The Scientific Evidence for the Existence of PSI
Offline Below is a link to a presentation on the scientific evidence for the existence of psi (psychic phenomena) given by parapsychology researcher Dean Radin. This is a "GoogleTechTalk." The actual presentation is about an hour, followed by a thirty minute Q & A session. The audience appears, based on the questions asked, to consist primarily of skeptics. I suggest you actually view the video before posting any comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
Just FYI. In his book entitled "Entangled Minds," Dean Radin presents a theorectical framework to account for the psi evidence based on the idea of quantum entanglement (what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" ). The relevance of this evidence for theism is that it supports a pantheistic and/or panenthestic worldview based on a quantum mind(s) hypothesis. Although he does not go into this theory in the video, he does hint at it toward the end of the Q & A session.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Great post, Nigel!
What we've seen in this thread is a textbook example of why critical thinking and the scientific method need to be taught. They're not really that intuitive, and Paisley is showing us exactly how somebody can screw up their own life by not understanding the process.
As you eloquently explained, nobody here is denying that any of the Psi experiments achieved anomalous results. What everyone is trying to explain to Paisley is that results are not proof. For us to say that Psi (or anything else) is the cause of the results, we must have several things:
1) repeatable results. (This part is highly questionable in the psi experiments.)
2) controls to eliminate confounding variables. (again, the psi experiments have trouble here.)
3) predictive theories against which the results can be compared. (again, even Radin has admitted that there is no "theory of psi."
Psi has none of this. That does not mean that psi does not exist. It means that there's no compelling reason to believe that it does. Yet, Paisley has made a leap. Instead of waiting for the scientific method to do its work, he has decided that the undefined, unquantified, untheorized principle involving supernatural explanations is true. Does that sound like any other leap that theists make?
Notice how theists misunderstand science geeks? When someone says, "Those are interesting results. We'll have to do lots more tests to see what has caused them," theists get their panties in a twist and say, "NOOOO!!!!! Why are you denying my pet theory!??? You don't know that it's not true, and yet you just piss on my parade and tell me I'm wrong!!!!"
To make this perfectly clear: Paisley, we are not telling you that it's not psi. We're telling you that if it is psi, it's got a LONG road ahead of it before it has any credibility.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Might I add that even if it is psi, it's not evidence of a collective mind or Paisley's picture of God?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It's a great thing to add. In fact, let me explain this in terms of simple syllogism -- basic logic. Paisley, if you're not familiar with this, it's very simple. You take two premises, combine them, and get a conclusion:
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The important thing to notice is that you need two premises to draw a conclusion. Notice that P1 and P2 both have the element, "man" or "men"? That's how it works. You know two different things about the category "man," and you combine them. There's no way for it not to be true IF the premises are correct.
Now, let's look at what we have to work with in Psi experiments.
P1: Experiments that should have produced approximately 25% "hits" if they were random produced approximately 33% hits.
C: Therefore, ????
You see? There's nothing to conclude. You need something else to combine P1 with, or all you have is P1. Granted, we could say something like P2: Some people think that Psi accounts for this result. Unfortunately, that doesn't help anything because it doesn't connect to the first one. You need the same category. If we reduce our statement down to a real logical statement, we get something like this:
P1: Some E are N. (SOME "experiments that should have produced 25% hits randomly" ARE "experiments that produced Nonrandom hits of approximately 33%"
So, in order to combine this with anything else to be able to draw a conclusion, you need to say something about either E or N in the second premise. You could say:
P2: Some N are indicators of causal links to existing theories.
But that doesn't get you anywhere... now we've got:
P1: Some E are N.
P2: Some N are L. (causal Links)
C: Therefore ????
Unfortunately, there's nothing to be learned here. Two statements beginning with "some" don't lead to a conclusion. Take an easy example:
P1: Some dogs have long hair. (Some Dogs are Things with long hair)
P2: Some things with long hair go to Salons
C: Therefore ????
We can't conclude that some dogs go to Salons because we don't know if the two categories overlap. In the same way, some studies with anomalous results are linked to cause/effect relationships. Other studies with anomalous results are correlative, but don't demonstrate cause. Still others are the result of errors or unknown factors. Even worse, many studies that link to a cause/effect relationship don't relate to the same conclusion that the researchers thought! Sometimes we discover something entirely different than what we thought we were looking for!
In short, here's the way the critical thinking pans out:
1) Anomalous results in experiments looking for psi only demonstrate anomalous results, not psi.
2) There are many more possible explanations for the results.
3) There is no logical conclusion to be drawn about the cause of these results.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'd like to see more statistics so that someone familiar with how to do it can test for statistical signifigance (I forget how - been years since I had a class in statistics or experimentation. )
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Thanks, Hamby. Coming from you, that means a lot.
This was just on Slashdot (Warning: PDF alert): 'How extraverted is honey.bunny77 at hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e-mail addresses.' Note that you glean a lot of information from a person with just a tiny bit of data. So, knowing anything about the other person will alter the outcome of these sorts of experiments.
I'd like to see more details about the setup of this experiment: the control groups, the method of isolating test subjects, the rubrick for judging a "hit," and so on. The video seemed to have details, but left me with an incomplete picture of the testing procedure. That could be my problem with following lectures, though. I learn better and retain more by reading or by engaged conversation than I do by simply listening.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yeah... part of my annoyance with Paisley's insistence on me "watching the video" is that I absorb a LOT more from reading, and I do it much faster. I guarantee that five minutes of reading would tell me everything on the video. And yes, I am familiar with the psi experiments from reading about them.
There have been experiments done with a technique called "priming" where people's assessment of other people's personality can be heavily influenced by something as simple as the temperature of a drink they're holding. As evolutionary psychologists and neurologists are fast becoming aware, our brains are incredibly sensitive to minute changes in environment, and subtle patterns can emerge very easily because of the very real influence of our innate genetic predispositions.
Hell, you should have seen me when I decided to take up Astrology. Of course, I didn't really take up astrology. I just practiced cold reading people and telling them it was astrology. The funny thing is that (just anecdotally... this wasn't a scientific experiment) when I just told people I was going to cold read them, they disagreed with a lot of what I said and were generally unhelpful. They stopped giving me as much information, both verbally and physically, because they were guarded against me cold reading them. However, when I told them I was doing astrology, they practically did the reading themselves, and then were convinced that I was some kind of guru.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Then why do you feel the need to use a term (i.e. pantheism) that evokes God to identify yourself?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It amuses me, and keeps me out of trouble with theist friends and family.
If you note, I qualify my pantheism with 'naturalistic', meaning I view nature as god. It does not mean I see that god as sentient, or even intelligent. It does not mean that I subscribe to the deity or deities described in the Bible or any other holy book.
Richard Dawkins describes pantheism as "sexed-up atheism".
Paisley has been schooled!!
Wrong! The experiments have been reproduced. And the only scientist who has actually reviewed the data (i.e. the meta-analysis) and questioned the statistical analysis is Ray Hyman. However, ten other statisticians reviewed the same data and disagreed with Hyman's conclusion. Watch the video!
Okay. Then please provide a materialistic theory that accounts for the data.
Just FYI. I never said "proved," I said "evidence." There is a difference.
Your response has opened so many issues, that quite honestly, I don't know where to start. However, I will try.
To begin with, I like to make the following comments:
1) "Naturalistic" and "materialistic" are not necessarily interchangeable terms (although, I do realize that they are in the minds of many atheists).
2) What is conventionally called "paranormal" may not really be beyond the normal (if normal means naturalisitic). In other words, psychic phenomena may be real phenomena even though they have naturalistic explanations.
3) The same thing can be said for the supernatural.
4) John-Dylan Haynes does not conclude there is no free will. In fact, he says that the "unconscious will" and the "conscious will are part of the same process (the source is the article you provided).
5) Charles Frith (neuroscientist at University College London) questions Haynes' methodology in the experiment (the source is the artcile you provided).
Now, here are the questions:
1) Why does John-Dylan Haynes' one experiment with 14 volunteers constitute real science while Dean Radin's numerous experiments don't?
2) Why does a deciphering of 60% (as opposed to 100%) of the brain signals "prove rather conclusively" (your exact words) that decisions by our "unconscious will" (Haynes' term) are made long before (7 seconds, according to the article) we become consciously aware that our "conscious will" (Haynes' term) is making a decision?
3) I'm still not understaninding how this experiment disproves PSI. As I understand it, if our uncouscious will is determining our conscious will 7 seconds before the fact, then this implies that the last homerun Barry Bonds hit was determined by his unconscious will before the pitcher released the pitch. This sounds like PSI to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bottom line is that you have just ascribed "pyschic abilities" to our "unconscious will."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
1. Hamby mentioned "reproducing experiments consistently". 99 failures with one success doesn't prove a theory.
2. A materialistic explanation for the results? Fudging with the data, sloppy research methodolgies...Paisley, this is too easy.
3. You're using the dubious evidence of psi in an attempt to prove your communal mind "god". A distinction without a difference.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Pantheism (true) is naturalistic by definition (e.g. Stoic pantheism or Spinozan pantheism).
There's a movement afoot called the "World Pantheist Movement" (WPM) which appears to be promoting atheistic materialism under the guise of naturalistic pantheism. That atheists have to deceitfully evoke God in order to promote their movement simply demonstrates the spiritual impoverishment of a materialistic worldview.
Wikipedia: Naturalistic pantheism
Wikipedia: World Pantheism Movement
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
1. ...and no Scotsman (true) puts sugar on his porridge.
2. If all pantheism is naturalistic, why are you going outside the bounds with this "communal mind" you can't adequately describe in naturalistic terms?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Translation: "I'm not going to bother watching the video because I am afraid it may cast doubt on my materialistic worldview."
You have my sympathy. I feel your pain.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You haven't brought me any adequate alternatives so I guess my big bad materialistic woldview is pretty damn safe
.
Your bastardized Mary Baker Eddy "pantheism" just isn't cutting it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
P(1): Non-random results are generally to be construed as evidence of a non-random process.
P(2): Non random results in ganzfeld experiments.
Therefore:
3. Ganzfeld experiments are generally to be construed as evidence of a non-random process.
...
Personally I think the study Hamby cited is of definite interest. To Quote Hamby on that paper:
Evidence of unconscious material influence could be a major breakthrough in favour of Psi. I sometimes wonder what people who are interested in the study of ESP think a sense is? Here's a clue, it is a material influence.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I did read them. And I take issue with you suggesting that I did not.
I'm not very familiar with intelligent design arguments. That being said, you seem to be making an unfair characterization. I fail to see how Radin's argument for the existence of PSI (which is supported by experimental data) is in the same class as fundamentalists arguing that "irreducible complexity" is evidence that God created the world in 6 days.
Why do you keep on insisting that the experiments are non-repeatble when Radin said that they have been repeatable? The only scientist who disagrees with the results (and has actually published) is Ray Hyman (see Time 21:14).
Saying that "cold reading" can account for the data is simply saying there is fraud. And although Radin said that siblings have higher hit rates, I don't see how social upbringing can affect his telepathy experiments. Please elaborate.
I'm unable to respond further because I can't see your post beyond this point. (It's a technical problem between the RRS application and my ISP.)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I said what I meant. Additionally, I'll repeat that you're using a non-sequitur to affirm the undefined by the unsubstantiated. You can't even get through a basic diss without making an argument from ignorance, leaping to the conclusion that telepathy could not be explained without resorting to dualism -- which doesn't explain anything at all. Not explained only means not explained, not whatever you want it to be (let alone justification of your god concept). And that's assuming you could reliably demonstrate and isolate a phenomena in the first place. Which, if it happens, won't happen in any connection to you and your desperate and ungainly groping at science.
Bully for them.
THIS atheist does no such thing. I am part of no such movement. I evoke God for NOTHING, deceitfully or otherwise. I'm a pantheist in name only. SO WHAT?
Did I read somewhere that YOU are a pantheist? Are YOU a part of either of these movements?
What, by the way, does bustin' my chops over what I call myself have to do with the pseudoscience you're promoting in this thread?
Those links don't work.
Never fear, though; I was able to find the articles.
Love the "no true Scottsman" invocation, by the way.
So what? It's deceitful...that's what. Why do you have to label nature as God if you really don't believe that nature (your ultimate reality) is God? A true pantheist actually believes in a "conscious universe."
Yes, I said this (actually, I said pantheistic/panentheistic). More to the point, I said in the OP of this thread that the results of the PSI experiments provide support for a pantheistic/panentheistic worldview.
Also, I am not an atheist masquerading around as a pantheist. Therefore, I am not part of this movement. I actually believe in God. What aren't you getting?
I am berating you because you and your ilk are co-opting a legitimate, theological term and deliberately misusing it to promote a spiritually-impoverished worldview known as atheistic materialism. Moreover, what you are calling pseudoscience actually supports true pantheism (properly defined). That you continue to attack the experimental results that support a pantheistic worldview while simultaneously calling yourself a pantheist is bizarre to say the least.
Why do atheists find the need to SEX UP their worldview by evoking a God-concept)?
What kind of stupditiy is this that presents itself as a militant, anti-theistic viewpoint and yet employs a God-concept to describe itself?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Offhand, I'd say it's the same kind of stupidity that tries to present Christian Science as pantheism/panentheism. Please stop.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I was being sarcastic. You claimed I denied the data, when in fact I was questioning the conclusion. My analysis has focused on the data, because that's the easiest (and first!) thing to examine, and the first place psychological effects will manifest, if allowed.
Basically, Radin is using data to support a speculation without eliminating other, more-logical, hypotheses. He is gathering data to support PSI without bothering to discuss the other possibilities. It seems he will only interpret his data in light of PSI, which is exactly what the ID folks do when they bring up "irreducible complexity."
By framing the data in terms of the outcome they desire, they bias the discussion, and their own analysis.
Because they have only had limited repeatability? When Richard Wiseman and Julie Milton looked at a different set of ganzfeld experiments, they found no anomalous statistics. That is, they did the same type of analysis that Honorton used, and the results were essentially random. This indicates that repeatability is limited, which makes data gathering and data analysis difficult.
Further, the 34% comes from only a couple of meta-analysis of the available ganzfelds. As stated here, the 34% result is quite questionable, as a more-complete analysis of all published ganzfeld experiments yields a result of about 28%. This is still significant, but not nearly like 34%.
On that page, there's a very interesting comparison about sample sizes, and the mapping into a funnel graph. It indicates that there is possibly a flaw in the standardization process of the experiment.
No, it's saying that there are subtle flaws that sneak into psychology experiments. For instance, some off the tests involved the "receiver" describing images, and a judge did the actual selection of the card based on the receiver's descriptions, allowing greater latitude in the selection process. These were included in the original 34% number.
That's too bad. It was brilliantly devastating, insightful, and wittily cruel. It was, in fact, the best piece of writing to have ever graced the hallowed halls of the interweb.
Basically, I just said that, as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman have stated; it's much to early to tell what's going on. It may be PSI, in which case there will be a wonderful revolution in science similar to that produced by Newton's Laws and Einstein's relativity. Or, it might be something more mundane, like contamination of the fluid by quartz tubing.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Neither am I. I didn't even know the costume shop had pantheist suits.
I actually do not. What aren't YOU getting?
First off, I find "ilk" to be offensive. When used by a theist, it smacks of looking down the nose at those deemed inferior.
Second, FINE, I won't be a pantheist any more. You can have the title, and stuff it in your pipe.
"True" pantheism? "True" Christian? "True" Scottsman? Where do you get these "sooper sekrit" decoder rings to tell who is a "true" anything. Wingnuts like you are part of the reason I left the church, always trying to define ME and tell ME what I'm supposed to do, say, and think.
Keep your pseudoscience; when the experiments can be defined, replicated, and peer-reviewed, let me know.
Thank you.
The experiments have been defined, replicated, and reviewed by peers. If you had bothered to watch the video, then you would have known this. As it is, you have demonstrated such a closed-mind that you are not even willing to listen to the evidence. By doing so, you have excluded yourself from this conversation.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Meta-data review isn't replication. Has Radin been able to find anyone capable of guessing a word beyond chance, or moving a pencil across the table?
Radin is psychotic, not psychic. But, as Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion; I could be wrong."
Peer review means reviewed by actual scientists, not crackpots like parapsychologists. What scientific journal was it published in?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
The experiments may have been replicated but what of the results?
Have those been replicated consistently?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Geezz Paisley, it seems you are creating an idol of worship, "consciousness" .....
These debates regarding PSI and consciousness are scientific ones. Does a person in a primitive society need this science imfo to be good, happy, positive, productive, and mentally healthy? .... Did the famous loving buddha?
Let's love "LOVE". The A's and the P's reject idol worship.
I appreciate your passion, and concern Paisley for an improved "world view", but your message delivery resonates overtones of idol worship. I am just trying to help you, as I see the A's and P's as basically being on the same page of no idols, no dogma. Please ask yourself why are you one of the few P's here that actually rile even the non-militant atheists? When you first came on board I guessed you for a new age Xain.
( yeah yeah, my name and poor writing does confuse many, but it's mostly intentional, and my alter approach to destroying all idol worship. Please help. )
If you really are a Pantheist / Panentheist, why spend so much time clashing with the atheists? Why do you seldom rant against the sick lost idol worshiping superstitious dogma fools?
We can't "rush" science, and we certainly must not jump to conclusions, and for gawed sakes, in the name of love, to the betterment of humanity, we must never ever erect idols of any design.
Thanks for caring ..... go science knowledge, the expanding enlightenment of the awe. ( all that we are, "gawed" ! )
Atheism Books.
Even Radin did not conclude or make a claim that he knows the cause. See about 51:30 in the video as I pointed out, where he said, "Is it psychic? It's hard to say because we don't know exactly what psychic means."
Never the less you say this:
And
In your original video Radin does not present anything at all for proof of exactly what is causing what has been observed. All he says is there is something interesting there. Anything else is conjecture and interpretation. Since the data involves humans and they appear to be material. I don't see the leap you take here to be justified.
Again you jump to conclusions. Your guy did not say it was psychic or he had proof it was, only that it seemed similar to what people report.
If you listen to the whole video or just the part right before from about 8:50 he says this: "At this point we don't know then what direction the arrow of causation goes. We don't know simply if its a lot of human minds that are somehow changing randomness or whether this is a reflection of something bigger. Something like a collective mind."
It does not indicate that he knows for sure either. He doesn't provide proof and can't as to what is going on. You however jump to conclusions again and say this:
And this:
You assume psychic phenomena when the video with Radin doesn't support what it is.
Radin has not presented evidence that is compelling only interesting. It does not prove a collective mind, only he has conjecture there may be such a thing. And finally it doesn't leap to your level that this collective mind is god.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Exactly! That's what I've been trying to say all along. Radin is not saying what you want to hear Paisley, you're hearing what you want him to say.
I watched the whole video, and I found Radin to be very humble in the face of what he had found. No jumping to conclusions there. Some conjecture, certainly, but whenever he did, he was quick to point out that it was only conjecture, and not anything certain. I can respect that.
Also; I found IAGAY's statement that "God is obviously an atheist" to be completely lucid. I understood exactly what he meant, and find it very eliquent to boot.
Welcome to the humanities Paisley. Words, be they descriptions, metaphors, or poetry, still convey meaning. And I for one get what IAGAY is saying (maybe we have a psychic connection, he and I?
). Or maybe I have just read enough literature, and poetry, to understand poetic expression. You might do good to start reading some real art yourself, instead of just the bible, then maybe you too could tell the difference between God: the conscious entity, and God: the metaphor.
And re-read IAGAY's latest entry. He has abandoned his usual tongue-in-cheek, drunken court-jester attitude just for you, because he appears to be truly concerned for you. He writes yet another lucid, passionate, and loving entry above, and I find it very well thought out, and something you would do well to consider seriously. Stop being so paranoid about "spiritually empowerished materialists", and start actually listening to what we say. I find this place to be full of spirit, passion and affection for humanity at large. I cannot comprehend what you are so angry and paranoid about.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Paisley,
Do you want your beliefs to be true so badly that you'll grab onto anything that comes close to them?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Very zen teacher of you. When you ask the question like that, it sort of answers itself, doesn't it?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
There is no proof in science, just evidence. And he is suggesting that there is evidence for psi (psychic phenomena).
Also, in his most recent published book, he outlines an explanation for the process based on quantum entanglement...hence, the name of the book - "Entangled Minds."
I found the following video listed below. Here he talks about intention, attention, random number generators, global events, and the "arrow of causation." At time 8:45, he says he is not certain about the arrow of causation, but it may be due to the attention of a collective mind that includes everything including matter and energy.
You Tube - Dean Radin: The Global Consciousness Project
Again, I never said proof. I said it provides evidence. The title of this thread is "The Scientific Evidence for the Existence of PSI."
What "people report in their life" is psychic phenomena. The term "psi" means "psychic phenomena" by definition. Also, he says that psi supports the concept of a "conscious universe" - hence, the name of his first book "The Conscious Universe." The idea of a conscious universe is clearly a pantheistic idea.
Also, he compares the mind/matter interaction to a "mobius strip" - where mind and matter are one and the same thing. Once again, this is clearly a pantheistic concept. See end of video 2 and beginning of video 3 which are listed below.
You Tube - Dean Radin, Phd. Quantum Physics 2 of 3
You Tube - Dean Radin, Phd. Quantum Physics 2 of 3
Incidentally, I never said that he (explicitly) is arguing for pantheism and/or panentheism. I am simply saying (as stated in the OP of this thread) that his experimental results are providing support for a pantheistic/panentheistic worldview.
1) What are Richard Todd Carroll's credentials as a scientist? Answer: None. Has he actually performed a statistical analysis of Radin's data? Answer: No.
2) Richard Todd Carroll is a self-identified skeptic and atheist. Would we expect his opinion to be biased? Answer: YES!
Incidentally, Carroll makes the ridiculous argument that consciousness is an illusion and asks his readers to read Daniel Dennett's work on consciousness. If conscious-awareness is an illusion, then this begs the question: Who is having the illusion? As you can see, his argument is inherently self-refuting. Conscous-awareness is axiomatic (in fact, it is the most self-evident thing we know), any attempt to deny it, presupposes it. That there are skeptics denying their own conscious-awareness is proof-positive of the irrationality that is the worldview of atheistic materialism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
How do you distinguish between mental and physical phenomena?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It seems to me that they are indistinguishable, and on multiple levels.
In any case, though, mental phenomena is a really vague term which, at its most basic definition, corresponds to the material observation of brain-body activity anyway. So then either mental phenomenon is completely indistinct from physical phenomena, or someone needs to define the purported difference a lot more accessibly.
So what do you mean by asking this anyhow, Paisley?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Sorry about that, I'm an engineer not a scientist we deal more in proof not evidence. I get your point, I will not use the word proof in regards to psi in this thread.
You previously posted this link in post #25 and the link there worked, this one didn't. Here's one that does: The Global Consciousness Project
I already commented on this video in Post #129 He only said it may be something like a collective mind. You originally said "Dean Radin considers a "collective mind" (God) to be a real possibility. Here's the link. You can fast forward to time "9:15."". As I said previously, you are stretching what Radin has said to include what you think.
As you say, it is possible evidence not proof for his claim. I'll try again, I don't see this as valid evidence of a universal mind even if it turns out to be evidence of psi. The most it suggests is humans have telepathy to some level or can transmit/receive, though the data is still scant to conclude that yet.
It may be that a conscious universe is a pantheistic idea but it is but a suggested possibility no more. I know your dislike for the word material, however, minds are part of a material world interacting in many ways. If the evidence for psi turns out to be valid, it is evidence of our materialistic worldview. As Radin points out, radio waves can't be seen but they are generated elsewhere and then received. I see no difference here, if a human mind generates something that is received in another human mind or interacts with matter it is material. There is no need to create a new layer called a universal mind to explain it, if psi turns out to be real.
These 2 links did not work, try these: Dean Radin, Phd. Quantum Physics 2 of 3 Dean Radin, Phd. Quantum Physics 2 of 3
I did watch both of these videos as well and took note of his claim of evidence for mind matter interaction. Again, it could yet again be more evidence of a materialistic worldview if it is valid. There is no reason to consider universal consciousness as the cause as again, that is adding complication to your evidence. Again, his evidence is insufficient at this point to make accurate conclusions.
OK, then you should probably not say things like this:
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Pantheists are cool and fun freethinkers, but I am atheist by my intuition and by the little I do know about science. I know this sounds like a contradiction but "I am god, I am atheist" ! When it comes to "gawed" fuck the dictionary .... How the fuck can we not be gawed?
Gods of religion separatism I completely reject. Everything is natural, material, energy/matter, regardless of it's mysterious nature and our yet lack of description in science physics or any language of knowledge. Why idols? Keep the awe, but let's not get weird about our unanswered questions ..... But I do like hypothesizing, speculation, and science fiction ..... I fucking hate dogma. And please alert and correct me if you find me dogmatizing .... , me god a you.
Atheism Books.
If they are indistinguishable, then are they the same? In other words, are all physical phenomena also mental phenomena? Also, what are the multiple levels?
If mental phenomena are the "material" observation of brain-body activity, then what exactly is the material that is having the observation?
You profess to be some kind of theist and yet you seem to be arguing for materialism. I find this contradictory. Hence, I am asking the questions to better understand your position.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is not true. Radin addresses other possible explanations in the video and concluded that they were not plausible (see time 25:25).
This is not true. Again, Radin addresses this issue in the video. What Wiseman and Milton originally published in 1999 was found to be incorrect. When they used the same meta-analysis procedure that everyone else had used, then they recorded the same hit rate percentage (see time 26:14).
It is beginning to appear that you did not view the entire video. The hit rate that Radin records is 32%. This is a figure for the general public. For creative people, siblings, those with the psychological trait of open-mindedness, and those with previous precognition experiences, the figure is much higher (65%). Also, the source you are providing for the figure of 28% is not a credible source. Andrew Endersby is simply a self-identified skeptic who has a skeptic blog. He freely admits that he is neither a scientist nor a statistician and that greater skeptical minds (with credentials and who have actually viewed the data and published in a professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal) have "come up empty handed." The bottom line is that his figures don't count!
No, this is not how the Ganzfeld experiment works. The receiver is given four pictures and asked to picked which one most resembles the image he had received (see time 22:00). Evidently, you did not watch the video!
Radin states that Ray Hyman would agree that for at least "remote viewing" (and probably for the telepathy experiments) that there is enough "proof oriented" studies that have been conducted to suggest anomalies (see time 51:00).
Susan Blackmore identifies herself as a Zen practioner, but not as a Buddhist. At any rate, she apparently holds a very core Buddhist belief - what she calls "waking up from the dream meme." Enough said.
see "Waking up from the Dream Meme"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Well, I'm fairly well convinced of that, myself, but I'm not here to argue for it in this thread, exactly. I agree with what most are saying here about the evidence you presented being interesting but less than compelling of a belief in any particular model of Psychic reality.
My point, moreover, was to suggest to you, and perhaps others who entertain panentheistic concepts that materialistic naturalism might be found to be much less an enemy than all that which I suspect you've been supposing.
To speak of senses doesn't require an automatic disconnect from the naturalistic methodology, we are privileged to have a wealth of data on the material inner workings of ordinary senses, and it would stand to reason, surely, that any further sense phenomenon which could be discovered wouldn't depart much from that. A psychic sense, for example, could as well be materially apparent in the same terms as ordinary senses, that is, as an organic interconnected system of transmitting, relaying and receiving units.
By that I mean levels of abstraction, not unlike what you're alluding to in the next paragraph.
Indeed. This is what I mean by saying that the phenomena are apparently indistinguishable.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I did watch the video. Not willing to take just one person's view on the matter, I consulted other materials as well, such as here and here. (Others as well, of course.) Some of the experiments included in the meta-analysis were performed exactly as I described.
It's funny that you say that Hyman is the only published critic, when in fact there are several, including Blackmore. It doesn't matter whether she identifies herself as a druid or a clod of dirt; her analysis is interesting, in that it seems the meta-analyses of Bem and Honorton were a bit selective in the choice of experiments to include.
It took a re-ordering of Wiseman and Milton's analysis for it to come in line with the pro-PSI group. And Endersby's analysis is sound, following good statistcial practice. It doesn't matter that he's not a statistician by trade. When including all data from all experiments, rather than picking and choosing, the numbers aren't nearly as rosy as Radin, Bem, and Honorton claim.
Why is it that when skeptics do the experiments, the numbers are essentially random? But when PSI proponents do the experiments, the numbers come out in favor of information transfer? That seems a little bit... odd to me. That in itself would be a good meta-analysis, I would think.
Note also that Radin himself says that it appears information is being transferred. In some cases, that information could have been from handling errors (64% of the experiments in one analysis used shared cards between transmitter and receiver) or via the exerimenter herself (in many of the experiments investigated by Blackmore, the experimenter visited both transmitter and reciever during the course of the experiment). He doesn't really claim it's PSI; he even goes as far as to say that PSI isn't really even a full-fledged hypothesis. He says there needs to be much more study, and with that, I agree. The results are currently enticing, and with some luck, we'll be able to track down exactly what's going on.
Again, I really hope there is something going on here outside our current knowledge. I'm not naive enough to believe we know everything there is to know, or to have identified everything we don't know. There are vast swaths of ignorance waiting to be discovered. It'd be cool to find out that our intellect is tied intrinsically and inextricably to the fabric of the universe. It'd also be cool to discover dragons and a method to smite all my enemies from afar, maybe using dragons.
But for the moment, that's all just wishful thinking and speculation, with some interesting data points. Right now, Radin and company have a fantasy for which they are trying to find evidence. This is ultimately no different than bigfoot hunters, alien abductees, believers in God, and anyone else who has a pet "theory" which they are trying to "prove."
This is nothing more than "pathological science," like polywater and cold fusion.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
If you are fairly convinced of that, then how did you arrive at this conviction? Is it based on evidence?
Also, you say that you are not here to argue for it (panentheism) in this thread. However, I have never seen you argue for it PERIOD. When will you be prepared to argue in favor of it?
If you don't believe there is any evidence for a psychic reality (e.g. entangled minds), then what evidence do you have to warrant a belief in panentheism?
I'm the only panentheist here. There are no others. And, although you profess to be a panentheist, you are not willing to argue for your position. Instead, you would rather argue for materialism in order to curry favor with those who espouse atheism. Atheistic materialism and naturalistic panentheism are not compatible worldviews. To argue otherwise is to render both worldviews meaningless.
Actually, the study of consciousness (subjectivity) is not wholly amenable to the scientific method (at least as it is presently constituted) and the fact is that most materialistic scientists are operating under the false assumption that consciousness can be fully accounted for by simply identifying the neural correlates. This kind of rationale leads many materialists to come to the absurd conclusion that consciousness is an illusion.
What is also problematic is that psychic transmission of "data or signals" is superluminal (faster-than-light) or nonlocal. This is different than any other known transmission of data. That being said, the evidence for psi meshes with the problem areas (e.g. nonlocality and entanglement) of quantum mechanics. This, no doubt, lends support to consciousness-based interpretations of QM.
Abstractions are not physical. It is meaningless to speak of an abstraction independent of a mind that abstracts.
Okay. So what evidence do you have for these multiple levels of "abstractions?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I of course can't speak for cool Eloise, but my guess as to why she favors the pantheist label, is that she rejects what most call the definition of atheist, as rejecting "g-o-d", however the very definition of g-o-d is the damn problem. I reject all god definitions of separatism, and my whole thinking life I've considered "everything" to simply be g-o-d. Heck , g-o-d is basically a good definition of atheism. Wow, the problem of labels and communication .....
I am not pantheist on scientific grounds regarding consciousness, and it's proper placement regarding energy / matter and all of what is called phenomena. I think consciousness is the result of E/M. I am awaiting science to better answer all this, but I cannot see how I could ever abandon my simple atheism label, which for me, is a rejection of all gods of separatism definitions and idol worship.
Damn babel. Go communication. Go g-awe-d, Stop god. !?!?
( Go awe, Stop separatism idol worship dogma )
Atheism Books.
Slow down there, Hoss. What is your evidence that scientists are operating under "false assumptions?" The fact that they don't accept psychic phenomena as a given?
The conclusion that consciousness is an illusion isn't exactly absurd, but it is certainly premature. We don't have enough evidence to form any conclusion whatsoever. It is irrational to form a conclusion, any conclusion. This is an area of ignorance, and anyone who claims they have knowledge otherwise is simply wrong.
Wow! That's some interesting assertions you're throwing out there with no references. First, we have no knowledge of "psychic transmission." Second, since we have no way to measure psychic transmission, since we don't even have a theory of psychic transmission. How do you come to the conclusion that this proposed transmission is superluminal?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
What exactly is your objection here? That "may" does not suggest "possibly?" He said that it may be (this is the possibility!) due to the attention of a collective mind. A collective mind that has one attention is a god-concept.
Let's be very clear about this. He is saying in the video (time 8:45) that they (the researchers) are not clear on whether this (the observed phenomenon) is a group of human minds that is changing randomness or if it is "something much bigger...something like a collective mind that attends to...and the collective mind includes everything else...including all matter and energy"..that is able to bring about this change! I will argue that a collective mind that includes everything including all mass/energy and exhibits one attention is clearly a pantheistic concept. I don't know how you can interpreted it any other way.
At any rate, Dean Radin has already gone on record in his first book and explicitly stated that psi supports a conscious universe - hence, the name of his first book "The Conscious Universe." A conscious universe is clearly a pantheistic concept.
Scientific data is subject to interpretation. And the data (especially when coupled with what we know about quantum mechanics) provides evidence (not proof) for a universal mind.
First of all, relativity and quantum mechanics have dismantled the idea of materialism. Quite simply, there are no permanent particles (which is the basis of materialism).
Secondly, the theories that are being invoked to explain psi are those elements of quantum mechanics which are especially troubling to materialists - namely, nonlocality and/or entanglement. Radio waves (or any other kind of data transmission) do not violate the principle of locality. Telepathic "data transmission" does.
But this is beside the point. My response here was to simply reaffirm that Radin's analogy of mind/matter as a mobius strip is an implicit argument for pantheism. To argue that conscious-awareness and matter (mass/energy) are two aspects of the same process (the moebius strip) is to argue for pantheism.
I stand by this. Although, Radin never made an explicit argument for pantheism, he most certainly made an implicit argument for it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley quote, "First of all, relativity and quantum mechanics have dismantled the idea of materialism." ~~~~~
Ahhh bull shit ! This reminds me of them past scientists beating each other up seeking attention and professorship. Chill out, the answers will eventually come.
Geezz, it's all gawed .... material based.
Get drunk Paisley , LOL ....
Atheism Books.
If you haven't seen me argue for my beliefs before then you've missed much that's been right in front of you, I'm sure I have even posted points in favour them in your past threads; perhaps you've just forgotten.
I have arrived at this conviction via a worldview rather similar to yours, like you I have questioned the suppositions of materialism and contemplated the philosophical consequences of a bottom up quantum universe. And I have since returned to formal study (at age 26) with the explicit intent put my original intuitions/epiphanies to scrutiny. I feel it is of notable consequence that I've taken a career path to literally cross examine my theism, you may not agree, but nonetheless that is what I did with my life and I'm content with it.
Basically, I am quite convinced that the "laws" governing this universe are best represented at this time by quantum mechanics and, as such, the pertinent consequences favour a neutrally monistic view of the material world - ie there will be found no fundamental distinction between mental and physical material; specifically they are each facets of the other depending on the frame of reference.
I have not claimed that there is no evidence for a psychic reality. I didn't even suggest it. I've said that the evidence which you provided was not all that compelling in favour of any specific model.
The main scientific evidences that warrant my personal beliefs are 1. Evidence implying the emergence of space and time and 2. Evidence of Non-individuality in the fundamental universe.
Maybe, but sometimes forum members lurk and just read things of interest to them, there could be others here.
Sorry I can't make it that easy for you, Paisley, I'm sure it would be nice for you if the only reason I disagreed was in the interests of my popularity on this board, then you could just be right, and I could just be a sell out that you'd have an excuse to ignore.
I'll let my posts speak for themselves, this is my genuine insight it merely happens to presently accord with what some of the atheists are saying. Your presentation of evidence is interesting, but it doesn't compel Radin's theory (*which is no less interesting of itself). How these things tie neatly together to form a panentheistic worldview isn't entirely clear, and I don't blame you for that, I know from personal experience just how much paper and cross referencing would be involved in making your case explicit.
So there are just these two things I would discuss with you here which are -
1. I don't agree that materialism is the antithesis of panentheism (atheistic or otherwise).
and 2. I would concur with those who are saying that a leap to confidence in panentheism from the evidence you've presented is not really justified, could you reasonably concede that much?
This is a false dilemma, materialism is not exclusively conjoined to atheism.
It's not absurd to conclude that a proposition is defunct, which is basically what is meant by saying 'consciousness may be an illusion'. The illusion is defined, and what is defined is seeming to be falsified therefore something of what was observed as definitive may not be so, possibly it is a relic, an apparition of what actually is. You seem to be inferring that "consciousness might be an illusion" means that there is no phenomenon of mentality at all (that would be absurd of course). Might you consider that you are wrongly inferring that? Couldn't it be that the definition of consciousness does not refer accurately to what is definitive about consciousness?
Superluminal effects are pretty much outside of our reckoning for now, how can we study anything which is beyond the reality of the main medium of all our scientific observations. We can suppose some things might be of a superluminal nature, but it's pure speculation, we don't have any superluminal tools to examine such things with. Non-locality is another option, of course, with basically the same sorts of issues, we lack the tools.
I would agree that this all lends strong support to consciousness based QM interpretation being the most pragmatic approach. A place where Occams Razor, for once, takes the victory for metaphysics and psychology, they are, at least, sensibly available to be studied and don't need to be added on superfluously in order to be supposed. This is actually a widely recognised fact.
I think you have misinterpreted what I am saying here. I mean that at any of the multiple levels of abstraction which we have it is impossible to completely separate the mental effect from the physical effect. Basically, it seems there are no closed systems in reality.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Wow Eloise, why is it besides me being an unschooled dumb ass, that I can never disagree with you? How the heck can any thing "immaterial exist", let alone be detected by us, and what is with such all detectable stuff? Call something inmaterial? What am I missing, some kind of faith thingy?
Yeah again, as you say , "it seems there are no closed systems in reality." ~~~~
Yeah, no idol, no worship, no separatism ..... and so I am atheist. I simply refuse idol worship.
I love my good teacher Eloise .... she rocks
Atheism Books.
My objection is you have stretched what Radin has said by adding your views. He did not explicitly suggest God as you have done.
Exactly, which also means it may have nothing at all to do with the observations either. Patience and further research is required not jumping to a conclusion as you have done. If in Radin's words its not clear why the phenomenon occurs why do you select only the collective mind concept? This is putting on blinders and restricting your thinking. Wait until more is known to make these conclusions.
That may be, but it doesn't do anything to bring further understanding of psi rather it again is interesting but still needs more investigation.
It provides evidence for something, as to what that's why research is done and should continue.
This involves several problems that have insufficient evidence. 1)Telepathy existing at all. 2)That it has a form of data transmission 3)That it is non-local 4)That it is different somehow from wave transmissions if it is even occurring.
Again, Radin can't make this leap based on the evidence presented as he has said in his own words, you need to wait for more research and understanding.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.