Psience Quest

(2023-05-19, 11:36 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Seemed relevant ->

That was great stuff, especially in deconstructing the interaction problem.

(2023-05-25, 10:29 AM)quirkybrainmeat Wrote: [ -> ]If that's true, then I'm glad he went to discuss his point of view instead of casually dismissing dissenting opinions as "woomongers" like many skeptical people.

Yes, I am the guy from mindsetfree.blog, and yes, I would love to continue the discussion.  Currently I am busy on another thread. (https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/ ) If I have time, I would like to get back to this thread.

(2023-05-25, 10:29 AM)quirkybrainmeat Wrote: [ -> ]If that's true, then I'm glad he went to discuss his point of view instead of casually dismissing dissenting opinions as "woomongers" like many skeptical people.

The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

(2023-05-30, 05:08 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

I check interventionist ID all the time, and there are recent skeptical posts regarding remote viewing. Merle has a bunch of stuff on his site about how miracles are false history, maybe he will post about that later.

A few others have made recent comments critical about ID.

Max has noted issues with Radin's research, I've recently mentioned issues with Bengson's work and Eben Alexander's credibility...a lot of people had criticisms of the telepathy in autistic children research in the Skeptiko days...

I just have to admit I find a lot of skeptical talking points pretty uninteresting. Chris's interventions when he was a member here made me pretty distrustful of certain pseudo-skeptic claims about research data, and beyond that not even sure what skeptics could add.

We can all add a caveat to our posts that something may not be true, but at this point I'd rather talk to proponents about what they believe rather than see the new cut & past[e] strategy from skeptics. For example why I just said at the outset of the Super Psi vs Survival thread I wasn't going to dig into every case as settling between the two was more interesting to me. [I did have skeptical notes where I'm doubtful anything supernatural happened to Joe Fisher who wrote The Siren Cry of Hungry Ghosts.]

All to say it seems there's enough skepticism left, but feel free to provide some counter claims to specific cases.

(2023-05-30, 05:08 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

Sheesh Brian.  That's a hard take and certainly not my experience.  So, would have been worthwhile (and smart) to caveat your statements as not absolute but rather you're perspective.

Again, I've been around several places both proponents and skeptics at the core.  This is the most 'tolerant to challenge' community I've found online.

(2023-05-30, 05:08 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]The same happens the other way around.  That's why the skeptics all left Psience quest and we now have no counter evidence to the evidence that is automatically taken as true by the "woomongers" because they prefer to blindly believe than to question and look for counter evidence.  Reality checking just isn't a thing on this forum anymore.  It's gone right downhill.

I'd say there is a fair amount of effort to explore potential counter-evidence. For example, if AI is real - i.e. if we can construct machines that are conscious (or maybe we already have) then that seems to rule out psi, at least for me.

Some time back I commented that if AI ever gets good enough to create completely driverless cars that work in all the conditions we drive in, then I'd have to become a materialist. I'm glad to say that hasn't happened, and I don't think it is likely to do so. The reason I said that, is that driving seems to involve an open-ended awareness of the world.

Maybe the other thing to say, is don't you think this is a debate that can complete in some sense. I don't want to call it 'winning' because that seems to trivialise it, but honestly I'd say the weight of evidence points towards 'woo'.

David

(2023-05-30, 09:29 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Some time back I commented that if AI ever gets good enough to create completely driverless cars that work in all the conditions we drive in, then I'd have to become a materialist. I'm glad to say that hasn't happened, and I don't think it is likely to do so. The reason I said that, is that driving seems to involve an open-ended awareness of the world.

Maybe the other thing to say, is don't you think this is a debate that can complete in some sense. I don't want to call it 'winning' because that seems to trivialise it, but honestly I'd say the weight of evidence points towards 'woo'.

Hmm that's an odd requirement to me because I think driverless cars are all but inevitable...just not via the current strategy of machine "learning".

But yes, I do think [belief] in the paranormal is ultimately due to win out over the faith of atheist-materialism and the other more theistic religious factions.

(2023-05-30, 09:29 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say there is a fair amount of effort to explore potential counter-evidence. For example, if AI is real - i.e. if we can construct machines that are conscious (or maybe we already have) then that seems to rule out psi, at least for me.

That particular avenue seems to depend on a very particular definition of consciousness. For example, what if a primary requirement of consciousness was the ability to at least occasionally demonstrate psi?

Certainly for me, one of the big kick-starts in the exploration of consciousness as distinct from either material or cold mathematical logic was the observation in my own life of events which were neither.

(2023-05-30, 11:03 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]But yes, I do think believe in the paranormal is ultimately due to win out over the faith of atheist-materialism and the other more theistic religious factions.

I think theism, broadly speaking has a strong future. But there is no requirement to adhere to the past, any more than science adheres to Aristotle and Ptolemy. Personally I find some aspect of theism one of the foundations of my attempts to understand this reality - though I discovered through experience that there are all sorts of mistakes in my ideas too. This is one of the hardest parts of life - that not everything can be discovered through the experiences of others. Or maybe that is life's greatest joy.

(2023-05-30, 11:46 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Oh I think theism i[n] general will last as long as human kind, but once you accept the varied forms of Psi especially psychic healing the most likely explanation for any particular religion is that some historical mortal figure was gifted with Psi.

I don't strongly disagree there. But I feel a need to distinguish between individual human lives and the larger picture of some more general description or at least perspective on things. I don't particularly spend time dwelling on those individual human lives - it isn't the aspect which illuminates understanding for me, except to the extent that they may have looked beyond themselves too.

[It is possible that we have differing definition or concepts of the term 'theism' so there's probably no need to dwell too long on this.]