(2017-08-20, 10:01 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Yes - but proponents don't get off lightly either. For example, this review, entitled "Wrong About Almost Everything", deals with a book by one A. Tsakiris:
http://pelicanist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/wrong.html
There are plenty of glaring problems in that review. Not that I need defend Alex, he can do that for himself. But it sounds more like someone telling his readers
what to think, not
how to. Now where did I hear that before?
(2017-08-20, 10:33 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of glaring problems in that review. Not that I need defend Alex, he can do that for himself. But it sounds more like someone telling his readers what to think, not how to. Now where did I hear that before?
If I were feeling mischievous, I'd start a thread for discussion of that review. [why is there no devil emoticon?]
(2017-08-21, 12:33 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that some (or at least one) of the reviewers might not be immune from a little personal bias either if you read the comments section of this review:
http://pelicanist.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03....html#more
It's interesting that that's the same reviewer who criticised "Why Science is Wrong ..."
Quote:Consciousness-related interactions in a double-slit optical interferometer
Gabriel Guerrer*
Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil
August 24, 2017
Abstract
Motivated by a series of reported experiments and their controversial results, the present work investigated if volunteers could causally affect an optical double-slit system through mental efforts alone. The participants task alternated between intending the increase of the (real-time feedback informed) amount of light diffracted through a specific single slit and relaxing any intention effort. The 160 data sessions contributed by 127 volunteers revealed a statistically significant 6.37 sigma difference between the measurements performed in the intention versus the relax conditions (p = 1.89 × 10−10, es = 0.50 ± 0.08), while the 160 control sessions conducted without any present observer resulted in statistically equivalent samples (z = −0.04, p = 0.97, es = 0.00 ± 0.08). The results couldn’t be simply explained by environmental factors, hence supporting the previously claimed existence of a not yet mapped form of interaction between a conscious agent and a physical system.
The full paper can be viewed or downloaded here:
https://osf.io/zsgwp/
(Thanks to K9! for her
post about this study in the Skeptiko forum.)
I hadn't seen this before - Spooky Geology by Sharon A. Hill: "a science-based look at mysterious earth phenomena, geologic anomalies, and the endless weird ideas about rocks and the earth that are a bit abnormal, paranormal, or supernatural":
http://spookygeology.com/
On her blog she says she's swinging away from scepticism and is now "slightly left of center – in sympathy with the paranormal crowd":
http://sharonahill.com/at-the-crossroads...aranormal/
(2017-11-23, 03:08 PM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]"compassionate robots" ?
Yes, apparently teaching AIs about love is one of her big research interests. More here: