David Bohm, best theoretical and quantum Physicist, believed in parapsychology.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Johann

As for others, don't you think it is interesting that Schrodinger and Bohm both believed in the fundamental irreducibility of consciousness, having both thought very deeply about the subject, and been possessed of great intelligence? At the very least, this should give you pause, and spur you to examine philosophical arguments for the primacy of consciousness.

i think about it as it is. there are smart guys whom i respect with opinions on both sides. it is insulting when someone cherry picks the same great minds from only one side, and goes -- see, you going to believe these brilliant guys, or the bozo randi? and stephen hawking, forget him, he's clueless. if stephen hawking's views were compatible he would be quoted right there with the rest by proponents. it's a propaganda tactic. i'd rather listen to the facts and logical arguments discussed, not names thrown around.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

1. max planck and schrodinger are known for seminal contributions to physics, not philosophy. one can replace hawking by weinberg or any one of many great scientists who are atheists and materialists. the point (which you completely missed) was to demonstrate the absurdity of the appeal-to-authority fallacy inherent in the "who are you going to believe" childish tactic that the OP keeps using.

2. ill-advised by you? that's funny. i think it's safe to disregard that advice, but thank you.

I have no idea why you consider it a fallacy. It would be a fallacy to appeal to Hawkings since his philosophical ability is abysmal. Same goes for Randi. I do not know about planck, schrodinger or weinberg.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

i think about it as it is. there are smart guys whom i respect with opinions on both sides. it is insulting when someone cherry picks the same great minds from only one side, and goes -- see, you going to believe these brilliant guys, or the bozo randi? and stephen hawking, forget him, he's clueless. if stephen hawking's views were compatible he would be quoted right there with the rest by proponents. it's a propaganda tactic. i'd rather listen to the facts and logical arguments discussed, not names thrown around.

OK perhaps you would be good enough to name a "great mind" who is a materialist?

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

I have no idea why you consider it a fallacy. It would be a fallacy to appeal to Hawkings since his philosophical ability is abysmal. Same goes for Randi.

the fallacy is "appeal to authority". you can look it up. whether the authority is one you reject or applaud does not matter.

why would i consider your dismissive opinion of hawking's philosophical abilities to be worth anything? do you have credentials to prove that your philosophical abilities are superior to his? or...?

[Johann]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

i think about it as it is. there are smart guys whom i respect with opinions on both sides. it is insulting when someone cherry picks the same great minds from only one side, and goes -- see, you going to believe these brilliant guys, or the bozo randi? and stephen hawking, forget him, he's clueless. if stephen hawking's views were compatible he would be quoted right there with the rest by proponents. it's a propaganda tactic. i'd rather listen to the facts and logical arguments discussed, not names thrown around.

Well, as you've phrased it, I guess I am compelled to agree; the comparisons to Randi are rather useless, and it is obvious skeptics don't believe what they believe because of Randi. But I also think these comparisons are mostly humorous.

On the flip side, you say you want to listen to facts and logical arguments, but I have yet to see you make a thread with either. It is as if you want the proponents to sift through piles of evidence in order to present it to you - but that stuff has already been done in The Conscious Universe, Entangled Minds, The End of Materialism, Irreducible Mind, etc. If you want to see powerful evidence for psi, you need to go find it - and if you believe it inadequate after reviewing it, then we can talk.

Every once in a while, a proponent will go through the effort of finding and posting this kind of stuff, but most of the time both proponents and skeptics will make threads about general arguments, interesting articles, famous people, etc. It's just how things roll on this message board.

- Johann

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by Johann

Well, as you've phrased it, I guess I am compelled to agree; the comparisons to Randi are rather useless, and it is obvious skeptics don't believe what they believe because of Randi. But I also think these comparisons are mostly humorous.

On the flip side, you say you want to listen to facts and logical arguments, but I have yet to see you make a thread with either. It is as if you want the proponents to sift through piles of evidence in order to present it to you - but that stuff has already been done in The Conscious Universe, Entangled Minds, The End of Materialism, Irreducible Mind, etc. If you want to see powerful evidence for psi, you need to go find it - and if you believe it inadequate after reviewing it, then we can talk.

Every once in a while, a proponent will go through the effort of finding and posting this kind of stuff, but most of the time both proponents and skeptics will make threads about general arguments, interesting articles, famous people, etc. It's just how things roll on this message board.

- Johann

I absolutely agree here. It is not my job, or anyone else's job here to ' point you ' to what we consider the ' best ' evidence. If you feel so inclined, we can discuss several studies done over the years, and address any concerns you may have. It is not, however, our job to do your study for you. If you lack the knowledge of some of the major studies in parapsych ( I can name 4 big ones right off the bat ), then the ability, or lackthereof, for you to contribute in the discussion is not the proponents fault, it is yours. Feel free to bring up any concerns you have with any parapsycholgical study, but its not our job to teach you, my friend.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

OK perhaps you would be good enough to name a "great mind" who is a materialist?

i did. hawking. weinberg. they are easy to find. do i win the game if i name more names? it is silly game to play, that was my point.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

the fallacy is "appeal to authority". you can look it up. whether the authority is one you reject or applaud does not matter.

It clearly need not be a fallacy.

why would i consider your dismissive opinion of hawking's philosophical abilities to be worth anything? do you have credentials to prove that your philosophical abilities are superior to his? or...?

So if you think otherwise give an example of Hawking's awesome philosophical reasoning.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Johann

Well, as you've phrased it, I guess I am compelled to agree; the comparisons to Randi are rather useless, and it is obvious skeptics don't believe what they believe because of Randi. But I also think these comparisons are mostly humorous.

On the flip side, you say you want to listen to facts and logical arguments, but I have yet to see you make a thread with either. It is as if you want the proponents to sift through piles of evidence in order to present it to you - but that stuff has already been done in The Conscious Universe, Entangled Minds, The End of Materialism, Irreducible Mind, etc. If you want to see powerful evidence for psi, you need to go find it - and if you believe it inadequate after reviewing it, then we can talk.

Every once in a while, a proponent will go through the effort of finding and posting this kind of stuff, but most of the time both proponents and skeptics will make threads about general arguments, interesting articles, famous people, etc. It's just how things roll on this message board.

- Johann

how do you know i didn't review the evidence? i have read this board for months and the links to a lot of the evidence.

everyone is free to participate and contribute to threads in the manner they like. i am not asking you to post any information specifically for me. i am saying that discussion of facts and evidence in general is a worthwhile process. the who are you going to believe is not. i don't need any special permission or start particular threads to make that comment, do i?

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

It clearly need not be a fallacy.



So if you think otherwise give an example of Hawking's awesome philosophical reasoning.

Max Plancks parents were also trained theologists, which is reflective in his writings. He seems to have a pretty good understanding of analytical philosophy. Also, reflected in his writings.

Hawkings to me seems to have figured that, since he's a good physicist, he should also be a good philosopher. This is reflected in his writings, regardless of the fact that he was dead wrong.