Excerpts from a new article at Aeon by Natalie Emmons:
We see faces in the clouds and we might just see Jesus in our toast: the fact that we see anyone at all tells us that the human mind is actively searching for agents, even in the most ambiguous of situations.
…Bering and his colleagues set their sights on what psychologists call ‘intuitive mind-body dualism’ as an alternative…The study deliberately included a cluster of children too young to have been exposed to much religious testimony at all, to see whether even they had an inkling that a part of an individual survives death.
…The researchers found that even from the youngest ages, children tended to respond that the dead mouse retained its mental faculties, such as the ability to experience sadness and know things, but that it no longer had bodily states, like the need to eat or drink. As the researchers reported in Developmental Psychology in 2004, this was consistent with intuitive mind-body dualism and confirmed that children reasoned about the mind differently from the body after death: it was only the mind that tended to be viewed as immortal. Notably, they found that younger children were more likely than older children to endorse the idea of eternal life.
…To evaluate whether children possess a deep-rooted, unlearned sense that there is eternal life, I had to find a new experimental approach. My solution was to develop a way of examining children’s intuitions about the prospect of eternal life that avoided the topic of death entirely. After much contemplation and correspondence with Bering, I decided that asking children about the time before biological conception might resolve the issue.
…Namely, children from both cultures had a persistent bias to judge that their emotions and desires – but not their intelligence or bodily states – remained intact during the time before pregnancy. What’s more, the intuition that one’s emotions and desires were eternal endured even as the children grew older, although older children judged they had fewer prelife capacities overall.
In addition to showing that eternalist beliefs are not learned, another significant finding from this work is that children did not think that they had intelligence during the time before conception. This suggests that children are not simply relying on intuitive mind-body dualism to guide their judgments. Rather, from early on, they are sensitive to different aspects of the mind and view only emotionality and desires as the essential core of an individual; these traits, rather than pure intelligence, are what humans intuitively embrace as so elemental that they are thought to precede our existence on Earth.
William has been exercising my industrial strength BA77 scroll wheel for some time now.
After a while, nothing a creationist of IDist says makes any difference to me. I’m willing to read a few posts to see if anything interesting is being said, but it’s pretty much a lost cause.
Big Boy pants.
You could go back and defend your assertion that QM somehow challenges PSR.
That’s something both you and Neil offered an opinion about and never followed up on with anything in the way of an actual argument.
Oh please. Not another one of those.
Wrong analogy William!
Mighty fine weather we’re having.
EL said:
Have you already forgotten – I’m not a scientists. I don’t make scientific arguments. I don’t refer to the quality of scientific research. I’ve told you that over and over. You might try keeping that in mind when evaluating the meaning of my posts.
Oh, I know what I’m talking about. However, because you cannot seem to remember anything I’ve previously stated (over and over) which serves as context for what I write here, you certainly don’t know what I’m talking about.
William, earlier in the thread:
William, now:
You are one confused dude, William.
Child development was my field of expertise. I’ve been out of this arena for several decades, but it’s pretty silly to think you can ask young children what they think without having them watch you for clues about what you want to hear.
I can’t help but wonder if William has raised kids.
Great. Yet another mystery. Let’s try a Darwinian story:
Children want to please adults because children who did please adults grew up to leave more offspring than children who did not please adults.
I can’t help but wonder if petrushka has raised kids.
A plausible hypothesis. And yes, I have. It’s pretty naive to think children have innate ideas about religion.
My daughter spent a year as Daniel Striped Tiger. Based on her innate knowledge of metaphysical truth, I know that tigers communicate my meowing.
William, if someone tells me research is “good”, then they are evaluating it.
I asked you why you thought it was “good”.
It’s a perfectly reasonable question. Your responses were, in my view, not.
Well, it’s hard to remember, because, frankly, it makes no sense.
You say you don’t evaluate scientific research.
Then you evaluate some scientific research (say that is is “good”)
Then you accuse me of talking about “you” because I’ve “forgotten” that you don’t evaluate scientific research.
Then you scoff that I don’t understand you.
Well, I don’t. Could be my failing. On the other hand, it could also be yours.
So we will have to leave it there.
heh
Yes, it’s been noted that your only actual use for scientific research is to cherry-pick it to support a conclusion you have already formed.
OK, Mung, here you go.
QM says probability is intrinsic. That is: If we have a batch of quantum entities identically prepared, and measure each separately for some outcome which QM says has two possible results, each with probability 1/2, then we find that we measure one possible result in 1/2 the batch, the second possible result in the other 1/2 of the batch.
But for any individual entity, we cannot predict even in principle which outcome we will observe. The “even in principle” makes the probability intrinsic,
So we cannot know of a sufficient reason for that particular outcome.
In particular, according to the results of tests of Bell inequalities, there are no local hidden variables that, if we knew them, we could use them to predict the result. That means there can be no causal influences that we can know (since causal influences must be local in the sense that they cannot travel faster than light).
Now the preceding is about what we can know by scientific prediction. To fully deny the PSR, I suspect you have to take the further, philosophical position that any metaphysical description of the actual world should be consistent with what our best physics predicts about it. If one took that position, and many philosophers do, then I think the PSR fails ontologically as well.
So, Mung, what have you got?
EL said:
I’m sure it doesn’t, from your perspective, because you keep interpreting what I say in ways I’ve made clear I don’t ever mean. Properly interpreting what I say for the correct meaning requires one keep in mind the context I’ve repeatedly corrected you, keiths, Omagain and others on. Perhaps you just don’t have the capacity to remember that context from one discussion to the next, I don’t know.
It’s much like when I had such a hard time getting it through the heads of people here that I’m not a Christian. For the longest time, people kept interpreting what I said as if I was a Christian, even though I kept correcting them. Your incapacity to remember what I said when I have repeated it over and over is not my problem – it’s yours.
No. That’s not what I said. Another ongoing problem we have is that you cannot even properly paraphrase what I’ve said even when I’ve been explicit. I said I cannot evaluate its validity. I also said that is not the only thing “evaluate” can mean. In fact. To evaluate a thing can mean all sorts of things depending on what you are evaluating it for.
How can I evaluate a movie and say that it is “good”? “Good” is so vague a term of characterization that it could mean practically anything. It could just mean I found it enjoyable. It could mean I found it supportive of my position. It could mean that I feel like it would be a good place to start for those interested in reading more about the past-life statements provided by children. It could mean all sorts of things, EL, but the one thing it certainly does not mean (in my particular case, given the reiterated context I’ve laid out historically on this site) is that I’ve pored over the research and have evaluated it’s scientific validity.
Which is exactly what happened. You erroneously (forgetting all my prior context) thought I was referring to the scientific validity of the research, when (according to prior explicit statements), I most certainly was not doing anything of the sort. It’s not my problem that you have an inability to remember the perspective of those you are having a discussion with.
You might as well ask me how I could find such research “good” since most Christians don’t believe that children are reincarnations from past lives. WTF would that have to do with me?
Scoffed? I’m pointing out that you seem to be unable to remember something that it seems to me would be very easy to remember: I do not make scientific arguments because I’m not a scientist so I don’t consider myself qualified to argue or evaluate the validity of scientific claims or research.
My arguments, which are for the most part logical, may refer to some scientific claim or research at times, but only on an assumptive, arguendo basis for the purpose of making some point. I’ve explained all of this to you before.
It’s yours, evidenced by the fact that anyone can go back on this site and find where I’ve explained all of this to you before and I’ve reiterated it to others several times.
We will? How about, “You know, I do remember (even if vaguely) you saying all that before, William, so you’re right. I should have known you could not have been characterizing the validity of the research via your use of the general descriptor, “good”. My bad.” In the future, if I choose to respond to a post of yours, I’ll try to remember this aspect of your perspective – that you don’t make scientific arguments.”
So why was the research good?
William,
Competent speakers of English know that if they refer to “good, ongoing research”, their listeners will take them to be commenting on the quality of that research.
If you didn’t mean to do so, then you screwed up.
If you did mean to do so, then you are now shirking responsibility for defending your statement.
Either way, you screwed up. Take responsibility, Big Boy.
William,
If you were not characterizing the validity of the research via your use of the general descriptor, “good”, what were you characterizing?
It provides a lot of facts and information concerning children that make such claims and speak about such things, information that I think would be of considerable interest to people who want to look into the subject. That link was just of one instance of such research.
Here is a good resource for more reincarnation research by the same guy. Other researchers can be located on that same site.
I find Williams quality as an interlocutor similar to the quality of the research he proffered.
OMagain,
You and EL seem to think that I’ve said something about the research indicating that reincarnation or “between-lives” memories of children is true; I made no such claim or implication. The research is good because it provides a lot of information (and, presumably, facts, in that children actually have these corresponding birthmarks, tendencies; actually said what it is claimed they said; and that the investigations into historical figures correspond as factually reported) regardless of the biases and conclusions of the people conducting the research.
All sorts of things could have biased or could have influenced the children; it could all be utterly fraudulent; it can all be explained away or discredited any number of ways. I didn’t make any claims otherwise; I’m doing what I’ve always said I do when I provide links to research: I’m providing information.
It is up to the reader to assess it. Of course, I expect the regulars here to dismiss, deride, ridicule and find fault with all such research I link to. And you do. So? I have no means by which to assess either the conclusions of the researchers or any counter-claims issued here about that research. I’m not trying to prove anything; I’m not trying to change any minds; I’m not making a scientific argument. I’m providing information.
Viewers are free to evaluate that research themselves by reading the information such research provides. They may not even be aware that such research is being conducted by – you know – real doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and scientists.
William J. Murray,
Well done William. You are the bornagain77 of this board. You certainly do provide information. Unfortunately non of it helps your cause or credibility, the latter being surprising giving its very low starting point.
Competent speakers explicitly explain their position. I have. Repeatedly. Competent listeners utilize those explanations in order to understand what the speaker means when he says a thing. If I have repeatedly stated/admitted that I have no capacity to pass judgement on the scientific validity of any research, only an utterly incompetent listener would think that I meant that I had examined and passed judgement on the scientific validity of the research in question by using the term “good”.
What is my “cause”? Why should I care about whether or not any of you find me “credible”?
I have great admiration for bornagain77. I’ve learned a lot from him and have found his informational links invaluable. I can only hope to amass a small percentage of the information he has at his disposal.
Post materialism sciencing!
Well you do post your guff here and interact with people. 😉
That’s a keeper, of which you will reminded.
I am not surprised at that given this:
I’ve said that very thing, or the equivalent, many times. It’s why I stopped attempting to make scientific arguments years ago – I realized I really don’t have the foundation, knowledge or education to do so. And, frankly, I don’t have any compelling reason to even attempt to make scientific arguments. The only reason I ever tried in the first place was out of a misdirected, unnecessary, unexamined assumption that the only valid arguments were ultimately based on science and empirical evidence.
My “cause” is: enjoying life as much as possible as a good person. I interact here to the extent it helps me towards that cause. My enjoyment of life, and my view of myself as sufficiently good, is orthogonal to the idea that any of you might find me “credible”.
What other valid mechanisms (other than your feels) have you encountered, William?
Bonus:
Previous Mindpowers’ musings –
“Love the post, Dr. Torley.
Science isn’t a way of knowing – at least, not knowing anything significant; science is a way of collecting data. For that data to be useful in any meaningful way, it must be interpreted through a model of one sort or another. You have described some of the fundamental structure of one conceptual model used to interpret data into facts, evidence and theories.
The problem with many atheists/materialists/physicalists is that they have lost sight that they are interpreting data through a conceptual worldview which while perhaps useful, may or may not be true. The method of science is only about collecting data, while it is philosophy that interprets that data into meaningful (and useful) categories and relationships.
A/M/Ps are mistaking their philosophy of data interpretation for reality”
The pity is that other ID supporters are not like you, if they admitted that their position is not a scientific one much of the “culture-war” would be over.
And petition for abortions to help eradicate liberals.
I suspect your ability to discern “good” may also be at odds with ours.
Funny that you just didn’t say that in the first place.
William J. Murray,
Nice to see you putting so much effort into making sure the thread is not about you.
William J. Murray,
Snort! The man can paste. Can’t discuss one word of it, but he sure can paste. And formulate the ‘anchor’ tag.
Isn’t it?
I haven’t put any effort into not making the thread about me. I provided the opportunity and suggestion for others to not make the thread about me for my own reasons.
If the people here want to turn every thread I post in into a thread about me, that’s fine. I can make it suit my purposes.
Letting progressives eradicate themselves via abortions is not the same as petitioning for liberals to abort their line out of existence. Let them kill off their offspring all they want. Sell all the tiniy mini-me liberals to medical research facilities for top dollah before they get a chance to vote us into oblivion. It’s a win-win.
In fact, I’m all in favor of post-partum abortion up to voting age. Let this social scourge wipe itself out.
William, it becomes about you when you make idiosyncratic claims that can’t be verified, or you refer to sketchy research by cranks.
You have the option of not doing that.
It becomes about me when people like you focus on me and not the subject. If you don’t want it to be about me, then stop making it about me. Talk about the subject.
William,
Yes, if your purposes include portraying yourself as a guy who blurts and backpedals. Have you ever paused to consider how much energy you expend here distancing yourself from things you’ve said*, then regretted?
Why not think before typing?
*Extending to entire books, fercrissakes.
William, when you talk about spoon bending and pre-birth memories, you have to defend your sources. It becomes about you when you refuse to defend your sources.
Maybe also worth pointing out that if a person’s beliefs are based entirely on what they choose to believe, then any discussion of those beliefs is unavoidably “about them”.
That’s the thing about subjectivity. It’s subjective.
Tell us more,bastion of good, fragile flower of delicate feelings!
I see you’ve worked out that liberals only beget liberals… or are those who would grow up conservative “collateral damage” / “cost of a greater good’?
In less charitable fora you would have been called out as a troll a long time ago.
Or his entire life.
Lizzie,
Except that William only imagines that he chooses his beliefs freely. Reality actually chooses many of them for him, as this example vividly demonstrates.
Reality wins the first round against William every morning.
ETA: Reminds me of when William claimed he could choose to believe that severe pain was pleasurable, or something to that effect. I’ll see if I can track that comment down.
Nice find, Keiths.
Nice find? Really? Have you forgotten who keiths is and what he does? Keiths couldn’t characterize my views or how I live my life correctly if I wrote it down on a cue card and nailed it to his forehead.
I’ve forgotten!
Who is keiths and what does he do?
Don’t be coy, come out and say what you think!