The A Priori Case for the Paranormal? [companion discussion thread]

Mmm, I'm just thinking that one of the standard objections by hardcore skeptics to evidence for the paranormal is "my priors are so low that no amount of evidence could raise the posterior probability of the paranormal to a meaningful level", so I figured that you could be interpreted in this thread as arguing "but the opposite should be the case: your priors should be so high that the probability of the paranormal is more likely than not even before empirical evidence, and here's why".

Anyhow, the exact framing and phrasing isn't crucial - I get the general idea of what you're trying to achieve, and it's worthy.

I get what you're saying, and Bayesian arguments have actually been really useful in clarifying what people think about reality.

But in addition to many years passing since my last stats class...I guess for me Bayesian arguments are a subset of the arguments? For example the Argument for God from Psycho-Physical Harmony is an argument about how much more unlikely it is to get said harmony without God. And the deisgn argument from Cosmic Fine Tuning is comparing the likelihood of getting our life-enabling universal constants with or without Designer(s).

And I think both arguments ultimately do lean us into accepting the possibility of Psi and Survival because they posit at least one Mind is over and above all that is physical.

However I think an argument like Aquinas' Immateriality of the Intellect is not making a claim about what's more likely, it's an argument that the mental is radically different than what the "physical" is thought to be.

I guess such a metaphysical argument could be added to one's priors and adjust one's likelihood of believing in Psi/Survival evidence, but the argument on its own is meant to show the Mind is non-physical. Which to me means it isn't a strictly "Bayesian-type" argument.

But yeah ultimately the goal here is to say that given there are very good reasons to think Mind is non-physical and the laws of physics are not universal nor binding, the Psi/Survival evidence should not be judge by standards that are arguably insurmountable/biased. Rather we should treat said evidence as conforming to expectations we should - IMO at least - already have that Psi/Survival definitely exist or at least are very likely to exist.