Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Constance]

Well, I read through all of Hyman's report and look forward to reading Utts' response. I thought that of everything I read the following two concluding summary points are the most salient features of his discussion. Firstly, that there is something measurable taking place that exceeds chance (point #4) but that because there is no established positive theory of the paranormal we have no way of making any claims of paranormal activity (point #5). Also, because there is no positive theory of the paranormal there are no teaching or baseline experiments that could be used to prove a positive theory of the paranormal.

Hmmm. It seems to me that Hyman attempted to place paranormal research inside a vicious circle from which there could be no possible escape. But in fact, there are a number of scientific theories concerning paranormal 'activity', experience, and capabilities. Most of these theories have emerged from research and theory concerning the quantum level of reality (widely considered the deepest known -- as yet -- substrate of levels and locations of the classical reality we are familiar with. And we know that the nature of the quantum substrate is far from fully understood at this point. I suggest a few essays by the British physicist and theorist Brian Josephson to clarify how existing dominant presuppositions among physicists (esp concerning quantum mechanics) narrow inquiry and critical thinking at this point in scientific investigations:

[quant-ph/0105027] 'Beyond quantum theory: a realist psycho-biological interpretation of reality' revisited

[1108.4860] Biological Observer-Participation and Wheeler's 'Law without Law'

NOTE that both papers are available in free PDF downloads at the top right of the abstract pages.

 

[Tyger]

I'm peripherally interested in the subject. Just not enough to motivate me to do extensive personal research.

You can't have it both ways - 'not [interested] enough to motivate [you] to do extensive personal research' and yet claim below to have 'opinions [that] are reasonably well informed'.

Not that I haven't done any reading, but credibility of content and thought is based on accuracy and coherency, not how much someone has read.

For the discussion as it is proceeding on this thread - you need to read in order to be an intelligent contributor. You cannot be accurate if you haven't read - and coherency can be totally scrambled (as it has been) if you are not reading. You have more than once betrayed your ignorance - because you answer someone as though you have read and it becomes very clear you haven't to anyone who is familiar with the detail you are arguing.

You seem to be selectively ignoring the part where I say, "surprise me".

You stated that it wasn't worth your while to read studies 'that in all likelihood don't include any verifiable, definitive, consistent, evidence'. My response is that you are exhibiting a pov not open to change. You are not really interested in having your pov altered. 'Surprising you' is no one else's 'job' - it's yours to read the material. How is anyone else to know what will 'surprise you'.

I've mentioned it before that own several thousand titles that deal with all manner of paranormal phenomena

So you say, but one has no way of knowing the calibre of those titles, or if you actually read them. I am aware that you spend a lot of time (apparently) watching sensationalized YouTube videos on all manner of stuff - is this where you feel you are getting 'well-informed'?

Are you able to read first-hand scientific studies? They can be very dry - science is. Science reports are not tabloid-like books that are popularizing the sensational.

and I keep tabs on findings as they come along by participating in discussions like these

This is hardly a place to be keeping abreast of current findings. You have to be doing far more than reading threads on a ufo chat site.

not to mention some personal experiences.

Unless you are actively working with your experiences through some sort of discipline that enables you to transform those experiences into knowledge, those experiences will never rise beyond the level of interesting anecdotes.

So my opinions are reasonably well informed.

That may be what you believe - but complacency is never a good auger - or litmus test - for being well-informed.

If you think otherwise, then it's not up to me to do your "intellectual heavy lifting".

If I think otherwise it's because of the evidence you supply via your posts. You've got this a bit scrambled, which you often do. A judgement of another's text does not take 'intellectual heavy lifting'. People are judging all the time. It's the refraining from judgment - an aspect of the scientific approach, in fact - that is the tough one to maintain. You display - in the evidence of the text above - a tendency to bring judgements to bear before you have experience. That suggests to me that you may not be as well-informed as you believe you are.

The burden of proof is on those who make or support the claims, not those who have looked into the matter already and found reason to be uncertain about such claims.

You pull this rabbit-out-of-the-hat often, even when it doesn't apply. It doesn't apply here.

What is happening is a discussion. You seem to believe that your past has a bearing on the here and now. It doesn't - not in chat world. I came across this recently and while it's more to do with philosophical iterations - there is a relevance. No scientist worth his salt sits back on his laurels. 'The tide nor time waits for no man...'

NOW has nothing to do with THEN.
We think that it does, but it does not.
Yesterday was Yesterday,
and it has nothing to do with Today.
You are not who you were Yesterday,
and nothing you did Yesterday,
and nothing that happened to you
or through you Yesterday,
has anything to do with Today.

Read the articles - surprise yourself. Demonstrate that you are well-informed and can reason your way through such articles. Demonstrate that you do not require them to be pre-digested for you.

 

[Constance]

There you go putting words in my mouth. What's clear should be what I actually wrote, which was, "Personally, I don't see how it's possible to jam parapsychology as a whole into the science mould without resorting to a definition of science that is so broad as to invite allegations of pseudoscience and criticism. The solution is therefore to avoid doing that in the first place and create a foundation upon which academic parapsychology can stand on its own two feet."

Should 'science' be a mould [sic] in the first place? It rather looks as if the mold within which dominant scientific institutions now function has been shaped by the (qualified) success of materialism (primarily resulting in technological developments) on the basis of which the majority of scientists prefer to assume that what's worked so far in reductive science will continue to work -- even though the standard model has continued for 40 years to be daunted by its inability to reconcile the two major scientific discoveries of the 20th century.

ps: when I wrote some days ago that preconsciousness and consciousness have clearly evolved in nature, thus that we live in a single natural world (universe) borne out as unified and interconnected in quantum entanglement, you objected that science has as yet no 'theory of everything'. But I wasn't talking about a TOE yet. If and when we arrive at one, it will need not only to include an understanding of consciousness but also a comprehension of all the means by which information is exchanged, at the quantum level and likely beneath it as well as above it.

 

[Tyger]

I'm interested in relevant new evidence, not going to get into pointless arguments.

Then seek out primary sources.

 

[Tyger]

Good post. Thanks for clarifying your position. Should 'science' be a mould in the first place? Absolutely. Consistently applied standards for investigation and evaluation are essential for making well informed evidence based decisions. However, as I've mentioned all too frequently ( for some ), sceince isn't the only tool in the toolbox. We also have critical thinking and philosophy. What's more, there's nothing stopping us from applying all three ( science, philosophy, and critical thinking ) to the problems we're trying to solve when it is both applicable and appropriate to do so. If the science wrench doesn't fit, then try something that does.

Sounds good. Sounds like a plan. Sounds safe. What happens if you don't follow that road map? What if one just leap frogs straight to intuition?

When one comes to philosophy, one is inevitably dealing with a priori conditions - or assumptions - that one needs to be honest and up-front about. I liken assumptions to a heuristic devise.

Regarding the much lauded 'critical thinking': "Critical thinking is the ability to apply reasoning and logic to new or unfamiliar ideas, opinions, and situations. Thinking critically involves seeing things in an open-minded way and examining an idea or concept from as many angles as possible. This important skill allows people to look past their own views of the world and to better understand the opinions of others. It is often used in debates, to form more cogent and well-rounded arguments, and in science."

It's fine as far as it goes. Reminds me of training middle-schoolers in literature class - looking at all the angles in a character's motivations. There's no question that critical thinking has it's place - but it also has it's limitations.

I'm not at all sure that logic and reason can be applied in all instances of current science. I think we have reached a point where we need to transcend critical thinking - or supercede it. It's not a 'logical leap' that helps out the scientist - but the 'intuitive leap'. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that it is the very application of 'logical leaps' that gum up psychic abilities.

One has only to delve into the 'reasoning and logic' of the lawyer during the criminal trial - or the 'reasoning and logic' of the criminal in that trial - to realize that reason and logic can be very 'earth bound' and counter productive as well as a slippery slope to confusion unless informed by something else.
"The ability to think critically is essential, as it creates new possibilities in problem solving. Being "open-minded" is a large part of critical thinking, allowing a person to not only seek out all possible answers to a problem, but to also accept an answer that is different from what was originally expected. Open-minded thinking requires that a person does not assume that his or her way of approaching a situation is always best, or even right. A scientist, for example, must be open to the idea that the results of an experiment will not be what is expected; such results, though challenging, often lead to tremendous and meaningful discoveries."

It's a curious paradigm - as it suggests that all problem solving arises from the 'critical thinking' - which is very laid out in how you do it. So everything is accounted for. But can we account for intuition? Critical thinking is applicable only so far.

I suspect the 'open minded thinking' idea is the recognition that something happens outside of the box and so 'open minded' is the part that allows for the 'divine intuition' - literally translated 'a thought proceeding from God'.

 

[Constance]

Ufology wrote:

"I'm peripherally interested in the subject. Just not enough to motivate me to do extensive personal research."

What "extensive personal research?" If keeping up with the reading in a thread such as this one is too much to ask of you, ufo, then your contributions can only be 'peripheral' at best. Given your peripheral interest, that might reasonably include asking questions or requesting links to further information. It by no means entitles you to make contemptuous remarks such as this one, which you just uttered to Tyger:

. . . it's not up to me to do your "intellectual heavy lifting".

You also wrote:

Not that I haven't done any reading, but credibility of content and thought is based on accuracy and coherency, not how much someone has read.

You've persuaded yourself but not any of the rest of us that you are in a position to evaluate [make judgments about] either 'accuracy' or 'coherency' in sound bites drawn from videos or perhaps pop science articles reporting briefly and incompletely on scientific research on the internet. To begin to understand all that is happening in science as a collective of increasingly specialized subdisciplines, in scientific theory including systems theory and information theory, in consciousness research, and in investigations of anomalous cognition, one needs to read and read and read and keep on reading. Something you've read in that 'critical thinking' website you keep citing has persuaded you that you have an inside track, without doing the necessary reading, on what can be considered rationality and 'truth'. Please do us a favor and quote from that site the authorities and their intimidating theses that have persuaded you that by following their precepts you're in a position to make harsh judgements about every subject, experiment, and theory brought forward for discussion by the rest of us.

Ufology also demanded:

"Surprise me."

LOL, ufo. Who wants whom to do the heavy intellectual lifting? No, you surprise us for a change.

 

[Tyger]

I'm not the one making the claims, therefore it's not up to me to provide the evidence.

You most certainly are making claims. You are making tons of claims.

You're not in a court of law. I think you misunderstand - you are in a discussion, a back-and-forth.

If you honestly believe that you do not have to really participate in a discussion then why are you trying to enter the discussion?

 

[Constance]

Tyger, ufo is giving us 'critical thinking lite', if anything. Critical thinking means examining premises and presuppositions, not referring every question to a time-dated and hoary 'logic' and/or to the general consensus reality operating in our culture under the aegis of presupposition-laden science supported by a peanut gallery of debunkers.

 

[Constance]

I'm not the one making the claims, therefore it's not up to me to provide the evidence. See Burden of Proof:

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. 'If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed'. This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question."​

Ufo, you'd do well to read Marcello Truzzi's essay at Bernard Haisch's website, ufoskeptic.org. Scroll down on the left to this link:

"On Pseudo-Skepticism" by Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman of CSICOP

There are other papers at that website that you would also benefit from reading.

 

[Randall]

Tyger, ufo is giving us 'critical theory lite', if anything. Critical thinking means examining premises and presuppositions, not referring every question to a time-dated and hoary 'logic' and/or to the general consensus reality operating in our culture under the aegis of presupposition-laden science supported by a gallery of debunkers.

I've linked you to the Foundation For Critical Thinking Standards before. Here it is again: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861

You might also be interested in a video I posted on the other thread here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/philosophy-science-and-the-unexplained.14196/page-43#post-180133

 

[Constance]

Good post. Thanks for clarifying your position. Should 'science' be a mould in the first place? Absolutely. Consistently applied standards for investigation and evaluation are essential for making well informed evidence based decisions. However, as I've mentioned all too frequently ( for some ), sceince isn't the only tool in the toolbox. We also have critical thinking and philosophy. What's more, there's nothing stopping us from applying all three ( science, philosophy, and critical thinking ) to the problems we're trying to solve when it is both applicable and appropriate to do so. If the science wrench doesn't fit, then try something that does.

Catch up, ufo. Parapsychology was accepted as a scientific discipline in the 1960s by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Where have you been and what have you been reading? Certainly not quantum information theory or developing physical theory in general. I do have the impression that you would rather turn yourself inside out than recognize that consciousness and especially anomalous consciousness are scientific questions about which science has been in default.

 

[Constance]

Was there a particular point you were trying to make by posting the link or was it just something you thought I might find interesting?

No, I'm just spinning my wheels here like you do.

Yes, ufo, there's a particular point you need to understand in the Truzzi essay.

 

[Constance]

I've linked you to the Foundation For Critical Thinking Standards before. Here it is again: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861

You might also be interested in a video I posted on the other thread here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/philosophy-science-and-the-unexplained.14196/page-43#post-180133

I now doubt that you've read the site yourself since you're unable to outline or summarize its major claims. I have read some sections of the site on two occasions in the past when you similarly waved your hands, spoke the phrase 'critical thinking', and linked the site, and I found nothing of consequence there. Tell us what you find there that relieves you of the obligation to learn more about the topics and subjects you persistently dismiss in this discussion and its predecessor. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, please put up or shut up.

 

[Constance]

This most recent book by Radin is likely the best source to read on recent developments in parapsychology:

Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities: Dean Radin: 9780307986900: Books - Amazon.ca

 

[Randall]

Catch up, ufo. Parapsychology was accepted as a scientific discipline in the 1960s by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Interesting factoid, but a little bit misleading. The situation is that the Parapsychological Association became an associate of the AAAS in 1969, which speaks mainly to the political success of that particular association with respect to the AAAS. To some degree their associate membership infers that parapsychology is considered to be a valid scientific pursuit, however it's status is still widely disputed, to quote Wikipedia:

"Critics state that methodological flaws can explain any apparent experimental successes and the status of parapsychology as a science has been vigorously disputed. Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience, saying that parapsychologists continue investigation despite not having demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research."​

So although the PA membership in the AAAS provides evidence of some academic acceptance, the debate is far from settled, and it is this ongoing debate that I was referring to.

 

[Constance]

You had brought up the issue of criteria for critical thinking. I responded with criteria from a recognized independent source of the highest caliber.

No, you responded, as always, with a link to a website. You were asked to respond with a summary of that website's content -- i.e., the criteria you claim to have provided but, as always, have not provided.

If you are, as you constantly claim, an exemplar of that website's criteria for 'critical thinking', it should be the simplest matter for you to list those criteria. I can't imagine why you refuse to do so.

 

[Wade]

Ufo, you'd do well to read Marcello Truzzi's essay at Bernard Haisch's website, ufoskeptic.org. Scroll down on the left to this link:

"On Pseudo-Skepticism" by Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman of CSICOP

There are other papers at that website that you would also benefit from reading.

Although I’m not going to pretend to understand even one iota of what has been discussed here…it has been interesting reading though….i am glad I hung in there if not only to see Constance’s post with the link to Mr Truzzi’s article on pseudo-skepticism. While I would never argue against scientific “dogma” and deny that any burden of proof not be put on the person making the claim, I have also felt that those skeptical of any such claim should not be given a free pass. This article was music to my ears. So I guess I am arguing against scientific dogma

Of course, there should be a line in the sand somewhere ( where the line exists I cannot say) where some claims that push credulity can be challenged with a haughty “put up or shut up” but if people who are not inclined to be open to such concepts that are discussed here REALLY want to have a high ground to stand on let them offer reasonable logic that these things cannot be. Lance seems to have a firm grasp on this concept. I’m guessing he doesn’t necessarily “believe” in this concept but whatever the case he does post counter arguments to things he cries BS on and doesn’t just say “back that up”

To buttress my point here is a link from skeptic.com pointing out one can prove a negative (at least in some cases) So if someone with a skeptical viewpoint.... i am talking more of deniers more than i am doubters....really wants to have a moral high ground to stand on, they should also be expected to build their cases by doing their due diligence

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, December 5th, 2007

 

[smcder]

My thing ( as my avatar suggests ) is ufology, and I'm way behind in the work I should be doing there. My participation on the forum is something I do out of personal interest as it relates peripherally to ufology. For example, telepathy is something that is associated with some encounter cases. Remote viewing is associated with others. Astral travel is associated with others. So in order to get a grip on the validity of those kinds of claims, I keep an eye on any developments that could shed light on them, including discussions like these.

Makes sense to me.

 

[smcder]

I agree that there is a prejudicial attitude by some people toward the paranormal, but this isn't ( as you suggest ) due to science. The position of science is that it doesn't have sufficient evidence to make an unequivocal and valid scientific determination. If it did, then scientists would be more than happy to apply science to the problem and arrive at an answer. It's been my experience that the prejudice is more associated with a certain brand of skepticism known as scientific skepticism, which has brought into vogue among the skeptics such faulty notions as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ( ECREE ). When you team up actual scientists with this kind of thinking, then you get the kind of bias I think you may be referring to.

There you go putting words in my mouth. What's clear should be what I actually wrote, which was, "Personally, I don't see how it's possible to jam parapsychology as a whole into the science mould without resorting to a definition of science that is so broad as to invite allegations of pseudoscience and criticism. The solution is therefore to avoid doing that in the first place and create a foundation upon which academic parapsychology can stand on its own two feet."

The ECREE thing has come up several times, I came across that some time back - I think it may have been in a Skeptical Inquirer magazine, will have to track it down - a good essay on the faulty logic there.

 

[Tyger]

The ECREE thing has come up several times, I came across that some time back - I think it may have been in a Skeptical Inquirer magazine, will have to track it down - a good essay on the faulty logic there.

LINK: Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems it originated with our friend Marcello Truzzi: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." 1978

In 1980 Carl Sagan morphed it into: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."