Would proof of Psi substantially change Science?

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#21
Good suggestions MasterWu.

I think you & Malf have the right of it - >Probably is a better way to get people to read the links as well. :)
 
C

chuck.drake

#22
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 ).
You do realize that Sciborg is the Johnny Appleseed of links, don't you? Keep at it, Johnny. Your links make these pages a valuable reference.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#23
You do realize that Sciborg is the Johnny Appleseed of links, don't you? Keep at it, Johnny. Your links make these pages a valuable reference.
I think a good compromise might be to mark resource thread with a resources tag in the thread title?
 
#25
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.
I do tend to notice that people don't respond to Sciborgs links. It's almost as if people aren't reading them while simaltaneously stating that the evidence is not abundant enough. Strange.
 
#26
I do tend to notice that people don't respond to Sciborgs links. It's almost as if people aren't reading them while simaltaneously stating that the evidence is not abundant enough. Strange.
If you're saying he needs to find a more effective/efficient way to get the ball over the net, I would agree.
 
#27
I'm often not responding to Sciborg's links because I'm still busy catching up on the list of articles he's previously linked and by the time I'm ready to comment the topic has derailed in to banter :P

No complaints on the amount/style of linking though lol
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#30
I'm often not responding to Sciborg's links because I'm still busy catching up on the list of articles he's previously linked and by the time I'm ready to comment the topic has derailed in to banter :P

No complaints on the amount/style of linking though lol
This might be where separating the resources from discussion would come in handy. People can read a link in a resources thread and then start a new discussion thread on that particular piece.

I'll give it a whirl, though I'm just reading a lot of Paranthopology back issues at the moment.
 
#31
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.
But you assume that ESP is instantaneous. The fact is that we do not know if ESP is instantaneous. ESP can be based on certain quantum properties and be limited to the speed of light.

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?
The problem is that these people do not distinguish between the results of modern science and common sense belief that many scientists currently accept: the mind being more than brain is compatible with all the results of modern science, but it does not compatible with some common sense beliefs which of course seem result of science but are not.
 
#32
I think there are probably more mainstream scientists who are interested in psi stuff than meets the eye. The APA symposium in May, and the presentation at the national Academy of Sciences are a couple of indicators. If all scientists were really as dismissive as the famous ones seem to be. Then I doubt parapsychologists would have been allowed to present at the conferences.
 
#33
And yet you say:



You're maintaining that it's everyone else's problem? That's possible, I suppose.
Sure, people don't respond to the material he links. That's perfectly fine, if that's not your cup of tea. However, much of what he posts is entirely relevant to the thread, and the rest is other material that's related. I would imagine someone who doesn't actually read the links he provides would see it as ' cluttering and derailing a thread '. Feel free to point out some instances where this is the case.
 
#35
I personally love Sciborg's linking and think someone would have to be pretty anal to take issue with it. Remove that pole from your ass, then see if your opinion on the matter changes.

What I find annoying is when Sciborg links to another thread where the actual link(s) are contained. Or when he links to a thread, which links to a thread... But I'm not about to start complaining like a little bitch.
 
#36
But don't you think Higgs was small precisely because it was predicted to fit into the equations?
Yes.

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.
I also think "mind not confined to brain" would be big. Other things would be small. It all depends upon finding out what is going on.

Linda
 
#38
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
I think the impact should be that people realise that there is a new fundamental component in the universe - mind/thought/spirit/whatever you want to call it. Then perhaps science would have to face a lot of interesting questions.

One question should have been asked a long time ago - which processes that we see in the world are the result of intelligence? Materialists claim intelligence emerges from material forces (basically electromagnetism and QM) but they tend to want to deny that it exists anywhere except in the human brain, and some animals. That never made a lot of logical sense, and maybe if it were established that mind was separate from matter (which I think follows from ψ) people would be more willing to look for mind in other places.

For example, Rupert Sheldrake has proposed that the sun might be conscious! At first blush this sounds preposterous, but the sun is certainly complex and dynamic, so how does it differ fundamentally from a bunch of neurons in the brain. I don't want to argue whether the sun is conscious, but to point out that we seem to rule out the very idea that the sun might be conscious on vague grounds that aren't even materialistic at heart (because if one object in the universe can be conscious, why not another?).

I get a faint hint that you are yourself realising that all the various ψ phenomena can't all be mistakes/fraud/statistical faults/ etc. That NDE's can't just be explained by saying the brain goes loopy as it dies. It is a huge intellectual jump - I know because I made it. If I'm right, then welcome to the club!

David
 
#39
#40
I think the impact should be that people realise that there is a new fundamental component in the universe - mind/thought/spirit/whatever you want to call it. Then perhaps science would have to face a lot of interesting questions.

One question should have been asked a long time ago - which processes that we see in the world are the result of intelligence? Materialists claim intelligence emerges from material forces (basically electromagnetism and QM) but they tend to want to deny that it exists anywhere except in the human brain, and some animals. That never made a lot of logical sense, and maybe if it were established that mind was separate from matter (which I think follows from ψ) people would be more willing to look for mind in other places.

For example, Rupert Sheldrake has proposed that the sun might be conscious! At first blush this sounds preposterous, but the sun is certainly complex and dynamic, so how does it differ fundamentally from a bunch of neurons in the brain. I don't want to argue whether the sun is conscious, but to point out that we seem to rule out the very idea that the sun might be conscious on vague grounds that aren't even materialistic at heart (because if one object in the universe can be conscious, why not another?).

I get a faint hint that you are yourself realising that all the various ψ phenomena can't all be mistakes/fraud/statistical faults/ etc. That NDE's can't just be explained by saying the brain goes loopy as it dies. It is a huge intellectual jump - I know because I made it. If I'm right, then welcome to the club!

David
Consider this new research.
Chimpanzee intelligence determined by genes
A chimpanzee's intelligence is largely determined by its genes, while environmental factors may be less important than scientists previously thought, according to a Georgia State University research study.
The study found that some, but not all, cognitive, or mental, abilities, in chimpanzees depend significantly on the genes they inherit. The findings are reported in the latest issue of Current Biology.

"Intelligence runs in families," said Dr. William Hopkins, professor in the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience at Georgia State and research scientist in the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University. "The suggestion here is that genes play a really important role in their performance on tasks while non-genetic factors didn't seem to explain a lot. So that's new."



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-chimpanzee-intelligence-genes.html#jCp
By extending this new research it would be plausible consciousness is also a product of biology.
 
Top