Psi researchers and non-psi research a good idea?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I don't understand. Don't you think Eddie was asking for a crisp, accurate definition when he said "... 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"? Especially if the point of obtaining the definition is to ascertain what its opposite is?


~~ Paul

Well I'd have thought a definition such as I gave is taken as given in the discussions here - unless perhaps a newbie turns up.

Papart takes the existence of psi as given - as I think I would if I had had his experiences. Given that background, he is thinking theoretically - why exactly do we have two ways of influencing physical reality (psi and non-psi) and are they really distinct?

I think it is perhaps important to remember that there are several people here for whom psi is a frequent reality. Of course, you can dismiss them as cranks, but let's face it, that is the problem - in Western society (and maybe others) most people don't like to shout about such abilities. If most people and therefore most scientists were like Papart, the fully physical explanation of consciousness would seem even less plausible than it does - it would probably be dismissed out of hand.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Papart takes the existence of psi as given - as I think I would if I had had his experiences. Given that background, he is thinking theoretically - why exactly do we have two ways of influencing physical reality (psi and non-psi) and are they really distinct?

Interesting Ian thinks they are all the same thing. That throws everything in the god-of-the-gap called psi. Is that the way we should go?

If we use your definition, then ordinary events are ones that might break or clearly don't break the laws of physics. Now what are we to do? Ask if perhaps we are just being fooled and they actually do break the laws of physics? What the hell are we supposed to do here?

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Interesting Ian thinks they are all the same thing. That throws everything in the god-of-the-gap called psi. Is that the way we should go?

If we use your definition, then ordinary events are ones that might break or clearly don't break the laws of physics. Now what are we to do? Ask if perhaps we are just being fooled and they actually do break the laws of physics? What the hell are we supposed to do here?

~~ Paul

There is a much bigger gap than psi - consciousness itself! Honestly, if I thought there was any chance of a decent explanation for consciousness in physical terms, I'd probably dismiss psi as you do. As it is, the two go together in my mind.

Clearly there are potentially four types of phenomena here.

1) Phenomena observed in experiments that are designed to rule out conventional explanations.

2) Peculiar phenomena that may well be the result of psi.

3) Very highly trained behaviour that may need psi to operate - as I suggested above.

4) 'Ordinary' phenomena that are well explained by conventional science, at least once any decisions have left the conscious arena.

I mean it only seems reasonable to assume that if psi exists at all, it is a spill-over ability of something more general - maybe the very mind-body link itself.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

There is a much bigger gap than psi - consciousness itself! Honestly, if I thought there was any chance of a decent explanation for consciousness in physical terms, I'd probably dismiss psi as you do. As it is, the two go together in my mind.

Along with quantum mechanics. I daresay that's because you are lumping a bunch of mysterious unknowns into one pot.

Clearly there are potentially four types of phenomena here.

1) Phenomena observed in experiments that are designed to rule out conventional explanations.

2) Peculiar phenomena that may well be the result of psi.

3) Very highly trained behaviour that may need psi to operate - as I suggested above.

4) 'Ordinary' phenomena that are well explained by conventional science, at least once any decisions have left the conscious arena.

I mean it only seems reasonable to assume that if psi exists at all, it is a spill-over ability of something more general - maybe the very mind-body link itself.

But since psi is a synonym for "anomalous events for which we have no explanation," then to consider the spillover is simply to dismiss conventional explanations for things. I'm not rejecting your idea out of hand, I'm simply saying I don't really know how to approach it.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

But since psi is a synonym for "anomalous events for which we have no explanation," then to consider the spillover is simply to dismiss conventional explanations for things. I'm not rejecting your idea out of hand, I'm simply saying I don't really know how to approach it.

~~ Paul

Here is another 'conventional' explanation of consciousness. What do you think of it?

Firing on all neurons: Where consciousness comes from - 17 March 2010 - New Scientist

David

[paqart]

Here is a different experiment, one that can be executed completely on this forum.

I am going to propose two questions to discuss. The questions require an assumption that psi is real. The goal is to discuss the subject without getting bogged down trying to determine what psi is or whether it is genuine. This is an attempt to see if it is possible to go beyond the "is it real?" question that has so far stumped many attempts to go beyond on this forum.

The question is based on a real event, but for the purpose of this experiment, the details are irrelevant. Here is the question:

There is a dream with two parts, linked by a spirit guide who states that the two parts are connected. The first part describes a future event that is to be taken as a sign that another thing will occur later. Shortly thereafter, the first portion of the dream is realized. Several years later, the second portion of the dream has not been realized. Is this because it is wrong, yet to happen, or some other reason?

Another question, very similar, also based on a real incident, also with the details left out:

A dream with two parts, linked by a spirit guide. The first part describes certain aspects of our existence as spirits. The second describes a future event. The future event occurs about a month later. The first part of the dream cannot be verified physically because it is exclusively concerned with a spiritual subject. Should it be considered true, false, or unproven, given the fact that the second and verifiable portion of the dream did come to pass?

It may not seem like it, but this is related to the original question.

Now let's see if we can discuss these questions...

AP

[Sandy B]

Is this because it is wrong,
You need to have faith it will happen.
yet to happen,
You can't manage to make the change... You feel like you can't control what you need to.
or some other reason?
You haven't made a committment to what your inner eye has shown you. Your connections to certain people may also be causing you to resist.

Should it be considered true, false, or unproven, given the fact that the second and verifiable portion of the dream did come to pass?
You actually know the answer to your own question already. You might need to meditate on it a bit to figure that out. You need to be receptive to these sorts of gifts. Stop thinking so much... try listening.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Is this because it is wrong,
You need to have faith it will happen.
yet to happen,
You can't manage to make the change... You feel like you can't control what you need to.
or some other reason?
You haven't made a committment to what your inner eye has shown you. Your connections to certain people may also be causing you to resist.

Should it be considered true, false, or unproven, given the fact that the second and verifiable portion of the dream did come to pass?
You actually know the answer to your own question already. You might need to meditate on it a bit to figure that out. You need to be receptive to these sorts of gifts. Stop thinking so much... try listening.

The skeptics on this site are going to love my answer to this; it is skeptics, and how provocative these genericized incidents would be to them, were they revealed more fully, that prompt me to be concerned. To add just a little detail though, if you have a dataset, and this is what it looks like:
1) Dreams of future events that are confirmed
2) Dreams of future events combined with predictions of other future events, where the first is confirmed and the second hasn't yet occurred
3) Dreams that appear to fit into category 1, but when verification attempt is made, it fails (this is a very small part of database, but they cannot be ignored)

then it seems to me that item 3 would naturally cast some doubt on the veracity of the second, so far unverified portion of items under 2). However, if the reasons for the negative feedback on items under 3) were better known, then those factors can be checked against other examples, to see if they are present or not. In this way, greater confidence (or less) would be justified in the unknown portion of the half-and-half dreams.

By studying the failures, which might be called "non-psi" (please, just accept the term for now), some light may be shed on the successful ones, but more importantly, can be used to determine the veracity of examples that might fit into either category.

I just realized that although I quoted you, I didn't respond directly to anything you wrote. This is just what your post made me think of. As for the things you wrote, I think you are probably right.

AP