Which is perfectly valid in an informal discussion, so long as the authority is an actual authority on the subject.
Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?
- Thread starter Fudbucker
- Start date
Which is perfectly valid in an informal discussion, so long as the authority is an actual authority on the subject.
It's not sarcasm. Your points don't make any sense. I don't know if you're trolling, or just having a hard time with this. Not my problem, and not worth my time.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Bolding by Fudbucker
You 'forgot' to make "bare" bold.
If only you could answer the question for substantiation.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I see so the fact that it is all hypothetical and speculative means you make assertions without evidence and you suggest I am trolling.
You don't understand grammar and what a dependent sentence is to a 'hypothetical scalar field', you don't know the difference between speculation and what is evidence.
I believe you just Google multiverse looking for the words that support your position.
Did you read Guth's book, yes or no?
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
Thanks for the links Dinwar. Lots more there that you seem to have missed though.
A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ES
Sherwood, Simon; Roe, C.A.P Programme
Journal of consciousness studies
Combined effect size estimates for both sets of studies suggest that judges could correctly identify target materials more often than would be expected by chance using dream mentation.
We Ask, Does Psi Exist? But is this the right question and do we really want an answer anyway?
From the Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 10, numbers 6-7 / Adrian Parker
It is agreed that some form of 'anomaly' has been established but there is no consensus about its nature.
(…the research suggests that) …if psi is real, it is not just an anomaly but has true information content and dynamic effects.
ESP in the Ganzfeld: Analysis of a Debate
Author: Palmer, John
Source: Journal of Consciousness Studies
The reviewer's first conclusion is that the aggregate database does provide evidence for a genuine psi effect. However, heterogeneity of results across experimenters indicates that the phenomenon is not easily replicable. The second conclusion is that conventional alternative explanations offered for the observed results tend to be conceivable, but even critics sometimes agree that they are implausible
Fantastic Memories: The Relevance of Research into Eyewitness Testimony and False Memories for Reports of Anomalous Experiences
Author: French, Christopher
Source: Journal of Consciousness Studies
Attempts to show a direct link between tendency to report anomalous experiences and susceptibility to false memories have had only limited success to date.
Must the 'Magic' of Psychokinesis Hinder Precise Scientific Measurement?
Author: Pallikari, Fotini
Source: Journal of Consciousness Studies
Although evidential reports of paranormal phenomena (psi for short) have been accumulating over the last 50 years, skepticism within the scientific community at large against the very existence of psi has not retreated in proportion. Strong criticism has been voiced and it is worth taking it under serious consideration while attempting to understand psi. This paper argues that the evidence can withstand this serious criticism.
Quantum and Consciousness: A Cognitive Subsystems Perspective
Author: Clarke, Chris
Source: Journal of Consciousness Studies
A survey is presented of possible connections between quantum theory and consciousness that have been proposed in the past and those that have now opened as a result of work on cognitive subsystems of the brain in the past 10 years. It is argued that, in the light of such work and in contrast to speculations prior to it, these connections can now be seen as necessary and their investigation as feasible.
I will admit…that all of the above is just evidence, from your very own sources. Doubtless you and the rest will find some way to establish that the data is flawed, or the researchers are idiots, or the results were manipulated, or perhaps the editors of the journal in question were all really depressed the days those articles were submitted and were rubber-stamping every submission that appeared on their desk, or perhaps the authors of the studies blackmailed the editors into printing the studies by using incriminating photo’s of the editors having sex with small dogs and various farm animals, or perhaps it can be established that all the authors of the studies were, like Maaneli, merely ignorant, stupid, and naïve graduate students who couldn’t possible be expected to know what they are talking about because, well, all they’ve got is a master’s degree in theoretical physics so how could they possibly know anything about theoretical physics?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
The better explanation is that these 'researchers' are believers already, they are biased, and do their utmost best to suggest something to be there.
Have you noticed they never demonstrate the claimed reality of their 'findings' though?
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
...sorry, I completely forgot that one. Quite obviously the Journal of Consciousness Studies was fooled into publishing a bunch of reports by researchers who have no qualifications beyond their Ouija boards and crystal collections. I expect that when the folks at the Journal asked for academic qualifications the authors must have blackmailed them or something.
How lucky we are to have you among us Daylightstar. Please don't hesitate to post any brilliant insights you may stumble across in the future.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Considering the post you quoted, I would say there was no need whatsoever for blackmail
Daylightstar
Philosopher
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
The first serious studies in ESP phenomenon date back to the 1960s when this type of study was fairly common at a number of universities. These studies faded in the early 1970s because of the lack of positive results.
If you are trying to claim something like mind reading then you have a problem. Getting information from one person to another is not possible without three things: medium, ordered form, and abstraction.
No medium has ever been found that would transmit information between two people other than the obvious senses of hearing, vision, and touch.
Information must be in an ordered format. The obvious examples are things like sentence structure and grammar for written or spoken language. These examples have abstraction in terms of specific symbols or sounds.
The problem is that normal communication is based on a learned language. So, how could two people communicate telepathically unless they shared a telepathic language? And, if they did share a language what would the abstraction be in terms of telepathy? There's no sound and there's no vision so what is the form of the abstraction? Also, if it were the case that people were born with some kind of built-in abstraction then this would be a communication form that everyone would know and use. Nothing like this has ever been seen. The closest we get to built-in abstraction is recognition of facial expressions to denote emotional state. But this is also a question. Why would you need recognition of expressions if you had some built-in telepathy to get the same information? I'm not aware of any claim that gets around these issues.
There is also specific evidence against some psychic claims. For example, there was a time when no one knew how to read Egyptian hieroglyphics. Notice what didn't happen. No one figured out how to read them based on psychic impressions from inanimate objects. So, we can rule that out. No one figured out how to read them by contacting a deceased person who wrote in these forms. So, we can rule that out. No one figured out how to read them by getting information from some kind of super-mind or global consciousness. So, we can rule that out. And no one figured them out based on an innate intuition of abstract encoding. So, we can rule that out. Notice, for example, that no one figured them out from dreams much as Edgar Cayce never located Atlantis.
The failure to translate hieroglyphics from the 5th century AD until 1799 when the Rosetta Stone was discovered is an extremely strong proof against certain claimed psychic phenomenon.
Last edited:
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
The best article I can think of was this one from James E. Alcock. This was published in the Journal of Consciousness in 2003:
http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf
The entire article is 22 pages long so I won't quote much of it. But, on the first page, you can see that Alcock is open to testing of PSI phenomenon.
Most psychologists, eschewing paranormal and supernatural claims, have by and large ignored such experiences, while para-psychologists, on the other hand, give scant attention to normal explanations and focus instead on the paranormal possibilities. Thus, what should be of common interest to both psychologists and parapsychologists instead falls through the cracks, with one camp persuaded that the paranormal is real and the explanation for many such experiences, and the other camp rejecting the paranormal while also ignoring the experience.
In this paper, he lists twelve reasons to be doubtful that PSI exists. I'll only list a few of these:
3. Failure to achieve replication
Because parapsychologists have never been able to produce a successful experiment that neutral scientists, with the appropriate skill, knowledge and equipment, can replicate, some parapsychologists have gone so far as to argue that the criterion of replicability should not be applied to psi research[...]
In sum, parapsychologists have never been able to produce a demonstration that can be reliably replicated by researchers in general, and failures to replicate are either ignored, explained away or interpreted as evidence for the existence of arbitrary properties of psi
5. Unfalsifiability
6. Unpredictability
7. Lack of progress
Not only is there a problem of general inconsistency in the data, as discussed above, there has not been any real improvement in this situation over time. Despite the use of modern random event generators and sophisticated statistical analyses, parapsychologists are no closer to making a convincing scientific case for psi than was Joseph Banks Rhine back in the 1930s.
9. Reliance on statistical decision-making
Because of the failure to be able to produce a straightforward demonstration of psi ability, such as might be the case if a psychic could reliably predict winning lottery numbers, or if, as Gardner (1957) suggested many years ago, a psychic could cause a fine needle, which is carefully balanced on another needle and housed under a Bell jar from which the air had been evacuated, to rotate, para-psychologists at the more scientific end of the spectrum came to depend more and more upon statistical analyses to demonstrate their putative phenomena. With such an approach, subjects make guesses or make mental attempts to influence random event generators, and then their success or failure is judged by a statistical comparison with what would be expected by chance alone.
Can you name anything published since 2003 that would negate the criticisms found in this paper? Do you know of any experiment that can be replicated for example? Do you know of any experiment that has a clear result without having to rely on statistical interpretation? You are welcome to read the paper and refute it if you can.
Last edited:
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,095
It needs to be made clear that by "replication" you mean replication by experimenters who don't already believe in the psi hypothesis. Investigators who believe in psi seem to have little trouble replicating each other's results. Yet, for some reason, skeptical scientists rarely or never produce successful replications.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Psi works just like gravity then, you have to believe in it for it to work?
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Yes. I think that about sums it up.
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
I suppose it depends on the methodology. If you have rigorous test conditions and proper analysis of the results with everything documented there is no reason why you couldn't get it published in actual journal.
Last edited:
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
It's actually a little more complicated than that. Some of these are noted by Alcock.
The psi-experimenter effect. This is the idea that some experimenters act as catalysts for PSI phenomenon. The researcher is like nitrous oxide injection boosting the test subject's PSI horsepower. This suggests that a researcher of high psi-suppressive ability would be unable to get a positive result no matter how correct the experiments were.
The positive aura effect. This is a weaker version of the same effect that shows up as a statistical improvement rather than a large boost. It suggests that a positive, open-minded attitude improves the results.
The psi-suppression effect. An anomalously negative result could be caused by a change in the local environment that actively prevents PSI phenomenon from occurring.
The psi-decline effect. If early positive results decline after a time then this is evidence of psychic fatigue.
The psi-warming effect. If early negative results improve after a time then this is evidence of the need to warm up or stretch to have optimum performance.
The psi-partner effect. If you only get good results with a particular partner it is probably due to greater PSI compatibility with that person.
The locality effect. If you keep getting negative results you may have failed to conduct your tests close enough to a ley line. Even better would be where two ley lines cross.
The Feng shui effect. Negative results could be caused by an incorrect placement of equipment in your lab which causes a disruption of the flow of life forces.
The psi-blessing effect. A temporary increase in positive results could be caused by a variation in the local environment that is more conducive to psychic phenomenon. This is analogous to the way that a temperature inversion can allow sound to carry farther.
The psi-fog effect. A temporary negative result could be caused by variations in the local environment which block psychic effects like fog blocking sight.
The psi-unaware effect. Some people exhibit psychic ability only unconsciously so a lot of negative results is to be expected.
The indigo effect. Exceptionally strong psychic children will often prevent detection of their PSI abilities as an instinctive defense mechanism.
A good parapsychologist should be familiar with these effects so that the resulting data can be properly
Last edited:
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,095
Indeed. Data points that have been influenced by negative factors are clearly invalid and must be removed from the data set in order for the analysis to be valid. The logic is so simple I'm surprised I never thought of it before.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Donn
Philosopher
Wow, some list. In order to properly demonstrate psi, therefore, one must have only the psychic, his baubles and a sycophant to observe and
Easy. It's a wonder that we are not swamped in psi abilities. Right now, I'd really like to open my curtain just a bit. I don't want to get up. I'll bet there's a skeptic in the woodwork. Grrrr.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Yeah. Bored with you, Nonpareil. This will be my last post responding to you on these matters unless you actually start conversing honestly.
I quite have. Either way, insurmountable barriers for any observer to overcome were pointed out and you tried to hand wave them away by holding to your attempt to sneak in changes to the premises of the discussion. It's hard to tell if it's just a mistake or dishonest, but that you keep utterly failing to defend your interpretation in the face of opposition rather points to the latter.
1) I did not bring up the uncertainty principle in the first place.
2) The observer effect was not brought up as something that made something undetectable.
3) What actually happened there, like was actually said originally, was that I was applying the logic behind the arguments used by each side to a remarkably similar and far more demonstrable statement, in an effort to help you see how ridiculous your argument actually is, when used like you've been using it, while, at the same time, pointing out what had actually been said. Again.
You really haven't. You've invoked magic, tried to sneak in changes to the premises, and tried to fight a strawman... or several, really, but you've not actually shown that the barriers named even can be overcome. In addition to that, you've tried to redefine multiple terms and engaged in quite a bit of conflation and general sloppiness in your word use and concept use.
False. Unless, of course, you're trying to misuse words, yet again. Meaningful for what purpose? Meaningful for what choices we make, including about what to accept as likely the case? Sure, your attempt at redefining the playing field is applicable to that. Meaningful for determining what actually is and isn't the case, rather than what's reasonable to believe? Really not applicable. Just like before, incidentally, you're missing something very, very important. Why would the whatever in question be undetectable? Still, it's worth remembering that this started out with demonstrable, much as you've tried your best to conflate the terms.
Either way, how you're using "real" is something of a case in point for how you're trying to get others to agree that the objective is dependent on the subjective.
Oh, and on the subject of true and false, since I don't plan to continue this discussion, it's worth pointing out that true and false can only be reasonably be considered a dichotomy if the playing field is limited to cases where the value actually applies in the first place, as I had generously granted your statements on the matter. Making a general statement like "If something cannot be shown to be true, it is false." is still nothing short of nonsensical without appropriate qualifiers, though. Applying the statement as it was made to the question "What's for dinner?" for example, should demonstrate that well enough. The question, not the answers to the question, by the way, to preempt what would be a rather foolish objection. Also, saying that there were exactly 1,025,871 Tyrannosaurus Rex adults that lived isn't something that can be shown to be true, given that the data is sadly, as Dinwar noted, lost. By your logic, it's false. And so is every other number, despite that we "know" that some number existed. You should easily be able to see the huge problem there. Oh, and incidentally, the appropriate qualifiers utterly rob it of the power to be used the way you wanted it to be used.
In fair part because your attempt to sneak in changes to the premises made such rather pointless... and because it actually is really, really easy to come up with examples, if you spare such even a moment's unbiased thought. Too small an effect is the most obvious one, though. If it's something that only can occur somewhere too far from observers to be able to observe anything about it, that's another easy one. If we move back to demonstrable from detectable, a whole lot more possibilities open up, as should be expected given that demonstrating that something actually is reasonable to believe to be the case involves a whole lot more than just being able to obtain data that is in some way affected by it. Deceitful "god" speculations are an easy example there, though the example is limited to the group of people that jt512 was talking about in context, given that it could be impossible, even in principle, for any of us to demonstrate that it is or is not the case. The ad hoc claim made by a number of ESP supporters that disbelief can cancel out the effects can easily fit in there, too, especially given that a number of them don't quite accept the linearity of cause and effect through time. If those things were actually the case, even future disbelief could potentially cause a lack of demonstrable effect. Then there's the possibilities where an effect is just really similar to other, far more readily demonstrable effects. Mothers getting a bad feeling about the health of one of their children, for example. There are a number of fairly easily demonstrable causes for this phenomena. That doesn't mean that some form of ESP couldn't also be a potential cause. It does mean that if ESP actually was involved in such, there's a pretty good chance that it isn't really demonstrable on any practical level as such, given the number of other, much more probable, answers available.
Either way, if something exists, but is not demonstrable, we obviously don't have reason to believe that it actually is the case. We can certainly still have reason to believe that it could potentially be the case, though.
Gone over already. Yes, by any actual observer bound by the rules of reality.
I'm understanding what you've actually said. I'm also understanding what was said that started all this. Remember the "it could exist, but not be demonstrable" bit? Add in a bit of context and the in principle turns into in principle for us, but still works even as a more general statement. It works, for that matter, right up until the point where magic is invoked to overcome the limitations inherent in any observer bound by reality's limitations.
And I'm saying that you're trying to conflate various concepts and dishonestly try to claim that the only allowable concept to use is one that was never a viable interpretation in the first place. Which you are.
Rather, it remains quite unavoidable, given the arguments that you've actually been using and how you've been using them.
I quite have. Either way, insurmountable barriers for any observer to overcome were pointed out and you tried to hand wave them away by holding to your attempt to sneak in changes to the premises of the discussion. It's hard to tell if it's just a mistake or dishonest, but that you keep utterly failing to defend your interpretation in the face of opposition rather points to the latter.
1) I did not bring up the uncertainty principle in the first place.
2) The observer effect was not brought up as something that made something undetectable.
3) What actually happened there, like was actually said originally, was that I was applying the logic behind the arguments used by each side to a remarkably similar and far more demonstrable statement, in an effort to help you see how ridiculous your argument actually is, when used like you've been using it, while, at the same time, pointing out what had actually been said. Again.
You really haven't. You've invoked magic, tried to sneak in changes to the premises, and tried to fight a strawman... or several, really, but you've not actually shown that the barriers named even can be overcome. In addition to that, you've tried to redefine multiple terms and engaged in quite a bit of conflation and general sloppiness in your word use and concept use.
False. Unless, of course, you're trying to misuse words, yet again. Meaningful for what purpose? Meaningful for what choices we make, including about what to accept as likely the case? Sure, your attempt at redefining the playing field is applicable to that. Meaningful for determining what actually is and isn't the case, rather than what's reasonable to believe? Really not applicable. Just like before, incidentally, you're missing something very, very important. Why would the whatever in question be undetectable? Still, it's worth remembering that this started out with demonstrable, much as you've tried your best to conflate the terms.
Either way, how you're using "real" is something of a case in point for how you're trying to get others to agree that the objective is dependent on the subjective.
Oh, and on the subject of true and false, since I don't plan to continue this discussion, it's worth pointing out that true and false can only be reasonably be considered a dichotomy if the playing field is limited to cases where the value actually applies in the first place, as I had generously granted your statements on the matter. Making a general statement like "If something cannot be shown to be true, it is false." is still nothing short of nonsensical without appropriate qualifiers, though. Applying the statement as it was made to the question "What's for dinner?" for example, should demonstrate that well enough. The question, not the answers to the question, by the way, to preempt what would be a rather foolish objection. Also, saying that there were exactly 1,025,871 Tyrannosaurus Rex adults that lived isn't something that can be shown to be true, given that the data is sadly, as Dinwar noted, lost. By your logic, it's false. And so is every other number, despite that we "know" that some number existed. You should easily be able to see the huge problem there. Oh, and incidentally, the appropriate qualifiers utterly rob it of the power to be used the way you wanted it to be used.
In fair part because your attempt to sneak in changes to the premises made such rather pointless... and because it actually is really, really easy to come up with examples, if you spare such even a moment's unbiased thought. Too small an effect is the most obvious one, though. If it's something that only can occur somewhere too far from observers to be able to observe anything about it, that's another easy one. If we move back to demonstrable from detectable, a whole lot more possibilities open up, as should be expected given that demonstrating that something actually is reasonable to believe to be the case involves a whole lot more than just being able to obtain data that is in some way affected by it. Deceitful "god" speculations are an easy example there, though the example is limited to the group of people that jt512 was talking about in context, given that it could be impossible, even in principle, for any of us to demonstrate that it is or is not the case. The ad hoc claim made by a number of ESP supporters that disbelief can cancel out the effects can easily fit in there, too, especially given that a number of them don't quite accept the linearity of cause and effect through time. If those things were actually the case, even future disbelief could potentially cause a lack of demonstrable effect. Then there's the possibilities where an effect is just really similar to other, far more readily demonstrable effects. Mothers getting a bad feeling about the health of one of their children, for example. There are a number of fairly easily demonstrable causes for this phenomena. That doesn't mean that some form of ESP couldn't also be a potential cause. It does mean that if ESP actually was involved in such, there's a pretty good chance that it isn't really demonstrable on any practical level as such, given the number of other, much more probable, answers available.
Either way, if something exists, but is not demonstrable, we obviously don't have reason to believe that it actually is the case. We can certainly still have reason to believe that it could potentially be the case, though.
Gone over already. Yes, by any actual observer bound by the rules of reality.
I'm understanding what you've actually said. I'm also understanding what was said that started all this. Remember the "it could exist, but not be demonstrable" bit? Add in a bit of context and the in principle turns into in principle for us, but still works even as a more general statement. It works, for that matter, right up until the point where magic is invoked to overcome the limitations inherent in any observer bound by reality's limitations.
And I'm saying that you're trying to conflate various concepts and dishonestly try to claim that the only allowable concept to use is one that was never a viable interpretation in the first place. Which you are.
Rather, it remains quite unavoidable, given the arguments that you've actually been using and how you've been using them.
Last edited: