title

.

Fake Science
 
With Marco Tai

 

Marco is a strong supporter of Scientology, which he advocates on his Youtube site.

I describe Scientologists as overly-imaginative Jehovah's Witnesses. Partly, my curiosity in exploring Marco's views and psychology stem from a wonderment about the way reason evolves or doesn't evolve, and Marco is a good study case of stunted reason. And partly, I assumed it would stimulate some more thought about the dynamics between imagination and science, again as a negative case.

Marco's comments were blocked on Men of the Infinite's profile page, after he persisted in making arguments about free will based on nothing but assertion. Just prior to his being blocked, I had asked Marco a question, and he replied using private messages. The following discussion ensued.

I would say Marco is between the ages of 7 and 12 years old mentally. This assessment does not include his language difficulties.

Kelly Jones

 

 


 

 

Marco wrote :

Dear Kelly
Having posted my answer to you several times on "menoftheinfinite" channel but always deleted by him ( Why ???) I will post it here:

You ask me: "When you blink your eyes, do you feel a sensation of your eyelids closing? Can you give me a quick, simple explanation for how that sensation arises?"

This is what I wrote: "I'm not so sure what you mean.
Actually if I don't put some attention on my eyes blinking I don't get any sensation at all. All I know is if I want to put some attention on it, the sensation that arise is that at that moment I'm the one who can decide weather blink my eyes or not.( my body is not anymore in-charge of it).
It is like "breathing", if you let your body do it for you it will do it automatically. But If you decide to stop breathing ( like when you dive under water) it is YOU the Boss , not your body. Actually you can decide to stop breathing until your body is dead!"

(4 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

That's not accurate, marcotai.

I think your immersion in Scientology has distorted your experience, as well as your reasoning in this matter. That is the impression I get.

There is a very clear phenomenon called "confirmation bias". It would be helpful for you to read a bit about this.

If you take a few days to read about confirmation bias (try Wikipedia or a Google search), and to give it thought, then I would be happy to take up the conversation again and explain my reasoning.

(4 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

" I think your immersion in Scientology has distorted your experience"

Actually that is a PREJUDGMENT and you may wonder where it is coming from?
Confirmation bias .

I'm not only an expert on Scientology, also I DO know nuclear physic same as I really know about psychology !

This is the questions that you have to ask yourself:
"Is this Universe Real? "
Please, define me what is Reality without using the word : "Observing" (Evidence)

(7 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

Hi Marco,

I wrote: " I think your immersion in Scientology has distorted your experience"

You replied: Actually that is a PREJUDGMENT and you may wonder where it is coming from? Confirmation bias .

It was a judgment based on your reply to my simple scientific question. If a person is comatose, would you tell them to stop telling themselves to be comatose? If not, why not?


 

You wrote: "I'm not only an expert on Scientology, also I DO know nuclear physic same as I really know about psychology ! This is the questions that you have to ask yourself: "Is this Universe Real? " Please, define me what is Reality without using the word : "Observing" (Evidence)"

Stick to the topic. Seeing as you are trained as a scientist, you shouldn't have any problems answering my questions.

Kelly

(7 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

Hi Kelly,
I hope you are fine.
I had a relative that has been in a coma for almost 2 months before he wakes up again.
When someone asked him what he could remember of those two months, he said that he remembered almost everything, such as people visiting him and talking to him, washing his body etc...
What he told me is that his experience was very terrible because he was always aware of what was going on around him but at the same time he could not communicate with his body; He told me that it was like being in a prison where his body became the prison. He could dream, think, worry, valuate, and even ponder about his own existence.
If this would happen to some of your friends of relatives (I hope not)
just try this: visit him every day and for about 1/2 hours every day, touch his body with your finger saying "feel my finger" starting from his feet and slowly go up on his head and every time acknowledge him with "thank you" or "good".
even if he can't answer you, just assume he did.
This simple thing can help him to restore his communication with his body.

To answer your "scientific "question... Yes, in theory, you can ask them to stop to be in that comatose state. But in truth it has everything to do with
their ( spiritual) ability to do so.
In fact, if they think that they are their body they will be subjected to him.
Again, I'm sorry for my English.

(8 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

Marco,

Scientific theories rely on reasonable samples, not anecdotes.

A reasonable sample of comatose subjects, to study comatose behaviour, might be 100,000 people, minimum.

When MRI scans can show similar brain activity between healthy and persistently vegetative patients, then it is clear that the patient is not strictly comatose.

E.g. If 100,000 allegedly comatose patients are put through a series of tests of awareness, and 100,000 healthy subjects are given the same procedure, plus another control group of random subjects are given the same test, the MRI scans will show the brain activity relative to the tests. If say 90% of allegedly comatose patients show the same brain activity as 90% of healthy subjects, then we can say that comatose persons are likely to be conscious. However, it is only in exceptional cases that persistently vegetative patients do show this similarity. Therefore, we must conclude that comatose patients are not conscious.

Does this make sense?

Kelly

(8 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

Kelly.
you wrote: " However, it is only in exceptional cases that persistently vegetative patients do show this similarity. Therefore, we must conclude that comatose patients are not conscious....Does this make sense?"

No it doesn't only IF we think that consciousness is related to brain activity.
My cousin on MRI scans was labeled a "flat case"
Also did you know about the dozen of cases known so far around the world who born with more than 60- 78% parts of their brain missing ?
The most famous one is a french guy ( now 45 years old) which case has been published on the prestigious medical magazine 'Lancet"! ?
Scientists are so puzzled about those individuals because they are living a normal life despite they got more than half of their brain missing.
Does it make sense to you?

"Scientific" theories are just that : theories.
And how you can possibly prove that even a dead body don't retain his self consciousness?
Actually... there is a prove !. But i think I'm going to fast for you right now.
Thank you to respond on my PMs to you.

(9 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

Marco,

Kelly: " However, it is only in exceptional cases that persistently vegetative patients do show this similarity. Therefore, we must conclude that comatose patients are not conscious....Does this make sense?"

Marco: "No it doesn't only IF we think that consciousness is related to brain activity."

I'm glad you accept this.


 

Marco: "My cousin on MRI scans was labeled a "flat case" "

What exactly does "flat case" mean?


 

Marco: "Also did you know about the dozen of cases known so far around the world who born with more than 60- 78% parts of their brain missing ? The most famous one is a french guy ( now 45 years old) which case has been published on the prestigious medical magazine 'Lancet"! ? Scientists are so puzzled about those individuals because they are living a normal life despite they got more than half of their brain missing."

Link me to a study that indicates no brain activity via MRI in these subjects.


 

Marco: " "Scientific" theories are just that : theories."

Are you saying that it is true by definition that consciousness is separate to neurological processes such as electrochemical signals in the brain, and therefore certain? Or are you saying it is a scientific theory, and not certain?


 

Marco: "And how you can possibly prove that even a dead body don't retain his self consciousness?"

It is impossible for me personally to prove that consciousness doesn't continue after the death of the brain, given that one would need to be experiencing death and consicousness, and I am not. Everyone who is living is in the same boat of uncertainty in this regard.


 

Marco: "Actually... there is a prove !."

Has your flesh rotted away, and your bones disconnected then? What other signs of your death do you have?


 

Kelly

(9 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

Hi Kelly,

So, we could agree that self consciousness can be something totally different from brain activity ?
 
People that live a normal life with more than half of their brain missing you can start your own research from here: http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/07/french-civil-se.html

A "flat case" was defined by the nurse who was taking care of my cousin. as: "no brain activity is being showed on our machines, he can't fell any pain, any emotion and any awareness whatsoever". Statements that have been revealed not true.

You wrote : "It is impossible for me personally to prove that consciousness doesn't continue after the death of the brain, given that one would need to be experiencing death and consicousness, and I am not. Everyone who is living is in the same boat of uncertainty in this regard."

Actually not everyone is living in the same boat regarding uncertainty in that regard.

On your last question I can only tell you a story what experiencing death could means, let say that someone head is being chopped off ; What he would feel is a sudden strong painful retraction of all his muscles and nerves and at same time a painful hit on the ground of his head falling and. most of all, that unbearable feeling of sand in his eyes.
It's not a joke !

(11 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

http://popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/07/french-civil-se.html

Thanks, but your link is to a CT scan of the brain, which doesn't indicate brain activity. There is no sign that this is a "flat case", probably because no one would make that claim.


 

You wrote: "On your last question I can only tell you a story what experiencing death could means"

I am serious: I would like you to follow these instructions to prove your claims.

Get a webcam, and do not stop the camera during the following sequence. No editing is permitted. Film your face and body very clearly, giving visual evidence by which I can identify you; then I would like to see you sitting at a computer, typing a message, and then turning to pick up a knife and cutting off your own head, but continue after that to continue typing your message at the computer. At that point, I would like you to film yourself picking up the head, putting it into a post package, and writing on the package: "To Kelly Jones". When you have made the video, show it to me, and then I'll let you know my postal address.

Can you do that? If not, you are a fraud.

Kelly

(11 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

I'm sorry that somehow I offended you.
Please forget about what I wrote before.
One thing that I assure you is that I'm not a fraud !
It is just that sometime I'm running too fast.
Let just stick to the atheism vs theism discussion, ok ?
In your own opinion, this universe could exist or make sense without anyone observing it ?

(11 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

Marco,

I am not offended in the slightest by anything you have written. Perhaps you think it is reasonable to say anything you like, and have no evidence to support it, but I think that road leads rapidly to madness and fantasy.

I am pushing you to come up with the goods regarding your statement that consciousness is separate to the brain. Are you going to back down on that statement now?

If not, please provide the evidence I asked for. If you cannot provide the video tape, exactly according to my instructions, then I would like a very good reason why not.

Kelly

(11 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

Not only I know but I'm certain that consciousness is separate from the brain.
That has nothing to do with madness or fantasy.
I think that an objective prove of that we will have when the first transplant of a human brain will be made. But we don't need to wait until then to find out whether we are our brain activity or instead something else.
And I don't need to kill my body to prove it to you. ( Sorry, I still need this body)
Can you see? Higher Truths can't be found or scientifically being proved ( yet ) by observing the outside material world,.
Now...what that word : "OBSERVING" means to you ?
I know what it means in Science, even if materialistic scientists don't like to talk much about it. For example: if you OBSERVE an electron moving, you will be able to contact a magnetic field around it. But if a different OBSERVER is moving equally and in the same direction with that electron, you know that he would not register any magnetic activity. Right?
So, in your OWN opinion the magnetic field is real or not ?
Now let us suppose that those two observers are in communication with each others and both are asking for EVIDENCE to support their different statements;
( like me and you ) How they can possibly do it?
Again. the electric ( not magnetic as above) field around an electron is a real physical thing or just a mathematical ( MENTAL not neuronic) abstraction that predict what another particle does next to it ?

Interesting enough, no one has yet answered that question !

Do you really want to have evidence what a death experience is like?
That evidence stay already in YOU ! Just remember it !!!

(12 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

I ask you again to provide a link to brain MRI scans that show no brain activity, and the subjects show conscious behaviours.

If you don't do that, then I will publish this discussion.

Kelly

(12 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Marco wrote :

I don't actually get what you mean about "no brain activity with subjects that show conscious behaviour "

And I don't know if this link could be helpful to you.
http://www.livescience.com/health/060908_ap_awareness_vegetation.html

Probably we are defining a word in different terms.
But anyway I think that publishing this discussion may be a good idea.
Could be helpful to others, don't you think so ?

Best regards
Marco

(13 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

Kelly wrote :

Marco,

The link you posted includes this paragraph:

"Owen and colleagues contend their fMRI experiment showed the car-crash victim had some preserved conscious awareness despite her vegetative state.

How could they tell? First, they checked that she could process speech. Upon being told "there was milk and sugar in the coffee,'' the fMRI showed brain regions reacting the same in the woman and in healthy volunteers"

I.e. brain activity is measured in the vegetative subject, meaning, she is not a "flat case".

If consciousness is separate to the brain, as you claim, then you need to provide MRI scans showing no brain activity in healthy (non-vegetative) subjects, ie. showing that they are "flat cases".

This is what I meant by "no brain activity with subjects that show conscious behaviour".

Kelly

(13 Dec 2008)

 ∞ 

 

 

 

 ∞ Back to Top ∞ 


return.JPG