Potential candidates for Alex to interview

[Maaneli]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

But you accept ESP exists?

No, I wouldn't say that's the existence of ESP is conclusive. Perhaps I would say so if I had been directly involved in experimental Psi research for years on end, and crunched the numbers for myself, but I haven't. However, I do think that, from the evidence I have seen in the parapsychological literature, the ESP hypothesis merits serious scientific consideration, and more direct testing. I think that the recent (in the past 10 years) experiments which look at the neural correlates of human subjects in Psi experiments using FMRI, EEG, etc., are exactly the kinds of experiments that need more replication and elaboration by the parapsychology (and mainstream psychology) community. Experiments which also look at how human intentionality might effect the outcomes of (otherwise) "random" quantum events (cf. Radin's recent which-way interferometry Psi experiment), are also very insightful and unambiguous, IMO. I also think that experiments which try to diminish or enhance the magnitude of neural correlates using TMS (cf. Persinger's RV studies with Ingo Swann), and look for a corresponding change in statistical effect size, are also very essential for testing the ESP hypothesis more directly.

And I am very sympathetic to the plight of parapsychologists, in terms of their difficulties in getting funding for their research, and the mostly unfair, negatively prejudiced treatment they receive from the majority of mainstream scientists and science organizations. If it were up to me, I would have the NSF, the National Academy of Sciences, etc., do long-term, large-scale replication attempts of the Ganzfeld studies (using musically and artistically inclined individuals to try and maximize the effect), presentiment studies, FMRI studies, etc., with large groups of top parapsychologists and 'skeptical' psychologists collaborating. Parapsychologists would have no problem getting the funding they need to carry out the experiments they want to do, and there wouldn't be a stigma against students wanting to do research in this field, or even wanting to make a career out of it.

The above may still sound to you like an overly conservative position; but as far as I can tell, it is the fairest position that I think I can rationally hold, as someone who hasn't been directly involved in the experimental research on a magnitude of some like Radin or other parapsychologists, and given the rather fair criticisms that one could make about the standard assumptions in statistical analysis.

But for the sake of your arguments below, let me play along and go with the premise that ESP is proven.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Therefore you need to modify your viewpoint ..... because it doesn't fit the the materialists version of natural selection

The Brain Evolves Psi hypothesis = 'super-psi' = materialism's version of psi

• Psi is just a brain function
• Psi is a 'sixth sense', evolves like other useful physical senses (evolutionary advantage)
• Psi being a 'sixth sense' is under conscious command (evolutionary advantage)
• Psi is under personal and private command (evolutionary advantage)

The above is surely false, the outcome of evolution would be a strong obvious psi effects (e.g. would easily win Randi's prize)

The above model, that psi is a 'sixth sense' of the brain doesn't fit, never did fit, never will fit the past 100 years of research.

Your argument presupposes that evolution is the only possible physical mechanism to explain the emergence of a 'sixth sense' like what ESP seems to be. But there is no logical proof that shows that evolution can and should be the only possible explanation for the emergence of all aspects of brain function. An honest scientist leaves open the possibility that evolution is not sufficient to explain the emergence of human consciousness (and there are plausible reasons to think this as well), and that there might be new physical mechanisms to be discovered for that explanatory purpose (ditto for ESP). In fact, it is not even clear to me how or why a random genetic mutation could or would cause a human brain with no ESP ability, to suddenly acquire ESP abilities. It seems to me that to even try to apply evolutionary explanations to ESP, we first need a working physicalist theory of ESP functioning, to which evolution can be applied.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The Non-Local Consciousness Hypothesis

• Psi is not a brain generated function (it may have neural correlates or not)
• Psi is filtered out by brain evolution, not a 'sixth sense'
• Psi is an interference to modelling physical reality (evolutionary disadvantage)
• The sharing of subjectivities via telepathy is an interference to sense of individuality/modelling physical reality (evolutionary disadvantage)
• Psi leaks into consciousness from a (filtered) collective unconscious levels
• Psi is under little conscious command
• Psi is under little personal and private command (collective effects)
• Psi is under more collective command (experimenter/ group effects)

This fits the data better, the outcome of evolution = commonly weak psi effect, can be viewed as brain filtering leakage can be a stronger 'conscious' effect brain if filtering is disrupted

The logic of this conclusion is not at all clear to me. As before, I simply don't know what you have in mind by "brain filtering".

As Paul said, specify an empirically falsifiable out-of-brain (or) immaterial hypothesis or theory, and then we can discuss in more productive detail. Would be preferable to also have some mathematical modeling in this theory. Perhaps someone should extend (if it hasn't been done already) Donald Hoffman's seemingly mathematically rigorous idealistic theory of consciousness to some theory of ESP, and see if it leads to falsifiable predictions.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I am predicting that disrupting the brain in certain ways will be discovered to increase ESP ... such an experimental outcome cannot be made to fit with the materialist's version of natural selection... it would be like arguing people can see but evolved to walk with their eyes shut .... if psi exists, there is something deeply wrong with the materialist philosophy.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary:

Persinger, M.A., Roll, W.G., Tiller, S.G., Koren, S.A., & Cook, C. M. Remote viewing with the artist Ingo Swann: Neuropsychological profile, electroencephalographic correlates, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and possible mechanisms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2002, 94, 927-949.
Remote viewing with the artist ingo Swann: Neuropsychological profile, electroencephalographic correlates, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and possible mechanisms

Koren, S.A. & Persinger, M.A. Possible disruption of remote viewing by complex weak magnetic fields around the stimulus site and the possibility of accessing real phase space: a pilot study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2002, 95, 989-998.
Possible disruption of remote viewing by complex weak magnetic fields around the stimulus site and the possibility of accessing real phase space: A pilot study

[Open Mind]

Well in the Skeptiko interview with Michael Persinger, he describes an experiment in which disrupting the brains of two people with the same magnetic field increased telepathy.

It doesn't make sense to speculate remote viewing is the most fundamental type of ESP. Think of the incredible evolutionary advantage to remote view where food is located? Yet creatures cannot clearly do it.

Also note that remote viewing pioneer Ingo Swann coined the term 'telepathic overlay' to imply that someone trying to remote view could instead be put of by the subjective imaginations of others.

Arguably this suggests that telepathy (and subjectivity) is more fundamental than remote viewing which is the most materialistic of all ESP claims ...remote viewing hypothesis speculates that there is a definite objective state of the world, with no subjective requirement.... yet there is evidence telepathy is potentially a stronger effect than remote viewing

Incidentally during the cold war the Russians were more interested in telepathy.

I've already mentioned to you the problems with De Broglie/Bohm intepretation *if* it predicts fixed determined future .... with the US remote viewers, according to Major Paul Smith, the future seemed probablistic in nature, not set in stone .... there is evidence (forced choice precognition studies meta-analysis, if I recall) that the further one tries to use psi into the future, the less accurate it is. Note that presentiment is a short term effect a little into the future ... I view presentiment/precognition as telepathy with one's future

Since remote viewing is the most puzzling of all psi effects from a theoretical point of view .. it may make sense if we regard it as less fundamental and view telepathy and short term precognition/ presentiment as more fundamental.... neither of these are as clear evolutionary advantages to the *consciousness*, for reasons I've given.
.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Arguably this suggests that telepathy (and subjectivity) is more fundamental than remote viewing which is the most materialistic of all ESP claims ...

Are you sure you can tell them apart? What is telepathy if not remote viewing someone's brain?

~~ Paul

[imiyakawa]

Keith Augustine would be a good skeptic to interview. He's THE BEST NDE skeptic. All others look like dribbling children compared to him. Perhaps a debate between him (the best skeptic) and someone like the author of evidence of the afterlife would be revealing.

Although Keith does ignore some of the more compelling NDE-are-not-hallucination arguments, he's best at arguing the other side.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by imiyakawa

Keith Augustine would be a good skeptic to interview. He's THE BEST NDE skeptic. All others look like dribbling children compared to him. Perhaps a debate between him (the best skeptic) and someone like the author of evidence of the afterlife would be revealing.

Although Keith does ignore some of the more compelling NDE-are-not-hallucination arguments, he's best at arguing the other side.

I invited him, but he declined... was working on a book I think... not doing interviews.

Keith, if you ever change your mind the invitation is still open.

BTW I don't find his arguments very compelling, but agree with you about his delivery... he's good.

[imiyakawa]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

but agree with you about his delivery... he's good.

Yeah, he's knowledgable and is a very sensible argumentator.

[paqart]

How about Colin Wilson, the author? I'd be very interested in hearing him on a podcast.

AP

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Are you sure you can tell them apart? What is telepathy if not remote viewing someone's brain?

There is a important difference, telepathy = interaction between minds ... only telepathy predicts experimenter and group effects should exist ... the other two (remote viewing and precognition) terms imply the mind is reading an objective state of the physical world directly, free from telepathic interference or interactions....however since both precognition and remote viewing can be interfered with by mental states of others .... one cannot view telepathy as less fundamental.

I do not think 'telepathy' is the ideal term, telepathy probably involves some sort of resonance with one's own past and near future mental states ... as well as interaction with other minds too.

[OC68]

Originally Posted by paqart

How about Colin Wilson, the author? I'd be very interested in hearing him on a podcast.

AP

I'd love to hear Colin Wilson.
These are the folks I'd most want to hear.
1. David Fontana- Is There An Afterlife is an incredible book
2. Stephen Braude
3. William Roll
4. Brian Weiss
5. Stacy Horn
6. Jeffrey Kripal
I wish he would have Michael Tymn back on, the last interview was far too short

[Maaneli]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Well in the Skeptiko interview with Michael Persinger, he describes an experiment in which disrupting the brains of two people with the same magnetic field increased telepathy.

No he doesn't. This is exactly what Persinger says:

" ... what we have found for example, is that if you place two different brains, two different people at a distance, you put a circular magnetic field around both. There’s a magnetic field going around like a coil, around both brains even at a distance. You make sure both coils are connected to the same computer which means they’re generating the same configuration of two different spaces.

If you flash a light in one person’s eye, even though they’re in a chamber that’s closed up, the person in the other room that’s receiving just the magnetic field now, they’re not aware of the light flashing or not, they will show similar changes in frequency in the room. And we think that’s tremendous because that maybe the first macro demonstration of a quantum connection or so-called quantum entanglement."

Absolutely nothing in this description supports your claim, since Persinger does not say anywhere here that they used the magnetic fields to "disrupt the brain" (whatever that would mean).

Originally Posted by Open Mind

It doesn't make sense to speculate remote viewing is the most fundamental type of ESP. Think of the incredible evolutionary advantage to remote view where food is located? Yet creatures cannot clearly do it.

I think you're making things up now. I did not claim or "speculate" that remote viewing is "the most fundamental type of ESP". You made the claim that "disrupting the brain in certain ways will be discovered to increase ESP". You did not specify what kind of ESP you had in mind, nor that you thought that there was a "most fundamental type of ESP". So I presented empirical evidence that contradicts your prediction through one well-known type of ESP (remote viewing). That's all. And to bring up evolution here is a blatant red herring.

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I've already mentioned to you the problems with De Broglie/Bohm intepretation *if* it predicts fixed determined future .... with the US remote viewers, according to Major Paul Smith, the future seemed probablistic in nature, not set in stone .... there is evidence (forced choice precognition studies meta-analysis, if I recall) that the further one tries to use psi into the future, the less accurate it is. Note that presentiment is a short term effect a little into the future ... I view presentiment/precognition as telepathy with one's future

And I've already mentioned to you why I think the alleged problems you raise don't make much sense. Major Paul Smith saying that the future "seemed probabilistic in nature", can hardly be taken as reliable evidence against the deterministic predictions of the deBB theory. And assuming that there is evidence that "the further one tries to use psi into the future, the less accurate it is", it does not logically follow at all that this implies an undetermined future. If, for example, the accuracy of telepathy in Ganzfeld was found to drop off with spatial distance, it would not logically follow that there aren't physical objects that are spatially located at distances further than those for which telepathy can be accurately used. But that's exactly the kind of logic you're using here.