick question from me, since you seem like a reasonable new poster here.

I'm interested that you are a Presbyterian. And, if you don't mind commenting on mediumship from your point of view as a Christian , I'd appreciate it. (Just fyi, I'm an atheist, and by many accounts here, a notorious woo-woo due to my idea that "there might be something to mediumship.")

Here's my question and its not for argument's sake; it really interests me.
I understand why atheists would think mediumship is all bunk. If "dead is dead" then there's nothing to communicate with anyway.

But one of the main tenets of Christianity is that there actually is life after death, and soul survival. Not only that, but the Bible offers many accounts, particularly related to the life of Jesus, in which spirits are said to communicate with humans--sometimes directly (ADC) and sometimes through a human intermediary or "medium".

So....my question is....for someone who already believes in an afterlife and soul survival, why would the idea of mediumship seem so implausible? I mean, apart from those Christians who think that humans shouldn't communicate with the deceased (not that its impossible, what is the big deal about spirit communication?

Do you feel that it could be possible to communicate with the deceased, but you just haven't seen evidence that anyone actually does do it? Or, like some skeptics, do you think the idea of spirit communication is definitely ridiculous nonsense? (And, if the latter, from a Christian point of view, why would that be true?)

Just curious, as I've asked several Christians this before, but never seem able to understand why someone would believe in an afterlife and survival of consciousness and yet object so strenously to the possibility of communication of spirits with the living.

I would be happy to address your questions, though I am not sure that I am qualified to assuage your curiosity. I am no theologian.

But perhaps this particular thread is not the place to address it. Perhaps the religious forum is more appropriate? I shall go there immediately and open a thread to that effect, if that is good with you.

With your permission, I will post this last post of yours to that new forum, and then answer in another post, just for the sake of smooth continuity; is that acceptable?

[jallenecs]

OK, first, as you have gathered, I don't believe in mediumship. Second, I believe in the indestructable soul of man, and that it survives our death. Third, I am no theologian or Bible scholar; I have no interest in quoting Scripture passages at you, so don't fear that. However, with that said.....

According to the Bible, and the Westminster Confession of Faith (an annotated declaration of the essential tenets of the Presbyterian religion), when I die, there are only two places I can go: to Heaven, for my eternal reward, or to Hell, for my eternal damnation.

If I were to go to Heaven, then I will know all things, and bask in the light of Christ for the rest of eternity; there is nothing in there about weekend furloughs down to earth, and nothing about John Edwards being the Long Distance Operator for the Earth/Heaven exchange. If I were to go to Hell, then I will be imprisoned in a nightmare, forever removed from the grace of God, to suffer eternally for my sins. It also says nothing about the possibility of escape.

Strictly according to the Presbyterian faith alone, there is nothing that addresses the possibility of spirits moving free on earth, to communicate with anybody. You're sorted when you die, moved into either heaven or hell, and that's the end of the matter. Nobody is overlooked, no spirit is cast adrift on the planet, nobody can phone home to communicate with departed loved ones or to spook people late at night in deserted houses.

But one of the nice things about the Presbyterian faith (as opposed to various other Christian sects) is that it encourages me to doubt, to look at each tenet of faith, examine it for myself, and make my own decision of what I believe, and what I don't. It encourages skeptical thinking, if you can imagine. With that in mind, I will say that there are parts of this particular Heaven/Hell scenario that I find..... hard to agree with. I will not go into detail on that, because, for starters, my personal experience with faith is an intensely private matter, and I am reluctant to throw the matter open to the prejudices and gibes of people like TBK. Secondly, because it has no bearing on my belief about mediums.

No, I don't believe that mediums are really talking to dead people. As it pertains to my faith, I don't believe that my father, or anybody else's loved one, is leaving Heaven, or escaping Hell, to communicate with me, in any capacity.

As it pertains to my skepticism, I believe that fakery makes a good deal more sense than spirit communication. Too many mediums have been proven fakes over the years. Until I see definitive proof, I just believe that Mr. Fry, Mr. Edwards, et al, are faking.

I'm betting that's not very helpful, but I do hope it's a place to start?

[Mike D.]

jallenecs,

Some Christians believe that certain mediums are sincere, but that when such mediums produce evidential material, they (the Christians) say that Satan's demons are impersonating the spirits of our deceased loved ones. The whole point of such impersonation is to lead unwary people into the path of spiritualism, a path God condemns. (See a book entitiled I Talked With Spirits by Victor H. Ernest, as an example of this type of thinking.) These Christians would agree that our souls are either in Heaven or Hell after death, but believe that Satan uses mediums (the ones that aren't cheating) for his own nefarious purposes in his quest to lead even more souls into Hell.

Mike

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by Mike D.
jallenecs,

Some Christians believe that certain mediums are sincere, but that when such mediums produce evidential material, they (the Christians) say that Satan's demons are impersonating the spirits of our deceased loved ones. The whole point of such impersonation is to lead unwary people into the path of spiritualism, a path God condemns. (See a book entitiled I Talked With Spirits by Victor H. Ernest, as an example of this type of thinking.) These Christians would agree that our souls are either in Heaven or Hell after death, but believe that Satan uses mediums (the ones that aren't cheating) for his own nefarious purposes in his quest to lead even more souls into Hell.

Mike

I have heard that line of reasoning from religious thinkers as well. I really have not pursued that line of thought yet. First, it must be established that the medium is talking to ANYBODY by himself; then I will worry about WHO exactly he's talking to, you know?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jallenecs


As it pertains to my skepticism, I believe that fakery makes a good deal more sense than spirit communication. Too many mediums have been proven fakes over the years. Until I see definitive proof, I just believe that Mr. Fry, Mr. Edwards, et al, are faking.

[/B]

I have no idea whether all so called mediums are fakes, but the fact that a lot of them are, doesn't give evidence they all are. Otherwise skeptics could pretend to be mediums, deliberately get exposed as charlatans, and then declare that this is yet further evidence against the genuineness of any mediums! :eek: See the logical fallacy?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have no idea whether all so called mediums are fakes, but the fact that a lot of them are, doesn't give evidence they all are. Otherwise skeptics could pretend to be mediums, deliberately get exposed as charlatans, and then declare that this is yet further evidence against the genuineness of any mediums! :eek: See the logical fallacy?

Straw man, Ian. See the logical fallacy?

[Rolfe]

I've followed this thread over from the other forum, and I just wanted to chip in on Jallenecs' side. I too am a Presbyterian (Church of Scotland), and basically, what she said.

The reason I don't usually come into this forum is that I'm much more concerned with outright fraud, and the paranormal being represented as scientific fact - principally as regards medical frauds such as homoeopathy. Arguing about essentially unarguable matters of faith doesn't attract me to the same extent.

However, I have to agree with Jallenecs. All the evidence points to the mediums we have information about being frauds, and I believe it is very unlikely that we need any other explanation than fraud for what is going on. Accepting the logical possibility of supernatural intervention doesn't really alter that equation.

I'm reminded of a Sunday School lesson about Saul and the Witch of Endor. The interpretation which was presented to us was that the Witch of Endor was a standard John-Edwards-type fraud, who made her living by deluding people. And that when the spirit of Samuel really did turn up and speak through her, she was the most surprised of all those present.

Now I'm not defending this as the only possible explanation of that story, but it does make a point. Someone communicating from the dead would be a miracle of biblical proportions, and not something any of us is really likey to come in contact with.

On a related matter, I'm just so sorry for Steve Grenard. It must be horrible to lose a child as he did. But the most horrible part of it all is that he lacks a philosophy or a faith which will let him cope with it. Absolute rationalism can do it, if you just accept that that's that, and these things happen, get over it. That's a tough row to hoe, but many people manage it. On the other hand, a coherent religious belief will also do it. "The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God," and so on. "In my Father's house there are many mansions, I go there to prepare a place for you." A cousin of mine lost a son at the age of 18, and although he was very very stressed, his faith allowed him to come to terms with it and move on.

But Steve says it doesn't get any better, and there's still a huge hole in his chest, and similar things. No wonder, if he's trawling round after mediums in the hope of some message from the other side, and it seems that even believing that he's had such a message hasn't really helped him. The very idea that what waits for us after death is the sort of existence implied by these seances just gives me the screaming ab-dabs. Fortunately, I don't believe a word of it.

Rolfe.

[homunculus]

I have no idea whether all so called mediums are fakes, but the fact that a lot of them are, doesn't give evidence they all are. Otherwise skeptics could pretend to be mediums, deliberately get exposed as charlatans, and then declare that this is yet further evidence against the genuineness of any mediums! See the logical fallacy?

I don't see the "fallacy" here. This is just a reasonable application of the old axiom: "If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like one..."!

The cold reading hypothesis fully explains the "psychic" act without having to invoke additional forces, powers or entities which are themselves unexplained. So it is always preferable - the "default" position, if you will - in ALL cases where mediumship is being performed, and where that performance seems consistent with the cold reading explanation.

It is the opposite view - that mediums really are "communicating" with existents which are somehow non-physical, and never seem interact with any other matter - which requires additional justification (there are so many additional problems created by THIS explanation, I could go on all day...)

Paul.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Rolfe


Someone communicating from the dead would be a miracle of biblical proportions,


I don't agree. It's like someone in England 200 years ago saying that someone instantaneously communicating with someone from Australia, using a small device, is physically possible, and would be a miracle of biblical proportions.

If we survive our bodies but we cannot communicate with dead people, then that is just the way the world is. But let's not kid ourselves that it would be somehow miraculous if it transpires that some gifted individuals were able to communicate.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by homunculus
[B]I have no idea whether all so called mediums are fakes, but the fact that a lot of them are, doesn't give evidence they all are. Otherwise skeptics could pretend to be mediums, deliberately get exposed as charlatans, and then declare that this is yet further evidence against the genuineness of any mediums! See the logical fallacy?

I don't see the "fallacy" here.



{shrugs}

Think about it. I'm afraid the rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't agree. It's like someone in England 200 years ago saying that someone instantaneously communicating with someone from Australia, using a small device, is physically possible, and would be a miracle of biblical proportions.

If we survive our bodies but we cannot communicate with dead people, then that is just the way the world is. But let's not kid ourselves that it would be somehow miraculous if it transpires that some gifted individuals were able to communicate.


Fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantium

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{shrugs}

Think about it. I'm afraid the rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

No, the rest of his argument invokes Occam's razor.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't agree. It's like someone in England 200 years ago saying that someone instantaneously communicating with someone from Australia, using a small device, is physically possible, and would be a miracle of biblical proportions.

If we survive our bodies but we cannot communicate with dead people, then that is just the way the world is. But let's not kid ourselves that it would be somehow miraculous if it transpires that some gifted individuals were able to communicate.

OK then fine. If there are people who can actually communicate with the dead then I would like one of them do so. Indeed, I would expect that such a demonstration would qualify for the JREF Prize Money.

[homunculus]

If we survive our bodies but we cannot communicate with dead people, then that is just the way the world is. But let's not kid ourselves that it would be somehow miraculous if it transpires that some gifted individuals were able to communicate.

I agree with this. But those TV mediums are a joke - everything about their comportment and body language, their vagueness, their transparent "fishing" for details - conforms perfectly to the "cold reading" explanation. Even the program makers put little disclaimers saying the shows are "just entertainment". There are also no controls preventing, say, microphones being turned on prior to the show airing, or other methods of gleaning more specific information.

It's actually FUNNY that people fall for it. John Edward looks like a used car salesman. He just OOZES insincerity...

Paul.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have no idea whether all so called mediums are fakes, but the fact that a lot of them are, doesn't give evidence they all are. Otherwise skeptics could pretend to be mediums, deliberately get exposed as charlatans, and then declare that this is yet further evidence against the genuineness of any mediums! :eek: See the logical fallacy?

Honestly, Ian, I was a music major in college, and never took a philosophy class; I don't know your "logical fallacy" and "straw men" and all those other fun terms. So you'll have to explain the terms if you're going to use them.

But, with that said, I'm not following you. I said I THINK that JE and his type are fakes. I am not sure. I told Showme as much, correct?

The majority of the evidence is on the side of fakery. Does that mean that the next guy coming down the pike is the real deal? There is no way of knowing that.

With the information I have at my disposal at this very moment, fakery seems to make more sense than communication with the spirit world. There's no telling what info I'll have tomorrow that might disabuse me of that.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jallenecs


Honestly, Ian, I was a music major in college, and never took a philosophy class; I don't know your "logical fallacy" and "straw men" and all those other fun terms. So you'll have to explain the terms if you're going to use them.

Strawman - a weaker argument instead of the one currently in use, which is usually misrepresentative. Ian's assumption that skeptics believe ALL mediums are fakes is a strawman.

Logic fallacy - a flaw with logic or reasoning, also known as a post made by Interesting Ian.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by c4ts


Strawman - a weaker argument instead of the one currently in use, which is usually misrepresentative. Ian's assumption that skeptics believe ALL mediums are fakes is a strawman.

Logic fallacy - a flaw with logic or reasoning, also known as a post made by Interesting Ian.

:roll: :roll: :roll: That was funny! No offense, Ian, just enjoying a quip.

I'm sorry, folks, that I have trouble with this. My experience with logic is.... well, would practical applications be an acceptable description? I never studied logic in school, but I have spent a lot of time trying to think rationally.

Well, sort of. Actually, I spent most of my youth practicing piano, and then trying to write persuasively. Only moderate success at either.

[c4ts]

Hey, you can learn a whole lot about logic from the R&P board.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts
Hey, you can learn a whole lot about logic from the R&P board.

I think not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts
[B]

Strawman - a weaker argument instead of the one currently in use, which is usually misrepresentative. Ian's assumption that skeptics believe ALL mediums are fakes is a strawman.



It would seem strange to label oneself as a skeptic if one believe that some people have the ability to communicate with dead people.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It would seem strange to label oneself as a skeptic if one believe that some people have the ability to communicate with dead people.
Its just a question of semantics, and believe it or not, most skeptics cant even agree on the definition of "skeptic".

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea whether all so called mediums are fakes, but the fact that a lot of them are, doesn't give evidence they all are. Otherwise skeptics could pretend to be mediums, deliberately get exposed as charlatans, and then declare that this is yet further evidence against the genuineness of any mediums! :eek: See the logical fallacy?

I'll work from a different angle...

Under the assumption (I dont consider it an assumption) that nothing exists beyond explanation of science (including claims of the paranormal), that would be reasoning to assume all psychics are charlatans.

You seem to be offering an Arguement from Ignorance and really appear to be begging the question, however your presumption of "just because most psychics are exposed as fakes doesnt mean they all are" is perfectly justified.

[T'ai Chi]

The real question is:

Can we get evidence of 'life after death' without going through a person?

oh, and the slightly related question:

Can a medium pick up on a trained talking bird's (who is now dead) words?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It would seem strange to label oneself as a skeptic if one believe that some people have the ability to communicate with dead people.
Most skeptics would give a medium the chance to prove himself before declaring him a fake. That's what the $1,000,000 prize is all about, and it is not the same as assuming all mediums are fakes, nor is it assuming that all mediums are genuine.

[homunculus]

A lot of the disagreement in this thread is rooted in a misunderstanding about the epistemic role logical argument should play. I do, indeed, assert that wherever any performance by a "medium" is consistent with the "cold reading" explanation, that explanation should be relied upon in preference to others. This has nothing to do with there being a logically valid chain of reasonning from specific cases or observations, to general conclusions about "all" mediums. It has to do with relying (always provisionally) on whatever theories solve our problems NOW, whilst leaving the least unexplained (for example, in the form of additional entities/forces which are themselves a mystery).

In science, logical argument is just one form (and not even the most important form) of CRITICISM, enabling us to decide between competing solutions to whatever problem-situation is under investigation. As I already explained above, the hypothesis that ANY medium, anywhere, and at any time is "communicating with the dead" simply cannot stand up to rational criticism.

Also, to assert that one performer is "genuine" whilst another is using a magician's trick, when their acts are identical, is no more than gratuitous special pleading and need not be taken seriously.

Paul.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by homunculus


In science, logical argument is just one form (and not even the most important form) of CRITICISM, enabling us to decide between competing solutions to whatever problem-situation is under investigation. As I already explained above, the hypothesis that ANY medium, anywhere, and at any time is "communicating with the dead" simply cannot stand up to rational criticism.

[/B]

What rational criticism? If your point is merely that if a mediums performance is not anymore impressive than what a skilled cold reader could achieve, then obviously I agree that the medium concerned is most likely employing cold reading. If however it is more impressive than what it would seem reasonable to suppose a cold reader could achieve, then it seems reasonable to suppose that some other means are being used to get the information (not necessarily communication with the dead though!).

Again I stress the fact that if there is indeed a life after death, it is not inherently absurd that certain gifted individuals should be able to communicate with dead people.

Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Again I stress the fact that if there is indeed a life after death, it is not inherently absurd that certain gifted individuals should be able to communicate with dead people.

Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?

Wait wait wait!!!!! I did not say that!

I said that I personally believe in life after death. I have nothing to prove it, but then, there is nothing to disprove it either, that I've seen. Given two equally unproven choices, I pick life.

I also said that all the mediums that I have seen or heard tell of were frauds, or were unable/unwilling to be tested.

Believing in one has nothing to do with believing in the other.

Because of the history of fraud in spiritualism, it seems only prudent to me that I would wait for a test, to prove that a medium's claims are true. THEN we can figure out if he's talking to actual ghosts, to demons, to some recording of past events, or to whoever.

[homunculus]

Again I stress the fact that if there is indeed a life after death, it is not inherently absurd that certain gifted individuals should be able to communicate with dead people.

Theories which solve no problems can be summarily rejected from the outset. What you (or anyone else staking a claim for life after death) must do, is establish just what observations (or deficiencies with existing theories) are better explained by the life-after-death hypothesis. Otherwise, the whole notion is superfluous, and adds nothing to our understanding.

There is also the small matter of empirical testability. Theories which posit invisible forces/entities, which never interact with any other matter (or do, but not in any consistent way) are ALWAYS sloppy explanations. They do nothing to solve any real-world problems. They are non-explanations, because all they do is tender an inscrutable in place of an inscrutable. They preserve the mystery, or replace it with another.

Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?

Not "absurd", just unnecessary. Note that throughout all of this, I have not actively DENIED the existene of immaterial souls, life-after-death, or communication with the dead.

Paul.

[jallenecs]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Again I stress the fact that if there is indeed a life after death, it is not inherently absurd that certain gifted individuals should be able to communicate with dead people.

Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?

Wait wait wait!!!!! I did not say that!

I said that I personally believe in life after death. I have nothing to prove it, but then, there is nothing to disprove it either, that I've seen. Given two equally unproven choices, I pick life.

I also said that all the mediums that I have seen or heard tell of were frauds, or were unable/unwilling to be tested.

Believing in one has nothing to do with believing in the other.

Because of the history of fraud in spiritualism, it seems only prudent to me that I would wait for a test, to prove that a medium's claims are true. THEN we can figure out if he's talking to actual ghosts, to demons, to some recording of past events, or to whoever.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jallenecs

II
Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


jallenecs
Wait wait wait!!!!! I did not say that!



I was addressing homunculus ;)

[homunculus]

If however it is more impressive than what it would seem reasonable to suppose a cold reader could achieve, then it seems reasonable to suppose that some other means are being used to get the information (not necessarily communication with the dead though!)

Sure. Right. There is also "hot" reading, where the alledged "psychic" covertly obtains information about the sitter BEFORE the reading (for example, there are a couple of articles on the Net saying that John Edward was once caught listenning in on studio mics prior to one of his shows).

How would YOU fake a televised performance of mediumship? I would have everyone give their names and some personal details prior to the show being filmed. I would have studio mics open throughout a "warm-up" period during which someone (not me) explained the "process" of mediumship, and got everyone comfortable. Meanwhile, I would be listenning behind the scenes.

I would also have "hot" seats where regular customers (who had been to previous shows, or even private readings) were sitting, by special invitation, so if things were going badly, I could always say, "Are you the lady who's husband passed recently?" Being gullible believers, they're hardly going to challenge me - just nod accomodatingly. To everone else, it'll look exactly like a direct "hit", no questions asked.

I would also film several hours of footage, which could be condensed down to a half-hour show later. I might even edit together positive responses to any specific guesses I ventured (something else one attendee at a John Edward show said had been done).

It would be just TOO easy, really...

Paul.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by homunculus

II
[B]Again I stress the fact that if there is indeed a life after death, it is not inherently absurd that certain gifted individuals should be able to communicate with dead people.

homunculus
Theories which solve no problems can be summarily rejected from the outset.



Scientific theories, obviously not metaphysical ones. Theories about what the self really is are quite definitely metaphysical.


What you (or anyone else staking a claim for life after death) must do, is establish just what observations (or deficiencies with existing theories) are better explained by the life-after-death hypothesis. Otherwise, the whole notion is superfluous, and adds nothing to our understanding.



Which existing theories precisely? We don't really have any for the mind/body problem. We have metaphysical hypotheses only.



II
Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?

Not "absurd", just unnecessary. Note that throughout all of this, I have not actively DENIED the existene of immaterial souls, life-after-death, or communication with the dead.



Unnecessary for what? I think you're confusing a scientific description of the world with deeper questions which have nothing to do with science.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by homunculus
If however it is more impressive than what it would seem reasonable to suppose a cold reader could achieve, then it seems reasonable to suppose that some other means are being used to get the information (not necessarily communication with the dead though!)

Sure. Right. There is also "hot" reading, where the alledged "psychic" covertly obtains information about the sitter BEFORE the reading (for example, there are a couple of articles on the Net saying that John Edward was once caught listenning in on studio mics prior to one of his shows).

How would YOU fake a televised performance of mediumship? I would have everyone give their names and some personal details prior to the show being filmed. I would have studio mics open throughout a "warm-up" period during which someone (not me) explained the "process" of mediumship, and got everyone comfortable. Meanwhile, I would be listenning behind the scenes.

I would also have "hot" seats where regular customers (who had been to previous shows, or even private readings) were sitting, by special invitation, so if things were going badly, I could always say, "Are you the lady who's husband passed recently?" Being gullible believers, they're hardly going to challenge me - just nod accomodatingly. To everone else, it'll look exactly like a direct "hit", no questions asked.

I would also film several hours of footage, which could be condensed down to a half-hour show later. I might even edit together positive responses to any specific guesses I ventured (something else one attendee at a John Edward show said had been done).

It would be just TOO easy, really...

Paul.

Yes there are lots of explanations for an accurate reading apart from cold reading. One must rule out all possible normal explanations. Even if we come to the conclusion that the medium is obtaining the information by anomalous means, that's still a long way from showing that s/he is speaking to the dead!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B] ...

Again I stress the fact that if there is indeed a life after death, it is not inherently absurd that certain gifted individuals should be able to communicate with dead people.

...

Ah, the big IF has entered the building.

IF there is actually a life after death,
THEN it may be possible to communicate with it.

True.

By the same token:

IF pigs had wings,
THEN they may be able to fly.

Also true.

[homunculus]

I wrote: Theories which solve no problems can be summarily rejected from the outset.

Ian Replied: Scientific theories, obviously not metaphysical ones. Theories about what the self really is are quite definitely metaphysical.

Any attempt at explanation, wether philosophical, metaphysical, theological, or scientific is a problem-solving excercize. If there is no problem to solve, then the theory is superfluous - and has no meaning - wether it is a metaphysical OR a scientific in character (the difference between the two being solely in the degree of empirical content, or wether testable consequences can be deduced). In any field, we discuss the relative merit of competing theories within the context of the problem-situation which gave rise to them. Period.

I also wrote: What you (or anyone else staking a claim for life after death) must do, is establish just what observations (or deficiencies with existing theories) are better explained by the life-after-death hypothesis. Otherwise, the whole notion is superfluous, and adds nothing to our understanding.

Ian responded: Which existing theories precisely? We don't really have any for the mind/body problem. We have metaphysical hypotheses only.

I was talking about the neurophysiological theories of science. If you disagree that consciousness arises from electrical and biochemical activity within brains - and can therefore be investigated in the same way as any other phenomenon - then we have nothing to talk about.

Ian wrote: Perhaps you just think life after death is absurd, therefore all mediums therefore necessarily must be frauds?

I replied: Not "absurd", just unnecessary. Note that throughout all of this, I have not actively DENIED the existence of immaterial souls, life-after-death, or communication with the dead.

Ian replied: Unnecessary for what? I think you're confusing a scientific description of the world with deeper questions which have nothing to do with science.

My view is that there ARE NO questions which have "nothing to do with science". If you prefer the confabulated word-strings of our primitive ancestors (explanations which invoke invisible "essences", "spirits" etc. and inexplicable "magical" effects and forces) then that is your choice. But you will have to debate it with someone else.

Paul.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by homunculus

homunculus
Theories which solve no problems can be summarily rejected from the outset.

II
Scientific theories, obviously not metaphysical ones. Theories about what the self really is are quite definitely metaphysical.

homunculus
Any attempt at explanation, wether philosophical, metaphysical, theological, or scientific is a problem-solving excercize. If there is no problem to solve, then the theory is superfluous - and has no meaning - wether it is a metaphysical OR a scientific in character (the difference between the two being solely in the degree of empirical content, or wether testable consequences can be deduced). In any field, we discuss the relative merit of competing theories within the context of the problem-situation which gave rise to them. Period.



Well, it depends on what you mean by "problem". The mind/body problem is not a scientific problem. Failure to solve this "problem" will not impede the progress of science completely describing the physical world. It is a "problem" in that it would be nice to know what the ultimate nature of consciousness is; whether there is a life after death; whether we are terminated at death. Don't know whether it should be called a problem though.


homunculus
What you (or anyone else staking a claim for life after death) must do, is establish just what observations (or deficiencies with existing theories) are better explained by the life-after-death hypothesis. Otherwise, the whole notion is superfluous, and adds nothing to our understanding.

II
Which existing theories precisely? We don't really have any for the mind/body problem. We have metaphysical hypotheses only.

homunculus
I was talking about the neurophysiological theories of science.



They are not scientific theories of consciousness. Science in principle cannot explain consciousness. It could only do so by presupposing that philosophical materialism is correct, but this of course begs the question and of course such a scientific explanation would therefore be vacuous.

BTW I've discussed this stuff extensively on many many an occasion. For example in the still current thread in the science forum (A question for scientists regarding primary and secondary qaulities).


homunculus
If you disagree that consciousness arises from electrical and biochemical activity within brains - and can therefore be investigated in the same way as any other phenomenon - then we have nothing to talk about.



Oh ok then, we have nothing to talk about.

[homunculus]

Perhaps we could discuss this, after all.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "problem". The mind/body problem is not a scientific problem.

The relationship between our subjective experience, and its physical substrate is as much a scientific problem as it is a philosophical/metaphysical one. The only difference between scientific, and other kinds of problem-solving is that science tries (where possible) to settle disputes with repeatable, experimental tests.

Failure to solve this "problem" will not impede the progress of science completely describing the physical world.

Science is also not just about "description", or even prediction (predictive power is only important, because theories which do not predict anything, tell us nothing). It is about finding the deepest, broadest, most experimentally testable models - those which help us understand the widest range of phenomena.

If consciousness is in principle, not possible for anyone to understand...well, surely you would have to understand it first, in order to make such a pronouncement?

It is a "problem" in that it would be nice to know what the ultimate nature of consciousness is; whether there is a life after death; whether we are terminated at death...They are not scientific theories of consciousness. Science in principle cannot explain consciousness

And how do you propose we do go about settling such questions?

Paul.