• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Religion is to God as Sci-Fi is to Science

<snip>

Science can and does produce much evidence of an anomaly we call psi.

<snip>



Your argument falls down at this point.

There is no evidence of psi. Poorly designed and improperly controlled (failure to eliminate sources of self-delusion etc with double-blind controls etc) "experiments" can not be called scientific, just because they take place in a "lab" or people wear white coats and speak in jargon.

Susan Blackmore spent years working as a scientist investigating all sorts of supposed supernatural "phenomena". She thought there must be something happening when she started her investigations(working as a professor at a prestigious British University). After many years, she had not been able to find any instance with actual evidence of an effect.

She was forced to conclude that it's all nonexistent in objective reality.

And yet you make your extraordinary claim of science producing "much evidence".

You and Blackmore live in the same world. Why should I trust your unsupported assertion more than her real live science?

Where's your evidence?
 
Your argument falls down at this point.

There is no evidence of psi. Poorly designed and improperly controlled (failure to eliminate sources of self-delusion etc with double-blind controls etc) "experiments" can not be called scientific, just because they take place in a "lab" or people wear white coats and speak in jargon.

Susan Blackmore spent years working as a scientist investigating all sorts of supposed supernatural "phenomena". She thought there must be something happening when she started her investigations(working as a professor at a prestigious British University). After many years, she had not been able to find any instance with actual evidence of an effect.

She was forced to conclude that it's all nonexistent in objective reality.

And yet you make your extraordinary claim of science producing "much evidence".

You and Blackmore live in the same world. Why should I trust your unsupported assertion more than her real live science?

Where's your evidence?

There is evidence but you must first believe then you will see the evidence.
 
If there's effective collective unconscious intentionality to protect us from harm, why not permit ESP at better than chance level, and marginalize thoughts and acts of war? Doesn't make sense. Doesn't fit with how the world appears to work in all other respects.


Chance level? The collective unconscious (or objective psyche) does indeed permit psi at a better-than-chance-level. "The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability." -Jessica Utts

How do we tell the difference between a world in which aspirin can prevent a second heart attack and a world in which it doesn't? Very carefully!

There is of course evidence that aspirin can prevent you from having a second heart attack. It's a small effect, but it's enough to put on an aspirin label as a selling point.

In contrast there is FAR MORE evidence that psi is real than that aspirin can prevent a second heart attack, but you won't read that on a label.

Of couse lots of people will live their entire lives without giving a crap that aspirin can prevent a second heart attack. Lots of people will live their lives not giving a crap whether psi is real or not.

But even a small to medium effect size is important. It says something about who we are, what we can become, and what the nature of reality is. It says that there is a part of human nature, which we are mostly unaware of, which can utterly transcend time and space.

So why is psi so weak? There are several theories.

1) alleged psi results are actually due to methodological artifacts and oversights
2) few people have psi
3) psi depends on precarious psychological conditions
4) psi occurs frequently without notice
5) psi is an efficient goal-oriented process subject to shifting goals
6) fear of psi suppresses psi
7) evolution has inhibited psi
8) psi serves ecological rather than personal purposes
9) the purpose of psi is personal or spiritual growth
10) psi effects are influenced by many people in the future
11) psi is controlled by nonphysical beings.

Most of JREF will favor #1. I favor a combination of all the above, with the exceptions of 1, 2, and 11. WRT #11, I don't consider the archetypes to be nonphysical beings. I consider them part of our being, and us a part of theirs.

The biggest difference psi has made in my life is #9, it has opened me to a level of reality that is transcendent. It has blown my mind many times over, and forced me to see past the limits of belief systems. That is not an easy thing to go through.

Psi enables us to reach out of our skulls and pursue the art of union with reality. That is the key to reaching our full potential as a species, and it's the key to spiritual growth. Psi enables us to tap into the collective unconscious and make a home there, which we can go to after our bodies can no longer sustain us.
 
Last edited:
Your argument falls down at this point.


If it falls down at that point, then it goes without saying that it stands prior to that point. :)

There is no evidence of psi.


My personal testimony that psi is real is evidence. Of course, it's only anecdotal evidence, but it is still evidence. So what you're really saying is, there isn't enough evidence to satisfy you. Your bar is set higher than anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't mean that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence per se.

Of course I don't expect you to take my word for it. Ideally, you would take the advice of Sam Harris and 'build your own telescope'. That is to say, elicit your own psi and see it for yourself.

But if you aren't ready for that, then I could recommend some books for you that I think do a pretty good job of laying out the history of parapsychology and the evidence it has accumulated over the decades. So here are a few, just in case.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-Parapsychology-Harvey-Irwin/dp/0786430591

http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Anomalous-Experience-Scientific-Dissociation/dp/143381529X/

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable-ebook/dp/B000OI0G16/
 
Last edited:
My personal testimony that psi is real is evidence. Of course, it's only anecdotal evidence, but it is still evidence. .
It's a claim. You have a claim. Can your claim be replicated?
 
It's a claim. You have a claim. Can your claim be replicated?


Sure. Everytime a psi experiment is successfully replicated by a 'sheep' my position is supported. That happens a lot more than most JREFers realize.

And, everytime a 'goat' tries but fails to replicate a psi experiment, my position is supported.

You guys think that if psi is real, a goat should be able to elicit it the same way as a sheep does in his lab.

NOPE.
 
Last edited:
Sure. Everytime a psi experiment is successfully replicated by a 'sheep' my position is supported. That happens a lot more than most JREFers realize.

And, everytime a 'goat' tries but fails to replicate a psi experiment, my position is supported.

Links to non-cherry-picked examples of both, please.

You guys think that if psi is real, a goat should be able to elicit it the same as a sheep.

NOPE.

Links demonstrating the actual existence of, with methods of distinguishing, both, preferably with actual evidence, please.
 
Links to non-cherry-picked examples of both, please.

Links demonstrating the actual existence of, with methods of distinguishing, both, preferably with actual evidence, please.


You said the magic word! Twice!

Scoring patterns in psi experiments are a very interesting thing. They show that belief and disbelief are important variables. Believers score above chance, disbelievers score below chance. Both directions are significant. Believers perform successful experiments that show psi, disbelievers perform unsuccessful ones. Generally speaking.

The evidence of scoring patterns goes back to the 40s, with the work of experimental psychologist Gertrude Schmeidler.

"The data convinced me. Repeatedly, average ESP scores of subjects who rejected any possibility of ESP success (whom I called goats) were lower than average ESP scores of all other subjects (whom I called sheep). This was inexplicable by the physical laws we knew; it implied unexplored processes in the universe, an exciting new field for research. From then on, naturally, my primary research interest was parapsychology." -Gertrude Schmeidler

So, you could follow the trail of breadcrumbs starting with her listed publications by following the link I gave you, and see where the rabbithole leads. Or you could just take the blue pill.
 
Last edited:
Chance level? The collective unconscious (or objective psyche)
Doesn't exist.

does indeed permit psi at a better-than-chance-level.
Doesn't happen.

How do we tell the difference between a world in which aspirin can prevent a second heart attack and a world in which it doesn't? Very carefully!
Statistically.

In contrast there is FAR MORE evidence that psi is real than that aspirin can prevent a second heart attack, but you won't read that on a label.
Because it's not true. There is no such evidence.

So why is psi so weak? There are several theories.
0) It doesn't exist.

1) alleged psi results are actually due to methodological artifacts and oversights
That too.

Most of JREF will favor #1. I favor a combination of all the above
But you have no evidence, only excuses.

Psi enables us to reach out of our skulls and pursue the art of union with reality.
No.

That is the key to reaching our full potential as a species, and it's the key to spiritual growth.
No.

Psi enables us to tap into the collective unconscious and make a home there, which we can go to after our bodies can no longer sustain us.
No.
 
Sure. Everytime a psi experiment is successfully replicated by a 'sheep' my position is supported. That happens a lot more than most JREFers realize.

And, everytime a 'goat' tries but fails to replicate a psi experiment, my position is supported.
One more time: This is not evidence; this is an excuse for the absence of evidence.

A very, very bad excuse.

You guys think that if psi is real, a goat should be able to elicit it the same way as a sheep does in his lab.
We deny your special pleading entirely.
 
Proof that all cows are blue:

1. Observe cows.
2. The blue ones are evidence that all cows are blue.
3. The non-blue ones aren't cows.
 
Chance level? The collective unconscious (or objective psyche) does indeed permit psi at a better-than-chance-level. "The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability." -Jessica Utts

How do we tell the difference between a world in which aspirin can prevent a second heart attack and a world in which it doesn't? Very carefully!

There is of course evidence that aspirin can prevent you from having a second heart attack. It's a small effect, but it's enough to put on an aspirin label as a selling point.

In contrast there is FAR MORE evidence that psi is real than that aspirin can prevent a second heart attack, but you won't read that on a label.

Of couse lots of people will live their entire lives without giving a crap that aspirin can prevent a second heart attack. Lots of people will live their lives not giving a crap whether psi is real or not.

But even a small to medium effect size is important. It says something about who we are, what we can become, and what the nature of reality is. It says that there is a part of human nature, which we are mostly unaware of, which can utterly transcend time and space.

So why is psi so weak? There are several theories.

1) alleged psi results are actually due to methodological artifacts and oversights
2) few people have psi
3) psi depends on precarious psychological conditions
4) psi occurs frequently without notice
5) psi is an efficient goal-oriented process subject to shifting goals
6) fear of psi suppresses psi
7) evolution has inhibited psi
8) psi serves ecological rather than personal purposes
9) the purpose of psi is personal or spiritual growth
10) psi effects are influenced by many people in the future
11) psi is controlled by nonphysical beings.

Most of JREF will favor #1. I favor a combination of all the above, with the exceptions of 1, 2, and 11. WRT #11, I don't consider the archetypes to be nonphysical beings. I consider them part of our being, and us a part of theirs.

The biggest difference psi has made in my life is #9, it has opened me to a level of reality that is transcendent. It has blown my mind many times over, and forced me to see past the limits of belief systems. That is not an easy thing to go through.

Psi enables us to reach out of our skulls and pursue the art of union with reality. That is the key to reaching our full potential as a species, and it's the key to spiritual growth. Psi enables us to tap into the collective unconscious and make a home there, which we can go to after our bodies can no longer sustain us.

So does some popskull.

You want to not only visit fantasy land you want to live there while all around you there is the beauty and wonder in the real world lies unseen.
 
If it falls down at that point, then it goes without saying that it stands prior to that point. :)




My personal testimony that psi is real is evidence. Of course, it's only anecdotal evidence, but it is still evidence. So what you're really saying is, there isn't enough evidence to satisfy you. Your bar is set higher than anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't mean that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence per se.

Of course I don't expect you to take my word for it. Ideally, you would take the advice of Sam Harris and 'build your own telescope'. That is to say, elicit your own psi and see it for yourself.
But if you aren't ready for that, then I could recommend some books for you that I think do a pretty good job of laying out the history of parapsychology and the evidence it has accumulated over the decades. So here are a few, just in case.

http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-Parapsychology-Harvey-Irwin/dp/0786430591

http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Anomalous-Experience-Scientific-Dissociation/dp/143381529X/

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable-ebook/dp/B000OI0G16/

Why, why, why do you assume that those you are talking to here have not done any investigation into these things?


You assumption of the teacher role is highly arrogant and totally dismissive of your fellow posters.

You are as one who has but sighted the foothills of the mountain yet are offering to guide the Sherpas.
 
Sure. Everytime a psi experiment is successfully replicated by a 'sheep' my position is supported. That happens a lot more than most JREFers realize.

And, everytime a 'goat' tries but fails to replicate a psi experiment, my position is supported.

You guys think that if psi is real, a goat should be able to elicit it the same way as a sheep does in his lab.

NOPE.

Goats, sheep they're all meat for the mystical stew. It works, that's proof for it, it doesn't work, then that's also proof for it. Sounds like you win no matter what so why should anyone play?


Incidentally one of the signs of enlightenment is the loss of black and white thinking and forgetting the idea of proof.
 
You said the magic word! Twice!

Scoring patterns in psi experiments are a very interesting thing. They show that belief and disbelief are important variables. Believers score above chance, disbelievers score below chance. Both directions are significant. Believers perform successful experiments that show psi, disbelievers perform unsuccessful ones. Generally speaking.

The evidence of scoring patterns goes back to the 40s, with the work of experimental psychologist Gertrude Schmeidler.

"The data convinced me. Repeatedly, average ESP scores of subjects who rejected any possibility of ESP success (whom I called goats) were lower than average ESP scores of all other subjects (whom I called sheep). This was inexplicable by the physical laws we knew; it implied unexplored processes in the universe, an exciting new field for research. From then on, naturally, my primary research interest was parapsychology." -Gertrude Schmeidler

So, you could follow the trail of breadcrumbs starting with her listed publications by following the link I gave you, and see where the rabbithole leads. Or you could just take the blue pill.

You made the predictably ineffective dodge! Again!

Or, you could provide actual links to specific studies, and specific examples, instead of expecting me to wallow in woo!

Your claim, your onus.

The Irwin book was unsurprisingly fallow, rich in inference and insinuation; poor in substance. What actual studies (particularly independently replicated studies) can you offer?
 

Back
Top Bottom