The many fallacies of "The Soul Fallacy".

[Ninshub]

Also, I don't think we can even claim there are material causes different from mental causes since no one has a clear account of causation. (I hold there are only mental causes, but that's prolly a long thread for another time.)

I'd be interested in reading that thread!

Btw, is your conclusion that no one has come to a clear account to causation in any way related to Hume's critique?

I'd be interested in reading that thread!

Oh...I have to explain myself...thought I could just say something vaguely exotic and move along. 

(Give me some time, I'll try to put out as clear a version of my thoughts there as possible on causation.)

Btw, is your conclusion that no one has come to a clear account to causation in any way related to Hume's critique?

Something along those lines, with various scientist and philosophers noting how there is nothing "physical" which can hold matter into its patterns.

This isn't to say there aren't varied well thought out arguments, just that I don't think anyone has a "killer" account for why an effect follows a cause let alone with such consistency we can do science. Even those who think everything is random fall short of giving a convincing argument why *that* would be the case or how one can make a logically consistent argument for such a position without running afoul of the fact that logic is illusory without chains of mental causation (this also hurts the determinist of course).

[Ninshub]

Thanks for that bit, take your time for the rest!

I contacted Professor Musolino but didn't necessarily expect a reply. However, currently he's sent three and hopefully I might get one or two more. He is a very polite guy, hard not to like, even if though (in my estimation that is) he knows very little about NDE's, relatively that is. 

I can't reproduce his replies without permission (and never would of course) but I can post my emails and give you a summary of his (how he responded so far). Instead of telling me to 'pip off' he replied, which is sporting of him, as my email is polite but deliberately straight to the point.   

 Dear Julien,

I realise that as an associate professor of a large psychology department, it would be anathema for you to
even speculate that there is more to the brain than the chemical and electrical potentials that traverse the synapses.

You do appear to be a very intelligent individual, well grounded in many subjects, I would assume. I can therefore only assume that you must have missed the classes on the phenomenon of 'near death experience'. Near death experience clearly points to the mind being quite consistently capable of functioning without a brain. 

If you would like some well documented and verified examples of this, I can supply them with pleasure. Best regards tim  


Julien's reply ....Thanks for the email, I talk about this in my book (2015) if you are interested 

My reply 

Thanks, Julien !

I recently spoke to someone who underwent extreme surgery (hypothermic cardiac standstill) to repair a dissected  aorta. He is a scientist himself, so no expectation involved, but during the operation when his brain was completely offline, no activity at all, packed in ice in fact, he found himself floating around the room and observing the surgeons working over and inside his open chest. I have a vast collection of these curious events. 

Here is one that you may find interesting from one of your fellow (former historically anyway) countrymen which is typical and inexplicable if mind equals brain. (I included a fascinating veridical NDE from Italy that I found on-line) 
                                                            

Julien's reply.... Thank you for that ! Yes. These accounts are intriguing but the question is how do they fit in with our knowledge and understanding of sense of self (summary) 


Thinking that I might just get one last reply, I quickly sent this (below) back thinking that that would however more likely be it. 


(me) You know that's interesting, because I assumed that you would simply dismiss accounts like that, along the lines of "that can't happen" therefore it doesn't happen. But you haven't. 

The really interesting ones are those that occur during cardiac arrest or very deep anaesthesia. May I just ask one last question before leaving you, I don't want to 'outstay my welcome'. 

Would I be correct in surmising that you are open to the possibility of what these experiences suggest but because we have no model for how this could possibly be, you have to therefore set them aside scientifically ?  


Julien's reply (summary ) 

There's no doubt that these experiences are real, they have been reported from as far back as the classical Greeks. The question is what do they mean? Can we surmise there is a soul, because of them ? 

If I were to see (dream) lizards were crawling up my wall, it would be real to me as in I really did see them but can I conclude that there really were lizards ?  We know the answer of course. The reasons why  the mainstream scientific community cannot take these experiences as evidence for a soul is identical to the reason why we don't take what are in actual fact hallucinations seriously. 

(me) Now, I was fairly astonished by that reply, as it is extraordinarily simplistic, ill conceived and ill informed to say the least, but as he was willing to respond (not many of them are) I sent another (of course). 

(Thanks for that)  I'm very familiar with the vast body of research into NDE's.  Your analogy is reasonable in some respects, although I'm sure you're aware, just as I am, that NDE's are not dreams, of course. That is well established now.

Dreams, hallucinations, whether pathological or pharmacological or drug induced 'trips' using LSD or psilocybin etc, all require a functioning brain and this is the point that needs to be addressed. That is what all the fuss is about. 

There are numerous cases of people accurately observing their surroundings from a position out and above their body at a time when their brain could not have been functioning, as in cardiac arrest, or general anaesthesia, even burst suppression. These people can describe accurately events and objects they could not possibly have seen. You must be aware of this, Julien, I'm sure.

This clearly points to a separable mind and as difficult as that is for science to comprehend and accept, and it is of course, the evidence is out there.  I can send you as many cases as you like and would be pleased to do so. 


So...will he respond to that ? I'm not sure. However, I did find an interview with him by Eldon Taylor which illustrates perfectly where Julien is  coming from (as they all are in general)  and why he seems(?) to be unaware of the veracity of the evidence, effectively. From memory this is just about the basics of his arguments and of course, we've heard it all before.  

1. NDE's are well reported but all attempts at empirical capture (testing) have failed (ie the targets on shelves). Therefore they remain anecdotes and the plural of anecdotes is not evidence. (this of course is ridiculous and not true)   

2. The extraordinary nature of the claim means that it is so unlikely,  alternative explanations are always preferred (debunkers must be right) 

3. We would have to throw out all our science books if any of this was true. Is that really likely ?  I mean come on, guys ? 

All in all, though, he seems to be a nice person. He does have some strange ideas though, he does indeed believe that the human race would be freed up by "realising" that we don't have a soul. We could make better decisions on that basis (he thinks). I think that is absurd personally, as all it would do is make matters worse than they are, but that's another story.  

 The Soul Fallacy with Julien Musolino - Provocative Enlightenment Radio - Podcast en iVoox

I listened to this last night but I've just tried the link again and it is asking for something before we can listen. Not sure why. 

[Ninshub]

Well done in fishing that out, tim.

Well done in fishing that out, tim.

Thanks, Ian ! I've just received another reply. It's along the same lines; he's not impressed enough with the anecdotes, he calls them (evidence I call them). But even though I offered to send him a basketful, he declined (unofficially, meaning he didn't respond in the affirmative). 

Very nice, pleasant guy, though. I suppose it's a bit like asking a roman catholic priest to read Dawkins' god delusion. I'm glad I contacted him, though, because I always wonder if these guys have got something up their sleeves that I don't know about, so assured they appear to be.

But they haven't at all. The gist of it is this. They're aware that they exist (NDE's) but they (by and large) haven't examined them properly and the reason for that is they sincerely? believe they don't need to as 'others' (debunkers) have already done it for them.

And anyway, such things can't happen, period because if they did, science would have to be overturned and they can't have that (careers wrecked) basically.

Thanks, Ian ! I've just received another reply. It's along the same lines; he's not impressed enough with the anecdotes, he calls them (evidence I call them). But even though I offered to send him a basketful, he declined (unofficially, meaning he didn't respond in the affirmative). 

Very nice, pleasant guy, though. I suppose it's a bit like asking a roman catholic priest to read Dawkins' god delusion. I'm glad I contacted him, though, because I always wonder if these guys have got something up their sleeves that I don't know about, so assured they appear to be.

But they haven't at all. The gist of it is this. They're aware that they exist (NDE's) but they (by and large) haven't examined them properly and the reason for that is they sincerely? believe they don't need to as 'others' (debunkers) have already done it for them.

And anyway, such things can't happen, period because if they did, science would have to be overturned and they can't have that (careers wrecked) basically.

Yep - the hoary old David Hume argument against "miracles" apparently contravening current beliefs about natural law - they simply can't happen, so regardless of the evidence for paranormal events, the evidence, no matter how good, simply must be bogus or fabricated, misinterpreted, or somehow otherwise invalid. It doesn't matter that this response is basically invalid and that there is no really plausible argument against this data and for strict reductive materialism. Otherwise, it is feared that the modern scientific enterprise will collapse. Of course, it is this thinking that is bogus, and completely against the real spirit of the scientific enterprise. "Miracles" are defined as anything that conflicts with the current limited scientific understandings of things, which tend to change every generation or two of scientists. No matter, careers and prestige and egos are at stake here.

Professor Musolino's grossly inadequate response is almost exactly the same as Reber and Alcock's to Cardeña's paper in the American Psychologist ("The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review").

They couldn't come up with anything plausible, so they fell back to the old reliable closed-minded brick wall approach:

"Our position is straightforward. Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value. We examine a variety of reasons for this conclusion based on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, “pigs cannot fly.” Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors. So it must be with psi effects. What we find particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit."

They couldn't come up with anything plausible, so they fell back to the old reliable closed-minded brick wall approach:

It is frustrating, isn't it. I don't get it at all. Seeing as how the vast majority of people that have NDE/OBE's are convinced of their reality (so much so that they have massive life changes and are unafraid to die) why are we expected to believe /assume that if it happened to these particular academics, they would not also be convinced, in fact they would remain unchanged. I don't believe it.

It is frustrating, isn't it. I don't get it at all. Seeing as how the vast majority of people that have NDE/OBE's are convinced of their reality (so much so that they have massive life changes and are unafraid to die) why are we expected to believe /assume that if it happened to these particular academics, they would not also be convinced, in fact they would remain unchanged. I don't believe it.

I can believe it - I think you underestimate the strength of a powerful, totally dominant intellect with great prior ego investment in a narrow world view. So strong that even an intense "realer than real" NDE would be dismissed as a hallucination.

I can believe it - I think you underestimate the strength of a powerful, totally dominant intellect with great prior ego investment in a narrow world view. So strong that even an intense "realer than real" NDE would be dismissed as a hallucination.

Such behaviour would be 'outside the norm', though, because there are good prospective studies already done on the life changes of those that have had an NDE. There is obviously no infallible method of assessing/checking on intellectual honesty. 

My point (in the post above) works better in general but you're right, I guess if someone has an enormous amount invested, maybe they would do that. It would surely wreak havoc on the soul they claim not to have, though.