Psi researchers and non-psi research a good idea?

[paqart]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am not certain if this is what you had in mind, but I do wonder if some sporting achievements use psi of some sort. Sport might be an ideal place to look for such effects because:

1) People train and train and train is a way that they would never do for a psi experiment.

2) People are not inhibited by the idea that they are trying to do the impossible.

Sports such as golf, and billiards seem possible candidates because of the extreme precision involved. My experiment would be to take a top/good golfer or billiards player and ask him to wear a pair of electrochromic goggles that would sometimes (randomly) become opaque after the ball has been hit. The conventional expectation would be that blackening the view after the ball had started its journey, would make no difference. My guess is that sportsmen may rely on information gleaned after the ball has left the tee - fed back in time, rather as in Dean Radin's experiment.

David

David,

This just reminded me of some basketball games I played with my daughter. I am no athlete (unless Yoga counts), but I enjoy sports. The thing is, I am a terrible shot in basketball. That said, one day I was playing my daughter when I decided that, since I missed so frequently, I'd throw the ball over my shoulder from across the court without looking, and swished it. We were both so surprised that we decided I should try it again. I didn't get the same result every time, but we did notice that I was much more likely to make a basket if I didn't aim than if I did. It seemed like all I had to do was throw it in the general direction of the basket and it would go in. Call it "intuition", but that begs the question: what is intuition?

AP

[FastEddieB]

Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

I think you need to define exactly what psi is, in order for any of us to even speak intelligently about "non-psi research".

I really don't think the subject of this thread is intelligible.

Or maybe, it's just me!

[paqart]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

I think you need to define exactly what psi is, in order for any of us to even speak intelligently about "non-psi research".

I really don't think the subject of this thread is intelligible.

Or maybe, it's just me!

I'm sure it isn't just you.

From a perspective that is friendly to the existence of psi, the paranormal, and the supernatural, our bodies are made of matter that is controlled by non-physical consciousness. The rest of the physical universe is also made of matter, the living portions of which are bound to non-physical consciousness. With this construct in mind, to call psi unusual when it is pervasive makes no sense. To say psi is impossible when it pervades all things is also ridiculous. To suggest that there is such a thing as a "psi event" and a "non-psi event" may similarly be false distinctions, when all things are a combination of material and non-material things. To try and research psi as an exception to the norm, when the "norm" includes both natural and supernatural components, leaves out a great deal. It like analyzing a non-human animal as an example of a rarely seen odd intrusion into an otherwise animal-free environment, despite the fact that meat is to be found on half the dinner plates in the world. Exploring psi as an exception removes its context, but context assists a great deal in understanding what it is.

To me, it makes perfectly good sense. In a world where psi research is conducted primarily for the benefit of skeptics, it assumes that it is somehow separate. If looked at from the point of view, where a materialist viewpoint is in serious error, and an attempt made to determine the source of that error by exploring materialist beliefs, interesting things may be discovered.

AP

AP

[FastEddieB]

One of my roles is as a flight instructor.

I often have to evaluate a student's level of knowledge.

The very first unit for Private Pilot involves the production of lift.

Often, when I ask a student to define lift, I'll get something like, "Well, you know, its what holds the plane up". "Well, that's what is does, but how would you define it?" Like the Supreme Court and pornography - the student thinks he grasps it, but just can't define it. Well, in general if he can't define it he doesn't really know what it is. Good general rule - if you really understand a thing or concept you can define it pretty precisely. Goes for "energy" or "god" or "spirit" or whatever.

And I think that's the crux here. Let's define psi and non-psi and we can see if "non-psi research" is a "distinct idea that reason can act upon" (paraphrased)

[paqart]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

One of my roles is as a flight instructor.

I often have to evaluate a student's level of knowledge.

The very first unit for Private Pilot involves the production of lift.

Often, when I ask a student to define lift, I'll get something like, "Well, you know, its what holds the plane up". "Well, that's what is does, but how would you define it?" Like the Supreme Court and pornography - the student thinks he grasps it, but just can't define it. Well, in general if he can't define it he doesn't really know what it is. Good general rule - if you really understand a thing or concept you can define it pretty precisely. Goes for "energy" or "god" or "spirit" or whatever.

And I think that's the crux here. Let's define psi and non-psi and we can see if "non-psi research" is a "distinct idea that reason can act upon" (paraphrased)

All you are telling me here is that you also need a definition of psi.

[FastEddieB]

All you are telling me here is that you also need a definition of psi.

Yes.

And that the bane of discussions such as this is not understanding what the terms mean.

And "non-psi"? That seems so vague as to raise the question - maybe everything is "non-psi"?

Until we agree what psi is and that it even exists!

[paqart]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

Yes.

And that the bane of discussions such as this is not understanding what the terms mean.

And "non-psi"? That seems so vague as to raise the question - maybe everything is "non-psi"?

Until we agree what psi is and that it even exists!

If you haven't got an idea what "psi" is, then I would expect all discussions on this board to be incomprehensible to you. I'm afraid there isn't much to be done about that.

AP

[FastEddieB]

If you haven't got an idea what "psi" is, then I would expect all discussions on this board to be incomprehensible to you.

Sounds like the fallacy "argumentum ad Harley Davidson":



I have a vague idea of what proponents think psi is. Like "God", I think different users mean different things.

If you want a meaningful discussion of "non-psi", its incumbent on you to let us know what you mean - until its nailed down, dialogs such as this are doomed. It's exceedingly hard to research something that's not well defined.

I'm afraid there isn't much to be done about that.

Poor me - just one of the unenlightened masses!

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by FastEddieB

And I think that's the crux here. Let's define psi and non-psi and we can see if "non-psi research" is a "distinct idea that reason can act upon" (paraphrased)

I think there is a danger in getting hung up on definitions when discussing a phenomenon that is really poorly understood. I've had discussions on this line with Paul. Imagine trying to define fire if you were an ancient, just setting out to explore its properties!

However, the following definition seems to include much of psi: PSI is the use of the mind (human or animal) to perform something that clearly breaks the laws of physics as currently understood.

Thus ESP would be psi, talking to someone on their mobile would not be!

David

[FastEddieB]

PSI is the use of the mind (human or animal) to perform something that clearly breaks the laws of physics as currently understood.

So:

Non-Psi: the use of the mind (human or animal) to perform something that conforms with the laws of physics as currently understood.

That sounds like nearly everything (with the exception of the psi-world).

What does it mean to research non-psi? Sounds like conventional research to me.