Are there any paranormal phenomena AT ALL??

[Troy]

One of my main bugbears however, is that Dean Radin associates himself with Deepak Chopra. I just feel this stuff would get more acceptance if parapsychology researchers just stayed away from him.

I agree. Although my sympathies definitely lie with the idealist worldview he espouses, I don’t think Deepak Chopra is anywhere close to an eloquent defender of it, nor does he have the faintest understanding of science, especially physics.

I think part of the reason for the association between some psi researchers and Deepak Chopra is that he gives them and their ideas access to a large market. Psi researchers have always existed at the fringes of academia. Traditional funding sources are, for all intents and purposes, closed to them. It is not surprising, therefore, that they would make alliances with figures whose clout with the New Age market would help them continue their research. I just wish it did not have to be so.

 

[steve001]

It is not a general principle that "anything goes in evolution". Evolution has managed to produce animals that can fly but you don't see elephants with wings because nature just won't allow it, so to speak. There are physical and developmental constraints that have prevented flying elephants from evolving. Similarly, there may be constraints acting on the physical principle underlying anomalous cognition that prevent it from evolving beyond a certain level of phenotypic expression. That is not special pleading, because the idea of developmental constraints is well recognised.

Ed

However, as Kai and evolutionary scientists have pointed out, any genetic modification that allows an individual member of a species to reproduce gets passed on to the next generation. Anomalous cognition would offer such an advantage yet it is not observed in the wild. It it were then far fewer animals would end up being killed. The underlined part makes your presentation spurious.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, I certainly don't ignore the suffering of other beings while they exist. But how can I "do unto others" that don't exist any more. At best, I am doing unto their memory, and whatever social value that may be taken to have, it's an abstraction with respect to the experience of that particular once-living being.

I was talking about "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" with regard to the living. That's something that would "... make the damnedest bit of difference whether I do or not." Doing things in memory of the departed is mostly to make the living feel better. I do it quite often.

Also, I am not "really me" even from 10 years ago. What matters is that there's a vector of continuity between "me ten years ago" and "me today." So as I was explaining in my post above, a continuity of consciousness would be necessary between this state and THAT.

That's fine. What I don't understand is why existing forever helps with the existential angst.

~~ Paul

 

[Arouet]

However, as Kai and evolutionary scientists have pointed out, any genetic modification that allows an individual member of a species to reproduce gets passed on to the next generation. Anomalous cognition would offer such an advantage yet it is not observed in the wild. It it were then far fewer animals would end up being killed. The underlined part makes your presentation spurious.

We just have to be careful with arguments that any particular result "should" have come out of evolution if such and such was true. There could be any number of reasons why it a particular evolutionary path didn't occur even if it would have enhanced survival.

I get the instinct to draw conclusions based on what hasn't evolved but I think it can result in fallacious thinking. Unless I'm not thinking about this properly (please let me know if you think I'm misframing it) I think we should avoid drawing even general/limited conclusions based on this type of argument.

 

[steve001]

We just have to be careful with arguments that any particular result "should" have come out of evolution if such and such was true. There could be any number of reasons why it a particular evolutionary path didn't occur even if it would have enhanced survival.

Can a few reasons be identified?

I get the instinct to draw conclusions based on what hasn't evolved but I think it can result in fallacious thinking. Unless I'm not thinking about this properly (please let me know if you think I'm misframing it) I think we should avoid drawing even general/limited conclusions based on this type of argument.

We all have some homework to do. To find those evolutionary advantages that did not work.

 

[electricfunk]

However, as Kai and evolutionary scientists have pointed out, any genetic modification that allows an individual member of a species to reproduce gets passed on to the next generation. Anomalous cognition would offer such an advantage yet it is not observed in the wild. It it were then far fewer animals would end up being killed. The underlined part makes your presentation spurious.

I'm not sure you understand my point. A "psi trait" that is physically constrained in it's phenotypic expression can still be passed on to the next generation. If such constraints exist, it is irrelevant to argue about the fitness of phenotypic possibilities that nature does not allow. And in any case, if you talk to someone versed in evolutionary game theory, they may provide you with valid reasons why evolutionary stable strategies also prevent animals with "psychic super powers" from evolving.

 

[chuck.drake]

I'm not sure you understand my point. A "psi trait" that is physically constrained in it's phenotypic expression can still be passed on to the next generation. If such constraints exist, it is irrelevant to argue about the fitness of phenotypic possibilities that nature does not allow. And in any case, if you talk to someone versed in evolutionary game theory, they may provide you with valid reasons why evolutionary stable strategies also prevent animals with "psychic super powers" from evolving.

Way off topic, but when considering psi "genes" and their expression, you probably shouldn't ignore the number of people killed over the century as "witches." We may have inadvertently culled some traits from the larger population.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...s-witches-in-europe-from-1200-to-the-present/

 

[radicalpolitik]

I was talking about "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" with regard to the living. That's something that would "... make the damnedest bit of difference whether I do or not." Doing things in memory of the departed is mostly to make the living feel better. I do it quite often.


That's fine. What I don't understand is why existing forever helps with the existential angst.

~~ Paul

Personally I don't think "I" would survive. As someone who tentatively accepts the filter theory on good days, I highly doubt much of my personality would carry on. There might be awareness, but not what I'd call me. Hence why I feel stevenson's work to be the most compelling evidence. But that's another story.

 

[Kai]

Irrelevant. Let's say the computer selects a square as the target on trial 1 and displays it on the screen. It doesn't matter whether the square is perceived as a circle or a pink elephant by the experimenter or the subject. The computer will make an internal record that a square was selected as the target. If the response by the subject is "square" then the computer records a hit. If the subject responds with anything other than square (circle or pink elephant), it is a miss. At the end of the experiment, the computer displays the number of hits and does an automatic statistical analysis showing whether the result is significant.

Again, you guys don't read what is written. HOW do you get the computer to "recognize a square" if the programmers themselves can't recognize them? HOW do you get the data into the minds of the experimenters if there is unconscious formalism acting upon the very perception of the data?

Amswer: you don't and you can't unless cognizable (see multiple previous posts where this was explained).

 

[Kai]

Exactly. Kai isn't going to understand that though. For Kai's example to work, then it would have to be a basic necessity that, for some reason, a computer's randomization algorithm or TRNG system would have to mimic human preferences.

Kai would also need very basic experimental design knowledge, which he has shown he very clearly lacks.

Nope. That has **nothing** to do with this particular point. It's about formal patterns of perception.

 

[Kai]

It is not a general principle that "anything goes in evolution". Evolution has managed to produce animals that can fly but you don't see elephants with wings because nature just won't allow it, so to speak. There are physical and developmental constraints that have prevented flying elephants from evolving. Similarly, there may be constraints acting on the physical principle underlying anomalous cognition that prevent it from evolving beyond a certain level of phenotypic expression. That is not special pleading, because the idea of developmental constraints is well recognised.

Edited to add - nice article on developmental constraints here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10032/

But it's immediately transparent why we don't have flying elephants. This is something that nature would never do precisely because it goes in the opposite direction of maximizing the potential in question. You want something to fly, you make it small, with lightweight bones (or an insect) with a large wingspan relative to body.

 

[Kai]

I was talking about "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" with regard to the living. That's something that would "... make the damnedest bit of difference whether I do or not." Doing things in memory of the departed is mostly to make the living feel better. I do it quite often.

Okay, well my comment was meant to refer to those no longer living.

That's fine. What I don't understand is why existing forever helps with the existential angst.

I also assume that in the hypothetical other state I would have better understanding of existence than in this state. Obviously if that isn't true, existential angst may still be a feature.

 

[radicalpolitik]

Yes. It's still probably a year or two away from publication, but it will deal more with the theory side of things, including a chapter by Ed Kelly and David Presti on the filter theory.

Can I ask how you know this?

 

[Kai]

I'm not sure you understand my point. A "psi trait" that is physically constrained in it's phenotypic expression can still be passed on to the next generation. If such constraints exist, it is irrelevant to argue about the fitness of phenotypic possibilities that nature does not allow. And in any case, if you talk to someone versed in evolutionary game theory, they may provide you with valid reasons why evolutionary stable strategies also prevent animals with "psychic super powers" from evolving.

I know a fair bit about evolutionary game theory, as biology, indeed genetics was my first degree. You haven't provided anything approaching a plausible reason why nature "would not allow" a form of organism that would have a clear advantage over other species. If it did, it would outcompete them, and if a predator, it would stabilize at numbers equivalent to its prey food carrying capacity. If a prey animal, the predator might die out, but again the prey animal would be checked by disease or food carrying capacity. Evolution doesn't "act in advance" to stop potentials resident in actually existing forces of nature from developing.

 

[Kai]

Radikalpolitik, how I know what?

 

[radicalpolitik]

Radikalpolitik, how I know what?

Sorry, Kai, not you, that question was directed at Troy.

 

[Saiko]

anyone with a head on their shoulders, and who isn't haunted by the thought that this is all junk, really hasn't been around the block with it enough.

.

Okay . so given your surety of that, it seems silly for you to be coming to these forums. Surely there's something real that you have an interest in. Or is it that you have some need/desire for others to share your perspective? Even then there are many sites filled with others who - like you - know the truth. lol.

 

[radicalpolitik]

Okay . so given your surety of that, it seems silly for you to be coming to these forums. Surely there's something real that you have an interest in. Or is it that you have some need/desire for others to share your perspective? Even then there are many sites filled with others who - like you - know the truth. lol.

I don't think he ever claimed to know the truth. He has doubts, goodness knows I have mine. On some days I feel the evidence for survival and psi is showing something, on others I feel the opposite.

 

[Kai]

Okay . so given your surety of that, it seems silly for you to be coming to these forums. Surely there's something real that you have an interest in. Or is it that you have some need/desire for others to share your perspective? Even then there are many sites filled with others who - like you - know the truth. lol.

I said haunted by the thought. Absolute certainty was not mentioned.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, well my comment was meant to refer to those no longer living.

Ah, okay.

I also assume that in the hypothetical other state I would have better understanding of existence than in this state. Obviously if that isn't true, existential angst may still be a feature.

But why does assuming an afterlife help with existential angst in this life? Or perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, again.

~~ Paul