Interesting conversations

[Solmyr]

Both revolved around the “correlation” vs. “causation”.

In the first one (actually several ones) the topic was the brain’s electrochemical activity and the working of the mind. I (and many others) pointed out thousands of experiments, all of which show that the brain’s electrochemical activities go “hand-in-hand” with our mind: namely thoughts, decisions, feelings, emotions, memory storage and recall, experiencing pain or pleasure … etc. We also pointed out that we can “artificially” invoke these actions of the mind by “exciting” certain areas of the brain with mild electrical current, or stimulating them with properly selected chemicals.

The other parties invariably retorted with “correlation does not mean causation”.

In the other set of conversations I brought up the canonization of late John Paul. A woman in Costa Rica claimed that she prayed to the late John Paul, who in turn interceded on her behalf, and thus her condition was “miraculously” cured. The point here is that the Vatican was convinced that the cure was a “causative” result of the prayer. No “correlation” there! You can read it here: uk.reuters.com/article/uk-pope-saints-miracle-idUKBREA3N1P920140424 The answer of the other parties was: "obviously there was a causative chain there: “prayer → intercession → miracle → cure”. If there would not, no canonization would have been merited. Canonization is not just given out willy-nilly, the “miracle” must be firmly established, not just “claimed”.

So, on one hand hundreds of thousands of verified and verifiable experiments are swept aside as “irrelevant correlations”, without any scientific value; while on the other hand just one anecdotal claim (unverified and unverifiable) has been declared to have sufficient explanatory value to be part of the canonization process.

Your thoughts?

 

[St_Francis]

Sounds like the other person does not want to admit that we might have some control over our minds.

ETA: I do believe that some are overwhelmed by things going wrong in the brain, but for those whose brains are working normally, I think everyday life shows that we have some control, no? The experiments you described do not reflect on those with bi-polar or clinical depression, which may be your friend’s fear.

 

[ahs]

Both revolved around the “correlation” vs. “causation”.

In the first one…I (and many others) pointed out thousands of experiments, all of which show that the brain’s electrochemical activities go “hand-in-hand” with our mind: namely thoughts, decisions, feelings, emotions, memory storage and recall, experiencing pain or pleasure … etc. We also pointed out that we can “artificially” invoke these actions of the mind by “exciting” certain areas of the brain with mild electrical current, or stimulating them with properly selected chemicals.

The other parties invariably retorted with “correlation does not mean causation”.

I don’t get why the “other parties” responded with that. Correlation to what? And causing what?

In the other set of conversations I brought up the canonization of late John Paul. A woman in Costa Rica claimed that she prayed to the late John Paul, who in turn interceded on her behalf, and thus her condition was “miraculously” cured. The point here is that the Vatican was convinced that the cure was a “causative” result of the prayer. No “correlation” there! You can read it here: uk.reuters.com/article/uk-pope-saints-miracle-idUKBREA3N1P920140424 The answer of the other parties was: "obviously there was a causative chain there: “prayer → intercession → miracle → cure”. If there would not, no canonization would have been merited. Canonization is not just given out willy-nilly, the “miracle” must be firmly established, not just “claimed”.

The Vatican said that someone in heaven interceded on behalf of someone who prayed to that person, and a cure was realized. Okay? What’s that got to do with brain activity and the mind?

So, on one hand hundreds of thousands of verified and verifiable experiments are swept aside as “irrelevant correlations”, without any scientific value;

Irrelevant correlations to WHAT?

…while on the other hand just one anecdotal claim (unverified and unverifiable) has been declared to have sufficient explanatory value to be part of the canonization process.

That’s not a correct representation of what you posted above. A decision regarding a ‘miracle cure’ isn’t based on a claim, it’s based on the evidence resulting from an investigation of the claim.

Your thoughts?

I think someone is comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other, misrepresenting a particular argument, not presenting all the information needed, and begging some questions.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Isn’t the definition of a miracle as having a causation with no correlation (as in any correlations would offer a non miraculous result). I have a pretty bad cold starting up and my mind is running on its ‘fuzzy’ setting…and I got D’s in statistics both times I took it!

 

[Solmyr]

I don’t get why the “other parties” responded with that. Correlation to what? And causing what?

Correlation between the brain’s electro-chemical activity and the mind. They deny (for some reason) that the mind is the activity of the brain. Since they cannot deny the one-to-one correspondence between the two, they deny the causative relationship and call it a correlation.

The Vatican said that someone in heaven interceded on behalf of someone who prayed to that person, and a cure was realized.

Correct. The question is what kind of evidence is there to support that claim. Does the Vatican have a direct line to the heavenly events?

That’s not a correct representation of what you posted above. A decision regarding a ‘miracle cure’ isn’t based on a claim, it’s based on the evidence resulting from an investigation of the claim.

And that is the question here. What kind of “investigation” lead to the conclusion? How could the Vatican establish that the cure was the direct intercession performed by the dead John Paul, and not some unrelated event?

I will repeat:

The apologists are aware of the neuro-biological activities of the brain. The scientists conducted hundreds of thousand experiments and discovered of exact relationship between the two. Yet, they consider this correspondence a “mere lucky correlation”. On the other hand, there is a claim that the “miraculous” cure of this woman was the direct intercession of the deceased John Paul. This claim was allegedly “investigated” (how?), and found sufficient evidence to support the canonization of John Paul.

The question is the incredible discrepancy between the two “conclusions”, on one hand the thousands of verified and verifiable experiments, and one, unverified and unverifiable claim of a miracle.

 

[Bradski]

You can look the numbers up,yourself, but there are about 70 million Catholics in the States. The percentage of people who will develop cancer is a depressing 40% (the sort of stat you wished you hadn’t looked up).

So you could say that about 175,000 Catholic’s will develop some sort of the disease. Let’s say that half of them pray to be cured (this is all ball park figures, but bear with me). That’s around 87,000.

The rate of spontaneous remission, that is, a cure for no apparent medical reason, is about 1 in 80,000. So on average, one of those people who prayed will be cured for no apparent reason. You can study the medical records all you like, there will be nothing to indicate why it happened.

But hang on, she prayed for a cure and was cured. That’s the only logical reason. There is no other. It must have been a miracle. There can be no proof that it was, but if there was no other reason…

We see what we want to see. A face on Mars, Mary on a taco, the devil in an explosion, tea leaves in a cup, the entrails of a goat. We are pre-programmed to see things that aren’t there. Just in case. It’s an evolutionary fail safe. Great if it’s a matter of life and death. You really don’t want to be a skeptic if someone says they think they saw a tiger in the cave.

But in other matters…

 

[mikekle]

The problem is, you have to take all the modern medical information about the brain with a grain of salt, we dont really know all there is to know about the brain, how it works and what it really can and cannot do. As recent as 100 yrs ago, some of the common beliefs about the brain have been proven wrong…likely in another 100 yrs, the things we take as facts today, will be proven wrong (to some degree or another anyway).

I think our brains are capable of just about anything you can imagine, but we dont know how to ‘turn it on’ or access it yet.

 

[Solmyr]

The problem is, you have to take all the modern medical information about the brain with a grain of salt, we dont really know all there is to know about the brain, how it works and what it really can and cannot do. As recent as 100 yrs ago, some of the common beliefs about the brain have been proven wrong…likely in another 100 yrs, the things we take as facts today, will be proven wrong (to some degree or another anyway).

I think our brains are capable of just about anything you can imagine, but we dont know how to ‘turn it on’ or access it yet.

Everything in science is taken with a grain of salt. However, the “size” of the grain is variable. The details of the explanation are likely to change, but the facts are not disputed. If you “excite” the brain with a mild electric current or some chemicals, the result will be changed consciousness. It is not a coincidence that some drugs are called “mind altering drugs”, because that is what they do. There is no mind without a brain. The two are exactly as inseparable as “walking” and the “legs”. There is no “walking” without the legs.

 

[ahs]

Correlation between the brain’s electro-chemical activity and the mind. They deny (for some reason) that the mind is the activity of the brain. Since they cannot deny the one-to-one correspondence between the two, they deny the causative relationship and call it a correlation.

[Repeating…]The apologists are aware of the neuro-biological activities of the brain. The scientists conducted hundreds of thousand experiments and discovered of exact relationship between the two. Yet, they consider this correspondence a “mere lucky correlation”

Sounds like “begging the question” to me. Did you and the others come to an understanding on what is meant by “mind”? Did you all agree that the scientific study showed the mind to be an “activity”, or did it show something else? After all, “going hand-in-hand” does not necessarily mean “an activity of”.
Sounds to me like those you were debating understand the “mind” as having it’s own functions and ability to enact “activity”, as opposed to “being an activity”? Maybe you should go back and find out what is really being argued there, because it sounds like it wasn’t very clear to anyone involved. Just based on what you posted, I don’t see the link between this conversation, and the other one you are comparing it to. It looks to me like arguing the “chemistry of apples” in one, and “how legislative bills are passed” in another.

Correct. The question is what kind of evidence is there to support that claim. Does the Vatican have a direct line to the heavenly events? And that is the question here. What kind of “investigation” lead to the conclusion? How could the Vatican establish that the cure was the direct intercession performed by the dead John Paul, and not some unrelated event?

[Repeating] …there is a claim that the “miraculous” cure of this woman was the direct intercession of the deceased John Paul. This claim was allegedly “investigated” (how?), and found sufficient evidence to support the canonization of John Paul.

If you are having to ask what evidence (or lack thereof) is used in investigations of alleged miracles, how is that you asserted, "…just one anecdotal claim (unverified and unverifiable) has been declared to have sufficient explanatory value to be part of the canonization process.…".
The people you were discussing this with didn’t say that, nor did they suggest it. So, you are either misrepresenting their claim (strawman fallacy) or you are making an assertion for which you bear the burden of proof. It’s your burden to show that the Church uses “anecdotal claims” as part of the Canonization Process.

The question is the incredible discrepancy between the two “conclusions”, on one hand the thousands of verified and verifiable experiments, and one, unverified and unverifiable claim of a miracle.

The two conclusions show discrepancy because they have zero apparent relation to one another. From what you provided, the two completely unrelated discussions taking place are:

-Is the mind caused by the brain, or does the brain cause ‘thoughts’ and other functions as a result of the mind moving it to do so?

-How does the Church investigate miracles: and does “evidence” cause the miracle, or simply give witness to a cause?