What Should the Default Skeptical Position on Telepathy Be?

[kellyb]

Also:

Idealistic and dualistic frameworks are more accepting of radical changes in established principles. That is to say, what is accepted as true now, is more amenable to change under idelaism/dualism than materialism.

Lets say I took what I said earlier about "concepts and experiences (qualia, etc) do exist, and they exist strictly within minds" and used that to hop on board the dualism train, and started thinking of myself as a dualist. How or why would that make me less skeptical about telepathy?

 

[Axxman300]

I thought of a quick way to sum up my position:

1. Evidence is viewed through the metaphysical framework of a person's belief about reality
2. Some metaphysical frameworks are more plausible than others
3. Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework
4. It follows from (3) that evidence should be viewed through a dualistic or idealistic framework.
5. Idealistic and dualistic frameworks are more accepting of radical changes in established principles. That is to say, what is accepted as true now, is more amenable to change under idelaism/dualism than materialism.

Why waste your time here?

Metaphysics is philosophy, not science. Metaphysics asks the question "What If?", while science asks "How & Why?". When science sets out to answer those two questions it generates hundreds more questions which all have to be answered, and when enough questions are answered science forms a thesis, and eventually a theory. Metaphysics never answers real questions, and often builds upon the initial question as if it is true, and happily lives in a house of cards.

In science, this is how we have laws of gravity without a full definition of what exactly gravity is, Newton didn't waste time defining it, just laid out the basic mechanics of what gravity does.

In Metaphysics this is how we get "Bigfoot is associated with UFO's".

2. Some metaphysical frameworks are more plausible than others

No. In metaphysics there is no framework. It's the same as saying "some unicorns can be saddle broken".

3. Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework

If by "Materialism" you mean reality, then no it is not.

As a ghost hunter I have played this game, as do many "paranormal" researchers, and it is exactly why parapsychology has failed to produce. It's not enough to believe something is real, or possible, I must PROVE IT. As I already stated, I took the "science will catch up with me" approach for years, and in the end science did catch up by introducing NEW plausible - testable - explanations for why some people see ghosts, and all I had to do was look at the science honestly, and move on.

Psychic abilities would be the easiest tests ever in a controlled environment to prove.

 

[JayUtah]

I thought of a quick way to sum up my position:

Okay, that's your position. I get it. But the question is what should the skeptical position be. That's not answered or aided by stating your different position, unless your goal is to argue that the skepticism should be like some other philosophy.

1. Evidence is viewed through the metaphysical framework of a person's belief about reality.

Sure, but you go even farther here than the typical discourse about perceptual filters and so on that we turn to empirical controls to help mitigate. You seem to be suggesting that if one believes reality can just change out from under us for unfathomable reasons, this can be an excuse to ignore careful observation and believe whatever one wishes. In a sense you're arguing for a private reality, which is arguably a logical fallacy in one sense and a mental illness in another. It's not quaint or old-fashioned to start with the axiom that an objective reality exists.

2. Some metaphysical frameworks are more plausible than others.

"Plausible" in whose judgment and by what standard? This is the part where you beg the question.

3. Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework.

And here you're just begging it harder.

4. It follows from (3) that evidence should be viewed through a dualistic or idealistic framework.

No.

Just because X is bad doesn't mean Y is good. That doesn't follow at all from (3). You're committing a false-dilemma fallacy for starters, and you're asserting that idealism and dualism are better, not because it follows logically but for reasons you're about to give :---

5. Idealistic and dualistic frameworks are more accepting of radical changes in established principles. That is to say, what is accepted as true now, is more amenable to change under idelaism/dualism than materialism.

That's a bug, not a feature. Materialism is accepting of change, so long as there is a reliable observation such that radical change is the parsimonious way to accommodate it. This was true when Einstein changed radically our understanding of mechanical dynamics. Your system is simply less critical of reasons for change, which makes it susceptible to self-serving reasons. Setting the bar high for radical change is what forces us to look for reasons we didn't contemplate before, which is really where new knowledge comes from. "Well, it must be magic," doesn't expand our understanding. That doesn't have to mean much to you, but it means a lot to skeptics. So if you want to know why skeptics think that way, you have to accept as an axiom that radical change requires extraordinarily robust observation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework

Why do you say that?

Because it doesn't leave any room for magic. And as Darat has pointed out despite how much he hems and haws and trots out the angry, flustered incredulity persona and pretends that's not what this is about, that's what this is about.

It's not plausible to him because it doesn't have a "Invoke magic at will" clause and that is simply not acceptable. That's how he's framed "Reality is real and unreality is not real" into some insane, unreasonable mental framework we're the crazy ones for operating under.

"Sure I'll admit you're right only under the assumption that the world doesn't operate on dream logic and impossible things can't happen whenever I want them to" is somehow a discussion we keep having on this board for some reason.

 

[angrysoba]

I thought of a quick way to sum up my position:

1. Evidence is viewed through the metaphysical framework of a person's belief about reality
2. Some metaphysical frameworks are more plausible than others
3. Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework
4. It follows from (3) that evidence should be viewed through a dualistic or idealistic framework.
5. Idealistic and dualistic frameworks are more accepting of radical changes in established principles. That is to say, what is accepted as true now, is more amenable to change under idelaism/dualism than materialism.

A few tweaks and Jordan Peterson would stand up and applaud.

1. Evidence is viewed through the metaphysical framework of a person's belief about reality
2. Some metaphysical frameworks are more plausible than others
3. Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework
4. It follows from (3) that evidence should be viewed through a dualistic or idealistic framework literary/archetypal framework.
5. Idealistic and dualisticLiterary/archetypal framework frameworks are more accepting of radical changes in established principles. That is to say, what is accepted as true now, is more amenable to change under idelaism/dualism than materialism.
6. Therefore Jesus.

Fudbucker, maybe there are some areas I never venture to much on these forums, but I had no idea you went in for this kind of let's-rearrange-science -to-accommodate-my-personal-woo views.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I thought of a quick way to sum up my position:

1. Evidence is viewed through the metaphysical framework of a person's belief about reality
2. Some metaphysical frameworks are more plausible than others
3. Materialism is not a plausible metaphysical framework
4. It follows from (3) that evidence should be viewed through a dualistic or idealistic framework.
5. Idealistic and dualistic frameworks are more accepting of radical changes in established principles. That is to say, what is accepted as true now, is more amenable to change under idelaism/dualism than materialism.

Fine, that's your personal position. I fail to see what relevance this has to the default skeptical position on telepathy, which is that in the complete absence of either compelling evidence or even a consistent definition there is no reason to suppose it exists.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fine, that's your personal position. I fail to see what relevance this has to the default skeptical position on telepathy, which is that in the complete absence of either compelling evidence or even a consistent definition there is no reason to suppose it exists.

Because "Oh yeah smart guy..... well prove to me reality is even real in the first place!" isn't an opinion that anyone actually thinks or holds no matter how much they pretend to. It's a purely argumentative trap.

If reality isn't real and we're all living in a dreaming logic fantasy land... that doesn't make telepathy more likely so bring it up as a defense of the concept of telepathy doesn't make any kind of sense even within it's own argument.

Because it's not an argument. It's a diversion. It's trying to trap us in an intellectual gotcha that doesn't actually make the thing we're arguing against any more likely.

In Fudbucker's mind the script goes

- Person makes claim.
- "Skeptic" counters claim and asks for evidence.
- Fudbucker runs in, demands the Skeptic prove reality exists.
- Skeptic says he can't, therefore the Skeptic is making the same mistake as the person making the initial claim.
- Therefore the Skeptic is a hypocrite.
- Therefore the person making the claim has a moral victory.
- Moral victories are the same thing as intellectual victories.
- Therefore the initial claim is true.

 

[Fudbucker]

Okay, but there was a time when failure to explain weather was seen as strong evidence of "Thor and Zeus" theory.

Yeah, but it's 2018 now, and we still don't have an explanation for what consciousness even is and how subjective experiences arise from matter. To use your weather example, if materialism still was in the dark about something simple and obvious (e.g., what are rainbows? How are they caused?), it wouldn't be a very good theory.

Not defaulting to something like "it's magic!" when looking at the currently unexplained is kind of at the heart of "the skeptical position".

I'm not defaulting to "magic", I'm picking one of the other competing possibilities. AFAIK, there's only three: materialism, dualism, and idealism. If one fails, the other two get confirmed

 

[Fudbucker]

No. "plausible metaphysical framework" is a subjective opinion. Whatever handwave you threw out in some of other thread, it's still incumbent on you to present a scientific argument here, for any claim you intend to hold weight here.

I presented the argument: materialism has failed to define and explain a fundamental aspect of the world that should have been defined and explained by now- conscious experience. Also, the possible explanations given for how consciousness arises from matter all fall prey to absurdities.

When this forum was in its heyday, we had materialists here who were convinced they were p-zombies, materialists who thought you could simulate a universe of conscious beings by pushing rocks around, pages and pages of debate about consciousness in simulations, and people who thought consciousness could arise from a system of ropes and pulleys/flushing toilets/monks writing down numbers. The mental contortions materialists go through to defend materialism on this topic is like something out of religion. Just ditch the idea that mind-independent stuff exists. It's not like it's proven. You can still do science in an immaterial reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Nothing can be explained because there's no objective bedrock to reality" isn't a logical counter to arguments about one specific thing you think can't be explained.

It makes the thing you're bring this argument out to defend less likely, not more.

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, but it's 2018 now, and we still don't have an explanation for what consciousness even is and how subjective experiences arise from matter.

Ummmm, no.... you see this is where I think your philosophical viewpoint is not well-thought-through.

Where we may lack certain empirical or scientific explanation for something, we are forced to rely on our intuitions about the world in such a way that they are not contradictory or riven by other fallacies.

Here are some ways you can think about the world:

1) The world consists of matter and behaves consistently in almost every way we test it, although there remain some areas in which we haven't come up with explanations that satisfy everyone.

2) Matter does not exist. We are all spirits, and everything from the time of the dinosaurs to my room when I am not in it is merely an illusion created by some weirdo creator. He also allowed spirits to communicate telepathically which unlike other impressions and ideas and sensory organs only works intermittently. Why? Who knows!

3) Solipsism.

Of the three, I go for (1), and you go for (2) yet I would rank (3) as less goofy than (2).

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, but it's 2018 now, and we still don't have an explanation for what consciousness even is and how subjective experiences arise from matter.

But that's an obvious straw man.

I'm not defaulting to "magic", I'm picking one of the other competing possibilities.

But you're relying on the shifting-reality property (i.e., "magic") of those competitors to grant you the semblance of reason to your desired belief in telepathy. The magical properties of those philosophies are not accidental, the way you're using them.

AFAIK, there's only three: materialism, dualism, and idealism. If one fails, the other two get confirmed

Those are three major modes of existential reasoning, and the three most commonly taught, but they are not exhaustively complete such that you can reason from a dilemma.

 

[JayUtah]

It makes the thing you're bring this argument out to defend less likely, not more.

Not only that, the only thing it gives us is license to latch onto easy answers. "Hm, my existing knowledge -- however serviceable in other ways -- can't explain this superficial observation. I guess reality up and changed on us again!" That's an easy answer. You don't have any motivation to delve into what may have fooled your observation or what nuance of natural law you might have previously overlooked. "A wizard did it," is just as good and as non-explanatory an answer as "You can't prove an objective reality, so you should believe in whatever."

 

[kellyb]

Yeah, but it's 2018 now, and we still don't have an explanation for what consciousness even is and how subjective experiences arise from matter.

Cognitive neuroscience is really hard. You say "it's 2018 now!" as though you're privy to some proper timeline of scientific advancement on this issue.

To use your weather example, if materialism still was in the dark about something simple and obvious (e.g., what are rainbows? How are they caused?), it wouldn't be a very good theory.

Yes, it would. Photons weren't even discovered until 1903, which was basically yesterday in the grand scheme of things.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe the default skeptical position on reality should be, "it's magic, I ain't gotta explain ****". At least, that seems to be the corner Fudbucker has been backing himself into, and trying to paint the rest of us into, for a couple years now.

 

[theprestige]

Cognitive neuroscience is really hard. You say "it's 2018 now!" as though you're privy to some proper timeline of scientific advancement on this issue.

Yes, it would. Photons weren't even discovered until 1903, which was basically yesterday in the grand scheme of things.

"Yeah, but it's 1618 now, and we still don't have an explanation for what gravity even is and how the precession of Mercury arises from orbital mechanics."

- Galileo Galilei, probably

 

[jrhowell]

Learning about something is not the same as experiencing that thing therefore materialism is false.

Because we don't yet understand the most complex thing in the universe it must not follow physical laws.

If conscious awareness is a form of computation then it can be instantiated in all sorts of hardware including a vast system of flushing toilets. Thinking toilets are absurd therefore that assumption is incorrect. The same logic also disproves the existence of computers and neurons.

I'm convinced!

 

[Darat]

Because he wants to believe we are more than what we appear to be i.e. some additional supernatural element. He will deny this and blather on about "because we don't understand X it could be Y" but it all boils down to wanting magic to be real.

Oh dear I was proven correct, I am most surprised.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I presented the argument: materialism has failed to define and explain a fundamental aspect of the world that should have been defined and explained by now- conscious experience. Also, the possible explanations given for how consciousness arises from matter all fall prey to absurdities.

Even if that were conceded to be true, there is still no compelling evidence for telepathy, and mundane explanations are readily available for the phenomenon of two people with extensive experience of communicating with each other each being able to deduce what the other is thinking on random occasions. The default sceptical position, under any framework you care to define, should be to form the provisional conclusion that a hypothetical phenomenon unsupported by evidence does not exist, subject to compelling evidence to the contrary. There's not really any reason to qualify the evidentiary requirement in advance; given that the evidence doesn't exist, it's futile to speculate on what we would want it to look like if it did.

Dave

 

[Fudbucker]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread.

Okay, that's your position. I get it. But the question is what should the skeptical position be. That's not answered or aided by stating your different position, unless your goal is to argue that the skepticism should be like some other philosophy.

If a model of reality is deeply flawed, as I believe materialism is, then the skeptical position would be to reject such a model and embrace the consequences of non-materialistic models of reality.

Sure, but you go even farther here than the typical discourse about perceptual filters and so on that we turn to empirical controls to help mitigate. You seem to be suggesting that if one believes reality can just change out from under us for unfathomable reasons, this can be an excuse to ignore careful observation and believe whatever one wishes. In a sense you're arguing for a private reality, which is arguably a logical fallacy in one sense and a mental illness in another. It's not quaint or old-fashioned to start with the axiom that an objective reality exists.

No, I believe it should be obvious to anyone that materialism has failed to explain consciousness and subjective experience. Positing a reality of mind-independent stuff naturally raises the question of how mind-independent stuff can give rise to minds. Materialism has so far utterly failed to make any progress in that area and the various proposals offered all fall prey to various absurdities (e.g., the notion a universe of conscious beings can be simulated by moving rocks around on an endless plain). So positing the existence of mind-independent stuff is a dead-end, and materialism should not be seriously considered.

If materialism is abandoned, then the competing models of reality receive an epistemic boost. Under competing models of reality (dualism and idealism), violations of the supposed laws of nature are much more likely. Under materialism, we expect the future to resemble the past. Under idealism/dualism this expectation is not so strong. Also, under idealism/dualism, it would be far more likely for local violations of laws of nature to happen. In other words, if this is all a dream, then it's possible the dream may change abruptly, or parts of the dream would differ from other parts (e.g., telepathy might never emerge in controlled settings, but might happen occasionally in non-controlled settings simply because the dreamers(s) want it to be that way).

"Plausible" in whose judgment and by what standard? This is the part where you beg the question.

There's no question begging: materialism is a failed theory for specific reasons. No theory that fails to explain something as fundamental as consciousness and subjective experience is plausible. You can argue that that's not the case, but there's no question-begging in that assertion.

Just because X is bad doesn't mean Y is good. That doesn't follow at all from (3). You're committing a false-dilemma fallacy for starters, and you're asserting that idealism and dualism are better, not because it follows logically but for reasons you're about to give :---

There's no false dilemma. Reality can go three ways: materialism, dualism, and idealism. If one was agnostic, one would assign a 1/3 probability to each model of reality. If a model of reality is taken off the table, the probability of the other models increases. This is true even if you're not agnostic. If you're wedded to dualism, and you find out it fails in some fundamental way, then idealism and materialism are going to get a big epistemic boost.

It's no different than having five suspects for a murder, and exculpatory evidence emerging that exonerates two of the suspects. The probability that one of the three remaining suspects is the murderer is going to increase. There's no way it can't.

If materialism takes an epistemic hit, which I believe it should, the other models of reality will benefit, and that has consequences in how we evaluate evidence.

That's a bug, not a feature. Materialism is accepting of change, so long as there is a reliable observation such that radical change is the parsimonious way to accommodate it. This was true when Einstein changed radically our understanding of mechanical dynamics.

The assertion that there is mind-independent stuff is at the heart of materialism, and also why it fails as a theory. There have been no changes in materialism, so far, on that front. Although with QM, mind has emerged as a much bigger "player" in the scheme of things. Max Tegmark believes the universe is made of math. Gregory Matloff believes in a consciousness field. Christof Koch is a panpsychist. So things are moving away in the right direction.

As a natural scientist, I find a version of panpsychism modified for the 21st century to be the single most elegant and parsimonious explanation for the universe I find myself in.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/

Your system is simply less critical of reasons for change, which makes it susceptible to self-serving reasons. Setting the bar high for radical change is what forces us to look for reasons we didn't contemplate before, which is really where new knowledge comes from. "Well, it must be magic," doesn't expand our understanding. That doesn't have to mean much to you, but it means a lot to skeptics. So if you want to know why skeptics think that way, you have to accept as an axiom that radical change requires extraordinarily robust observation.

If a model of reality allows for radical change (e.g., simulation theory), then the bar for radical changes has to be lowered. Suppose this is all a simulation. Then we're at the mercy of the programmer(s), are we not? Living in a simulation would entail the nature of reality could change on a dime, and other crazy things become much more probable: the simulation could allow for miracles to occasionally happen, or that the simulation started five minutes ago and we all have false memories, or that miracles happen constantly but our minds are being scrubbed of the memories. It would all depend on the simulation creator.

If you found out this was a simulation, would you be skeptical of telepathy? Would you be skeptical of anything? Why would you be? The same thing applies with idealism and dualism.