Telekenesis Through Science?

[Doug]

Moving Things With Mind Power
Paralyzed Man Was Able To Operate Robotic Arm Using Only His Thoughts

July 12, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Nagle, 25, was left paralysed from the neck down after a vicious knife attack in 2001. He uses a wheelchair and is unable to breathe without a respirator, and doctors say he has no chance of regaining the use of his limbs. (APTN)

By turning thoughts into a control signal, the BrainGate device allows a person to operate computer-controlled devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(WebMD) A new device lets people move objects using nothing but their imagination.

It is not a magic act, although magic it appears to be. In a graphic demonstration, a totally paralyzed man with a "BrainGate" implant was able to work a computer, play a game of Pong, open and close a prosthetic hand, and pick up hard candy with a robotic arm. He did these things with his thoughts — without moving a muscle.

Read the rest here.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Why not? The human nervous system uses electric impulses to activate muscles. The issue has always been to create a machine that could read and utilize those electric impulses. We're not talking Anne McCaffrey style telekinesis (moving dragons and human bodies miles through space and time), we're "just" talking about using external devices to receive neural impulses when the internal ones have been disconnected.

[Doug]

Why not? The human nervous system uses electric impulses to activate muscles.

DOUG
Of course, most Christians who have a philosophy of mind or soul believe that an immaterial substance, the soul/mind, wills our bodies to move. So how could a computer pick up on an immaterial act of will? It couldn't. So this computer thing is a problem for Cartesians.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

This doesn't prove or disprove a mind/soul making the decision to move, just the electrical "mechanics" of process once that decision is made.

[Doug]

This doesn't prove or disprove a mind/soul making the decision to move, just the electrical "mechanics" of process once that decision is made.

DOUG
Perhaps. But the fact that so many things about the mind seem to correlate with processes happening in the brain becomes a problem for Descartes. Mind-altering drugs, lobotomies, and especially split brain experiments. Descartes is at a disadvantage in the first place because he can't explain how mind-body interaction allegedly takes place if the mind is immaterial. A physicalist explanation fits in perfectly with the results of scientific tests, however.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Could be something we just don't know how to register yet - however, at this point and as far as practicality is concerned, there might as well not be a mind/soul governing the brain. We can't record it, measure it, or apparently effect it in any meaningful way. (How to you figure in my unconscious and morphine-sedated mom, whose vital signs where raggedly falling, stabilizing and bringing those vitals up when I told her my son - her eldest grandson - was on his way but would take 12 hours to get there? He burned out the engine of my car getting there in 7 hours and spent the rest of the night in her hospital room. She died a little over 12 hours after I told her he was coming. She never regained consciousness in the entire time.)

[Savonarola]

Could be something we just don't know how to register yet

Soul-of-the-Gaps argument?

[Dardedar]

(How to you figure in my unconscious and morphine-sedated mom,... She died a little over 12 hours after I told her he was coming. She never regained consciousness in the entire time.)

DAR
A rather mundane fluke. Think of all the people that recount incidents like this except the friend/relative died 10 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 8 hours, 1 day/week/month/year later, and every possible time in between.

I recommend:

***
The Case Against Immortality
by Keith Augustine

"But in the present state of psychology and physiology, belief in immortality can, at any rate, claim no support from science, and such arguments as are possible on the subject point to the probable extinction of personality at death." -- Bertrand Russell, "Religion and Science"

You can read it here:

LINK

[Doug]

Could be something we just don't know how to register yet - however, at this point and as far as practicality is concerned, there might as well not be a mind/soul governing the brain. We can't record it, measure it, or apparently effect it in any meaningful way.

DOUG
If we can't detect it, it is no wonder that science doesn't support its existence--given that a physicalist explanation is much simpler.

By Occam's Razor, if we can explain the mind without recourse to something immaterial, so much the better. The bad part for Descartes is that he can't explain the mind WITH recourse to something immaterial. Using a device such as a soul which purportedly has causal powers but which can't be detected AND whose causal powers cannot in any way be explained is hardly an explanation. The physicalist explanation of mind is also more fruitful, in other words. It leads to other explanations and theories. If Descartes is right, the science of mind is pretty much at a dead end since science can't investigate the immaterial mind.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Very true, but if there IS a non-material mind, giving up on trying to test for it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While it is entirely possible that there isn't one and the claim is nothing more than a strong disinclination for death to be final (can't have life beyond the death of the body if there isn't anything beyond the body), it's also possible that, like for the existance of atoms and even subatomic particles, we have to reach a certain level of technology to prove it. Most of the world needs to plan, act, and treat medically as though there isn't one, but somebody needs to keep looking, just in case.

[Doug]

...it's also possible that, like for the existance of atoms and even subatomic particles, we have to reach a certain level of technology to prove it.

DOUG
Are you saying that we haven't proven the existence of atoms and other subatomic particles?

[Savonarola]

[...] it's also possible that, like for the existance of atoms and even subatomic particles, we have to reach a certain level of technology to prove it.

Proofs are for math and liquor, not science.

Are you saying that we haven't proven the existence of atoms and other subatomic particles?

I think she's just saying that Democritus hadn't the technology/equipment to do Rutherford's gold foil experiment, even though said experiment was rather simple by today's standards.
That being said... Proofs are for math and liquor.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Doug, I'm saying (as Sav noted) that it took a certain level of technology to prove the existence of atoms and subatomic particles - as well as an attitude that permitted looking for that evidence and coming up with ways of showing it. If the soul exists, then it is entirely possible that someday we will have a measurable way to indicate it, even if we don't now, but we never will find that measurable way to indicate it if we don't maintain the attitude that permits seeking it. I also am saying that as far as medicine, etc goes, we should, of course, proceed with the best knowledge we have at the moment - which is "it" doesn't exist.

Darrel - you get enough "random flukes" and you need to start looking for a connection. That's how all scientific laws are derived, you know. Somebody started noticing commonality in "random flukes". As to my example - this wasn't a "somebody told me" sort of situation. I personally told my unconscious mother that her grandson was coming, but it would take 12 hours to get there (based on my own experience of driving from Fayetteville to Austin - I forgot to count on Lang's 17-year-old driving style coupled with his anxiety to get to his grandmother in time to say goodbye) and I personally watched the levels on the monitors stop dropping, rise, and stabilize. I was with Mom for several hours while the levels stayed stable (until I had to get a friend to drive me 50 miles north of Austin to pick Lang up where the car died). After Lang spent what was left of the night with his grandmother, I came back "on duty" (my sisters and I were taking turns staying with Mom) early the next morning and was there when she stopped breathing.

Possibly a "random fluke" - possibly not. Random fluke and coincidence are no better explanations than "god of the gaps" - they all mean we don't know why this happened the way it happened. The problem with these kinds of situations, as I've mentioned before, is they are hard to work with scientifically because they are not replicable - and even eye-witness testimony is usually from very emotionally-charged witnesses. It doesn't mean we shouldn't "keep an eye out" - otherwise, we've fallen into "flat earth" syndrome, just on a different subject.

[Dardedar]

Darrel - you get enough "random flukes" and you need to start looking for a connection.

DAR
No, millions, or rather billions of random flukes are to be expected, constantly. We have six+ billion people interacting with thousands of events and actions per day. Events based upon one in a billion odds will necessarily happen, perhaps many times a second. Your event, just one of this immense number, but very important to you, would only require perhaps what, 1 in 10-20 odds? One in a 100 at best?

And then there is selection. You remember this highly probable event because it is very important to you. An event with much less probability (more of a unique coincidence) wouldn't be remembered if it wasn't emotionally charged like this one. If your mother had lived another day or week we wouldn't be hearing this story and it would just be one of the billions of events in the busy static of human life.

As a book I am reading right now by a mathematician (Beyond Numeracy: Ruminations of a Numbers Man) has in his chapter on coincidences:

"In reality, the most astonishingly incredible conincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences."

D.

[Doug]

Doug, I'm saying (as Sav noted) that it took a certain level of technology to prove the existence of atoms and subatomic particles - as well as an attitude that permitted looking for that evidence and coming up with ways of showing it. If the soul exists, then it is entirely possible that someday we will have a measurable way to indicate it, even if we don't now, but we never will find that measurable way to indicate it if we don't maintain the attitude that permits seeking it. I also am saying that as far as medicine, etc goes, we should, of course, proceed with the best knowledge we have at the moment - which is "it" doesn't exist.

DOUG writes:
Science is open to anything that exists, souls or otherwise. No one is actively refraining from looking for souls. Science just isn't looking for them because the soul is a dead explanation. It provides no explanation, and it has no discernible evidence in its favor. The soul is just a "magic" thing that does whatever we say it does. But that is not an explanation.

But if there were evidence that pointed to a soul, science would jump on it in a heartbeat. Science is a cutthroat business, where reputations are won by new discoveries, new applications, and disproofs of cherished beliefs. The discoverer of the soul would win a Nobel Prize.

But as the evidence stands now, physicalist explanations are making progress and gaining ground. The soul explanation never went anywhere.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I beg to differ - Science is open to further research qualifying and quantifying what has already been accepted. Getting new concepts accepted is very difficult - whether it's the earth is round, the origin of species (yes, it's only still debated by the fundie crowd - but it took a couple of generations before it was accepted by the science crowd), continental drift, aquatic ape - new ideas and explanations are viewed with suspicion and disdain and the proposers of same are dismissed. If the proposers have evidence, they are trashed (nothing new about swiftboating). Unless and until a measurable mechanism is discovered, the concept is blown off (Continental drift was trashed, as was it's proposer, until the mechanism - plate techtonics - was discovered), and even then the mechanism is discounted for at least a generation. However, I don't have to worry about "everybody knows" there is no evidence of a soul causing humanity to cease looking for evidence. The apparently overwhelming desire for the existance of a soul will keep them looking.

Darrel - ever heard the old saying, "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is conspiracy (has common causation)"? Again, all science is based on finding commonality in the repetition of apparently random events. Otherwise we are back to gods and gremlins - and humming the right music will keep you from being mugged and holding your tongue right will insure you pass the test and there's no such thing as global warming.

[Savonarola]

Getting new concepts accepted is very difficult - whether it's the earth is round, the origin of species (yes, it's only still debated by the fundie crowd - but it took a couple of generations before it was accepted by the science crowd), continental drift, aquatic ape - new ideas and explanations are viewed with suspicion and disdain and the proposers of same are dismissed.

Ugh. Lumping Aquatic Ape hypothesis with the others nearly turns my stomach. The reason what's-her-name gets ridiculed for proposing it is that she steadfastly stands by it despite her position's being filled with simply untrue arguments and having no evidence in favor of it. In that respect, it's a lot like creationism...

ETA: Good linky.

[Doug]

I beg to differ - Science is open to further research qualifying and quantifying what has already been accepted. Getting new concepts accepted is very difficult - whether it's the earth is round, the origin of species (yes, it's only still debated by the fundie crowd - but it took a couple of generations before it was accepted by the science crowd), continental drift, aquatic ape - new ideas and explanations are viewed with suspicion and disdain and the proposers of same are dismissed. If the proposers have evidence, they are trashed (nothing new about swiftboating). Unless and until a measurable mechanism is discovered, the concept is blown off (Continental drift was trashed, as was it's proposer, until the mechanism - plate techtonics - was discovered), and even then the mechanism is discounted for at least a generation. However, I don't have to worry about "everybody knows" there is no evidence of a soul causing humanity to cease looking for evidence. The apparently overwhelming desire for the existance of a soul will keep them looking.

DOUG
A. Quantum physics with its indeterminacy was a revolutionary idea when it was proposed. Just about all scientists were loathe to give up the notion that events could take place uncaused, but the weight of the evidence finally persuaded them. It is the evidence that counts. That's the way it should be. That is what science it open to.
B. Given the influence of religion upon science for so long, people in science have looked for evidence for the soul for centuries. They have found no evidence for it. Instead, they have found lots of good evidence to explain things about ourselves without appeal to a soul.

The desire to find a soul within us still exists among the religious, but most research scientists are not religious. And given that it is not clear how one would engage in a search for something immaterial, don't expect to hear anytime soon that scientists got a grant to fund research into soul searching.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Sav - Au contraire - Morgan pays attention to evidence. That's why she started publizing the hypothesis (Sir Alistair Hardy's originally) and why she continues to write books as new evidence - some comfirming, some not - is found. You might try her last book (last as least as far as I've looked) - Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Her first book was largely a collection of "coincidental" characteristics with a possible common denominator being suggested. Her later ones are "monitor and adjust" as those various characteristics were investigated.

Doug - lightening has been around for longer than human beings, and humans have been around for somewhere around a million years. The mechanism has only been figured out within the last couple of centuries. I don't expect grant funding for soul searching anytime soon. I just want to keep the possibility open - and consider the on-going desire for the existence of a soul to be the best guarantee that the possibility WILL be kept open. As to the religiousity of research scientists, I haven't seen a recent survey on that one. They are, as a group, less religious than preachers, of course, but I do know scientists who are religious.

[Savonarola]

Sav - Au contraire - Morgan pays attention to evidence.

Barb -- read the link. Morgan makes up her crap as she goes along.

That's why she started publizing the hypothesis (Sir Alistair Hardy's originally) and why she continues to write books as new evidence - some comfirming, some not - is found.

ID proponents could say the exact same thing about ID. What's your point? The problem is that none of it is "confirming."