Psience Quest

(2023-06-29, 10:35 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Looking for a definition of "an observer" can be found in the math and logic of information science.  An observation is to import information and is measurable in the series of equations gaging mutual information.  If the import of information was by an intelligent agent, the outcome of the information will change the probable choices for the agent.  There is a measurable decrease in entropy and maybe an increase in understanding.

QM and information theory are both in the math of probability and in states, where context matters.

So while it is correct to say that there is no equivalent to a "force" - information transfer as observation and communication is causal activity.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. There no link beteeen QM and information theory. Information theory is based on classic probability theory.

(2023-06-30, 03:15 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Sci, I don't expect anything to provide you with complete or simple answers. I'm just curious if you've ever looked into Robert Schwartz' books (Your Soul's Plan, etc.). He's now a past-life regressionist but his books (the first ones anyway) dealt with meeting up with mediums and channelers and asking all those questions about why we incarnate, especially as it relates to suffering and tremendous challenges, and what "learning" means in this context. You may still end up feeling it unsatisfying and I respect that, but it did open up perspectives for me I hadn't necessarily thought of before. It did also often seem to resonate with what some NDErs come up with in terms of what "learning" is, often in terms of having a felt (you could say qualia) experience of something, rather than a spirit having an abstract notion of it. (Like the experience of riding a rollercoaster). That's a simplistic example, but it seemed to provide a lot of hypothetical answers, anyhow, to the "why's" and the "why's" behind those.

Of course he's interviewed online a bunch of places. There's at least one featured on BATGAP with Rick Archer.

Thanks - will check it out!

I should note that I don't discount the possibility that benevolent entities do seek to help us, and this could include a Limited God of some kind.

I just don't think that reality is ordered to such a degree we could be assured that Someone has a Plan to make sure all things turn out well.

From my well of quotes I overly rely on, William James' Will to Believe:

Quote:I CONFESS  that I do not see why the very existence of an invisible world may not in part depend on the personal response which any one of us may make to the religious appeal. God himself, in short, may draw vital strength and increase of very being from our fidelity. For my own part, I do not know what the sweat and blood and tragedy of this life mean, if they mean anything short of this. If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight,—as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem; and first of all to redeem our own hearts from atheisms and fears. For such a half-wild half-saved universe our nature is adapted. The deepest thing in our nature is this dumb region of the heart in which we dwell alone with our willingnesses and our unwillingnesses, our faiths and our fears. As through the cracks and crannies of caverns those waters exude from the earth’s bosom which then form the fountain-heads of springs, so in these crepuscular depths of personality the sources of all our outer deeds and decisions take their rise. Here is our deepest organ of communication with the nature of things; and compared with these concrete movements of our soul all abstract statements and scientific arguments—the veto, for example, which the strict positivist pronounces upon our faith—sound to us like mere chatterings of the teeth …

  These then are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The ‘scientific’ proof that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached...

Or a little more subdued:

Quote:"It wouldn't hurt to light a candle for Jonah - We are, all of us, feeling for the worlds that move between the cracks in our senses.

Light a candle for your friend.

Good hearts push through many boundaries.

Have faith, Christoff.

Have faith in something."

-JM McDermott, Never Knew Another

(2023-06-29, 10:35 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Looking for a definition of "an observer" can be found in the math and logic of information science.  An observation is to import information and is measurable in the series of equations gaging mutual information.  If the import of information was by an intelligent agent, the outcome of the information will change the probable choices for the agent.  There is a measurable decrease in entropy and maybe an increase in understanding.

QM and information theory are both in the math of probability and in states, where context matters.

So while it is correct to say that there is no equivalent to a "force" - information transfer as observation and communication is causal activity.

I always find the language in this area to leave things unclear to me, mostly in the question of whether an observer is by definition conscious.

Previously the prompting was open-ended, so as to not introduce extraneous ideas via the question, which led to a statement that implied an observer need not be conscious (by inference since a camera was given as an example of an observer).

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...6#pid11206

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...7#pid11217

Quote:

bsanch321 Wrote:Agreed, but "observer" can mean a lot of different things to different people.

stephenw Wrote:An observer can be simply defined as an agent who can record specific data about an object, event or process.

typoz Wrote:And how is 'agent' defined?

stephenw Wrote:"a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect."

An agent can be a camera with a motion sensor, in this basic sense of the term. 

In philosophy, the definitions of agency can go on for chapters.  I don't speak to anything other than a simple approach.  When an agent "measures reality (such as taking a picture) information is exported to new locations and this "copy" can then change real-world probabilities.  Information science quantifies this "copy" as mutual information.

(2023-06-26, 06:47 PM)Sam Wrote: [ -> ]So, instead of addressing the study itself, you go ahead and take shots at the journal that published the study.

OK, I read the study you reference. (Sarraf, M., Woodley, M., Tressoldi, P. (2020). Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence. Explore 17, 10.1016/j.explore.2020.04.002.)

It does have some merit. It is a compilation of 18 studies of mediums. In each of these studies, mediums were told the name of the deceased that the person in another room wanted to hear from. These mediums then prepared reported messages they were hearing from the named deceased person.

Later the person requesting the reading would be presented two readings, one reportedly from the requested departed person, and one reportedly from somebody else. In general the people requesting the services of the medium guessed the right message about half the time. In some studies they guessed correctly slightly more than half the time. In other studies, they guessed wrong more than half the time.

Though many of these studies had right answers slightly more than half the time, the findings were not enough for science to call them significant. If, for illustration, you flip a coin 50 times, and come up with heads 26 times, that is not enough to prove the coin flip is anything but random.

But suppose you did many such coin flip studies and find more correct guesses than wrong guesses every time you flipped the coin 50 times. Then you might tend to believe you had an unfair coin. That is equivalent to what this study does. It combines many studies of mediums, each with a small positive or negative affect, and concludes that overall there is a slight significant positive correlation with guessing the right message rather than the wrong one.

That could mean that, there is a slight tendency to hear from the deceased. Or it could mean there is a slight tendency to somehow get transmissions from the person in the other room in ways not currently understood. Or it could mean that there are things in the experimental design that change the odds just slightly in favor of right guesses.

For instance, a medium who is a skilled cold reader might make a different reading for a request for a deceased man named "Peter" compared with one for a man named "Pedro". The person who is looking for a reading from Uncle Peter might then find that the reading prepared for Peter is closer to what he expected compared to the reading for Pedro. Thus, there may be a few occasions where the name helps to give the medium a slight clue, and that may be enough to show slightly more positive readings.

So what is causing the small favoring toward correct readings? I think experimental design, such as using the name as a hint on how to make the reading, is the most likely cause. The second most likely cause is that the medium was somehow sensing something from the living. The least likely cause, in my opinion, is that the medium was hearing from the deceased. This is because, as I have argued here, I find it extremely unlikely that people survive death. So I find one of these other causes more likely.

One other option is that there is a publishing bias. Positive results are much easier to publish then one that shows no effect or perhaps a small negative effect. Perhaps if unpublished reports had been included in this meta-analysis, the results would have been quite different.

Another possibility, due to the fact that there are many studies involved, is that some of the studies may have had a significant flaw in the design. A few bad pieces of beef ruins the whole beef stew.

So I find this study interesting, but the small observed affect does nothing to overthrow all of neuroscience, which finds that the mind is dependent on the brain, and hence is unlikely to survive death.

(2023-06-30, 03:15 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Sci, I don't expect anything to provide you with complete or simple answers. I'm just curious if you've ever looked into Robert Schwartz' books (Your Soul's Plan, etc.). He's now a past-life regressionist but his books (the first ones anyway) dealt with meeting up with mediums and channelers and asking all those questions about why we incarnate, especially as it relates to suffering and tremendous challenges, and what "learning" means in this context. You may still end up feeling it unsatisfying and I respect that, but it did open up perspectives for me I hadn't necessarily thought of before. It did also often seem to resonate with what some NDErs come up with in terms of what "learning" is, often in terms of having a felt (you could say qualia) experience of something, rather than a spirit having an abstract notion of it. (Like the experience of riding a rollercoaster). That's a simplistic example, but it seemed to provide a lot of hypothetical answers, anyhow, to the "why's" and the "why's" behind those.

Of course he's interviewed online a bunch of places. There's at least one featured on BATGAP with Rick Archer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxi2wpJTXro

Another New-ager.  What on earth has this got to do with science and demonstrable reality?

(2023-06-30, 10:42 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Another New-ager.  What on earth has this got to do with science and demonstrable reality?

He was responding to my claim that I see no plan nor order to this reality.

Do New Agers have less evidence for their religious beliefs than others? The religions of the world seem to largely have the same amount of evidence AFAICTell?

(2023-06-28, 03:11 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]You steadfastly refuse to admit that the dead are very likely to be quite changed in consciousness such that former concerns in  physical life are no longer important to them. They're just not interested any  more in some frivolous game protocol to try to convince their shallow friends of survival.

My only suggestion would be to utilize one discarnate motivation that might still remain which could be exploited by the investigators. It would raise the stakes tremendously into a proposition which might really interest the recent dead.

This would be to set aside a large untouchable bequest of tens of millions of dollars, to be held until afterlife researchers come up with really strong and convincing research evidence for survival...

If the investigators succeed in this, the foundation will gift a designated large homeless charity fund and a large pediatric cancer research fund with this very large bequest. This would hopefully take advantage of the presumably strong motivation of the recent discarnates to relieve suffering on Earth. 

How do you know what dead people want? If they were talking to mediums, wouldn't it be better to ask them what they want?

My questions was not what would motivate them, but what they could do. If requests for them to open padlocks or read cards is not their forte, ask them what they can do. Then we could set up an experiment that allows them to do what they can easily do.

You suggest the problem is motivation. If only they had a few million dollars given to the right place, then they would be motivated. James Randi already tried this. He offered a million dollar prize for years to anybody who could show convincing evidence of the paranormal in a controlled trial. Many tried. All failed. So money doesn't seem to be the thing that motivates the dead. Even with a million dollars at stake, they didn't pull through.

(2023-06-30, 10:33 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]So I find this study interesting, but the small observed affect does nothing to overthrow all of neuroscience, which finds that the mind is dependent on the brain, and hence is unlikely to survive death.

I liked this post of yours because I find there is too much credulity on this forum and we need skeptics like you to bring these things up, but your last statement is still unqualified. As well as that,  Christianity speaks of a physical resurrection, so survival does not depend upon a seperate "soul."

(2023-06-30, 10:47 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]You suggest the problem is motivation. If only they had a few million dollars given to the right place, then they would be motivated. James Randi already tried this. He offered a million dollar prize for years to anybody who could show convincing evidence of the paranormal in a controlled trial. Many tried. All failed. So money doesn't seem to be the thing that motivates the dead. Even with a million dollars at stake, they didn't pull through.

Randi was rather questionable...

The challenge, part one 

Quote:For years superskeptic James Randi has touted his million-dollar challenge as his ultimate argument against the paranormal. If these phenomena are genuine, Randi and his many fans insist, why hasn't anyone won the million dollars yet?

Randi's detractors counter that the challenge is a publicity stunt, and that Randi and JREF (the James Randi Educational Foundation) make it difficult for people to apply successfully for the challenge, or to be tested even if their applications have been successful. They also argue that JREF's standards are loose and ambiguous, and that they can ignore or dismiss an applicant for any number of reasons, some of which are purely subjective.

The challenge, part two

Quote:The one thing that stands out here, beyond the obvious difficulty of getting an application approved in the first place, is the disparity between the number of people who successfully apply and the number who are actually tested. Do all these claimants drop out voluntarily even after going to the trouble of applying, or are there other factors involved?

We'll look at that question and wrap things up in part three.

The challenge, part three

Quote:At every stage of the process, the applicant finds himself facing long odds - and not just because he may or may have the ability to demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon. The application process is arduous and time-consuming, often requiring multiple resubmissions over a period of months or even years. Applicants can be rejected for virtually any reason, including the "incredible" nature of their claims. Applicants may be placed in the position of trying to prove they are not mentally ill. Applicants are effectively muzzled from criticizing JREF or Randi either publicly or privately, and may be dismissed at any time for a variety of offenses subjectively determined by JREF administrators, including rudeness and "sap[ping] JREF resources." JREF is the final authority in all cases; there is no mediator and no appeal. Since no lists of applicants and outcomes have been made available on the Internet by JREF, and since Randi himself does not seem to know the number of claimants who've actually been tested, we can only guess at how many people succeed in reaching even the preliminary testing stage. By Randi's own estimate, the number is small, with the "vast majority" of applicants failing to negotiate the application process, or dropping out or being dismissed before the test is attempted.

Given all this, is it really such a mystery that the more sophisticated researchers and test subjects in the paranormal field steer clear of the much-publicized JREF Challenge?

=-=-=

Will Storr's 'The Heretics'

Robert McLuhan

Quote:When we come to Randi, it's clear that Storr is sceptical about his status as 'truth's war dog', and that it's he, not scientists like Sheldrake, who are in the dock. Like the other extremists, Randi seems completely unaware of glaring inconsistencies in his position: one the one hand he abuses psi believers in the most offensive terms imaginable, yet he wants to be taken seriously as an investigator and rejects the term 'debunker'.

Storr also exposes the way that Randi ducks and dives to get out of actually having to test people for the Million Dollar Challenge. One case he describes in some detail is that of the Greek homeopath George Vithoulkas, who seems to have been deadly earnest about applying for the Challenge, and spent a lot of time and money arranging for a suitable hospital clinic to arrange the trial. To Vithoulkas's consternation he was blocked at the last minute by Randi, who went back on the arrangement he had previously agreed to, and demanded that Vithoulkas go back and start the whole process again. By this time Vithoulkas had had enough and threw in the towel. (One of Randi's team told Storr that this showed clearly that Vithoulkas was 'trying to find an excuse and quit the test'.)

Storr also manages to confirm the unreliability of notorious claims made by Randi with regard to Uri Geller, and also to Professor Gary Schwartz's investigation of mediums, when he pretended that psi researcher Stanley Krippner had agreed to be involved in judging Schwartz's data for the Challenge. Krippner told Storr he had not agreed to anything such thing.

The interview itself is a rather sad affair, but if you're interested in Randi it's probably worth the price of the book. This is a man at the end of his life, still sharp and malicious, but surprisingly frank about a troubled upbringing (although Storr does not comment explicitly, there's a Walter Mitty sheen about claims of extraordinary brilliance Randi is supposed to have displayed as a child.) Storr is mainly interested in his debunking career: he confronts him about various contradictions and makes him defend his various lies, overstatements and exaggerations, including the notorious claim, which he admitted to Sheldrake was untrue, that he had tested the 'psychic dogs' claims and 'they fail'.

(2023-06-28, 02:28 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Oh there hasn't been any good arguments provided for the claim that Souls Need Brains. It's still unclear to me why someone would make this claim, save perhaps a fear of Hell so great they need to believe that even if they are damned they won't actually be capable of suffering...

We've gotten bizarre arguments that when people directly say something they mean something else. Desperate appeals to poorly reasoned work by Richard Carrier who thinks Nothing can produce a Multiverse that explains away Fine Tuning and that Consciousness is like Color Qualia which is an aspect of Consciousess. And the extremely biased writings of Keith Augustine who is clearly dishonest.

Oh and some weird aside about animal souls that included a survey [plus accusations of "magic", a term that seems to lack any real definition when used against people who object to the Materialist faith].

Nothing, however, on why we should assume that *if* souls exist that they *must* lack cognitive function without the brain.

No good arguments for how non-conscious constituents could make a brain that produces consciousness, which is a claim in itself that needs to be shown.

LOL. This misrepresents all that I said here. I have answered this stuff multiple times. Will you simply ignore what I write, and claim victory?

If anybody reading this wants to know what I actually said, you can go back and read my posts here. I see no need to repeat it again. If there are any questions for me, please ask.