Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom  Yeah, but the prior plausibility is not the same. Dean Radin should realise that. Let's us all remember that there is no known mechanisms who could even begin to explain how Ψ might work (if it even exists). |
Well, how does one measure prior plausibility? The idea that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace, was pretty implausible. I would guess that the phenomenon of radioactivity must have seemed pretty implausible at the time when it was discovered - particularly as people began to realise the energies involved.
In many cases - such as the 'dark energy' phenomenon alluded to above, the explanation begins as little more than a fancy name. The mechanism for Ψ - assuming it exists - will (IMHO) involve some fairly revolutionary explanation of the nature of consciousness. If consciousness is not just an emergent phenomenon of brain complexity - if, perhaps it is liberated as death approaches, as NDE phenomena might suggest, Ψ phenomena might seem almost inevitable. Remember that consciousness is still a pretty poorly understood phenomenon - even Paul reckons it will take 200 years of research to understand it!
OK, there are a lot of if's in that, but you can hardly claim that there is a total lack of mechanism behind the concept of Ψ.
The problem is that your position can quickly degenerate into a self-reinforcing complacency - no evidence that contradicts known theories (at least at room temperature/pressure) is believable, and without believable evidence, there is no reason to look for new theories!
David