What They Believe

In my last post I quoted from the 2005 Edge book What We Believe But Cannot Prove. I read the stuff on the website at the time, but thought I'd get the book for a holiday read - it's a great way to get a sense of what scientists are thinking in all sorts of fields without having to wade through all the small print.

The book's only about 250 pages long, and I could probably polish it off quite quickly, if I  didn't keep drifting off into a reverie after every three lines. It's all fascinating stuff.  Parapsychology is not mentioned at all, and I suspect that very few of the contributors would admit to the slightest sympathy with its claims. Nevertheless, a lot of them give a sense that the frontiers of science are expanding in ways that it progressively makeless hostile environment.

I thought from time to time over the next few weeks I'd pull out a few statements at random to comment on. It'll be a bit of a hodge-podge, and I won't make any attempt to organise it - it's hot in London and I'm off soon for a beer. 

First some general philosophical comments from familiar figures in the sceptics' camp. Here is psychologist Nicolas Humphrey, author of a somewhat baffling anti-superstition tract called Soul Searching (in the US, Leaps of Faith). Humphrey believes that

human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror, and what can be the point of such deception? The conjuror is the human mind itself, evolved by natural selection, and the point has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

This may be why we find the 'hard problem' of consciousness just so hard, Humphrey thinks. Natural selection has meant it to be hard. 'Mysterian' philosophers who bow down before the apparent miracle and declare it's impossible ever to get the bottom of consciousness are responding 'exactly as natural selection hoped they would - with shock and awe'.

I love this - it's Darwinism gone mad, and oddly reflective of the way some sceptics think.  Observing ourselves, making sense of why we do things, we start to become paranoid, attributing personhood to a concept, and imagining that deception is deliberate. It's not just that nature is hard to understand, it's that it doesn't want us to understand. We are in a battle of wits with Natural Selection.

Richard Dawkins started this all off, but his idea of the 'selfish gene' was just a metaphor -  he didn't actually mean that the gene has feelings. Perhaps Humphrey is being metaphorical too. One hopes so, but...  He's quite interesting on consciousness, but there's sometimes a rather atheistic tone in his writings, as though he is constantly shaking his fist at the Great Designer.

Susan Blackmore asks, is it possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will ? She says recent developments in neuroscience and theories of consciousness are evidence against free will - we just think we have it. So she set out with her Buddhist practice systematically to change the experience and thinks she has succeeded. Now, she says, she has no feeling of acting with free will - decisions just happen with no sense of anyone making them.

But then the question arises, will the decisions be morally acceptable ?  Making a leap of faith, she says, she has found that they are.

It seems that when people discard the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous as it sounds - but this too I cannot prove.

Again, the heroic Darwinian struggle against illusion! It's interesting that in making a systematic effort Blackmore, a convinced atheist, feels she has personally experienced a state that religious folk would recognise  -'letting go and letting God', in Christian parlance, or the New Age 'aligning with the Universe' - and can vouch for the effects they too would claim. 

Not quite sure why the novelist Ian McEwan appears in a scientific forum, but perhaps to make the statement that most scientists think too obvious to be worth making.  

What I believe but cannot prove is that no part of my consciousness will survive my death... I suspect that many contributors will take this premise as a given: true but not significant. However, it divides the world crucially, and much damage has been done to thought as well as to persons by those who are certain that there is a life - a better, more important life - elsewhere. That this span is brief, that consciousness is an accidental gift of blind processes, makes our existence all the more precious and our responsibilities for it all the more profound.

McEwan has taken to saying this sort of thing quite a lot recently. I've rather given up reading him, but one of his earlier novels, I seem to recall, had a paranormal theme, and I remember thinking here's an intellectual with an open mind. But perhaps not.

I'm curious: does he disbelieve in an afterlife because of the weight of scientific opinion? In that case, would he be prepared to consider some of the claims of psychical research and parapsychology ? What does he think about near-death experiences - wishful thinking illusions ?

Or is his approach mainly humanistic, based on the perception that religion is all evil. And if so, is that really tenable ? Is religion really just about sharia law and suicide bombers, or could it not also motivate much of the decency and philanthrophy that exists in the world ?

Enough philosophy, now for the beer.

Comments

[Mark]

Blackmore seems way too certain with herself. I listened to an interview with her on skeptiko.com a while back, and she came across as a woman who's pissed off because of the fact that she never found anything from her studies of parapsychology, so now she hates the whole field. I don't know if Blackmore herself thinks that consciousness is an illusion, but I do take issue with this notion that many have that if consciousness is simply something that arises from simple, determined processes, that necessarily means that consciousness is an "illusion." Actually, that proves that consciousness is real, just not in the same way that people think. I personally do not believe in free will either, but I would say that free will, as we think of it, is false regardless of whether or not consciousness is a material phenomenon. Even a soul, if it exists, is a machine that has a certain way that it works. Figure out how it works, and you've figured out why someone makes the decisions that they do. I get irritated when people like her and all the other skeptics (and sometimes believers) try to join concepts at the hip erroneously, like determinism and materialism, or atheism and afterlife.

[Michael H]

"Parapsychology is not mentioned at all, and I suspect that very few of the contributors would admit to the slightest sympathy with its claims."

Dean Radin has claimed that many in the scientific community do think there's something to these claims, but will not state so publicly for fear of professional repercussions - I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the higher the education level, the more likely one is to accept paranormal phenomena as legitimate.

As far as the reductionist arguments regarding consciousness, I honestly think it's nothing more than desperate attempts at rationalization put forth by those attempting to hang on to a core belief that's no longer tenable. It's quite similar to what the church experienced as religious theocracy was slowly replaced by the theocracy of scientism. The book "Irreducible Mind" will likely be recognized in the future as an important step towards a new paradigm that will understand consciousness as primary to existence. It may be a hundred years from now, but that's definitely where we're heading. Willis Harmon called the coming paradigm "M-3". Any reasonable person who looks at the collected data as a whole can only conclude that materialism has already been falsified. Dualism takes another body blow with every high level NDE account or reports such as Jill Bolte Taylor's account of her stroke.

As to how all this relates to religion, I think that the most important aspect of the next paradigm will have to do with a critical mass of humanity experiencing the underlying consciousness directly. NDE's are a part of that, but individual reports of unity experiences and other types of mystical realization are quickening, and these experiences are being given more and more legitimacy by health professionals as well as in the mainstream press.

I fully expect that the organized, theology-driven religions will be transformed, if not eliminated, as more people understand that the direct understanding of mystical realization is entirely achievable for anyone. It may very well usher in the age of a Natural Religion that Ralph Waldo Emerson anticipated when he wrote:

"Now the first position I make is that natural religion still supplies all the facts which are disguised under the dogma of popular creeds."

It should be interesting.

[Ben]

“The conjuror is the human mind itself, evolved by natural selection, and the point has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It is surely telling that many atheists are apparently arrogant, self-important intellectuals. They are proud of their cleverness and their ability to make an argument. At the top of the MPT (Materialist Paradigm Tree), they don’t want to be displaced by an upstart incorporeal essence which is infinitely more intelligent than they are. When you read some of the higher level NDEs, you realise that freed from the brain, the mind becomes much clearer and more comprehending. It may even be that the sum of all human knowledge is stored in the Akashic data banks, to be accessed at will by any discarnate soul. (What, no heavenly copyright on ideas?!)

It seems to me that the truth is the opposite of that stated above by Nicolas Humphrey. The ‘conjuring to bolster self-importance’ is being done in the brains of intellectual atheists, who must continually find new arguments in denial of the paranormal evidence to try to stay ahead of the game. In this way, they keep their places in the canopy of the MPT, which they don’t realise is now sawn half through at the base. Hug a tree by all means, but not the MPT. Who gets hurt most when it falls?

[Robert McLuhan]

'Dean Radin has claimed that many in the scientific community do think there's something to these claims, but will not state so publicly for fear of professional repercussions - I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the higher the education level, the more likely one is to accept paranormal phenomena as legitimate.'

Michael, this sounds like the poll of paranormal belief that Dean references in Entangled Minds (p. 38), in which 62% of respondents with high school education or above were positive about psi. He confirmed this with data from the National Opinion Research Center, which again positively correlated high education with belief in psi.

I do wonder a lot about what scientists actually think about psi - there just isn't any data! Anecdotally, Dean may feel encouraged, but Bernard Carr, a physicist at London University, and president of the SPR recently, is very aware of the antagonism of his colleagues, and had to be discreet about his interest. That's surprising, given the fact that, as he says, a lot of the stuff physics is about these days is just as bizarre as psi - blackholes, times travel, parallel universes, etc. A good example is David Deutsch, who deals with some pretty weird stuff as a quantum physicist, but gets seriously hot under the collar at the mention of psi.

My feeling is it's wishful thinking to posit a sort of 'silent minority' of sympathisers in the scientific community. I think that could grow, but they will just need far better access to the data and a more balanced public debate, ie less exposure for the dotty sceptics like Randi.

[The Major]

Of course, you could be cheeky and suggest that the reason that no scientists mentioned the paranormal in a book detailing what they 'believe but can't prove' is because they believe they can prove it.

Seriously, though, there may have been a conscious desire to avoid this subject. One of Britain's most prominent scientists may be Brian Josephson but he wasn't selected for what would have been an interesting answer. Makes you wonder why.

I believe Dawkins is featured in the book. Shouldn't his answer have been merely "Nothing", keeping in line with his writings?

[Tony M]

Anyone interested in Blackmore and her “failed parapsychology experiments” should read Parapsychology and the Skeptics by Chris Carter. There is much less there than she has always claimed.

As for McEwan, it’s another example of cherry-picking points for argument. Belief in a better life may inspire a few Islamic fanatics eager for the 37 virgins (who are presumably in hell), but for most religious people the afterlife is very much a double edged sword. Simply put, you will be held accountable for what you’ve done in this life. This common theme of most of the world’s religions can hardly have escaped the attention as some one as intelligent as McEwan, can it?

He is either being dishonest or is blinded by the conclusion he set out to prove (that religion is evil). Yet, supposed intellectuals see nothing wrong with basing arguments against religion that take into account a suicide bomber while ignoring the nameless nun working the slums of Bombay. Easy targets and self-satisfied answers. Too bad they leave out the vast majority of human experience.

[Michael H]

"My feeling is it's wishful thinking to posit a sort of 'silent minority' of sympathisers in the scientific community. I think that could grow, but they will just need far better access to the data and a more balanced public debate, ie less exposure for the dotty sceptics like Randi."

I think that it will grow, but perhaps not as quickly as we might hope. When highly placed academics like Pinker and Dawkins have risen to the position they have through a very specific application of reason, they will inevitably become very attached to that particular use of their mind. Any data that conflicts with their core beliefs will thus be rationalized away (quite persuasively, I might add), and they will be oblivious to their own ratonalizations.

I mentioned Willis Harmon earlier. If you're not familiar with him, here's a brief synopsis of his thinking, from an interview with Stan Grof:

"Willis Harman, in his book ³Global Mind Change² sums it up better than I could. He says that there are a series of philosophical assumptions underlying science. Scientists are not usually conscious of the assumptions, but they control thinking. He refers to Metaphysic 1 (M-1) as the established ideas behind science:

"... the basic stuff of the universe is matter-energy. We learn about reality from studying the measurable ... Whatever consciousness is, it emerges out of matter (that is, the brain) when the the evolutionary process has progressed sufficiently far. Whatever we can learn about consciousness must ultimately be reconciled with the kind of knowledge we get from studying the physical brain, for consciousness apart from a living physical organism is not only unknown, it is inconceivable."

"The second Metaphysic (M-2), originally proposed by Descartes, Harman describes as:
"... dualistic. There are two fundamentally different kinds of stuff in the universe: matter- energy stuff and mind-spirit stuff. Matter energy stuff is studied with the present tools of science; mind-spirit stuff must be explored in other ways more appropriate to it ..."

And yet a third Metaphysic (M-3) suggests that:

"... the ultimate stuff of the universe is consciousness. Mind (or consciousness or spirit) is primary and matter-energy arises in some sense out of mind. The physical world is to the greater mind as a dream image is to the individual mind. Ultimately, the reality behind the phenomenal world is contacted, not through the physical senses, but through deep intuition. Consciousness is not the end product of evolution; rather, consciousness was here first."

"Harman¹s thesis, and it is one I propose to you, is that science - and, consequently, society as whole, adopted M--1 as a basic metaphysical assumption over the period around Copernicus-Gallileo-Newton and, after holding to that world view for four hundred years, society and science are now undergoing a mind change from M--1 to M--3.

"He says:

"... The fundamental change that we are suggesting is happening in Western society can be put in terms of these metaphysics. Essentially, it is a shift of the dominant metaphysic from M--1 to M--3. At first this may seem as outrageous a proposition as the heliocentric universe did to many in early seventeenth century Europe. M--3 seems quite foreign to the Western mind, or certainly would have a generation or two ago."

It seems to me that the battle over paranormal evidence remains essentially a battle between M-1 (Skeptics/Materialists) and M-2 (Dualists). I'm with Harmon that the coming paradigm will be Harmon's M-3, but it may take decades. The data may help, but M-3 suggests that both the data and those interpreting it arise from a common universal consciousness. Consequently, truly understanding M-3 requires a completely different use of the mind than is currently accepted to be possible, yet alone widely understood in the West.

There may be a global shift in consciousness that accelerates things, but it's probably more likely that the paradigm will change gradually, "one funeral at a time".

[Abigail Turner]

Harman is unrealistic. Atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins have gained followers, they're not generally unpopular. People look to materialist science to save the world from food shortages, energy shortages and disease. Understanding consciousness won't save societies, only souls.

[Michael H]

Understanding consciousness won't save societies, only souls.

I have to disagree, Abigail. Recognizing the the material cosmos, as well as its inhabitants, are an emergent property of the underlying primary consciousness could only enhance humanity's effectiveness in solving our problems in the material world. It neither suggests nor implies that material concerns will be abandoned in the rampant pursuit of saving souls.

As it is right now, Harman's suggestion is interpreted as 'mystical', and it is assumed that it has no practical value. Yet, the underlying consciousness is the source of individual insight, which is the realm of genius. Once a critical mass of humanity recognizes the infinite depth of man's intuitive nature, more and more will plumb those depths. Solutions to important issues will simply occur to people - it will appear obvious to them, while remaining inconceivable to us.

The acceptance of M-3 will involve large segments of the population seeing it to be true; it cannot and will not come about because Harmon or anyone else believes it or advocates it. It is so foreign to the common way of thinking about reality that the materialists regard the idea as the death of science, while the dualists regard it as the death of their god. It's actually neither, but it's a long way off.

[Michael H]

As I read through Robert's comment again, I realized I'd missed a very good point:

". . . a lot of the stuff physics is about these days is just as bizarre as psi - blackholes, times travel, parallel universes, etc. A good example is David Deutsch, who deals with some pretty weird stuff as a quantum physicist, but gets seriously hot under the collar at the mention of psi."

It is absolutely true that neither physicists or cosmologists have any problem with wild metaphysics - The Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, (which we are currently spending billions to prove), are likely to all eventually be falsified, and the string theorists have been engaging in esoteric mathematics for decades, positing 11 dimensions of existence with absolutely no means of proving this hypothesis in sight. Biology marvels at what we have earned about genetics and DNA, and yet mystery just gets deeper. What's driving all of this? "Well, it just happened," is the answer.

As Robert suggests, reductionist science has no problem with major strangeness, they only have a problem with anything that might indicate an intelligence greater than their own.

[Bryan]

Ian McEwan allying himself with the materialist scientists reminds me of when Richard Dawkins recently made a cameo appearance on Dr Who. The scriptwriter, atheist Russell T Davies and co fawned all over him (like worshipping a god, it was said!), but I notice that in this week's Radio Times, Dawkins says he really has no time for the current incarnation of Dr Who, and really only liked it when his missus appeared between 1979-1981. I wonder if Russell T. feels a bit put out?

[pec]

"Once a critical mass of humanity recognizes the infinite depth of man's intuitive nature, more and more will plumb those depths. Solutions to important issues will simply occur to people "

That's just one of the current utopian myths, not so different from the utopianism of the scientific atheists.

When temporal beings like ourselves get creative insights and solve problems we inevitably create more problems than we solve. The mystical utopians usually see humanity as evolving, with some way ahead of the others. They usually see themselves in the lead with everyone they disagree with lagging far behind. It's just another way to feel certain and superior, no less arrogant than the scientific atheists.

[pec]

I think the main reason we have not progressed from M-1 to M-3 is the failures of parapsychology. The evidence for the paranormal is just not convincing enough for the scientific atheists, and if it were convincing I am sure they would be convinced. They would be horribly disappointed to find out that yes there are ghosts, spirits (both good and not so good), gods, demons -- you imagine it, it probably exists in a universe made of infinite consciousness.

But as disappointed and depressed as the scientific atheists would be, they would give in if there were just one parapsychology experiment that always works and can be performed by anyone.

This may not ever be possible, since you can't control for the effects of mind if mind is not restricted to physical brains.

But maybe it is possible, and maybe parapsychologists have lacked the imagination needed to come up with a repeatable experiment with a strong effect that doesn't require enormous meta-analyses to find.

I am not a parapsychologist,, but if I were I would see if animal subjects can learn to influence an RNG in order to get rewards. That would be so much simpler than what Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz and Rupert Sheldrake have been doing.

[Robert McLuhan]

There have been quite a few experiments reported in the SPR journal with non-human subjects - eg, chicks, gerbils, fruit flies, fish, etc. Some are significant, but not dramatically more than those with human subjects.

Not sure I agree that parapsychologists lack imagination - Sheldrake in particular has been innovative, and his staring experiments have established quite a strong database - or with the implication that if parapsychologists were somehow cleverer and better scientists that other scientists would be convinced.

We may have to accept that there isn't going to be a killer experiment that will convert everyone. If there was we would have found it by now. Psi just isn't like that. What we can do instead is change the terms of the debate. For instance we need to explore psi-resistance, and show why some people, especially some scientists, put up such strong barriers to psi. Also, we should question the relationship, which is widely taken for granted, between truth and replicability. As long as science sees psi in terms of physics, nothing with change.

Perhaps influencing perceptions is what that parapsychology should be focusing on now. If psi is weak and elusive, but real nonetheless, that's a challenge for the whole scientific community to get to grips with, and even for society as a whole.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

Pec said: But as disappointed and depressed as the scientific atheists would be, they would give in if there were just one parapsychology experiment that always works and can be performed by anyone.

You really think so? The history of science is full with examples of theories which were supported by facts, which could be emperically checked but still got denied just by sheer refusal because it didn't agree with the current paradigm. Belief instead of facts. PSI is a lot more controversial than many of those theories because it treathens some deeply held metaphysical assumptions in science. I think the autoganzfeld has shown enough in reproducing results. I'm not sure what they want more unless one expects unrealistic 100% accuracy all the time which isn't possible in many other scientific disciplines.

Humphrey said: human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery. Who is the conjuror, and what can be the point of such deception? The conjuror is the human mind itself, evolved by natural selection, and the point has been to bolster human self-confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each place on our own and others' lives.

What amuses me every time is that they make these big statements about consciousness and insist it is illusionary but of course this means every statement which evolves from consciousness is illusionary to and hence these statements and theories are nothing but a conjuring trick. It is the mind denying the mind. This is a big paradox because how can a product from something illusionary have any merit at all?

Blackmore said: It seems that when people discard the illusion of an inner self who acts, as many mystics and Buddhist practitioners have done, they generally do behave in ways that we think of as moral or good. So perhaps giving up free will is not as dangerous as it sounds - but this too I cannot prove.

I'm glad Susan has the free will to believe she doesn't have free will. :)
I think in Buddhism it is a lot more nuanced than she says. A lot of Buddhists would say there is no free will but also no destiny. Not one, not two. Emptyness is void of concepts. Both exist in my view. Free will and no free will. Non dualism and dualism.

Greets,
FIlip

[pec]

"Not sure I agree that parapsychologists lack imagination - Sheldrake in particular has been innovative"

I didn't mean to be disrespectful and I think Sheldrake is great. But it bothers me that his experiments always require conscious intention, and they also seem overly complicated. The Jaytee experiment, for example, seems convoluted to me.

I have not been able to find any mention of a simple Skinner-style rat experiment. It could be almost completely automated, which might help minimize experimenter expectations (of course you can't get rid of the experimenter's mind, even with an automated experiment).

Rats want food and if they have psychic powers they will use them to get it. They could be rewarded for influencing the RNG even slightly. How could this not work? If I had a rat and an RNG I would try it.

All the well-known psi research -- PEAR, ganzfield, remote viewing, Gary Schwartz's medium experiments, Sheldake's staring experiments -- all depend on conscious intention of subjects. And I don't think these abilities are easily turned on by will power, even by professional psychics.

I think animals, young children, and people without Western education should be the preferred subjects for parapsychology. I think we should start with hungry rats. Mainstream psychologists would have to be convinced by that, as much as they despise parapsychology.

When I'm arguing with "skeptics," I can never cite a simple experiment that clearly demonstrates psi. I have to say millions of people have had paranormal experiences, in all known times and places, parapsychology has been collecting data for 100 years and overall it is statistically significant.

None of that convinces them, not at all.

[pec]

"The history of science is full with examples of theories which were supported by facts, which could be emperically checked but still got denied just by sheer refusal because it didn't agree with the current paradigm. "

Eventually the facts win. Scientists will accept clear evidence, even if they hate the theory.

[Mark]

No, they won't, necessarily. Usually they don't accept clear evidence. Usually they die. The people who come after them are more likely to be swayed by clear evidence. Then they die. The people after them are even more likely to accept the evidence, until after a few generations, (sometimes much longer) the concept goes mainstream. That's how scientific change happens, at least for the unlucky ideas that get branded with a taboo. With all due respect pec, I think you're not cynical enough. I think that this is the biggest problem with science and human knowledge in general throughout history, and I wish more was being done to try to combat this problem of general closed-mindedness rather than simply trying to prove parapsychology, UFOs, homeopathy, etc. (not that those subjects aren't important, just not as important as the underlying closed-mindedness problem that affects all controversial ideas)

[pec]

Mark,

The evidence for all these things is hazy. I believe in UFOs, ghosts, gods, etc. -- everything we would expect to find in a conscious universe of infinite dimensions. But these things exist on different levels of reality, more mental levels you might say, and it just seems very hard to bring evidence from those levels into this one. No one has any concrete unambiguous UFO evidence -- if they did, all scientists would believe it.

We need better evidence for things like biofields and life energy. Scientists will accept them when they can be measured and unequivocally demonstrated to exist. So many of the people involved with these things just come across as unscientific. And so many psychics and alternative medicine practitioners are fakes, just as the "skeptics" claim.

And when formerly mainstream scientists like Sheldrake, Radin and Schwartz become parapsychologists they seem to lose some of their former scientific objectivity and start to sound a little flaky and credulous. I'm reading The G.O.D. Experiments right now and if I didn't know that Schwartz had been a professor at Yale and Harvard I would never have guessed. It's almost like reading a Shirley McLaine book.

In general I can't stand the "skeptics" but I don't think they are merely bull-headed and bigoted and unreasonable. There is no one in alternative science who can really stand up to them and demonstrate, clearly and logically and beyond doubt, that mind can exist without a brain, or that life energy is real.

[Mark]

Why do you defend the skeptics that you supposedly can't stand? Look, either you are totally wrong and don't know what you're talking about, or just about everybody working in the field of psi is a liar. I hate to sound oversimplistic, but the things that they say are completely contradictory to what you are saying. Chris Carter, author of the book called Parapsychology and the Skeptics said in an interview on skeptiko.com that if this was about evidence, then the reality of psi would have been acknowledged fifty years ago. Of course, you're right that there is no one test that will prove it with absolute certainty, but you shouldn't fault the field of psi for that. Life isn't always that easy. If the skeptics were intellectually honest, they would at least admit that it is much more likely that psi is a real phenomenon than a fake one. Believers shouldn't have to prove it beyond an unreasonable doubt. They should simply have to prove that it is more likely than not to be true. They have done that and much more. This plays into the closed-mindedness that I was bitching about. So many skeptics want to say that if something isn't proven beyond an unreasonable doubt, then we have to assume it is false. It sounds like you are saying the same thing. And then you top it off by saying that no one in alternative science can stand up to the skeptics and comparing Schwartz and Radin to Shirley MacLaine. (or maybe it was Britney and Paris to Barack Obama...oh, wait...my mistake) Are you sure that you are on the right blog, pec?

Oh, and I do think that, for the most part, "they are merely bull-headed and bigoted and unreasonable."

[Michael H]

"I think the main reason we have not progressed from M-1 to M-3 is the failures of parapsychology."

I don't think so, Pec. Like Harmon, I think we're in the midst of the shift from M-1 to M-3 right now. M-3 won't become fully accepted until more people begin to realize their own connection to the foundational consciousness subjectively. When M-3 fully arrives, it won't be believed to be true, it will be understood to be true.

There are several indications this is happening already. M-3 can't and won't come about as long as the majority of people in general are certain that absolute truth can eventually be arrived at through objective means.

[Michael H]

"Not one, not two. Emptyness is void of concepts. Both exist in my view. Free will and no free will. Non dualism and dualism."

I agree. I think what is, is point-of-view.

Until it changes.

[pec]

"comparing Schwartz and Radin to Shirley MacLaine."

I didn't say that about Radin. I am reading The G.O.D. Experiments by Schwartz and it is full of poor reasoning and is about as unscientific as a Shirley Mclaine book. If you read it, you will probably agree.

Why do I defend skeptics if I don't like them? Because they are right about some things, and believers are wrong about some things. I'm a believer, but that doesn't mean I have agree with anything any believer says, and disagree with anything a non-believer says. I agree or disagree with a person's ideas depending on whether the idea seems true, not on the person's label.

[Bryan]

I don't quite understand the point Mark is making. If a scientist privately believes in Psi, it has no effect on anything if he gets his research funding from commercial sources. There is little of use to anyone that can be achieved from Psi-power if it is unreliable. Until there is a clear use for it, scientists won't get funding to investigate it, will they? Or am I missing something?

[pec]

"M-3 can't and won't come about as long as the majority of people in general are certain that absolute truth can eventually be arrived at through objective means."

Absolute truth can't ever be arrived at, but I think we should be able to prove the paranormal scientifically. Someone should win Randi's darned prize. Yes Randi is a fanatic and maybe he cheats, but someone should be able to win the prize anyway. Maybe it's only the kooks who even try. Serious parasychologists won't lower themselves.

But that darned prize is the number one argument against psi used by "skeptics."

All you have to do, for example, is find a way to measure life energy, in a scientific way that doesn't look flaky and new-agey.

I have not yet accepted -- and maybe never will -- the idea that nothing mystical can be pinned down scientifically.

[Mark]

I understand that not everyone who believes has to agree with everything that every other believer says, but they do need to agree with the believers more than the skeptics. And that ain't you, pec. Especially when you say that believers should walk into the Randi test knowing that he is going to cheat. That's absurd. You don't walk into an ambush when you know that one is there. I would rather we try to publicize the fact that he is a cheater and a liar, and that his whole test is a fraud. I'm going to say it again, pec...you need to go to a skeptic's message board. And Bryan needs to go to a capitalist message board. I'm interested in talking about why the skeptics won't accept something when there is good evidence behind it. I'm not interested in making a profit.

[Robert McLuhan]

'Someone should win Randi's darned prize.'

But what would happen if someone did win it? Would the world be converted? Or would it just turn round and say, that Randi, he was really tough almost up until the end, but then suddenly he lost it. What a shame!

The point is, sceptics will always find a way to avoid having to accept the unthinkable. They invest someone with the authority to resist it, but when that person stops resisting it, his authority vanishes.

Any progress, I believe, will come from educating scientists and sceptics on the psychological issues here, as much as from new experimental approaches.

[Michael H]

"Absolute truth can't ever be arrived at, but I think we should be able to prove the paranormal scientifically."

I'd suggest that absolute truth can be arrived at by anyone, though only subjectively. When someone does arrive at it, the rest of society calls them 'mystics' and worse.

In any case, a very strong case can be made that 'paranormal' phenomena have already been proven scientifically. I scare-quoted the term for a reason.

The resistance to this data does not arise from conscious prejudice of the skeptics. The resistance arises from the fact that accepting this phenomena as true would require abandoning the worldview that is near and dear to the heart of the skeptic. This is no different than the bishop refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. Dean Radin wrote posted a piece on this topic at Reality Sandwich just a few days ago.

I scare quoted 'paranormal' above, because I am convinced that there is no paranormal phenomena, though there is plenty of phenomena that will never be explained by the currently accepted paradigm that posits an objective reality that is independent of the subjective observer. This will be understood only after the acceptance of M-3, when it will not only be acknowledged that consciousness plays a critical role in reality construction (which is already accepted by many physicists), but it will be understood that consciousness itself is the foundational ground of existence.

By the way, Robert, if you aren't already aware of it, Calvi-Parisetti's "21 Days" is a good synopsis of a wide range of evidence that's available as a free PDF download:

http://www.openmindsite.com/

[Robert McLuhan]

Thanks, I picked that up from Michael Prescott's blog - wanted to have a closer look before posting a comment, but may do a brief review here instead at some point. It looks like an excellent piece of work, and it's just the sort of free resource we need more of.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

***Pec said: I have to say millions of people have had paranormal experiences, in all known times and places, parapsychology has been collecting data for 100 years and overall it is statistically significant.
None of that convinces them, not at all.***

But this is the case for many scientific disciplines, they only have statistical significance, the theories, hypotheses and operationalisation as evidence. 100% certaincy is not the domain of science and especially not the human sciences. The reality of humans is much more complex than that of a stone falling from the air. The point is that if telepathy was not telepathy but was the effectiveness of a certain medicine it would have been accepted without questioning! It would be regarded as proven beyond doubt with the available evidence!
It follows the same scientific standards often much more strict. This is what informed skeptics themselves say and accept.
The only thing they add is that they don't believe it and need more evidence because it is telepathy. So if one goes into the data and are being honestly scientific they will conclude that there is an effect, that there is high statistical significance which would be accepted in other disciplines as major proof but instead of accepting the theory of psi they don't agree with that interpretation. Why? Because the implications of psi being real would challenge some deeply held beliefs. I wonder what the alternative explenations are, now fraud, the file drawer effects etc are refuted.
This whole thing has much more to do with metaphysical assumptions, world views and not with facts in my opinion. And how this changes and becomes mainstream is pretty unpredictable.
Also if this is about not enough evidence. Remember the autoganzfeld? How Hyman and Honorton made a joint communique about which standards psi research should follow and if the results would be the same as the ganzfeld experiments enough thrustworthy evidence would be available to make a case?
The skeptics agreed on this.
The standards where implemented, the same results kept coming still the same argument surfaced "not enough evidence."
Changing the poles of what enough convincing evidence is, is something the skeptics are found of. I mean it has been done in the past, skeptics have been asked, what is enough evidence to convince you, they give instructions and rules, these are met and then it is still not good enough. No other scientific discipline has to experience these things. But it is good for parapsychology on some level, it just gives more strength to the case. That is the positive thing skeptics bring, tighter standards where alternative explenations are impossible. But that is still not enough which brings us again to world views.

Greets,
Filip

[Michael H]

"This whole thing has much more to do with metaphysical assumptions, world views and not with facts in my opinion. And how this changes and becomes mainstream is pretty unpredictable."

I hear you Filip.

What we need is a world without worldviews.

[pec]

"The resistance arises from the fact that accepting this phenomena as true would require abandoning the worldview that is near and dear to the heart of the skeptic."

Yes I know. And I don't call them skeptics because they are not. They accept without question many implausible ideas, as long as the ideas support their "matter creates mind" philosophy.

The so-called "skeptics" are angry and they see this as a war, literally. They form organizations and attend conferences where they plan their defense against the "anti-science" forces of irrationality.

I think their anger may be rooted in deep unconscious fears of the spirit worlds. Scientific atheism is consoling. Nature is mindless, random, meaningless, stupid. We can learn all about it and control it, we can cure all disease and live forever. I am hardly exaggerating, at least some of them really think that.

And if everything goes wrong and we don't outsmart nature in the near future, the worst that can happen to us is death, and death is nothingness.

So you are right, the "skeptics" are not going to be fair to parapsychology. However I still think they can be converted, or at least defeated.

[Bryan]

**We can learn all about it and control it, we can cure all disease and live forever. I am hardly exaggerating, at least some of them really think that.**

Sorry, pec that bit does go too far (sci-fi aside).

**I'm not interested in making a profit.**

Nor am I Mark. But that's because I'm an employee, not self-employed. Most scientists are employees too, and have to feed their families. I wish they didn't have to take commercial money, but that's life (at the moment). Asking me to leave this forum and join a capitalist message board is rather insulting, don't you think? I wouldn't dream of asking you to leave and join a "Agree- with-me-or-else" forum. If you're not prepared to take cognizance of the real world, you're just on a rant.

[pec]

"Sorry, pec that bit does go too far "

So you didn't notice I was expressing the "skeptics'" thoughts, not my own? I have explicitly spelled out the fact that I disagree with the "skeptics."

[Bryan]

Yes, I noticed, pec. Skeptics don't expect to live forever. For instance, Richard Dawkins is on record as saying he thinks he's lucky to have lived, and is not concerned about death. I know you were referring to the future, but I've never heard anyone I'd take seriously say, "One day, we'll be immortal, thanks to scientism." Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we need to be reasonable. Skeptics often aren't. But we can beat them at their own game by being the voice of reason. Don't you think?

[Mark]

I'm not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with me should leave the board, but I am suggesting that everyone who does not want to talk about paranormal phenomena or something directly related to it should go to another message board. When I am talking about why it is that the skeptics don't believe in psi despite the evidence that is already out there, and then someone comes in and throws capitalism into the mix as if it has something to do with what I am saying, it makes me want to ask the question, "Are you sure you're on the right message board?"

[pec]

" I've never heard anyone I'd take seriously say, "One day, we'll be immortal, thanks to scientism." Correct me if I'm wrong."

I have NEVER said, or thought, that. I was quoting "skeptics." I have spent a lot of time at their blogs, and have read a lot of their books, and have a fairly good idea about what they believe.

[Ben]

You also seem to have absorbed the skeptic aggression, pec! I *know * you don't think we'll be immortal. I just wondered if you could tell me which skeptics do think that (because I don't know any serious minded ones who do).