Would proof of Psi substantially change Science?

#41
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.
Of course they aren't. That's the way I've always felt about it.

The problem is that I have no idea whether what is left looks anything like psi, or even if it does, whether it has anything but a trivial effect on the perspective of science. After all, the tidy categories of phenomena we came up with to explain "effectiveness" using folk science ("meridians", "humours", "the law of similars", etc.) turned out to have little resemblance to reality and none of what was actually going on required science to be rewritten. Similarly with "psi"...our tidy psi categories of "clairvoyance" and "poltergeists" and "telepathy", formed using folk science, don't seem likely to have much resemblance to reality. Like "effectiveness", the effects of chance, fraud and bias are so large as to overwhelm any of the more interesting effects when it comes to figuring what "psi" looks like.

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
I don't know if NDE's are related to the brain going loopy as it dies, because the idea is only barely starting to be tested. I'm in the club of "maybe we should be considering tests of the idea, first".

Linda
 
#42
Of course they aren't. That's the way I've always felt about it.
You know, it might help a lot if you kept reminding people of your position:)

Remember that there is a huge difference once you accept that, because once a person gives up on the idea that every single ψ phenomenon is bogus, recognising another example of ψ should require a lower level of statistical proof - that whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" argument goes out of the window!
The problem is that I have no idea whether what is left looks anything like psi, or even if it does, whether it has anything but a trivial effect on the perspective of science. After all, the tidy categories of phenomena we came up with to explain "effectiveness" using folk science ("meridians", "humours", "the law of similars", etc.) turned out to have little resemblance to reality and none of what was actually going on required science to be rewritten. Similarly with "psi"...our tidy psi categories of "clairvoyance" and "poltergeists" and "telepathy", formed using folk science, don't seem likely to have much resemblance to reality. Like "effectiveness", the effects of chance, fraud and bias are so large as to overwhelm any of the more interesting effects when it comes to figuring what "psi" looks like.
This is true, but the fundamental concept with almost all ψ is that consciousness can do things and observe things that it couldn't if it were locked inside the skull for a finite amount of time, and then destroyed. All the categories you mention represent consciousness at work. I can't imagine a science with ψ that didn't have a drastically different view of consciousness.
I don't know if NDE's are related to the brain going loopy as it dies, because the idea is only barely starting to be tested. I'm in the club of "maybe we should be considering tests of the idea, first".
Tests of any sort on human NDE's are very hard to do for practical reasons, as Sam Parnia has found out.

For me, the big thing about NDE's is that they aren't just any old crazy dream (I am sure there are exceptions), they contain elements that are relevant to the process of death - even if the person is a child and/or didn't know there was any danger before whatever happened happened. Also, remember that by the standards of ordinary science (remember no more extraordinary claims.....) chunks of them seem veridical - the parts where the person views their ressusscitation process from the ceiling, or wanders off to other rooms and observes things.

David
 
#43
Also, remember that by the standards of ordinary science (remember no more extraordinary claims.....) chunks of them seem veridical
Hey David, this is a topic I'm interested in, can you direct me to the ordinary science studies/standards on the accuracy of accounts that you're comparing to?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#44
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.
Heh, I debated about that one too. I thought if people wanted to discuss the link it would make sense to point to the relevant thread instead of clogging up the the thread that gets mentioned. But I admit it could be annoying.

Probably another reason having Resources threads might be useful.
 
#45
Heh, I debated about that one too. I thought if people wanted to discuss the link it would make sense to point to the relevant thread instead of clogging up the the thread that gets mentioned. But I admit it could be annoying.
It's only annoying on mobile with a suboptimal connection, when I just want to get to the meat. Otherwise, I'd probably appreciate it. So please, consider nothing I say.
 
#46
You know, it might help a lot if you kept reminding people of your position:)

Remember that there is a huge difference once you accept that, because once a person gives up on the idea that every single ψ phenomenon is bogus, recognising another example of ψ should require a lower level of statistical proof - that whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" argument goes out of the window!
Except that we have no idea what a single example of psi looks like.

This is true, but the fundamental concept with almost all ψ is that consciousness can do things and observe things that it couldn't if it were locked inside the skull for a finite amount of time, and then destroyed. All the categories you mention represent consciousness at work. I can't imagine a science with ψ that didn't have a drastically different view of consciousness.
Except that we have no idea if psi involves consciousness doing things. That idea seems to come from filtering events through cognitive biases, chance and fraud.

Tests of any sort on human NDE's are very hard to do for practical reasons, as Sam Parnia has found out.

For me, the big thing about NDE's is that they aren't just any old crazy dream (I am sure there are exceptions), they contain elements that are relevant to the process of death - even if the person is a child and/or didn't know there was any danger before whatever happened happened.
Well, that's only because of how the stories are selected, though. People have all sorts of crazy old dreams around the time of a medical crisis. We just call the ones which happen to contain elements we have decided are relevant to the process of death, "NDE's".

Also, remember that by the standards of ordinary science (remember no more extraordinary claims.....) chunks of them seem veridical - the parts where the person views their ressusscitation process from the ceiling, or wanders off to other rooms and observes things.

David
I don't think there have been any, when viewed by the standards of ordinary science (documented under blind conditions), which have been veridical, though. That's the sticking point.

Linda
 
#47
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.
¿What properties are you talking about here? Quantum entanglement seems to be the only effect at distance that can happen without a mediating force, at least that I know about. All the other are forces well established within the Standard Model and the current model preclude any force that could accomodate ESP.
 
#48
Well, that's only because of how the stories are selected, though. People have all sorts of crazy old dreams around the time of a medical crisis. We just call the ones which happen to contain elements we have decided are relevant to the process of death, "NDE's".
¿how do you know that?
 
C

chuck.drake

#50
Well, I disagree. I think it's the least effective way to express an opinion.
I think the forum serves as more than just a collection of opinions. It is also a repository for related information. The great thing about a community is that each member adds something unique. Aside from some great commentary, Sciborg adds a boatload of relevant links. Just ignore them if you don't like them. Or use the functionality of the ignore feature of the forum software.

We generally only criticize the skeptics here. Open season on Malf, FLS, Paul or Steve001, but picking on Sciborg is not cool.
 
#51
¿how do you know that?
From reading the prospective NDE studies. The researchers describe the process. People who have had a cardiac arrest or medical crisis are interviewed and asked whether they remember anything from the time of their crisis. Their recollections are recorded, and then they are asked specific questions from an NDE scale (nowadays, the Greyson scale) which leads to a score. If their recollections include an element from a preset list of "elements which relate to the process of death", and they score 7 or higher on the Greyson scale, their crazy old dreams or other recollections are called an "NDE". If not, it's not an NDE. So someone who dreams of flying to Italy, is not having an NDE. Someone who dreams of flying to an imaginary place with pink ponies which might be heaven, is. If you look at the results section for the prospective NDE studies, they often describe the number of people who had recollections, and then the number of people from that group who fit the criteria for "NDE". It varies, but it tends to be less than half of those with recollections.

An additional source is Penny Sartori's book in which she includes transcripts of her interviews of any patients who had recollections. She divides them into NDEs and non-NDEs, but when you read through them, the accounts aren't distinguishable. They simply differ in terms of which elements happen to be present.

http://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Ex...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405277703&sr=1-3

Linda
 
#52
I think the forum serves as more than just a collection of opinions. It is also a repository for related information. The great thing about a community is that each member adds something unique. Aside from some great commentary, Sciborg adds a boatload of relevant links. Just ignore them if you don't like them. Or use the functionality of the ignore feature of the forum software.
I already usually just ignore his posts, it's just only when he directly approaches me that I reply him.

We generally only criticize the skeptics here. Open season on Malf, FLS, Paul or Steve001, but picking on Sciborg is not cool.
Well, I still think his method is not the best.
 
#53
Heh, I debated about that one too. I thought if people wanted to discuss the link it would make sense to point to the relevant thread instead of clogging up the the thread that gets mentioned. But I admit it could be annoying.

Probably another reason having Resources threads might be useful.
Please continue giving us links!

David
 
#55
From reading the prospective NDE studies. The researchers describe the process. People who have had a cardiac arrest or medical crisis are interviewed and asked whether they remember anything from the time of their crisis. Their recollections are recorded, and then they are asked specific questions from an NDE scale (nowadays, the Greyson scale) which leads to a score. If their recollections include an element from a preset list of "elements which relate to the process of death", and they score 7 or higher on the Greyson scale, their crazy old dreams or other recollections are called an "NDE". If not, it's not an NDE. So someone who dreams of flying to Italy, is not having an NDE. Someone who dreams of flying to an imaginary place with pink ponies which might be heaven, is. If you look at the results section for the prospective NDE studies, they often describe the number of people who had recollections, and then the number of people from that group who fit the criteria for "NDE". It varies, but it tends to be less than half of those with recollections.

An additional source is Penny Sartori's book in which she includes transcripts of her interviews of any patients who had recollections. She divides them into NDEs and non-NDEs, but when you read through them, the accounts aren't distinguishable. They simply differ in terms of which elements happen to be present.

http://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Ex...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405277703&sr=1-3

Linda
Do you have any free link where I can read more about this "Non-NDE dreams" that happen in similar situations as the regular NDEs?
 
C

chuck.drake

#57
I didn't knew old members where immune to any form and type of critique, except when they disagree about psi. My mistake.
I think the point is that a community like this best works best when we criticize the content of others people's opinions or ideas. When you begin to criticize how someone presents that content, or even the kind of content that they chose to share, then you are focusing more on the actual person. It looks a little rude. Just like we don't really correct people who use incorrect grammar or spelling here. We just assume because it is an international community and many who post here are not native English speakers that there will be errors.

So we tend to focus criticism on the content of the posts, not the style or presentation or what people chose to share. Unless as I mentioned you are aiming at one of the skeptics previously mentioned. Then anything goes.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#58
Please continue giving us links!

David
Heh, no worries on that score.

Though as I said I've been going through Paranthopology at the moment, as I've become more interested in that side of things.

I'm pretty confident some aspects of the paranormal point to something genuine at this point, which people can take or leave as they choose. But it makes debate less and less interesting to me.
 
#59
Do you have any free link where I can read more about this "Non-NDE dreams" that happen in similar situations as the regular NDEs?
I started an NDE reference thread on the other forum, which lists all the prospective studies I could find. I linked to full text wherever possible, so you can at least read about the proportion of patients who eventually filled the requirements for NDE.

http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/...ms/skeptiko-podcast/5945-nde-reference-thread
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/con...A236?sid=c53ff220-a12c-4fe9-97b1-1746a05474af

Unfortunately, they don't have the actual patient interviews, for obvious space reasons. The best resource for this is Penny's book, which isn't easily available, unless you have lots of money. I have a copy, as well as MaxB.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Top