Would proof of Psi substantially change Science?

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#1
Chris Carter apparently thinks Psi wouldn't force a fundamental reevaluation of science, but I'm not so sure about that.

There's apparently lots of room for contention here given that Braude has suggested proof of Psi would bring about realizations regarding the failure of mechanistic explanations that should already be recognized, but he's also said that Psi might fit into current scientific conception.

My intuition makes me think Psi being explained under materialist assumptions is highly unlikely, but I concede some variation on panpsychism might account for at least PK, Clairvoyance, ESP and Telepathy. Academic "downloading", however, seems to go beyond the ability of panpsychism to explain unless we're willing to attribute consciousness' origins to the quantum atemporal level*.

*Note that would not be "proto-consciousness", but rather "full consciousness" resting withing particular particles. (I think this is what Goff is saying via his Noncompositional Panpsychism, but not 100% sure).
 
#2
Chris Carter apparently thinks Psi wouldn't force a fundamental reevaluation of science, but I'm not so sure about that.

There's apparently lots of room for contention here given that Braude has suggested proof of Psi would bring about realizations regarding the failure of mechanistic explanations that should already be recognized, but he's also said that Psi might fit into current scientific conception.

My intuition makes me think Psi being explained under materialist assumptions is highly unlikely, but I concede some variation on panpsychism might account for at least PK, Clairvoyance, ESP and Telepathy. Academic "downloading", however, seems to go beyond the ability of panpsychism to explain unless we're willing to attribute consciousness' origins to the quantum atemporal level*.

*Note that would not be "proto-consciousness", but rather "full consciousness" resting withing particular particles. (I think this is what Goff is saying via his Noncompositional Panpsychism, but not 100% sure).
Even with panpsychism and psi being true, we still have the notion that consciousness is somewhat fundamental to the universe. If matter itself is conscious, then you can't really escape that.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#3
Here's a section of Braude's book where he goes into some reasons that Psi wouldn't be explainable within the current framework.

A similar objection weighs against the extended static and topological view of thinking that identifies a particular physiological state plus a certain specific set of contextual conditions. As we have seen, from a topological point of view, that context is as functionally ambiguous as the physiological state conjoined with it. If we placed it in a different and wider context, it might be correlated with an entirely different mental state. Moreover, as I point out in detail in the next two sections, there are in fact no privileged or context-independent preferred descriptions of contexts. Hence, there are no privileged or context-independent preferred ways of integrating a particular event into its surrounding context.
 
#4
Proof of psi hasn't had much influence so far. I don't see why it should in the future.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/proof-of-esp-1889-1997.html
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/summary_of_evidence


The three pillars of pseudo-skepticism, accusation of fraud, incompetence, and self-delusion can support disbelief in anything under any circumstance.

It is more likely that a change in science (abandonment of naturalism) will allow the acceptance of psi.
 
#5
Technically, no empirical finding can ever prove or disprove any metaphysical view. See "Shaving Science With Ockham's Razor". Also, see William Roll's work. Roll accepts psi as valid, but continues to propose a materialist explanation. Even Dean Radin has said he would accept a materialist view if he believed it was adequate.
 
#6
Technically, no empirical finding can ever prove or disprove any metaphysical view. See "Shaving Science With Ockham's Razor". Also, see William Roll's work. Roll accepts psi as valid, but continues to propose a materialist explanation. Even Dean Radin has said he would accept a materialist view if he believed it was adequate.
It's not just a metaphysical view, you can't even prove a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Falsifiability.2Fproblem_of_demarcation
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.
But then, Karl Popper was a dualist.
 
#7
Psi is compatible with modern science because it is compatible with quantum physics, but this does not imply that psi can be explained entirely by quantum physics. Instead psi is not compatible with some common sense beliefs, for example, that you can not move an object without contact, which is not possible for a deceased transmit information, etc., hence that psi is currently anomalous.
 
#8
That's a good question. What does "psi" look like when we get to the point where the confluence of cognitive biases, chance, fraud and wishful thinking have been stripped away? To what extent will that change the perspective of science? Big like Indeterminism/Non-locality/Counterfactual Definiteness (loss of)? Small like the Higgs boson?

Linda
 
#11
In my opinion, psi is incompatible with quantum mechanics. For example, ESP says you can get information from another person or location in a non-local way, which is impossible according to the no-communication theorem. Quantum entanglement cannot move information from one place to the other in a instantaneous, non-local way.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#12
Psi is compatible with modern science because it is compatible with quantum physics, but this does not imply that psi can be explained entirely by quantum physics. Instead psi is not compatible with some common sense beliefs, for example, that you can not move an object without contact, which is not possible for a deceased transmit information, etc., hence that psi is currently anomalous.
In my opinion, psi is incompatible with quantum mechanics. For example, ESP says you can get information from another person or location in a non-local way, which is impossible according to the no-communication theorem. Quantum entanglement cannot move information from one place to the other in a instantaneous, non-local way.
The physicist Ulrich Morhrhoff had some ideas related to what Haruhi is talking about, specifically in the paper Radical Nonlocality.

Josephson has also suggested certain ideas from quantum mechanics may lead, with amendment, to models for Psi.
 
#13
The physicist Ulrich Morhrhoff had some ideas related to what Haruhi is talking about, specifically in the paper Radical Nonlocality.

Josephson has also suggested certain ideas from quantum mechanics may lead, with amendment, to models for Psi.
Sciborg, ¿can I ask you to please state things without linking to them? It's kind of annoying to receive a huge supply of links, most of them which don't address the issue ( non of them seem to talk specifically about the no-communication theorem and it's relation to non-faster-than-light signaling ).
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#14
Sciborg, ¿can I ask you to please state things without linking to them? It's kind of annoying to receive a huge supply of links, most of them which don't address the issue ( non of them seem to talk specifically about the no-communication theorem and it's relation to non-faster-than-light signaling ).
Well I can try to do both but I don't want to misrepresent the views of these people so I think it's better to read them for yourself.

My point was simply that our current understanding of QM may not be the final word, and that certain physicists have proposals for expansions to physics that might allow for accommodation of things like telepathy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#15
Well I can try to do both but I don't want to misrepresent the views of these people so I think it's better to read them for yourself.

My point was simply that our current understanding of QM may not be the final word, and that certain physicists have proposals for expansions to physics that might allow for accomodation of things like telepathy.
Promissory...

The point is one can link to any POV they like - they're all out there on the philosopical backwaters of the net. I've often followed your posts with 'other views are available' but got bored of that... Your style of link bombing at best adds nothing useful and at worst appears to clog up threads, derailing them and quashing further discourse.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#16
Promissory...

The point is one can link to any POV they like - they're all out there on the philosopical backwaters of the net. I've often followed your posts with 'other views are available' but got bored of that... Your style of link bombing at best adds nothing useful and at worst appears to clog up threads, derailing them and quashing further discourse.
Sorry you feel that way, but I believe you can still utilize the ignore button to not see my posts?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#17
That's a good question. What does "psi" look like when we get to the point where the confluence of cognitive biases, chance, fraud and wishful thinking have been stripped away? To what extent will that change the perspective of science? Big like Indeterminism/Non-locality/Counterfactual Definiteness (loss of)? Small like the Higgs boson?

Linda
But don't you think Higgs was small precisely because it was predicted to fit into the equations?

I know Victor Stenger said any indication of mind being more than brain would radically revolutionize how we have to think about things, and it seems Weisman had similar thoughts?

Very interesting in your feelings on this Linda.
 
#18
Well I can try to do both but I don't want to misrepresent the views of these people so I think it's better to read them for yourself.
I'm totally into doing both. I'm not trying to change things around here to my convenience or taste, but the forums where I come people usually do things like address the specifics, either by saying things like "Dr. X recently developed a theory Y that says that Z can happen because of G, H, and W, thus overcoming the problem you are talking. You can read the specifics here: (link)" or by giving all the details straight away and then just the link to double-check. I think it's much more efficient that way. Again, it's just a suggestion.

My point was simply that our current understanding of QM may not be the final word, and that certain physicists have proposals for expansions to physics that might allow for accommodation of things like telepathy.
Thats great, but specifically, ¿what proposal has been given to show that non-locality can move information faster than light, thus overcoming the non-communication theory? ESP involved information being moved from point A to point B. What I see is that it's usually said "quantum entanglement shows that a thing can affect another one at distance", but then there seems to be a hidden assumption, that therefore you can move massive amounts of information using this method, when according to mainstream physics it's totally impossible. You can only move information by the usual forces, which give us the problem that the Standard Model may not allow for such a force to exist.
 
#20
In my opinion, psi is incompatible with quantum mechanics. For example, ESP says you can get information from another person or location in a non-local way, which is impossible according to the no-communication theorem. Quantum entanglement cannot move information from one place to the other in a instantaneous, non-local way.
There is also the problem of how one brain could become entangled with another, and how any physical structure in one brain could have meaning to another brain since neuronal patterns are unique to each brain and are constantly changing throughout life due to neuroplasticity.

ESP is not produced by the brain: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-death-experiences-and-afterlife.html#facts_esp
 
Top