Monroe Institute

[PixyMisa]

(you're triangle example is poor by the way, since triangles are defined at three sided. not a great analogy. If someone said they saw a four sided triangle we could just tell them they are wrong, because it is a logical impossibility that they are right.)

Correct. And psi is a physical impossibility. We know that psi events do not happen, and when people make such claims we can just tell them that they are wrong.

 

[Waterman]

There's an interesting profile of leading neurologist V.S. Ramachandran in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jan/30/observer-profile-vs-ramachandran

I was particularly struck by this:

What they [recent discoveries about neurons] appear to tell us is that humans are first and foremost mimics. We make ourselves up as we go along by improvising from what we see. This model also suggests the self is in dynamic interaction with otherness, both copying behaviour and projecting its emotions on to others, which is the basis for the vital human quality of empathy. (Ramachandran speculated in 2000 that autism was caused by deficient mirror neurons and medical research is now going in this direction.)

It's Ramachandran's contention that self-reflection was formed somewhere in this process of self-projection. The mirror-neuron system enables us to see another person's point of view, what's known as an allocentric view, as opposed to an egocentric one. Ramachandran suggests that "at some point in evolution, this system turned back and allowed you to create an allocentric view of yourself. This is, I claim, the dawn of self-awareness".

Very interesting, this would also fit with what little I know about feral children. Being raised in isolation without a 'mirror' would affect development particualrly thier ability to relate to others. Very interesting. It also fits with baby mimicing the facial expression of the adults they interact with. Not conclusive mind you but the pieces fit.

 

[Arouet]

Correct. And psi is a physical impossibility. We know that psi events do not happen, and when people make such claims we can just tell them that they are wrong.

C'mon, you know that's not the same thing. One is definitional. The other evidential. We decide what a triangle is. We don't decide whether psi is real. Why take this position as a skeptic. Why not just challenge the reliability of the evidence that is out there, rather than pretend it doesn't exist?

Proponents always accuse us skeptics of being dogmatic. I always tell them its not true for most. Please don't help make a liar out of me!

 

[PixyMisa]

C'mon, you know that's not the same thing.

Which is why I said they're not the same thing - just very very close.

One is definitional. The other evidential. We decide what a triangle is. We don't decide whether psi is real. Why take this position as a skeptic.

I don't. Never said I did.

We don't decide that psi is not real. We know psi is not real.

Why not just challenge the reliability of the evidence that is out there, rather than pretend it doesn't exist?

Because it doesn't exist.

Proponents always accuse us skeptics of being dogmatic. I always tell them its not true for most. Please don't help make a liar out of me!

I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being honest. The evidence is in. There's no such thing as psi.

All we can do with stories of psi is point out why they are worthless. There is no question whether they are worthless.

If someone comes to us with a story that the Earth is flat, we don't consider the value of that as evidence. They're just wrong.

(And if you come to us with a story that the Earth is round, we don't consider the value of that as evidence either.)

 

[Arouet]

I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being honest. The evidence is in. There's no such thing as psi.

That may be true - bit that's not the same thing as saying that there isn't evidence that may be suggestive of it- even though the conclusion turns out to be wrong.

All we can do with stories of psi is point out why they are worthless. There is no question whether they are worthless.

Well, I might disagree about there being a question, I think there is. But that's besides the point here: how do we figure out if there is psi or not? By examining the evidence! So let's just call it what it is: evidence.

I think what you really mean when you say there is no evidence that psi exists is that there is no reliable evidence that psi exists. Take the ganzfeld experiments. Are we doubting that the results are evidence? Of course not. But we we interpret the evidence, and see how reliable it is and how it supports the hypothesis. Let's say we examine all that evidence and we find it lacking. Does it suddenly become not-evidence? No. The evidence simply doesn't support the conclusion.

that's all I'm trying to say in this semantic discussion.

If someone comes to us with a story that the Earth is flat, we don't consider the value of that as evidence. They're just wrong.

Of course we consider the value of that as evidence. We just don't need to take very long to dismiss it as completely unreliable because we know of all sorts of other evidence that contradicts it.

(And if you come to us with a story that the Earth is round, we don't consider the value of that as evidence either.)

Of course you would. Someone reports that they were sailing, and watched as the earth curved at the horizon. That's not evidence of the earth being round? Of course it is.

I saw the guy run that red light! Is this not evidence of the guy running the red light? Of course it is.

What is a business record other than a story? We use this type of evidence all the time.

I think you've confused the weight or probative value" of the evidence with the evidence itself. When a court excludes hearsay evidence, it does so because it deems such evidence unreliable, not because it doesn't consider it to be evidence at all. You're confusing whether a particular piece of evidence supports a particular proposition with it being evidence itself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I might disagree about there being a question, I think there is. But that's besides the point here: how do we figure out if there is psi or not? By examining the evidence! So let's just call it what it is: evidence.

But what does a story tell us about psi? One way or the other, it tells us nothing at all. It's not evidence.

I think what you really mean when you say there is no evidence that psi exists is that there is no reliable evidence that psi exists. Take the ganzfeld experiments. Are we doubting that the results are evidence? Of course not. But we we interpret the evidence, and see how reliable it is and how it supports the hypothesis. Let's say we examine all that evidence and we find it lacking. Does it suddenly become not-evidence? No. The evidence simply doesn't support the conclusion.

Exactly. At that point, it's not evidence for psi. It's evidence for poor experimental design.

that's all I'm trying to say in this semantic discussion.

I agree that it's a fine semantic point, and not really key to the discussion.

I think you've confused the weight or probative value" of the evidence with the evidence itself. When a court excludes hearsay evidence, it does so because it deems such evidence unreliable, not because it doesn't consider it to be evidence at all. You're confusing whether a particular piece of evidence supports a particular proposition with it being evidence itself.

My point is, this isn't a court, and the artificial rules of courts are irrelevant. In the real world, you have information. Information is only evidence with respect to a given hypothesis. If the information does not favour a given hypothesis over the null hypothesis (or over some other specific hypothesis), it is not evidence for that hypothesis.

There is, upon examination, no evidence for psi.

 

[steenkh]

But what does a story tell us about psi? One way or the other, it tells us nothing at all. It's not evidence.

Would it not be more correct to say that it is not credible evidence?

There are many situations in our daily life where we accept uncorroborated stories as evidence, mostly because we deem them plausible. A story about psi is not credible, and that I think that is why you do not want to see it as evidence.

We could rule out all evidence that is not credible, and say that we do not regard it as evidence, which is pretty much the normal usage, but it also means that something can be evidence in some situations and not in others. I think it is simpler that evidence is always evidence, but the credibility can change, but I admit that it can be tedious to insert "credible" in front of every use of valid evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

Would it not be more correct to say that it is not credible evidence?

No, I think it's less correct.

It's not flat out wrong, but I think it's more correct to say it's not evidence at all.

If someone claims the world is flat, which of the following statements is a more accurate repesentation of the situation, and less likely to lead to misunderstsandings?

A: This is evidence that the world is flat.
B: This is not evidence that the world is flat.

There are many situations in our daily life where we accept uncorroborated stories as evidence, mostly because we deem them plausible. A story about psi is not credible, and that I think that is why you do not want to see it as evidence.

Well, it's true that it's not credible. But more than that, it's a claim of something established as impossible.

We could rule out all evidence that is not credible, and say that we do not regard it as evidence, which is pretty much the normal usage, but it also means that something can be evidence in some situations and not in others.

Yes, exactly. A footprint is just a footprint, unless you are using it to evaluate one hypothesis with respect to another.

So yes, something can be evidence in some situations and not in others.

 

[steenkh]

Well, it's true that it's not credible. But more than that, it's a claim of something established as impossible.

Is that not a dangerous position? Would this not have been said about quantum entanglement before it was discovered?

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, no. Nobody had established that quantum entanglement was impossible.

Once something has been established as fact, contrary claims are not contrary evidence. They're just noise.

 

[Arouet]

Well, no. Nobody had established that quantum entanglement was impossible.

Look, I don't believe in psi, but when has it (it being a collection of a bunch of different apparent phenomena) been established as impossible? Maybe not probable, but impossible? No one assumes that our current understanding of physical laws are complete. And it is impossible to rule out other rules that may play that allow psi.

Take God. I'm an atheist, but will I say that God is impossible? Of course not. I don't believe in God, but there may be a god. And if there is such a deity then who knows what is possible? That puts a lot on the table.

As a skeptic there is no need to go so far as to label things impossible (with the exception of logical impossibilities of course). Let's just look at the claims and see if they measure up!

 

[PixyMisa]

Look, I don't believe in psi, but when has it (it being a collection of a bunch of different apparent phenomena) been established as impossible? Maybe not probable, but impossible? No one assumes that our current understanding of physical laws are complete. And it is impossible to rule out other rules that may play that allow psi.

There is no possible mechanism for the sending or receiving of information (much less physical effects) that is typically claimed for psi, and no possible carrier. You'd have to junk the entire standard model, relativity, and quantum electrodynamics to make psi work. And I mean throw them out and rewrite them.

The standard model, relativity, and QED may be incomplete, but they are not wrong on that level. Nor is our knowledge of neurology and biophysics.

If someone is sitting in an empty, pitch-dark, lead-lined vault a mile below the surface of the Earth, with no electricity available, no signals from the surface at all, and they claim to be watching television, they are not watching television.

Take God. I'm an atheist, but will I say that God is impossible? Of course not. I don't believe in God, but there may be a god. And if there is such a deity then who knows what is possible? That puts a lot on the table.

No, it doesn't put a lot on the table. It puts absolutely everything on the table... Except for any possible way to distinguish between hypotheses.

As a skeptic there is no need to go so far as to label things impossible (with the exception of logical impossibilities of course). Let's just look at the claims and see if they measure up!

They don't. First, there's no evidence. Second, it's impossible.

 

[Arouet]

There is no possible mechanism for the sending or receiving of information (much less physical effects) that is typically claimed for psi, and no possible carrier. You'd have to junk the entire standard model, relativity, and quantum electrodynamics to make psi work. And I mean throw them out and rewrite them.

Why does this necessarily follow? What if the mechanism doesn't involve those mechanisms, but involves a parallel mechanism? What if there is a way to reconcile psi with our current knowledge? Again, not saying any of those are true, but why go so far as to say its impossible? We can't possibly know that. All we can do is deal in probabilities.

The standard model, relativity, and QED may be incomplete, but they are not wrong on that level. Nor is our knowledge of neurology and biophysics.

And if they were wrong or incomplete on that level, would we necessarily know? The best we can say is that there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is unlikely. We can't say: there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is impossible.

No, it doesn't put a lot on the table. It puts absolutely everything on the table... Except for any possible way to distinguish between hypotheses.

Sure it puts everything on the table. Then we have to look at the evidence. But our reasons for rejecting the evidence can't merely be: "you're wrong because its impossible". You'll agree with me that that's not skepticism.

They don't. First, there's no evidence. Second, it's impossible.

Sure but I'd simply phrase it as: the evidence in favour of psi is not sufficient to draw the conclusion they want us to draw.

With all due respect, I don't think your position here is skeptical.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why does this necessarily follow? What if the mechanism doesn't involve those mechanisms, but involves a parallel mechanism?

There can't be a parallel mechanism. That's ruled out by quantum mechanics. It would require subatomic particles to have additional properties beyond the ones we know about; if that were true, they would behave very differently - the Pauli Exclusion Principle would produce drastically different results if electrons had more properties, for example, regardless of what those properties were.

It's impossible.

What if there is a way to reconcile psi with our current knowledge?

That's easy: Psi doesn't exist. There, reconciled.

Again, not saying any of those are true, but why go so far as to say its impossible?

Because it's impossible.

We can't possibly know that.

We can know that; we do know that.

And if they were wrong or incomplete on that level, would we necessarily know?

If they were wrong on that level, we wouldn't even exist. All of physics and chemistry and every other science would by drastically different; life as we know it would be impossible, stars and planets as we know them would be unable to form.

The best we can say is that there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is unlikely. We can't say: there is no known mechanism for psi and therefore it is impossible.

As I've explained, it's not that there is no known mechanism. It's that we know there's no mechanism.

Sure it puts everything on the table. Then we have to look at the evidence.

No. If everything is possible, no amount of evidence can lead you to any conclusion.

But our reasons for rejecting the evidence can't merely be: "you're wrong because its impossible". You'll agree with me that that's not skepticism.

If something is impossible, like psi, then it is precisely skepticism.

Sure but I'd simply phrase it as: the evidence in favour of psi is not sufficient to draw the conclusion they want us to draw.

There's no such evidence in the first place, so sure, it's insufficient.

 

[Arouet]

I think we've taken this about as far as we can go here. I don't agree with your take on this.

 

[jfish]

I've read over 1,400 NDE accounts and many of them report seeing things in an out of body state that they couldn't observe otherwise. For example, one person had an NDE during a car accident. The person says he observed a rooftop bar on a nearby hotel. I have a friend who had an OBE while riding in a car. She says at some point her consciousness was outside the car briefly. I have another friend who reports that he was in a bar in Arizona with a friend when a man came up to them, pulled out a gun and tried to fire it (it misfired). My friend reports that when the gun was pulled and he thought his life was in danger, he experienced an OBE.

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified. Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something. When I shared the published report about two individuals at the Monroe Institute having simultaneous consciousness experiences outside their bodies, the response was it was imaginary. There isn't any point in my putting the effort into sharing these things if they are going to be rejected out of hand. I had hoped some people might be sufficiently interested to undertake some research on their own. I don't get the impression anyone wants to spend $20 and purchase Mindsight (the book on blind NDEs and OBEs).

Last Tuesday I had a group of people at my house. One had just come from an MC2 program at the Monroe Institute. That particular program is intended to teach people how to focus energy. She reported on some of the things that happened there - accelerated seed growth, lighting light bulbs and even some bending of spoons. Two other participants talked about their OBEs. I have no reason to doubt them but I don't have any proof to offer that they aren't making it up.

If you want more anecdotal reports that include references to verifiable things that were seen, purchase one of William Buhlman's books. Again, I expect that some will reject all this as being ficitious rather than entertain the possibility that there is truth here and that truth points to something too wonderous to conceive. I still pursue my path to experiencing something unique so that I might come to know rather than simply believe.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've read over 1,400 NDE accounts and many of them report seeing things in an out of body state that they couldn't observe otherwise. For example, one person had an NDE during a car accident. The person says he observed a rooftop bar on a nearby hotel. I have a friend who had an OBE while riding in a car. She says at some point her consciousness was outside the car briefly. I have another friend who reports that he was in a bar in Arizona with a friend when a man came up to them, pulled out a gun and tried to fire it (it misfired). My friend reports that when the gun was pulled and he thought his life was in danger, he experienced an OBE.

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified.

Exactly.

Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something.

When you're claiming that the stories point to something physically impossible, we'd be stupid not to require verifiable evidence.

When I shared the published report about two individuals at the Monroe Institute having simultaneous consciousness experiences outside their bodies, the response was it was imaginary. There isn't any point in my putting the effort into sharing these things if they are going to be rejected out of hand.

That's what we keep telling you. Stories are worthless. You need to provide actual evidence.

Last Tuesday I had a group of people at my house. One had just come from an MC2 program at the Monroe Institute. That particular program is intended to teach people how to focus energy.

Which is itself completely meaningless.

She reported on some of the things that happened there - accelerated seed growth

Evidence?

lighting light bulbs

Evidence?

and even some bending of spoons.

Bending spoons? That's a trivial conjuring trick.

Two other participants talked about their OBEs. I have no reason to doubt them but I don't have any proof to offer that they aren't making it up.

We're not asking for proof, we're asking for any evidence at all.

If you want more anecdotal reports that include references to verifiable things that were seen, purchase one of William Buhlman's books.

We don't want anecdotal reports at all. We want evidence.

Again, I expect that some will reject all this as being ficitious rather than entertain the possibility that there is truth here and that truth points to something too wonderous to conceive.

Sorry, that's just drivel.

Show us some evidence, then we'll consider the possibility that there might be something worth examing. Actually, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that if you show us something purporting to be evidence, we'll show you improper experimental design or improper use of statistics, but at least we can all learn something from that.

Stories are worthless.

I still pursue my path to experiencing something unique so that I might come to know rather than simply believe.

That's not a path.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think we've taken this about as far as we can go here. I don't agree with your take on this.

There's two points here.

One is semantic - what we mean by evidence and impossible. That's a question of common definitions; I am pointing out that my usage, while less pedantic, is more didactic.

The other is scientific and incontrovertible: Psi is at odds with known, thoroughly established science in every way imaginable. If psi is real, all of science is wrong. Since all of science is not wrong, psi is not real.

 

[Resume]

The problem with recounting these reports is that they can't be independently verified. Some participants in this thread require verifiable evidence before even granting the reports point to something. .

Well of course. The accounts you relate are similar in effect to every anecdote I've ever heard from a paranormal enthusiast. They simply cannot be verified.

"Trust me," I'm asked.

No.

 

[Pixel42]

An interesting interview with one of the scientists studying NDEs in today's Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/13/kevin-nelson-near-death-experience