Comments on Nathaniel Branden's Benefits & Hazard's talk

Before I say another thing, I want to first register my complete agreement with Bill Dwyer (and others) on the point that all knowledge comes via the senses. There is no other gateway to reality.

Let me also preface my main remarks by saying that I agree that there are not presently known to be any other sensory channels than the five (or so?) that have been known for several thousand years. There are no other gateways to reality than these.

Having said that...

One thing we're overlooking here, in our discussion (and mostly, dismissal) of "anomalous perception" is the phenomenon of subliminal awareness. You know, the subconscious awareness of sensory data that squeezes in between the ordinary frames of our awareness?

Movies work because all those individual images are taken so close to one another that they appear to be one continuous motion. The eyes and mind stitch them together, ignoring the tiny gaps between them. Those gaps, however, are a perfect opportunity for piggy-back information -- and capitalistic or propagandistic chicanery!

For instance, advertisers used to insert single frames of (for instance) Coke images during tv programs, in an attempt to surreptitiously boost viewer desire for their product (and thus, also, sales). These images were too brief to be noticed by the conscious awareness, but it was demonstrated that they registered on the subconscious mind and had a very real effect. ("Man, I gotta get me a Coke!")

With a VCR, it is possible to detect these nasty little inserts. Some people are apparently also able to detect them, though most are not. (Remember this point.)

Now, it is apparently also the case that in our body language (posture, expressions, etc.) we embed tiny bits of information that are not part of the main message we intend to convey. For instance, a seemingly calm, unemotional person might be recounting to a therapist how difficult his young years were, due to bed-wetting, and his basic expression and posture is one of dull sadness. But unnoticed on the conscious level, the therapist somehow gets the "hunch" or "anomalous perception" that there is more to the person's feelings about this than mere, muted sadness. Playing his hunch (?), the therapist says, "You were beaten for your bed-wetting, weren't you." And uncannily, he was right! Is this mysticism? Is this another, hitherto undiscovered sensory mode in operation? No. It's just the therapist being sensitive, on the subconscious level, of something he very briefly saw, but which was too brief to register in his conscious visual perception, and automatically identified and reacted to. (It's very similar to a sense of life response to someone.) And being experienced as to the likely meaning of such a "gut feeling," the therapist hits the nail on the head. Indeed, a VCR replay of the interview reveals an instant in which the person's face and posture dramatically shifted into a micro-state of sheer terror and panic, before the person automatically clamped back down on his body language. Most people would not notice this, it happens so quickly. Even the therapist only gets it on the subconscious level. Hell, it looks like mysticism or ESP! But it's not. It's just a therapist tuned in to his subliminal awareness of (and reaction to) what he is receiving through his normal five senses!

In reading about some of Nathaniel Branden's intensives and other therapy endeavors, I think it's clear that some of the mystifying events (how could they possibly know that??) are easily explained in this way. And rather than calling people liars or charlatans who experience such things, isn't it more benevolent and rational to assume that there is a natural explanation for what they report? Especially if, like Dr. Branden, they're not claiming that the source of their awareness is non-natural?

Robert Efron, a one-time noted Objectivist neurophysiologist, published a journal essay in the early 1960s in which he gave a completely naturalistic explanation for one of the old mystical stand-by exhibits: deja vu. Also, more recently, one of the favorites of mystics, "near-death experience," has been given a naturalistic explanation. (And by naturalistic, in both cases, I mean in terms of neurophysiological dysfunction.)

<Now, I want all of you reading this to go out to www.cdbaby.com and order a copy of my CD, "The Art of the Duo.">

Did it work? :-)

Best to all,
REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 12/03, 10:58am)

Post 21

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 10:52am

Sarah writes:

You're presupposing that we already know everything about the nature of the thing. I understood Cal.'s post to be saying that early investigations into ESP were an exploration of the nature of man's knowledge gathering abilities.

Yes, Sarah, I understand this point. But like I said, when it amounts to a claim to knowledge by undefinable means, then you are justified. This in no way presupposes that you know everything about nature, only that the person's claim violates the Law of Identity. That is valid grounds to reject it, no? Of course they will say it is not the case, i.e. that it is not "undefinable" but rather "not yet known", but look at the claims and decide for yourself.

Regards,
Michael

Post 22

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 11:23am

Michael,

I didn't say "know everything about nature," I said, "know everything about the nature of the thing." How do you know the person's claim violates the Law of Identity until you investigate it?

Sarah

Post 23

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 11:34am

Sarah,

There is a concept I call an "epistemological conceit." It is that reason gives us all there is to reality. This inverts metaphysics with epistemology.

Reason does not do that (and Rand never claimed that it did). Reason integrates and utilizes all the input that we receive from reality and it is based on our five senses. (Some have claimed that we even have more sense organs if you include sensing gravity.)

Whoever said that we have all the sense organs needed for experiencing the totality of what is out there? Even looking at the traditional five senses, many living creatures have them in differing degrees. A simple example is a dog, who experiences smell and hearing in manner much superior to the human counterparts. Does that make reality different in essence for the dog, or does the animal merely perceive more? The answer is obvious - the dog perceives more of those parts of reality than we humans do. Reality stayed the same, just unattainable for input through our sense organs.

Another aspect is that we expand our sensory limitations with devices (telescope and microscope, for instance) or we transpose data from one sense to another through devices (gages for electricity or sound, for example).

In order to get to what more is out there, we either have to develop new sense organs to perceive it or we have to expand on where such phenomena interacts with one of the human senses and build on that through sense transposition and theory.

Reason (especially integration and concept formation) is the one thing that will not be able to be discarded in adding any possible such knowledge to what we do know.

One good thing about the human senses, however, is that they have been extremely effective in dealing with reality from survival and productive standpoints.

Some people get very uncomfortable with this open-ended approach to metaphysics and epistemology because they do not like to think that what they can perceive is all there is. They want security. This leads them to the epistemological conceit that human perception limits reality. They never say it that way, though. They claim that reason is all there is to understanding reality - and they fudge over the part that reason is based on the data of a limited number of sense organs.

Boiling it all the way down, this is a variation of primacy of consciousness.

Their argument always states that there is no evidence for the speculations they wish to disparage. They ignore two facts: (1) The evidence they require is, by definition, based on sense organs that are not equipped to deal with the possible phenomena being studied (and dismissed outright by them), and (2) They always misrepresent the one studying these things and accuse them of claiming that such phenomena do exist, when such researchers and theorists usually - and very clearly - state that they are investigating speculations.

That first "blind" approach (with variations) - and the second blatantly dishonest one - have been present in humanity and have stood in the way of scientific progress ever since recorded time. Yet the people studying science have been able to overcome the many traditional blind and dishonest nay-sayers to produce the magnificent technology we now enjoy. Many, many, many of yesterday's follies are today's commonplace utilities.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 12/03, 11:41am)

Post 24

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 11:37am

For what it's worth, here is a comment by Antony Flew, which addresses the issue from a philosophical perspective. I wouldn't be surprised if Rand's "a priori" dismissal of alleged psi phenomena had a similar basis, especially in view of Objectivism's recognition that perception must always exist in some particular form and by some particular means:

"If the word 'extra' in the expression 'Extrasensory Perception' (ESP) is construed as meaning outside of -- like the 'extra' of 'extramarital sex' -- then that expression becomes self-contradictory. It becomes equivalent to 'extra-perceptual perception"; and hence, as Thomas Hobbes would have had us add, parallel to 'incorporeal substance.'

"If, on the other hand, 'extrasensory' is interpreted as referring to a hypothetical additional sense, then that hypothesis is at once falsified by two decisive deficiencies. First, there is no bodily organ or area whose masking or local anesthetization suppresses psi-gamma. Second, there is no accompanying sixth mode of sensory experience as different from visual, tactual, gustatory, auditory, and olfactory as each of these is different from all the others.

"For good measure we may conclude the paragraph by mentioning a further deficiency. It seems that the subjects who come up with information are unable at the time to recognize the deliverances of this supposed new sense and to distinguish them from plain ordinary guesses or hunches or imaginings."

[from his essay, "Parapsychology: Science or Pseudoscience," in Science, Psdudoscience, and Society edited by Marsha Hanen, Margaret J. Osler, and Robert G. Weyan (Waterloo, Ontario: Calgary Institute of Humanities and Wilfred Laurier University, 1980)]

Post 25

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 11:47am

Sarah,

That is why I said "look at the claim and decide for yourself". In the sense that investigating means looking at the claim to see if it is a valid means of obtaining knowledge, I agree with you. But where the claim does not support a valid, rational means, then no further scientific inquiry is necessary.

Regards,
Michael

Post 26

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 11:53am

Michael,

But where the claim does not support a valid, rational means, then no further scientific inquiry is necessary.

I'm not sure I fully understand you. Are you saying that we should prejudge our inquiries and throw out those that do not appear to be rational? In ESP for example, would you throw out the hypothesis that people gain knowledge through an as yet unknown sense before you investigated it?

Sarah

Post 27

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:05pm

MM: But say we grant them their wish and it is knowledge by some specific means, the question is: how does it translate to efficacy in reality? What are the great achievements that are to come of this "higher" level of consciousness? Certainly I can demonstrate to the blind man my "superior" sense of sight, what can they demonstrate? Spoon bending?

I don't think I'd be looking for silly human tricks, as entertaining as that might be. We would look at their actions, their achievements, and of course how happy they are in life.

But I don't think people like that do a lot of broadcasting about their personal development.

Post 28

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:09pm

Sarah,
No, I wouldn't. But in the sense that the claim is a form of "just knowing", I would. And to see if it is a form of "just knowing", it does require analysis. Would you agree that there is a difference between a not-yet rational explanation and a claim to a non-rational explanation?
Regards,
Michael

Post 29

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:17pm

Roger, I really liked that post.

There's a simple concept mentioned very often in folk wisdom (and sometimes greeting cards), but I think it gets underplayed, I heard my UU minister talk from this point not long ago...

It's the whole thing with miracles and such. A lot of the time people want a big, honkin' miracle for their faith, or sense of life. Others point out the absence of big, honkin' miracles as evidence.

It's just taking for granted. And, it involves how we cultivate and value awareness. I mean, the whole damn thing is miraculous if you look at it. Why would anyone need some kind of phenomenal dog-and-pony show? Existence, as it is, offers 24X7 miraculous things to be aware of. It's just there, you don't have to take any particular religous or non-religous tack to experience it.

rde
It's the little things... ;)

Post 30

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:23pm

MSK,

There is no question that the possibility of additional, "extra" senses was at one time a rationally tenable hypothesis. However, thousands of controlled experiments on this hypothesis have been done over the course of the last two centuries, and not one, except for cases of fraud, has yielded any evidence for the existence of such an extra sense. There is now overwhelming evidence, from thousands upon thousands of controlled experiments, that "extrasensory" phenomena invariably vanish when examined in the light of objective epistemology. There is also overwhelming evidence, sufficient for the level of certainty associated with physical law, that no transmission of information is possible without a physical medium. At this time, there is less reason to believe in the possibility of extra senses there is to believe in the possibility of the literal existence of elves, or of gods. But the beliefs in those possibilities become in some minds more evidence-proof with every disconfirmation. And that is implicitly dishonest - and objectively, it is cognitive self-sabotage.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 12/03, 12:27pm)

Post 31

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:34pm

Michael,

Would you agree that there is a difference between a not-yet rational explanation and a claim to a non-rational explanation?

Kind of. This statement is a stone's throw away from dogmatic science. Healthy skepticism shouldn't be allowed to grow into bias.

Sarah

Post 32

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:42pm

Adam,

What do you think about the government's (particularly the FBI) 30-years worth of time invested in remote viewing? Did you ever look at the protocol manual, or any of the experiments they did with Julliard students?

The Military CRV training manual

Post 33

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:50pm

Sarah,

Skepticism can also be the flip-side of gullibility. There's also something to be said for a healthy bias--like the scientist who is "bias" against disease. It does not mean he is any less objective.

Michael

Post 34

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 12:54pm

Michael,

One should always recognize what evidence is telling you. But the way you phrase your statement makes it sound as if you believe one should dismiss evidence in favor of rationalism.

Sarah

Post 35

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 1:24pm

Adam,

To be clear, I did not state that input for information was not physical. My meaning is that I suspect there are physical entities, properties, actions, attributes, whatever, that are not perceived because we do not have the equipment built into our wiring.

As of the present, for example, I know of no one who can explain the mind-brain connection satisfactorily. Objectivism simply makes the mind an axiom.

This is indication enough to me that we do not know everything there is to know about what reality consists of sensory-wise yet. Disproving one approach - or many approaches - does not disprove everything else in this field.

I predict that marvelous things will be discovered in the future. (Not hard to predict that, is it?)

Michael

Edit - It just occurred to me that you might have taken that "dishonest" thing as a jab at you. I had no such intention.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 12/03, 1:27pm)

Post 36

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 1:34pm

There are a lot of things to look at when considering expanding consciousness. Integration, for one thing- how to achieve it, how much can be done, what that will mean to consciouness as we gain years. A lot of this stuff that gets thrown out as mystical is really about developing ways to more clearly and fully experience existence, experience the real world.

Post 37

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 10:48am

Thanks Sarah, you make my point more succinctly than I ever could!

Post 38

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 3:22pm

Rich,

As with everything else in "paranormal" science, "remote viewing" vanishes when one does a controlled experiment - see many issues of "The Sceptical Inquirer" for details. And, unfortunately, the US military have been extraordinarily (or is it paranormally?) gullible when it comes to funding charlatans. That is bound to happen, when unlimited tax funds are spent by primacy-of-consciousness people.

Post 39

Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 4:16pm