Just to assign proper credit here, I believe schoolyard bullies long ago discovered a more rudimentary means of controlling other people’s body movements—a means often accompanied by such exclamations as “Haha, you’re hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!” On the other hand, I don’t think the bullies’ motivation was to refute mind/body dualism.

I don’t think that a soul exists, but if there is, it seems as though these magnetic coils can overwrite what the “soul” tells the body to do. That might not necessarily refute dualism by itself, but I think that it does do a good job of shooting it in the foot.

“All part of the great bootstrap up to greater complexity, which will continue for a while until it all inevitably deteriorates into empty space.”

Oh, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. As a teaser, consider the following 2 questions:

1) Is it possible, in principle, to fully simulate a human brain inside a sufficiently powerful computer? Feel free, for instance, to use all of the resources in the solar system to build the simulation’s underlying hardware (i.e. to reproduce what iterative trial and error has managed to build with just a couple kilos and ~ 20 watts).

2) How big is the universe?

Zach, are you saying that if you ever die, even if it’s a million years from now, your life now will have meant nothing?

I for one welcome our magnetic overlords – as long as it doesn’t all go south….

“This runs shockingly contrary to the sense of freedom that we feel in terms of controlling our actions, on which we base our whole sense of self and system of morality. ‘As far as I know,’ says Prof Haggard, ‘all societies hold individuals responsible for their actions.’”

Yes, and realizing that we are, very likely, deterministic biological machines might well influence attitudes and beliefs about *how* we should hold each other responsible. See for instance Greene and Cohen’s paper, “For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything” at http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/GreeneCohenPhilTrans-04.pdf and “Holding mechanisms responsible” at http://www.naturalism.org/glannon.htm

Hmm, I suppose Haggard’s logic is that if magnetism can influence the human brain, then humans cannot have any level of free will.

Re: 14
If people are machines which are not responsible for their actions, and who therefore cannot be held accountable for those actions, then equally people cannot be rewarded for their actions either.

This does not follow. “Held accountable” is a moral statement, and requires no action. I can can hold you accountable for your actions, and that just means I find you morally culpable. However, rewarding is an action. I can, for instance, reward a rat for a particular action in order to influence their behaviour. This does not mean that I believe a rat that has performed the action to be morally superior to other rats; the reward is merely a way of moulding behaviour.

I don’t know why everyone freaks out and thinks that anyone who doesn’t believe in “free will” must not believe that we are justified in responding to other peoples’ actions. Humans, being animals (and machines), are still responsive to external influences. Our drive to be happy and to create an environment in which we are safe and comfortable, and our ability to do so by providing incentives for particular kinds of behaviour, have absolutely nothing to do with free will.

Sean,

I didn’t know where to put this and I’m sorry that it is off-topic but I thought you might be interested in reading aboot this

“Temporal Patterns of Photon Emissions Can Be Stored and Retrieved Several Days Later From the “Same Space”: Experimental and Quantitative Evidence”

by Michael A Persinger, Blake T Dotta

http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/467

Ironically enough, Scott Aaronson’s initial response with the schoolyard bully example is as much of a refutation of mind-body dualism as is Haggard’s transcranial magnetic coercion. Namely, none at all.

@20 Philip

The effect of “Transcranial magnetic stimulation” is due to the field’s rate of change, which induces a voltage across conductive brain tissue. From what I’ve read, the strength involved is in the range of 1 Telsa, changing over a period of 10ms or so. So about 10,000 times stronger than the earth’s field, and changing 10x faster than you could snap your head around.

I don’t follow this. Of course we are machines, in that we are made out of stuff. That’s been known for 200 years (the early experiments in respiration are proof enough for me). And external forcings can get you to do things involuntarily. That, too, has been known a long time. None of that says, by itself, what kind of machine we are. In particular, it doesn’t prove that we are congruent to a Turing machine, nor does it prove that we can best be controlled by Skinner type behaviorism.

Sean–
Another example of an electromagnetic field causing bodily muscles to contract- shine a light into someone’s eyes and their pupils contract. Determinism reigns. But the question remains, who is holding the flashlight and why are they shining it in my eyes?

@ Post #3: “It seems as though these magnetic coils can overwrite what the “soul” tells the body to do.” – Argument by analogy: A television set can be controlled by either pushing a button on the set, or by using a remote control. Pretend your body is the television set. The existence of a remote control that has been programmed to jam your frequency does not invalidate the existence of an independent organizing principle inside your body (call it the “soul,” if you will). Obviously a human body is more complex than a TV set by orders of magnitude so the organizing principle is a little more complicated.

@ 14. ObsessiveMathsFreak: “If people are machines which are not responsible for their actions, and who therefore cannot be held accountable for those actions, then equally people cannot be rewarded for their actions either. Applying the latter logic tends to halt application of the former fairly quick.” – !!!

It would be more correct to say that we are software running ON a machine. And still more correct to say that the “Being” of Human Being is a viewpoint or collection of viewpoints associated with such software. There is a lot of good work investigating all of this in the Cognitive Science and Cognitive Philosophy literature, my favourite being Dennett’s “Consciousness Explained”. The delightful collection “The Mind’s I” is a great introduction to the area. Neuroscientists often look to me like people who apply oscilloscopes to a computer running a large software system and try to explain it as a phenomenon of transistors[neurons]. Yes, Firefox’s execution can be reduced to a phenomenon of transistors (or logic gates[synapses] or even lower-level physics) but low level models explain little of use to software engineers. Exactly how the abstract viewpoint of consciousness emerges from the information processing going on in the brain is a mostly unsolved scientific/philosophical puzzle. Perhaps we’ll have to build a conscious system before we really understand one.

Matt,
Ok, I define free will as the ability to apply conscience on our cognitive processes. You claim that my definition means that free will has nothing to do with conscience. That doesn’t make sense

You suggest we travel back and view our cognitive processes. As you say, by observing a process we can’t distinguish between determinism and indeterminism. That’s because the question about determinism is metaphysics and not science. The demarcation between metaphysics and science is important, especially on this blog. Scientists do science but they are also free to do metaphysics. A scientist needs to know the difference. Some scientists, like Sean, are involved in a lot of metaphysical problems, and that’s why I love to listen to him (although I rarely agree with him).

The problem of free will is a metaphysical problem. Popper claims that metaphysical beliefs are important in science because that’s what influence the way we construct new hypotheses. The question about free will is a also psychologically important and there’s plenty of evidence for that. But of course, science also influence metaphysical beliefs. For example, I watched Sean show how Newton, Einstein and Schrödingers equations leads to different views about the time. That’s great, but ultimately a statement about the fundamental nature of time is metaphysical (since it can’t be falsified I believe).

If we come up with a scientific theory of everything some people would believe that we don’t need much metaphysics. I think that’s wrong, I think we need more metaphysics and I think it’s evident when you consider everyones scattered and confused viewpoints. It would help if the ones who don’t like metaphysics don’t try and it would help if they were informed they don’t need to bother about those questions.

I love it when a scientist straps a subject in a chair, controls everything about the environment and experience that stimulates the subject, and then concludes that free will is an illusion.

noen,
It is claimed there are syntactic cognitive processes. If those exists it is not the same as the nonsyntactic mind. That’s what I would like to claim and you seem to agree.

@ Alan —- Turing was wrong. There was not good statistical evidence for telepathy, those studies have since been shown to be badly constructed. Rupert Sheldrake is hardly unbiased. His claims have similarly failed to meet scientific standards. Even if a video on YouTube says otherwise. (I know, surprising isn’t it?)

“Why do we cling to it especially as there are other converging lines of evidence that suggest otherwise?”

Because there is in fact no such evidence. Just as there is no evidence for aliens piloting UFOs or for ghosts or for any of a number of other goofy things people believe in. And in the absence of any evidence there is simply no reason any intelligent person should accept psi phenomenon or UFOs or the others.

Daniel wrote: “The problem of free will is a metaphysical problem.”

You’re already assuming your conclusion by defining free will as something “unphysical”. You’re just begging the question without establishing WHY free will is a to be considered such.

Actually, your definition of free will: “I define free will as the ability to apply conscience on our cognitive processes.”
Is not a definition at all, because you fail to define “conscience” or even explain how conscience is something removed from cognitive processes. The definition you put forth does nothing to clarify what you mean.

@Alan: All you’re doing is providing an argument from authority (though, the people you’re quoting, ie. Sheldrake et al, don’t posses any of that anyway). You should realise that, in the comments of science blog, people will demand better sources than youtube videos and newspaper articles. How about scientific papers? Alas, if there were convincing evidence for the existence of such phenomena it would be a mainstream scientific enterprise. It isn’t. Thus, you’d need to provide evidence for a global conspiracy.

Alan, your links don’t work. Besides, if you can’t defend your beliefs on your own and all you can do is point to a UFO video on YouTube then your beliefs aren’t really *yours* are they?

Think for yourself Alan. Don’t just APE people who agree with you. When people challenge you to back up what you say and then all you do is point to UFO videos on YouTube, well….. that’s not really even thinking.

Thinking rationally involves working your way from well founded premises towards a logical, rational conclusion. It isn’t feelings, those are emotions and while important, emotions cannot tell us anything about the real world.

You seem surprised that I said Alan Turing was wrong but you see…. part of being an educated rational person is that we *don’t* worship personalities. Turing was a genius but he got some things wrong. So was Einstein but was also wrong about some things (QM). It’s important to be… you know… right. And there is a way of determining which ideas are most likely to be right or not and to date there is simply no good evidence for psychic phenomenon, or UFOs.

BTW, Brian Dunning should be your role model. He is fantastic and his Skeptoid podcast is filled with valuable facts and research. There are other podcasts on how to think critically. I highly encourage you to check them out.

noen etc.

The Afterlife Experiments video above was posted by the distributors. The one you linked directly above is a totally different one. My other links work OK ; – )

FYI I have met Tim Coleman, the documentary director/producer at this event: http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=30
and I was on good speaking terms at meetings in the late 1990′s with two of the authors of the Scole Report.

As to my beliefs? Well, on speaking to scientists who SAW these phenomena I don’t have beliefs for these. I know non-physical intelligence is real and manifested in these investigations.
Does this then follow that computers can have a consciousness like ours? Probably not, because non-corporeal spirits can exist related to once physical bodies. I said above “it looks as though brains/minds don’t function to order as machines” but this doesn’t preclude complex “thinking” in machines – but these machines won’t have souls, a spirit etc.

So why have WE got them and they never will? Maybe it’s like this – life develops in (and is composed of) the space/quantum “soup” which is fundamental to it, a known fact of physics. So what is ultimately developing is an intelligence constantly forming within and composed of this system, a mix of energy, q-fields, multidimensions and maybe some total unknowns even physics can’t measure.
But a computer is made by US, bit by bit, as hardware/software according to rules totally apart from the process in which we develop in this “system”. So you will never expect it to have soul, spirit etc. – just some ideas.
As to physics, well I have a couple of degrees (while back), know QED works, QCD works, electroweak works, the Higgs exists etc., there’s probably a multiverse, but there’s a whole lot more going on in all this, wayyyyy down in matter/energy/space, that hasn’t been touched yet.

The Afterlife Experiments [Investigations]…
“I didn’t watch it…I am not going to sit through an hour long conspiracy theory trash “documentary”…it is simply not worth my time.” [BTW you can see it was posted by the distributors, the link is there - I'm just telling you!]
So these scientists, many, have seen non-physical intelligence with their own eyes and some make comments about this in the documentary but you will not even watch them speak? The light phenomena were recorded as well.
Hmm…Come on noen, make the leap!

I’m going to post a link here which shows these have been seen historically, so the phenomena satisfy “reproducibility” (that’s science although one must accept something extra, the possibility of “light” intelligence, or you risk outright dismissal of the phenomena). The great Sir William Crookes, wrote here:

https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/CrookesPsychic.pdf

Look under “CLASS VIII Luminous Appearances”. You’ll see the lights are the same as seen in the documentary and show again the existence of non-physical intelligence – they have also been seen on many occasions over the last century. I know it’s difficult for you and I can understand your cognitive dissonance.

“How can a non-causal entity cause material brains (or anything at all) to act?
How does an immaterial material (what souls are supposed to be composed of) make ANY sense?”
You are defining yourself into trouble, I hope you can see this – it’s classic “cart before the horse thinking”. By saying “how can a non-causal entity cause material brains” your “definition” limits possibilities. It’s the phenomena first noen – then devise your theory – that’s also science, but with my qualification above as well – otherwise again one is only left with outright dismissal. And there’s this, if you were there you too would have seen all this, so what to do?

My idea on life developing in relation to and within the space/energy of which it is composed (I hope you know that space is fundamental) is an attempt to totally distinguish it from the rules by which we construct mere computers as objects, but which *only* run and “think” (??) by software programs and Intel chips. So this connects us, I believe, fundamentally with space, differently from mere computers. As I said, just an idea, start with the properties of space and go from there, maybe information and space are important? Try to calm down.

Noen

Scole experiment (multiple witnesses, noen)/Sir William Crookes (and colleagues, noen) obs./other similar light obs. over at least 100 years (see SPR Library records). Most readers here and yourself would probably agree your disagreement comments above fall into four statements:

Possibilities:
1. Fake (inc. mass and or individual conspiracy, holographic projection/tactile prod. equip. – Scole) – none suggested/found over 3 years. Also see expert magicians (2) comments on “irreproducibilty” of phenomena.
2. Mistake (inc. mass delusion, hallucination…) – none suggested over 3 years.
3. Poor control (external influence, e.g. external, to cellar, holographic projection/tactile prod. equip. etc. – Scole) – not detected/seen over 3 years.
4. Other – I’m open to suggestions… ; – )

Example (multiple witnesses, note): One obs. (Prof. David Fontana): stated a moving light entered one part of his body, exited the palm of his hand which he actually felt exit. Another investigator was ill in another session in the cellar, which he stated, whereupon the light entered his chest and exited another part of his body.
Report comment: “Settle on and apparently enter the chests of investigators, who reported internal sensations immediately thereafter, then leaving from a different part of the body.”

Hypothesis H: H(n) = (1,2,3,4…) = True: 1 (fake), 2 (mistake), 3 (poor control), 4 (other), single/combination of the above, n = noen.
But Obs = P, P = independently/multiply witnessed phenomena; proviso 3 years “clean” obs. (crucial): accepted these cases by many.
But Obs —> H(n) = not True.
Thus H(n) has been falsified.
H(n) = not True is sufficiently correct, all Scole/Crookes/other “clean” investigations for other Obs.
Note: (1,2,3) seem to be only routes available for observers who find Scole/Crookes/other unpalatable.
Thus H(n) = not True —> non-physical intelligence, human interference ruled out.

QED.

Noen

You missed Tim Coleman’s (who directed the documentary) comments on the Dunning remarks, also at:

http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4179&comments=all#discuss

see this comments section. I met him a short while back in London and he certainly emphasized to me the reality and credibility of everything and everyone.

“This skeptical analysis is well intentioned, but so full of inaccuracies it completely discredits itself. I produced and directed the documentary – The Afterlife Investigations – in which I thoroughly examine all the evidence for the Scole Experiment. I spent several years interviewing all the leading participants and I got to know them all well. As unbelievable as the activities at Scole are I found no evidence of fraud. The authors [Brian Dunning] arguments like – I consulted with a colleague who told me its possible to remove a luminous arm, therefore all experiments which used this control at Scole are fraudulent – are childish in their logic. Given the space I could demolish this entire analysis – but its easier if you watch the documentary http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com”

I honestly ask you how to reproduce ALL what was seen – none given yet by *anyone* over 13 years later. Actually the Scole cellar was “set in stone” BTW (not your conclusion), locked from the inside and under a house in Scole, Norfolk, UK!

http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com/

On scrutiny, your comments above (camera ban = insufficient) deny:

Obs = P, P = independently/multiply witnessed phenomena; proviso 3 years “clean” obs. (crucial): accepted these cases by many.
Addendum: Obs witnessed UK, Europe, California (twice – with NASA scientists) + historical Obs. (similar Obs.)

Thus Obs —> H(n) = not True, n = noen.

“A non-Cartesian mund/body duality can be demonstrated in a theoretical account that also explains [...] quantum wave/paricle duality ”

No it can’t.

(1) there is no such thing as non Cartesian dualism. If you believe in dualism you are a Cartesian of some kind. (2) Saying things doesn’t make them so. You have to actually make the argument and not just claim that one exists. (3) Repeating magic jargon gleaned from popular books on QM that you’ve read doesn’t mean you understand them or that your application of the term makes any sense. Wave/particle duality does exist but it is totally unrelated to the philosophical dualism Descartes advocated.

“Try wikipedia on mind-body dualism for a start.” — I am fully aware of the history and that the beginnings of Cartesian dualism have their roots in the Greeks. Everything does. But Descartes is the acknowledged originator of dualism and indeed the mind/body problem itself. If you ever happen to attend university and you are asked on a test who is the founder of dualism any answer other than Descartes is *wrong*.

“I say a dualism [...] does not postulate the mind to be a detachable “immaterial substance’” — You should try reading some philosophy some time and attending university level lectures. Reading Wikipedia just doesn’t give one the whole story. That way you could avoid saying laughably ignorant things like the above.

The immaterial soul “is quite straight forwardly deducible from the evidence of q1uantum physics” — That’s quite a strong claim. By all means please show us your proof. But what you have given so far is not an argument, deductive or otherwise. All you have done is to state claims that you *say* you can prove. Well then please do so.

“Prove me wrong.” — You have it backwards. It is you who needs to give an argument for your position and you have not provided one. I cannot disprove your assertions. They are mere assertions.

The moon is made of green cheese — Prove me wrong.

“I say a dualism [...] does not postulate the mind to be a detachable “immaterial substance’” — You should try reading some philosophy some time and attending university level lectures. Reading Wikipedia just doesn’t give one the whole story. That way you could avoid saying laughably ignorant things like the above.”

As a matter of fact I have studied philophy at university and on my own account, and at no time was I told” (1) there is no such thing as non Cartesian dualism. If you believe in dualism you are a Cartesian of some kind.”

I have also taken a university course on quantum physics and studied it in depth on my own account.

The big trouble is both in the philosopy of mind and in the interpretation of the quantum evidence one is assailed by many and various a priori opinions, and especially from proclaimed experts. And of the connection between the quantum evidence and mind you can only find woolly arguments anywhere.

My claims of a definite quantum-mind connection is based from my own independently developed cause and effect theory that requires an extended methodical and systematic argument that I’m still working on after some 29 years. Although the basics of what might be called a general theory of natural organisation are quite clear and simple, given an unorthodox quantum hypothesis.

But I hope to show some time fairly soon, in a paper I”m presently working on, that a lot of problematic philosophy and scientific theory can be resolved by sufficently justifying and representing enough details of a nonlocally acting cause from its observable and detectable effects upon matter and energy, and on all scales in the natural world.

I can describe new experiments of kind that could be performed to support this theory, but having worked quite independently for so long on my own account, I need contacts with the appropriate academics, which I’m currently attempting to make.

” It isn’t my job to present your case for you, that’s your j0b.”

Never said it was.

“The evidence above I gave above (Scole etc.) including physical phenomena seen by dozens, inc. scientists nails non-physical intelligence (NPI) as real. “

It most certainly does not. You gave no evidence. The Scole experiment was conducted with no controls, no safeguards at all. People who make their living through fraud were allowed complete freedom to do as they please and *surprise!* were able to dupe gullible scientists.

“The only argument *stated*, never considered seriously by anyone involved deeply is fraud.”

The fact that those involved never considered they might be victims of fraud does not prove there was no fraud.

“Your last refuge above was electronic video cameras not being allowed – a childish defence considering the *range* of what was seen.”

The fact that people saw a range of odd lights whose true origin might have been exposed by video cameras does not prove that video cameras could not have exposed the true nature of those lights nor that they must be unembodied minds.

“NDE studies, well I don’t think you are aware of ….. (results pending)”

Citing unpublished studies by people already highly suspect of if not still active in fraud does not constitute evidence.

“All address your issues here but results point to powerful veridicality here for some experiences.”

(1) Saying that someone else has answered all my objections does not constitute YOU answering my objections. (2) Again, saying something is so does not equal it actually being so. And yes, I am aware of those people and I am also aware of the criticisms by Shermer and others and I find their critique more credible.

“As to how mind makes your arm move, who knows?”

Dualists need to provide an account for how non-causal entities can produce causal effects. You can’t because the very concept is self contradictory and therefore MUST be false. You are not allowed to hand wave my request to give a logical coherent explanation for how dualism could work. I reject dualism because it is, in it’s very formulation, incoherent and self contradictory. You need to respond honestly (1) to maintain your own personal integrity and (2) keep some semblance of being an educated person living in the modern era.

I have given you a good deal of my time by now. I have addressed your claims and given honest criticism. I have not engaged in personal attack or ad hom. You need to respond in kind. You are in fact doing damage to your own personal integrity in your own eyes when you engage in dishonest or specious argument.

It seems unlikely what I say will ever sway you. Do you have iTunes? I suggest that you subscribe to “Critical Reasoning for Beginners” from Oxford University by Marianne Talbot available through iTunesU. Highly recommended.

“Dr. Henry Stapp has tried a quantum Zeno effect approach and devoted a lot a time to this. “

Well goody for him. Perhaps he could come around and explain his ideas. It doesn’t seem like you ever will.

He “has also made an *actual statement* on survival on his website.”

Everyone on the planet has a website AND an opinion. Sorry but stating one’s opinion does not constitute an actual argument and citing someone else’s opinion as proof that your opinion is true is not valid. You seem to think that just pointing to the opinions of important people (or people *you* think are important) some how justifies your beliefs. It does not.

OWN your beliefs. Don’t steal them from other people. Ground them in clear rational argument backed up with real evidence (find out what counts as evidence) and defend them logically. Then you will have something!

From your link to Vlatko Vedral:

“Centres of quantum theoreticians and experimentalists on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling to understand how fragile quantum mechanical phenomena previously thought to be confined to highly rarefied laboratory systems at temperatures close to absolute zero, manage to survive in the wet, warm biological world.”

Uh yeah, that is the question. It’s highly controversial. What is your argument in favor? I have given mine against, that QM events are too fast and at too small a scale to have an effect on us here in the middle scaled world. Just pointing to someone who agrees with you does not equal YOU giving me your reasons in favor of the proposal.

“The reason I posted the “Psycho-Physical Dualism Today: An Interdisciplinary Approach” book is precisely because new forms of dualism may be able to avoid Descartes’ problems “

Ok, you’ve read the book, I haven’t. How does the author respond to the traditional refutations of dualism? You can’t seriously expect me to read the book, divine your agreements with it, compose a summary and then present it here? That’s not my job, that’s YOUR job. YOU need to do that and I am not required to move on until you do. I will simply keep repeating my critique, that dualism is self contradictory and incoherent. Pointing at authoritative people or books or studies is you being unresponsive.

“as he only had classical physics to hand”

Quantum mechanics does not validate dualism, classical or “new”.

“You misread on Bohm BTW above – his ideas before he died were pointing at possible autonomous levels, which could still interact with lower levels”

(1) it isn’t my job to give your argument for you. If you wish me to correctly understand it you must make it clear and not depend on other people to make it for you. I did my best but I don’t know what “levels” refers to. Levels of what? HOW does a higher level of spirit stuff interact with lower levels of matter?

“his active information idea”

What is active information? I know what information is but this sounds like a back handed way of getting “spirit stuff” in the discussion without examining what it is. What is spirit stuff? What is it made of? How does it interact with matter? If it is composed of particles moving in lines of force that causally interact with other particles (matter) then you have not solved your problem. All you’ve done is propose there exists some other stuff *in this universe* that can account for conscious minds. Worse, you have no evidence for this new substance.

I don’t have to do that. I can fully account for what is called the mind. Mental events are brain states. Simple! I do not have to invent some new stuff to give an explanation and by the law of parsimony my account is therefore the correct one.

“So there are ideas which may show how simple dualism can be extended”

And maybe some day someone will come by who can give an argument as to why I should accept dualism.

You are very strange. You see fraud everywhere – if you watch the documentary you see light phenomena *on film*, in your face, on recorded tape. And you call professors and doctors investigating NDEs “people already highly suspect of if not still active in fraud”.
You call two husbands and two wives frauds – the Scole mediums.

“Mental events are brain states. Simple!” Then what is this? Witnessed by scientists and others in a bare stone cellar:

“The first phenomena that I saw were small points of golden light dancing in the corner of the room…they danced animatedly upwards and downwards…Shortly following this, there appeared a ball of diffused light, which I estimated to have a diameter of about 20 cm, close to the ceiling in the same corner…as the lights. The ball had no physical boundary: it was simply a three-dimensional orb of diffused golden light. It hung suspended for a moment in the corner about 30 cm beneath the ceiling. Slowly the orb moved toward the centre of the room, pausing above the centre of the table round which we were all sitting. It lowered itself by about 17 cm, remained still, then retreated slowly upwards and backwards into the corner…There were no beams of light to the orb, and the light was not reflected onto a surface; it moved independently in space. This occurred twice in succession, and I became aware of an overwhelming feeling of gentleness and love which seemed to accompany this phenomenon or, more accurately, which this phenomenon seemed to embody.”

It seems to be an intelligent light form and is typical of non-physical intelligence observed.
Where is your comment “Mental events are brain states. Simple!” In tatters frankly because many observations indicated a relation to *this* life, a life lived previously by humans.

Where did it come from? Why does it choose to appear in front of six people? Is there a relation between this and people (natural questions – all these, questions people find it difficult to ask including myself). That is intelligent behaviour! You would see this as well. Would you deny your eyes? And the rest? Writing on closed plastic films? Levitating crystals? Sitters in shirt sleeves and light dresses throughout? How did they all manage it noen? Over several years.

Ockham’ Razor, the Law of Parsimony: the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

What is the simplest explanation for this, as fraud is ruled out? Well, NPI is what it is – origin unknown and the conclusion of the investigators. Needs a theory.

Wow – this is getting scary. “Any magician will tell you those effects are trivial to perform.”

Expert magician comments here by James Webster (witness and Associate and Silver Medal Holder of the Inner Magic Circle – UK), Professor Richard Wiseman (noted UK sceptic), Professor Arthur Hastings of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology. Verdict: impossible to reproduce.

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/artcl_01.htm

So somehow, a pair of husbands and wives, in light shirts and dresses, in front of dozens of witnesses including scientists who were experienced investigators (and others), *you say* duped them all over 3 years and at multiple locations (BTW the four travelled to the US – California – at their own expense). Incredible.