Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[punshhh]

"The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised by the Breath of Vacancy." Chapter 42 of the Dao De Jing

Interesting I was going to mention three (the trinity) in my last post but just held off at the last minuite and then you added it.

Perhaps I shouldn't mention four, that might be over egging it.



(don't mention five)

 

[Complexity]

I know some people would like to eschew sauces completely and go with a good dry rub, but I just don't think it's possible to have a real preference before the fact. How do you *know* which sauce (or lack thereof) is best until you've got the cut in your hand?

Oh, I understand.

I thought it safer to phrase it that way, however, since inquiring about your favorite dry rub might have been misconstrued.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yeah, yeah.

"It's measurable but only if you're a true believer, but it's not if you aren't. There is evidence but only if you think that there is, but when asked to present it, you can't because only true believers can truly see the true evidence of truth."

Here's a good example of how ESP tests really work, in my opinion:

http://youtu.be/aB_lljnqkDw

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This quote highlights a big part of the problem as I see it. People figure that parapsychology must 'prove true' before it can provide something to work on, and that's a problem because even if psi was real, parapsychology wouldn't 'prove true'. It's unreasonable to expect it to. You are stacking the deck from the get-go.

And so, you avoid the knowledge that would enable you to fully consider the philosophical implications of parapsychological evidence and of patterns in the data.

"The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised by the Breath of Vacancy." Chapter 42 of the Dao De Jing

There is nothing to discuss if that expresses the central problem with parapsychology research.

 

[Limbo]

There is nothing to discuss if that expresses the central problem with parapsychology research.

If it is the central problem with parapsychology research then it's a problem we would expect to have if materialism is false. Problems like this are perhaps the only tell-tale signs that would point to a philosophical problem underlying science. Science is getting in its own way and tripping over itself because materialism is false. Where it stumbles and falls is where it will find gold.

The problem hinges on conflicting intentions and belief-systems in the scientific community. What was that you said earlier about intent?

Change the Rules!

Abstract

Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time. Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved.

If science, by its most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates. The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a ‘‘Science of the Subjective’’ are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.

[...]

In short, the manifestation of these anomalous physical effects does not conform well to prevailing scientific criteria. Specifically, they appear to challenge such honored requisites as causal determinism, falsifiability, reductionism, objectivity, and quantifiability of the salient correlates. In some respects, they more closely resemble the category of human experience that Carl Jung labeled ‘‘acausal,’’(2) leaving us, like him, with a major problem of how to approach their study and comprehension in a scholarly fashion.

[...]

2) Intention

Meaningful human intention, desire, purpose, or need explicitly correlates with all of the laboratory-based human/machine results, and implicitly drives the FieldREG effects.(10,11) It also seems to be a major factor underlying most common CCPP experiences reported anecdotally. This property has its theoretical counterparts in the observational acts of the quantum model, in the stimulation of unconscious processing in M5, and in the filter adjustments of SFS.

Wasp, how much Jung have you read?

 

[Resume]

If it is the central problem with parapsychology research then it's a problem we would expect to have if materialism is false. Problems like this are perhaps the only tell-tale signs that would point to a philosophical problem underlying science. Science is getting in its own way and tripping over itself because materialism is false.

Bare assertion.

 

[dafydd]

Nice quote, this thought is demonstrated in my concept of a single particle as a singularity.

In the act of becoming a manifest singularity the particle in fact exhibits a duality. The particle and the forcefield or membrane from which it emanated.

Regarding personal observations of psi, I am aware of one or two events every day for which I can see no materialist/scientific explanation. Or occasions of ridiculous or comical coincidence.

Membrane? You're making this up as you go along.

 

[Resume]

Regarding personal observations of psi, I am aware of one or two events every day for which I can see no materialist/scientific explanation. Or occasions of ridiculous or comical coincidence.

What are they? Why are these coincidences "ridiculous?"

 

[dafydd]

What are they? Why are these coincidences "ridiculous?"

A result of punshhh not thinking things through.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If it is the central problem with parapsychology research then it's a problem we would expect to have if materialism is false. Problems like this are perhaps the only tell-tale signs that would point to a philosophical problem underlying science. Science is getting in its own way and tripping over itself because materialism is false. Where it stumbles and falls is where it will find gold.

The problem hinges on conflicting intentions and belief-systems in the scientific community. What was that you said earlier about intent?

Change the Rules!

Abstract

Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time. Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved.

If science, by its most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates. The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a ‘‘Science of the Subjective’’ are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.

[...]

In short, the manifestation of these anomalous physical effects does not conform well to prevailing scientific criteria. Specifically, they appear to challenge such honored requisites as causal determinism, falsifiability, reductionism, objectivity, and quantifiability of the salient correlates. In some respects, they more closely resemble the category of human experience that Carl Jung labeled ‘‘acausal,’’(2) leaving us, like him, with a major problem of how to approach their study and comprehension in a scholarly fashion.

[...]

2) Intention

Meaningful human intention, desire, purpose, or need explicitly correlates with all of the laboratory-based human/machine results, and implicitly drives the FieldREG effects.(10,11) It also seems to be a major factor underlying most common CCPP experiences reported anecdotally. This property has its theoretical counterparts in the observational acts of the quantum model, in the stimulation of unconscious processing in M5, and in the filter adjustments of SFS.

Wasp, how much Jung have you read?

Materialism is just a label placed on one type of monism that makes the assumption that no intention underlies the world. Idealism makes the assumption that intention does underlie the world. Science is only the means by which we examine what we can see in the world. It looks identical regardless of the underlying ontology. It couldn't be any other way. Monism means one set of rules and we can only examine what the set of rules is. There is no possible way to disprove materialism from within any monist system just as there is no way to disprove idealism.

If you have a way to tell what is going on with ontology then you aren't discussing a monism. I guess this bears repeating.

 

[Limbo]

Materialism is just a label placed on one type of monism that makes the assumption that no intention underlies the world. Idealism makes the assumption that intention does underlie the world. Science is only the means by which we examine what we can see in the world. It looks identical regardless of the underlying ontology. It couldn't be any other way. Monism means one set of rules and we can only examine what the set of rules is. There is no possible way to disprove materialism from within any monist system just as there is no way to disprove idealism.

If you have a way to tell what is going on with ontology then you aren't discussing a monism. I guess this bears repeating.

OK thanks.

You are looking for proof ("prove true") or disproof but I am only looking at evidence. That's all I expect. I acknowledge that there can be no scientific proof. But there can be evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of psi but there is no proof.

 

[Complexity]

...I am aware of one or two events every day for which I can see no materialist/scientific explanation. Or occasions of ridiculous or comical coincidence.

Don't worry, it happens to every guy.

You see, when a bird and a bee love each other very much...

 

[Resume]

OK thanks.

You are looking for proof or disproof but I am only looking at evidence. That's all I expect. I acknowledge that there can be no proof. But there can be evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of psi but there is no proof.

No, that's not it.

 

[The Norseman]

OK thanks.

You are looking for proof or disproof but I am only looking at evidence. That's all I expect. I acknowledge that there can be no proof. But there can be evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of psi but there is no proof.

Limbo's evidence. Confirmation bias.

To-may-toe, to-mah-to.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK thanks.

You are looking for proof or disproof but I am only looking at evidence. That's all I expect. I acknowledge that there can be no scientific proof. But there can be evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of psi but there is no proof.

No, there can't even be evidence. The only evidence is what occurs. We experience it, we describe it, we model it. That is what science does. Traditionally we have called this materialism. It's as good a label as anything else, but that doesn't tells us final answers.

This isn't an issue of evidence vs proof. There is simply a type of knowledge that we can't have. We can, however, take our examination of whatever is as far as possible; and I've got to tell you we've taken it pretty dang far. The LHC is going to press the issue much further than ever before.

The problem with psi is that the evidence is largely lacking.

 

[dafydd]

Interesting I was going to mention three (the trinity) in my last post but just held off at the last minuite and then you added it.

Perhaps I shouldn't mention four, that might be over egging it.



(don't mention five)

And the four produced five. What nonsense Limbo's post was. No wonder you lapped it up.

 

[dafydd]

No, there can't even be evidence. The only evidence is what occurs. We experience it, we describe it, we model it. That is what science does. Traditionally we have called this materialism. It's as good a label as anything else, but that doesn't tells us final answers.

This isn't an issue of evidence vs proof. There is simply a type of knowledge that we can't have. We can, however, take our examination of whatever is as far as possible; and I've got to tell you we've taken it pretty dang far. The LHC is going to press the issue much further than ever before.

The problem with psi is that the evidence is largely lacking.

Totally lacking.

 

[Limbo]

No, there can't even be evidence. The only evidence is what occurs. We experience it, we describe it, we model it. That is what science does. Traditionally we have called this materialism. It's as good a label as anything else, but that doesn't tells us final answers.

This isn't an issue of evidence vs proof. There is simply a type of knowledge that we can't have. We can, however, take our examination of whatever is as far as possible; and I've got to tell you we've taken it pretty dang far. The LHC is going to press the issue much further than ever before.

The problem with psi is that the evidence is largely lacking.

When I have a vivid vision of an unforeseeable dramatic event that comes to pass before my eyes several moments later, I regard that as verified subjective evidence in favor of psi. I appreciate if you have a different opinion on the matter. But I would say that you can't even begin to imagine what it would be like for you to walk a mile in my shoes. In terms of subjective evidence alone I have plenty of personal reasons to reject any belief-system or philosophy that isn't compatible with psi. You could too.

When the body of parapsychological evidence is examined impartially, a reasonable observer could conclude that there is sufficient evidence to accept psi. Not necessarily that psi is "proven true". That same observer could then go home and learn techniques of eliciting and testing his own psi. You could too.

 

[The Norseman]

When the body of parapsychological evidence is examined impartially, a reasonable observer could conclude that there is sufficient evidence to accept psi.

What evidence is that, exactly? All the evidence which you (and your Christian mystic buddies) are saying that cannot be shown to anyone but a true believer due to some seriously negative waves emanating from all those horrible questioning skeptics?

 

[Resume]

When I have a vivid vision of an unforeseeable dramatic scene that comes to pass several moments later, I regard that as verified subjective evidence in favor of psi. I appreciate if you have a different opinion on the matter. But I would say that you can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to walk a mile in my shoes. In terms of subjective evidence alone I have plenty of personal reasons to reject any belief-system or philosophy that isn't compatible with psi. You could too.

When the body of parapsychological evidence is examined impartially, a reasonable observer could conclude that there is sufficient evidence to accept psi. That same observer could then go home and learn techniques of eliciting and testing his own psi. You could too.

Your personal experiences are anecdotes, claims for which you must provide evidence or admit they are nothing more than claims. Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. As has been suggested myriad times, a protocol could likely be devised to test your claims, but you never seem to be interested in that; rather you invoke all manner of special pleading in avoidance. This, like it or not, says much about your claims.