A case of murder

Roger Knights points me to this article about a woman whose vision of a dead boy led her (and searchers) to the body.   

Naturally, skeptics will say that she had something to do with the child's death, even though she had no apparent connection to the boy or his family, and someone else has already been charged in the killing.

Comments

[Rabbitdawg]

Cops are understandably reluctant to credit psychics for helping them. Notice that the only help provided by authorities were directions to the search command center and an escort to the scene (that Ragland, the psychic directed) by an off duty firefighter volunteer.
In this case, they may not be jumping up and down about it, but the people directly involved in the investigation aren't being shy about conceding that Ragland provided the tipping point in the search.

That being said, I couldn't help but notice this part of the article:
"Not in 23 years have I ever seen anything like this," Powers (A detective in the case) said.
Then,
"Powers did not return a call by The Associated Press."

Betcha Detective Powers is catching hell right now. After all, the authorities are now actively investigating Ragland's involvement in the case.
*sigh*

[Alexander Zlotnik]

Hi Michael,
Sorry for off-top,perhaps I am late on Keith Augustine,and it eas discussed before,but have You read his last e-mail to Jime,about 4 years ago?

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.ca/2009/09/keith-augustines-new-reply-to-my-post.html

I wonder about 2 points made by Augustine:
"There's no begging the question involved. Begging the question is assuming without argument. But there is an argument. In fact, the various heuristic criteria you mention in passing later--like simplicity, scope, predictive success, etc--are precisely those that render the productive hypothesis a better explanation of the data."

and

"In the whole of the evidence, the neuroscientific evidence is indisputable. The parapsychological evidence for survival is arguable at best. So there's no contest. That's why you are reluctant to discuss the issues framed in terms of the most straightforward interpretation of neuroscientific evidence versus the most straightforward interpretation of survival evidence. But this is the way you should discuss it. This is the way physicists discuss relativity theory vs. Newtonian physics when it comes to time dilation effects."

Could You comment on that?Was it discussed before?
Thank You

[Michael Prescott]

Two points:

1) The neurology evidence is compatible with *either* the production or the transmission theory. Therefore the evidence, as such, is not dispositive one way or the other. It is true that the production theory is the simpler of the two. But ...

2) Simplicity is not the only criterion. A theory has to explain *all* the evidence, not just some of it. The production theory does not explain psi, NDEs, mediumship, etc. The transmission theory does.

Now, if someone thinks that the evidence for psi, NDEs, and mediumship is too weak to matter, then of course he will opt for the production theory. But those of us who think the evidence for psi, NDEs, mediumship, and related phenomena is strong will not be satisfied with the production theory.

The book "Irreducible Mind" makes this case in great detail.

Some time ago I received an email from Keith informing me that he was editing a book about neuroscience that would show the close connection between brain states and mind states, and thus would support the production theory. I asked if the book would address paranormal phenomena. I didn't get a reply. :-)

[Paul]

You've to admit, it's a lot easier to write a book if you ignore the principal objections. :)

[Bruce Siegel]

"It is true that the production theory is the simpler of the two"

Michael, I think we need to amend that. The production theory would be simpler *if* we had the faintest idea how matter can produce a conscious experience. But since we don't, can the production theory really be said to be simpler?

To me, the production theory is no simpler than saying that consciousness is already in existence, and the brain allows some of it to seep through. *Something* has had to be eternally in existence, and why couldn't it be consciousness?

Unless we assume that the universe was created from nothing, and that doesn't seem simple at all.

Of course, it's also true that we don't understand how consciousness can create matter. But at least, if we take that as a premise, we don't have to keep blinding ourselves to the wealth of paranormal data that won't go away. (Nor to the direction that physics seems to be headed for the last hundred years now.)

"In the whole of the evidence, the neuroscientific evidence is indisputable."

It's indisputable evidence for *correlation* but not a morsel more. Do you really want to stake your worldview on that, Keith?

[Alexander Zlotnik]

Thanks a lot,Michael
Paul,does Your statement apply to Irreducible Mind or to K.Augustine's book?

[Matt Rouge]

I actually think that composite production-transmission model is necessary. I think the brain organically develops with the organism but stores its memories externally. The "soul" is the information content of externally stored brain states in relation to the I-thought.

[Paul]

Hi Alexander
It was aimed at Keith's impending book following Michael's comment. I haven't read Irreducible Mind. More of an attempt at a humorous rejoinder really. I have no idea whether Keith will address the point MP made.

[Iris]

Matt Rouge, this is a beautiful definition!

[Paul]

My inclination is the same as yours Matt. I suspect both models are simplistic and only partially correct.

[no one]

"The "soul" is the information content of externally stored brain states in relation to the I-thought....."

No pre-existing personality? No life before birth?

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

||No pre-existing personality? No life before birth?||

Of course, reincarnation is real. But reincarnation does not involve the soul as *object* going from one body to another.