Could psi have a materialist explanation?

So saying it'll all turn out to be physical or explicable in terms of "science" doesn't move the needle one way or the other really. It doesn't lend any credibility to either the proponent or skeptical side of things.

Anything physical can obviously be subsumed under the skeptical side of things. But I'm not so sure that this works for the proponent side. I suspect that proponents would need to see an explanation which is novel and a bit odd before they would be willing to call it "psi". For example, parapsychologists have found that the bulk of what impresses people in mediumship readings are really the consequences of providing ordinary information through feedback, and of non-blinded assessments. But I very much doubt that proponents would accept this as the "anomalous" information they feel mediums provide.

Linda

What does saying “it is all mind” tell us?

What does promissory materialism, "don't worry science will figure it all out and it'll all be physical" tell us? Also, where did I say anything like "it is all mind"?

I don't think human consciousness is fundamental to reality. I don't think there's a special purpose for humanities existence and were not specially created. I don't think this universe revolves around us. That is not arrogance Dante it's humility. I've heard or have seen implied on this forum and Skeptiko those very unyielding sentiments diametrically opposed to what I've wrote and you have the gall to call me arrogant LOL  My god, even the taxonomic name used to identifying our species speaks to our perceived self importance. Like many other paranomalists you have a severe myopic ability to see another's point of view. It's a short coming many paranomalists have.

You told Valmar that he missed the point, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did. Humility is not dismissing out of hand other people's views, which in many cases are substantiated by at least some evidence and well thought out arguments. 

You are reinforcing exactly my point - you don't have to think there's a special purpose, like some uniquely religious purpose, specific to humans, to think there's more to it than "completely random and purposeless accident". Again, that isn't humility, it's a blatant strawman that's a result of incredible intellectual laziness or just incompetence, neither of which you've had any trouble demonstrating at any point in time.

The taxonomic name is a non sequitur. I think that you've demonstrated that you just don't really get it, on any level. You, an ardent, unmoving, fervent materialist who is entirely unable to see any point of view but his own, are in absolutely no position whatsoever to call anyone else narrowminded. Of all the skeptics here or Skeptiko who have stuck around, there is little doubt that you are the shallowest of all in terms of your approach. It's as simple as "you're just being emotional, your evidence is all bunk, you're narrowminded", rinse repeat with you. It's a wonder that you've stuck around so long on a forum that I'd imagine you must feel you're wasting your time with, given how utterly unmoving all us shortsighted and emotionally motivated proponents are.

I understand the other side. I actually get the arguments they make. I wouldn't waste my time here if I didn't consider malf's input, Paul's input, Arouet's input, even sometimes Linda's input, valuable. Without a shadow of doubt, you are wasting your time here just aimlessly moping around and accusing everyone of the exact qualities you possess. You seem to think there is literally no actual intelligence or well thought out ideas on the proponent side - it really is difficult to believe. You seem like you'd fit in better on some hardo atheist blog or forum where you could just rant about how stupid, emotional, and egotistical proponents are, rather than bothering to feign engagement on a forum like this.

Remarkably, you really responded to what I said by doubling down on exactly what I was suggesting you were doing, all the while lacking quite a bit of self awareness. Well done, steve.

Don't BS. You know what physical - ism means.

I don't really understand this as a response unless you didn't read what I wrote or just didn't understand it

Anything physical can obviously be subsumed under the skeptical side of things. But I'm not so sure that this works for the proponent side. I suspect that proponents would need to see an explanation which is novel and a bit odd before they would be willing to call it "psi". For example, parapsychologists have found that the bulk of what impresses people in mediumship readings are really the consequences of providing ordinary information through feedback, and of non-blinded assessments. But I very much doubt that proponents would accept this as the "anomalous" information they feel mediums provide.

Linda

I think you also didn't get what I was saying. "Physical" is a difficult term to pin down, and I think quantum mechanics has reflected that. In essence what I meant was that, if we were to end up discovering that some psi phenomena or consciousness was in a sense natural to the universe, such that it's either fundamental or an integral part of any given universe, the fact that those phenomena would then be explicable in those future scientific terms does not mean that they would support current, modern skeptical views of what physical is.

A finding such as that would greatly expand what is currently understood and as a result can't really be said to support the current skeptical position, because we don't know what it looks like. That's one reason promissory materialism isn't a reasonable approach.

I'n not sure how what you've wrote addresses what I wrote.

For example, parapsychologists have found that the bulk of what impresses people in mediumship readings are really the consequences of providing ordinary information through feedback, and of non-blinded assessments. But I very much doubt that proponents would accept this as the "anomalous" information they feel mediums provide.

I think one would have to have a very strange definition of the word "anomalous" to do so. "Conventional" would be a more appropriate description of such an explanation.

I think you also didn't get what I was saying. "Physical" is a difficult term to pin down, and I think quantum mechanics has reflected that. In essence what I meant was that, if we were to end up discovering that some psi phenomena or consciousness was in a sense natural to the universe, such that it's either fundamental or an integral part of any given universe, the fact that those phenomena would then be explicable in those future scientific terms does not mean that they would support current, modern skeptical views of what physical is.

I agree. After all, the current, modern view of what physical is is quite different from what physical was a hundred years ago. My point was that I don't think it means anything to observe that our view of what "physical" looks like is updated in light of new information. After all, we've already gone through what you describe - a greatly expanded view of "physical" which is almost unrecognizable to prior perceptions of it. Yet we still call it physical.

A finding such as that would greatly expand what is currently understood and as a result can't really be said to support the current skeptical position, because we don't know what it looks like. That's one reason promissory materialism isn't a reasonable approach.

Why would it matter what it looks like? You seem to think that it has to look a certain way in order to still be called "physical". But I see no indication that that is the case. 

Just FYI, I'm not supporting the idea of promissory anything. I am just in agreement that it's ridiculous to insist that any model of reality is insulated from new findings. 

Linda

You told Valmar that he missed the point, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did. Humility is not dismissing out of hand other people's views, which in many cases are substantiated by at least some evidence and well thought out arguments. 

You are reinforcing exactly my point - you don't have to think there's a special purpose, like some uniquely religious purpose, specific to humans, to think there's more to it than "completely random and purposeless accident". Again, that isn't humility, it's a blatant strawman that's a result of incredible intellectual laziness or just incompetence, neither of which you've had any trouble demonstrating at any point in time.

The taxonomic name is a non sequitur. I think that you've demonstrated that you just don't really get it, on any level. You, an ardent, unmoving, fervent materialist who is entirely unable to see any point of view but his own, are in absolutely no position whatsoever to call anyone else narrowminded. Of all the skeptics here or Skeptiko who have stuck around, there is little doubt that you are the shallowest of all in terms of your approach. It's as simple as "you're just being emotional, your evidence is all bunk, you're narrowminded", rinse repeat with you. It's a wonder that you've stuck around so long on a forum that I'd imagine you must feel you're wasting your time with, given how utterly unmoving all us shortsighted and emotionally motivated proponents are.

I understand the other side. I actually get the arguments they make. I wouldn't waste my time here if I didn't consider malf's input, Paul's input, Arouet's input, even sometimes Linda's input, valuable. Without a shadow of doubt, you are wasting your time here just aimlessly moping around and accusing everyone of the exact qualities you possess. You seem to think there is literally no actual intelligence or well thought out ideas on the proponent side - it really is difficult to believe. You seem like you'd fit in better on some hardo atheist blog or forum where you could just rant about how stupid, emotional, and egotistical proponents are, rather than bothering to feign engagement on a forum like this.

Remarkably, you really responded to what I said by doubling down on exactly what I was suggesting you were doing, all the while lacking quite a bit of self awareness. Well done, steve.

Steve’s writings make sense if you take them as someone who desperately wants something to be true, but isn’t knowledgeable enough to articulate it. So he projects his own insecurities on other people, choosing to make up words and refer to people immediately above his posts as ‘Some people think this, and I wonder, do they see that in themselves????’

Steve’s writings make sense if you take them as someone who desperately wants something to be true, but isn’t knowledgeable enough to articulate it. So he projects his own insecurities on other people, choosing to make up words and refer to people immediately above his posts as ‘Some people think this, and I wonder, do they see that in themselves????’

After years of being exposed to his dogmatic beliefs, I came to the conclusion (actually, more than once but I am a sucker for lost causes) that engaging with Steve is futile. It is like inviting in a Jehova's Witness when they knock at your door: don't ever believe that you can discuss anything sensibly with them; they have an agenda and a mission. So does Steve - that's the only thing that explains why he hangs around a forum like this. As for the comment about whether people recognise the same in themselves, perhaps the article I posted in another thread provides a clue:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lains.html

The myopia of scientism, its naïve utopianism and simplistic faith, bears an uncanny resemblance to the religious dogmatisms folks like Tyson and Dawkins denounce.

I guess I should rephrase it as how pluasable is a physicalist explanation for psi, as most treat it as a paradigm shifter if it does exist. Especially with the way it's tied to consciousness. 

Shouldve realized the term materialism is quite expandable actually, as what we consider "material" and the nature of it changes all the time

ESP Vol 1 & 2 has several potential explanations for Psi that are physicalist.

Apologies if someone has already answered with this, I tried to search into the thread but didn't see a reference to this.

I'll note that, to some extent, the question of immaterialism vs physicalism doesn't provide immediate follow-through answers to

"Is there a God?"

"Is there an afterlife?"