I have never quoted or mentioned the first four physics classes that I took in college (what I consider to be the intro ones). When I talk about that QM class, I am talking about a class that only covers QM and nothing else. So no, I'm not going to quote any intro to physics professors. On the other hand I will do my best to recall what I learned in Chem 130B. If you want to stop embarrassing yourself, read these helpful (and lighthearted) ppt presentations from the class: https://eee.uci.edu/08w/40906/lectures.html They will actually show the fundamentals of QM. Then read Peter Atkins's textbook entitled Physical Chemistry. Any edition will do. Sentence by sentence you show your fundamental misunderstanding of QM. Please, actually learn about it. Or, barring that, don't belittle those who did actually learn about it.

If I show how very wrong you are in what you state, responding by saying I'm just quoting some professor doesn't actually help your case. If your incorrect statements contradict what I learned about QM in physical chemisty, then I will think you are wrong. If you don't like that then attempt to argue in support of your claims rather than restating them again and again in duplicate threads. Attempting to belittle actual education on this matter doesn't make you seem any less wrong.

To which you will respond by changing your definitions yet again?

But that is not my argument. I never said that quantum indeterminacy is caused by errors in measurements. I only said that the accuracy of certain measurements can be limited and that you can check if two variables commute to see if there is a limit on how accurately you can measure both at once. Did you really think I was arguing that quantum indeterminacy is due to errors in measurement? Seriously?

Settle down, Paisley. You have made other posts with this statement in it and I think that I already responded to those old posts on old threads. I thought that this has already been discussed, so I would not need to re-discuss it with you. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself to you. If you won't think up anything new to say, then I'll just ignore your tired and oft-repeated statements. Or, as you put it, I'll 'evade' getting into the same dead-end discussion with you. The first few times I was fine with repeating and re-repeating myself to you. But from now on I'll just not respond to any of your tired old BS. I know that you'll think this is me chickening out and exposing some kind of weakness; but I'm just tired of repeating myself to you. Think up something that we have not already discussed to death in the past, and I'll respond. Repost tired old arguments that everyone has already seen more than once from you, and don't expect anyone to bother getting into to a repeat argument with you. I have a feeling that most people on this forum feel this way. I just held out a bit longer than most in dealing with your repeated arguments.

But the point still stands. You're attacking a position that no one here holds. You keep arguing that causation is necessary, while the rest of us are happy with correlation and observation.

But that is an honest and accurate answer. We don't know why. That's why I said "we don't know". There are, however, several theories, including population bottlenecks, that attempt to explain it. That doesn't mean that we know. We don't. And neither do you.

I didn't realize the non-materialist had a magical way to determine consciousness from unconsciousness. Of course, since there are no such things as conscious robots (seeing as we reserve the term for biological creatures) it's a moot point. But how do we test consciousness in humans? Why would your hypothetical robot be so different?

So you guys agree and you throw an insult anyway?

Odd...

Let me see if I have this straight - materialism can't account for everything so you add a God created by material human beings to do so?

Wow. I don't know what to say. Well... actually I do know what to say. You're a lost cause, and I don't know why anybody bothers arguing with you.

Correction, there actually are individuals here who are not willing to accept the fact that there is scientific evidence for physical events occurring without physical causation. Indeed, you were once such an individual. That you are now acknowledging this fact is only a recent development. Evidently, you have finally come to see the light. Be this as it may, your theory of "materialism" cannot account for the scientific evidence.

What I do know is that logic precludes the possibility that materialism will ever account for the anomaly of consciousness.

By the way, I'm not a materialist. I don't have to account for emergence of consciousness. I consider it to be fundamental. And the prevailing scientific evidence supports my view.

I call it nonsensory perception, not magic. But on the materialistic worldview, it might be construed as magic. At any rate, there is definitely scientific evidence for telepathy.

No, it's not a moot point. On the materialistic worldview, there is every reason to believe that there are human beings who are actually organic robots without consciousness.

You're making my point. Thank you very much!

I guess I just answered my own question. I just replied, knowing full well how useless it was. Even though I see the futility in it I still feel compelled to point out the bullshit when I see it...

The bottom line here is that you believe (by default) that the mind is identical with the brain!

And simply saying "we have to wait and see" is nothing more than promissory materialism or a "materialism of the gaps" argument. See, it works both ways!

By the way, you seem to be operating under the false impression that dualistic theories of the mind and brain have no currency in science. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would classify "epiphenomenalism" and "supervenience theory" (both of which are actually dualistic theories) as supernatural theories of the mind.

But it does invalidate the said hypothesis!

The mind is an "emergent process" of the brain? Once again you appear to be wavering on the issue at hand here. Which one is it: A) the mind is physical, or B) the mind is nonphysical? (This is not a trick question.)

If the mind is simply a by-product of the brain, then please explain to me why the twelve-step program has proven to be hugely successful in the recovery of individuals from alcoholism and other forms of chemical dependencies?

I don't know why you think it's funny. You were operating under the false impression the quantum indeterminacy is the result of errors in measurement. And as the Wikipedia article clearly states...it has nothing to do with errors in measurment!

Correction. The moment you attribute quantum indeterminacy to conscious will (which you apparently have in the foregoing statement), then it is no longer a random act, but an intentional one.

You have made an argument against materialism. Thank you very much!

Because it does not have a physical explanation. Therefore, we can safely assume that it has a nonphysical explanation.

If you are not willing to admit that you subscribe to atheistic materialism, then we should end this discussion right now. I'm only interested in debating individuals who subscribe to atheistic materialism. Quit wasting my precious time!

You know where I side. I'm a physicalist in the sense that everything is physical, including physical evidence. The non-physical is indistinguishable from pure imagination, so I have no problem dismissing it. Indirect evidence, like calculation, relies on the natural world remaining physical.

But what you're arguing, then, is more about communication than it is the universe itself. Yes, the only way for us to communicate in a way that we find meaningful is with the underlying consciousness of our individual minds. But that's precisely because we use the words "meaningful", "conscious" and "mind" to describe behaviours that we exhibit.

Epistemologically, you've created an extremely unhelpful circle, there. "It's meaningful because we say it is, therefore our consciousness is the basis for everything" borders on the solipsistic. Of course, it's not, it's neoplatonic, a philosophical stance that kept human knowledge in the dark for almost 1,000 years in the Western world.

It's an interesting tactic to throw a pseudo-science in there.

But Radin performs comparable studies all the time, and seems to bear the cost of these studies without complaint. What I mean is that it's something he's already doing, so this opportunity to recoup his costs would be wonderful for him, one would think. If what he's saying is that he can't afford to do real science, then I'm afraid that's a bit of a weak argument.

He'd just need a statistically significant population (over 100 subjects) to demonstrate something that falsifies the currently held limitations on the human mind. He would then no longer be engaging in pseudo-science, but would have discovered something that could be considered "psychology" rather than "parapsychology".

I don't see why that would cost $1,000,000, considering how many universities operate psych labs without incurring those kinds of costs.

Don't get me wrong - I love new scientific discoveries. If it could be shown that we are able to communicate without touch, smell, sight, or hearing, I'd be very interested. Thus far, all we have are statistically insignificant results that could easily be explained away by error.

Radin presumably already does research, so why would it be so hard to do this research in a scientific way?

edit:

PS - Apparently I was wrong! All Radin would need to do is show that one person (one!) can perform some ability previously deemed impossible. Here are the rules:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

They don't require a study at all! You had me fooled!

Now ... how would showing up and demonstrating a psychic power cost someone $1,000,000? That's quite the train ticket.

Rule #1 governing the JREF Challenge states"

It is a mutual agreement, Paisley, a basic requirement in any contract. Interpreting that requirement as JR being the (implied) sole judge as to whether the demonstration has been successful is perversely dishonest and/or ignorant.

JR is just requiring that the applicant clearly state what they intend to demonstrate, in advance, and JR has to agree to pay out on a positive result. JR only requires that a positive and negative be clearly distinguishable, using criteria acceptable to both sides.

JR changed the rules recently to restrict the range of those who could apply to those who had made significant public claims, in the media, to avoid the ongoing cost of testing the many individuals who were convinced they had powers, but had never tested them under conditions which could eliminate misinterpretation or mundane explanation, and failed completely under conditions which they readily agreed to. None of these applicants have passed even the preliminary test, despite being quite confident that they would be able to. IOW their subjective perception of their psychic abilities was quite mistaken, which incidentally is further evidence that conscious judgement of such things is quite unreliable, so trying to use your own internal conviction that consciousness is not a manifestation of physical processes as 'proof' of your position is worthless.

JR's main beef is with the prominent 'psychics' who make money out of convincing the paying public of their 'powers', and in the case of 'healers', actually lead to harm and death to people who forgo proper medical treatment in pursuit of these charlatans.

You keep doing that. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics involves non-physical things again? Is that where this comes from? Your need for Newtonian causation borders on the obsessive. I still side with the available data, which is based on tests of physical things. You can call that meaningless if you want, but it's just observation.

"The mental" is only observable by one species (us) regarding one species (us). It's not a specific term, it's a catch-all. When you say "fundamental", it's also vague. I'm left to wonder if you mean that the collection of human minds is responsible somehow for matter. Is that where your causation argument is going? But at least that would be a falsifiable statement, whereas "consciousness is fundamental" lacks specificity to such a degree that it cannot be falsified.

How, for example, would we test the notion that "consciousness" (of whom? in what capacity? attentive or inattentive?) is "fundamental" (to what? of what? in what capacity?). It's vague enough so that it cannot be tested. I therefore think the idea lacks credibility based solely on the fact that you're presenting something that is neither true nor false, and thus epistemologically unhelpful. That means it doesn't help us learn anything, before you say it doesn't have anything to do with epistemology again.

What I believe is that the physical is observable. If you want to contrive a neoplatonic argument out of that, be my guest. 

It would clarify things for me if it weren't a misrepresentation of what I said, and then the introduction of conscious will as non-physical. That I require causation for my "worldview" is a big stretch of your imagination. Conscious will only exists in biological creatures, it seems, so the correlation between will and creatures is 100%. It would be difficult for you to demonstrate that one causes the other, certainly, and I won't bother trying. Nor do I need to, considering a quick comparison of what we learn from successful epistemologies like the scientific method, and unsuccessful epistemologies like neoplatonic contemplation.

Strangely, you knew which one I thought was hooey. Anyway, I'm glad they're part of the science club. Maybe some day, we'll have a collection of studies that shows us ... something. I wish them good luck with that.

His argument is that statistically, he observes an effect in 1 of every quintillion samples. And he's using meta-analysis.

Anyone else who has taken a stats course and finds this argument hilarious?

It's an observation for which your theory of physicalism cannot explain. Hence, your theory is wrong.

The mental is only observable by one species? So, let me see...my cat doesn't have a mental life?

We can ascribe mentality to the electron. Is that specific enough for you?

No, actually it's not. Dean Radin is heading a project entitled the "Global Consciousness" project" where he is specifically testing for "collective attentiveness." In fact, I intend this to be the subject matter of my next thread. Stay tuned.

I don't know if this qualifies as a neoplatonic argument but do you believe that mental phenomena are observable? Are your dreams physical?

It would be helpful if you were able to get your facts straight. The odds against chance is twenty-nine billion trillion to one. IOW, there is one chance in twenty-nine billion trillion that the effect was due purely to chance!

I'm glad that you understand what "statistically significant" means because it affords me the opportunity to demonstrate to you why the aspirin analogy was very apt.

Sorry, but the individual in question here is not a psychic. He's a researcher in the field of parapsychology and his name is Dean Radin. And what Radin's research has demontrated is that telepathy has an effect-size (statistically significant) five times greater than the effect-size of aspirin in reducing or preventing heart attacks. See time @ 19.45 in the YouTube video link provided below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Randi's challenge is nothing but a sham, touted by skeptics like yourself as proof that psi phenomena are not real. If there is scientific evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin in preventing heart attacks, then there is certainly scientific evidence for the reality psi phenomena.

My reading comprehension is fine, but yours leaves something very much to be desired.

No, that's not what I said! If I already know what the experimental results are for the causal-efficacy of aspirin, then I just raise the bar higher BEFORE I will agree to ENTER into a contract. This way I can play this game of saying that there is no evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin because no one has been able to claim my million dollar prize. It's a bogus challenge. It doesn't mean anything. It's not proof that there is no evidence for the causal-efficacy of aspirin. It's simply proof that I am being disingenuous.

This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's closer to apples and dairy farms. Meta-analysis is great and everything, but it presents the statistician with the problem of not being able to identify bias. That's a pretty significant problem with the number of studies that we're talking, here, and the fact that they're psychological studies, which are well known to contain much higher rates of error than say chemistry or biology. Much, much higher.

So comparing a pharmaceutical study to psychological study is your first problem. Your second is that meta-analysis magnifies the possible design problems of studies in a field already rife with problems in their study designs.

This is definitely an area where separate calculations could lead to different conclusions, so it's disingenuous to claim that pharmaceutical studies have the same weight as a meta-analysis.

I provided you with the video link. If you're truly interested, then watch it! (Dean Radin has several published books on his research and he also recommends other books in the video).

<getting into character as Paisley>

But James Randi and his people are stopping all these studies from being published by asking for demonstrable evidence that can be published in a study.

<breaking character before I vomit>