Nkisi the talking psychic parrot:
http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/nkisi1_text.html

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

And I lost the link about Nyota the talking ape.

In each case they evidence far more ability than mere mimicry or stimulus/response. More importantly with Nkisi in the psychic experiments whose results were thoroughly analysed with probability analysis etc. (and similar experiments have been done with humans with similar results), although personally I don't find investigating psychic stuff all that interesting since I'm not psychic myself, the inference from the scientific data gathered from the controlled experiments indicates that there is a way in which intelligence can be communicated/shared that is not dependent upon the usual senses. This in turn intimates that intelligence has certain seeming trans-local aspects.

One could argue – quite reasonably – that perhaps there is something invisible but nonetheless physical along the lines of a radio wave that we can pick up on even though as yet we have not found a way to detect it physically with instruments. Similar to how Tesla drove his Pierce Arrow without external power by tapping into the self-existing energy in the 'aether' as he put it. There is little question that he did this, but theoretically he did not publish the hows and whys for a variety of reasons, most to do with having been screwed too many times by powerful entrepreneurs.

That said, it is also possible that intelligence works in ways that are not purely bounded by physical form similar to how certain quantum experiments revealed the ability of various particles to react over distances simultaneously, suggesting there is a medium or 'field' that, although not physical in the sense of having particular components or chains of linked components, nevertheless exists on some level since there is a shared 'experience field' as it were in which the various particles were inter-related.

I continue to feel that one of the main underlying functions of intelligence in organic beings is that of helping to both create and perceive the space-time field which we all share. And many of the same elements in that particular intelligence are the same fundamentally as the underlying space-time continuum which, although it depends upon living beings for its existence, as it were, nevertheless has many qualities that are beyond individual being, i.e. are impersonal and to a certain extent 'objective'. One of those characteristics is that everything within the same spacetime continuum is linked naturally in that there is no separation in the field from centre to fringe, top to bottom etc; the entire thing is 'one'. So it is a bit like space/emptiness. Fundamental energy that arises from that space initially seems to come in the form of some sort of ying-yang style polarity, as also revealed by the smallest quantum particles whose name eludes me right now.

That polarity is a relationship of here-there which is the birthplace of spacetime, since space is where here and there (locality) exist and time is duration which is another way of saying 'change' or progression, something which happens as soon as you can navigate in space from one spot to the next.

We see this in the development of a foetus: first the single egg, then combined egg and sperm, then four, eight, sixteen and so on, but from the beginning – or very early on at least – 'it' has a sense of where the top, bottom, front, back etc. will be and although each forming cell shares the same DNA software instructions, cells that will end up in the nose do different things than those that are foot bone cells. That 'knowledge' of where they go and belong seems to derive from sort of of overall 'field awareness' that is communicated throughout the organism all the time, and yet which is clearly not a form of intelligence in any conscious sense any more than a butterfly consciously designs it intricate wing colorations to resemble an owl or whatever. In any case, this initial differentiation between top, bottom, front back (also evidenced in quark characteristics I gather), is part of this initial polarity-with-the-continuum dynamic.

Underneath/before energetic polarity which is the womb or placenta of the realm of form, you have the primordial space principle and I suspect this same principle, or perhaps we could also call it an element, is that which demonstrates seeming non-local characteristics both in the study of certain types of particle behaviour/connections, as well as in certain aspects of sentient intelligence which is 'tuned into' that same space element. Not so much tuned into, of course, simply that intelligence is that aspect of sentient intelligence in which the space element is most involved.

This sort of view would provide some basis for explaining how intelligent the 'design' quotient is in living systems, for example. Many studying these in depth (I gather only from reading since I have not done so myself unfortunately) have brought back reports that show the marvellous depth and intricacy of so much, from snowflakes to bacteria to sells etc. So many members of the animal kingdom live in physical containers that are veritable miracles of complexity, efficiency – genius level creations basically. Like the eye of the housefly, the tail of the peacock etc. etc.

Clearly it is not the intellectual prowess of the animal in question (we too lack sufficient intelligence to design our own bodies), and yet there is sufficient 'intelligence' to have created such bodies/beings, and I believe this is that aspect of those beings that is connected with the underlying continuum. Such connection has to exist since such beings dwell in the same continuum which itself is in touch, as it were, with all other inhabitants in the same continuum, or at least all the rules of engagement that exist.

Perhaps the continuum can be likened to a ball of dough; when you push in on one part and created a depression, the rest of the dough accomodates this new element (or creation) and at the same time the entire rest of the dough throughout changes a little bit, the entire thing happening simultaneously across the dough continuum. There is no conscious intelligence involved with this but there is consistent relationship throughout the continuum.

From spending time on this blog the past two months, I seem to be coming to the point of view that there is less 'wrong' with a purely physicalist/materialist approach than I had previously thought; however, there are clearly many levels of intelligence involved in how that approach is pursued and articulated.

Indeed, the entire thing boils down to how intelligent the analysis and discussion is. And there is no scientific method that on its own can ensure intelligence. So again we have the intelligence quotient which clearly IS in the mix/matrix, but which remains and illusive – if all-pervasive – element to pin down. To do so seems to require the presence of clear philosophical/logical quotients and I am not sure if the scientific method, as currently taught, has sufficiently included this as a sine qua non of the discipline.

don provan: You really have no idea what I am or what I think I am.

Daniel Smith: Oh I've got an inkling!

don provan: So you think.

don provan: I have no ideas of my own.

The picture's getting clearer!

Bradford: I think your OOL ideas are figments of the imagination but I do not object to research.

dp: I have no ideas of my own.

We're getting to the source of your problem.

I'm here entirely to point out the problems in your ideas.

You're not qualified to do this until you can get some thoughts of your own. Zombies are not good error detectors.

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my help, but if you'd stop thinking that i'm here to foster some contrary notion, you might actually be able to focus on what's wrong with your ideas and fix them.

It would take a better man than you to "fix" the ideas in this thread.

Bradford: I think your OOL ideas are figments of the imagination but I do not object to research.

I have no ideas of my own. I'm here entirely to point out the problems in your ideas. I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my help, but if you'd stop thinking that i'm here to foster some contrary notion, you might actually be able to focus on what's wrong with your ideas and fix them.

This one shows the picture of a civil servant in France (note not ALL French civil servants have brains that look like this although this has not yet been proven because not ALL French civil servants have had the expensive scans!), whilst the second pic shows a normal brain:
http://tecfa-bio-news.blogspot.com/2009/03/petit-cerveau-mais-bien-dan s-sa-vie.html

Here is an article with a pdf link to part of a Lancet report on the same case:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/l-tbn071807.php

I do not mean to imply that these cases intimate that consciousness is not controlled by the brain – as most of you seem to believe – but they do intimate that there might be some gaping holes in current understanding about its role in intelligence. But in any case, they playfully take up Don's challenge in this regard viz. consciousness after being shot in the head etc.

It would be nice to interview the officer who saved his men by touching them after he was decapitated but for obvious reasons – including a) he has been dead since a few seconds after decapitation and b) without either functioning ears or mouth aforementioned interview would be hard to conduct – such an interview can never now take place so we will never know what was going through his headless 'mind' as he ran past the line of his amazed and grateful comrades shortly before giving up the ghost.

More seriously, these sorts of anecdotes and scientific snapshots/anomalies tend to confirm the classical Chinese medical theories that state such things as long term memory being stored in the heart, short term in the kidney, emotional in the stomach/spleen, will power being in the kidney (energy complex), intention in the stomach/spleen (energy complex) and so forth.

Which implies also that consciousness does not reside in one spot or can be viewed as a singular function derived from a particular event-driven physical process alone, or at least that physical processes are interdependently linked, in which case the medium of linkage is something to be further looked into even if it is difficult to directly 'observe' or 'measure'.

Bradford: Why not? If it is about science you should be curious enough to want to see the research conducted and the ensuing results.

dp: Because I think they're a figment of your imagination.

I think your OOL ideas are figments of the imagination but I do not object to research. Are you anti-science?

Now we see the real problem, which is figuring out what is and isn't related to the decision. How do you propose to do that?

It's not easy and entails correlating neural activity to specific thought patterns. There is timing involved as decisions can take place within narrow windows of time. Challenging but not without benefits.

OK, so you seem to have given up on "no discernable differences" as actual support for dualism…

No. This is about causality. If physical conditions are invariant then something else must be causing observable behavioral distinctions. That something is the mind (i.e. thoughts) whose effects we can empirically gauge.

If no physical explanation is found found, then we will say "we must be missing something, but what?", not "and therefore the unsupportable hypothesis that Bradford wants must be the correct answer." Yes, we could be failing to detect a supernatural explanation such as your "mind", but we could just as well be failing to detect something physical.

There is nothing supernatural about a mind. We all have thoughts. Don't be a denialist about something every human being experiences.

Of course, if you had some actual definition of "mind" other than "that which fills the gap in our physical explanation", things would be different.

I've defined it on multiple occassions by referencing a capacity to generate results such as a solution to the specified math problem. All observable, quantifiable stuff.

Bradford: Why not? If it is about science you should be curious enough to want to see the research conducted and the ensuing results.

Because I think they're a figment of your imagination.

No differences in neural activity related to the decision process which can be detected.

So we've gone from "no discernable differences" to "no discernable differences except the exact muscle signals sent to the arm", then past "no discernable differences except for what gets sent to the motor cortex", and now we're at "no differences that are related". Now we see the real problem, which is figuring out what is and isn't related to the decision. How do you propose to do that?

The point of looking for distinguishing neural activity is a search for a physical explanation for different mental processes.

OK, so you seem to have given up on "no discernable differences" as actual support for dualism, but are now only suggesting that it can be used to figure out where to look for a physical explanation. That seems OK to me, although I doubt it's a new idea.

If they are not found a dualist perspective is very much strengthened.

Nope, sorry. Once again you're on the wrong side of positive evidence. If no physical explanation is found found, then we will say "we must be missing something, but what?", not "and therefore the unsupportable hypothesis that Bradford wants must be the correct answer." Yes, we could be failing to detect a supernatural explanation such as your "mind", but we could just as well be failing to detect something physical.

Of course, if you had some actual definition of "mind" other than "that which fills the gap in our physical explanation", things would be different.

dp: I don't want to isolate them.

Why not? If it is about science you should be curious enough to want to see the research conducted and the ensuing results.

I'm not even sure they can be isolated. But you have to isolate them in order to establish which neural functions to look at for discernable differences.

That's the idea.

Anyway, the bottom line is that "no discernable differences" isn't well defined.

No differences in neural activity related to the decision process which can be detected.

I don't deny you might be able to find the dividing line with enough research, but once you found it, you'd need to look at it to see if there's a physicalist explanation for it.

The point of looking for distinguishing neural activity is a search for a physical explanation for different mental processes. If they are not found a dualist perspective is very much strengthened.

Bradford: I never claimed there is a barrier but if you wish to isolate neural pathways related to decision making it makes sense to distinguish between decision processes and impulses sent to muscles for the purpose of acting on decisions.

I don't want to isolate them. I'm not even sure they can be isolated. But you have to isolate them in order to establish which neural functions to look at for discernable differences.

Anyway, the bottom line is that "no discernable differences" isn't well defined. You could try "no discernable differences except the exact muscle signals sent to the arm," but I can pretty much guarantee you that won't be good enough: there will always be flurry of signals within the brain involved in figuring out how to move the hand before the actual signals are sent, for example. In fact, I'm reasonably sure you'll find different signals going to the motor cortex. So now you're somewhere upstream where decisions are made, yet without having found your dividing line yet.

I don't deny you might be able to find the dividing line with enough research, but once you found it, you'd need to look at it to see if there's a physicalist explanation for it. Your "no discernable differences" are irrelevant.

dp: You seem to think the brain has some concrete barrier between congnitive functions and muscle control. There simply is no such barrier.

I never claimed there is a barrier but if you wish to isolate neural pathways related to decision making it makes sense to distinguish between decision processes and impulses sent to muscles for the purpose of acting on decisions.