Michael Britt - The Psych Files - Dr. Daryl Bem and the Parapsychology PSYOP |328|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Oct 4, 2016.

  1. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Rupert Sheldrake riffs on a theme. He takes his area of specialist knowledge and extrapolates into what-ifs. For some reason that approach is anathema, and critics imagine he's making a statement rather than inviting a discourse on the possibilities. Materialism invites reappraisal, but only if it leaves all the furniture intact. You can move one plate at a time, but Sheldrake offers complete redecoration and has a skip outback to remove the collected junk of ages. He's just too near the bone for people heavily invested in the physical architecture.
     
  2. morvern_c

    morvern_c New

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Precisely. It crossed over his 'too crazy' line
     
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    Well I think Schroedinger aluded to this issue when he invented the Schroedinger-domodex folliculorum gedanken experiment!

    David
     
    Hurmanetar, Stephen Wright and K9! like this.
  4. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    I think you're right. We should ask a Domodex just to be sure.
     
    Hurmanetar and David Bailey like this.
  5. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    However, let's take that idea a bit further, because I don't think anyone here is saying that human consciousness is unique in some way.

    I would assume that if we can act as observers in QM, then so can many other animals. I guess when you get to minute creatures such as DF's, the question may be what they can observe - probably only their immediate surroundings - so maybe they just act as observers in that region.

    David
     
  6. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    839
    Conspiracy Theory is such a poor blanket label
     
  7. Asking skeptics to answer basic questions about their STEM knowledge is apparently like throwing water on a witch. ;)
     
  8. DTK

    DTK New

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2015
    Messages:
    25
    I think this "psyopsy" debunking phenomenon is probably just an emergent property of mainstream science. An epiphenomenon, if you will. Pardon the joke, but it might fit the bill. You have probably a majority of "elder scientists", who just know that parapsychological experiments can never have outcomes which seem to confirm an anomalous claim, and that everyone who says different can't be a "real" scientist. And you have eager, younger scientists who see a chance to make a mark in science as a debunker, to shine before this silently indignant crowd of exalted ones. Maybe they want to see these "frauds" and "charlatans" punished, who dare to deviate from what they see as the only way to look at these claims, but I think the main motivation might just be a desire to be recognized. So there probably is a silent group in the background (albeit just in the imagination of the debunker) but it doesn't have to issue any orders or paychecks. Maybe they don't even have conspiratorial meetings.

    And, to be fair, I guess, we shouldn't forget to mention that there are charlatans, frauds and terribly silly claims out there who give the debunkers every right to exist.

    I had to laugh when Dr. Britt said that he probably was more of a sceptic than he thought. I guess that the expression he should have used was "than I would like to admit", though. Well, at least he did admit to not having read anything about the more than 90 replications of Bem's experiment. But as a pessimist, I doubt that they will change a thing.

    Anyways, thanks for another insightful interview and for calling out the zealousness and dishonest behavior in this field. I don't think it's a concerted effort, but it's undoubtedly not just misunderstood good will.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
    gabriel, Michael Larkin, K9! and 2 others like this.
  9. Definitely some indication of this possibility you mention:

    Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

     
    DTK and K9! like this.
  10. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,625
    that's a reasonable explanation... and was definitely my starting point 6-7 years ago. 9-11 was pivotal for me. took my yrs to fully grock/accept it... now seems obvious.
     
    DTK likes this.
  11. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
  12. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Your sentimental attachment to statistical flux is touching, Malf.
     
    K9! and malf like this.
  13. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    If you are saying that physically encoded signals don't travel back in time (or faster than light speed) - well OK.

    However, believing that information from future configurations doesn't "travel" is absurd. Scientists, common folks and living things extract logic-based future configurations as mental predictions. These ideas of future planning exists as a matter of fact. We can predict with confidence the sun's rising point on our local horizon tomorrow morning - even though Hume assures us - it is only our logical inference and propensity (constant conjunction) that enables probable future states to be brought to the present.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2016
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  14. Max_B

    Max_B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,155
    Home Page:
    Depends on how you are defining '...familiar everyday phenomena...',

    ...but I would say there are phenomena which are consistent with the idea that the 'present' can be interfered with by the 'future', as well as the 'past'.

    I just think it's very difficult - at least initially - to become aware of it. Even now, I defer to thinking about most things as past -> present, it's such a well worn way of thinking, and is a perfectly acceptable and useful way to think about most of the objective phenomena I experience.

    But subjectively, there are things this way of thinking doesn't really help me with. You'll find there are lots of everyday things we do, which don't really have a very satisfying explanation.

    When you allow yourself to entertain the idea that a matching pattern in the future, might interfere with a matching pattern in the present. Then a lot... and I mean a lot... of everyday mundain things that don't have a satisfying explanation, and which go on in our society, suddenly make a great deal more sense.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2016
    malf and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  15. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    What seems obvious to you about 9/11, Alex? I like how our Pabst-beer-drinking, dining-room-set-owning, super-sexy Zebra once put it. But, I'm totally paraphrasing so hope I don't twist his words too bad, but I think he said something like:

    Anyone who looks into 9/11 with an open mind should come away with two conclusions:

    (1) The official story is total BS
    (2) You feel like you are in a strange dream

    I totally agree with (1). But, to me, it's impossible to wrap a coherent story around the evidence, at least with as far as it has been investigated to date. Some of the evidence - like the cell phone calls from the airplanes - takes you to really strange places if you ask yourself what does that mean! So, because of (2), 9/11 doesn't seem very obvious to me ... it's almost like a tear in the fabric of reality at times, lol.
     
  16. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    I admit I haven't really followed the 9/11 stuff, but what is this about - I thought some people were able to ring home - very sad, but nothing of significance.

    David
     
  17. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    Given the technology at the time, it is claimed that those calls should not have been able to been made at that altitude for the length of time they were connected, without the very high likelihood of being disconnected (if you could have made the call at all. I know I was never able to make calls from an airplane at 30k back then with my cell phone)

    So, let's say that's true. What does that mean? The calls were made from somewhere else? With the original airplane being replaced with a substitute that continued the flight path being tracked? (Incidentally, the government did research just this kind of swap-out out technology/strategy at one time). Did the government then just disappear entire plain loads of passengers after forcing them to make scripted calls to their loved ones?

    What possible kind of story can get wrapped around that? It gets strange, really, really quick, the minute you decide to accept those calls could not have been made in the way they were claimed to be
     
  18. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    This is covered here:

    http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
     
    Stephen Wright likes this.
  19. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    Hmm... Maybe we should ask Bem as that quote was lifted from his original paper.

    Edit: I think the gist of his comment is clear.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2016
  20. Max_B

    Max_B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,155
    Home Page:
    Now that I've read the quote in its context... Bem (and therefore you?) seems to have overlooked holograms as familiar everyday phenomena... which demonstrate the idea of coherent interference - whether quantum or space-time (classical).

    It sort of reinforces my point that it is difficult to become aware of such phenomena...

    It would perhaps have been more accurate to say 'I', rather than 'We'.

    On a side note, there are other incorrect speculations from Bem in that same section of writing which contains the quote... on both ruling out EM effects in telepathy, or the idea that we understand magnetoreception in birds.
     
    malf likes this.

Share This Page