If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

By now I think we're all aware of the flaws in Wikipedia. Certainly for anything to do with Psi or survival of consciousness, it cannot be trusted to give a balanced presentation.

I'd always recommend looking to the Psi Encyclopedia first. It is regularly updated on such topics, new articles are being added all the time.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...-stevenson

And this is without flaws?

By now I think we're all aware of the flaws in Wikipedia. Certainly for anything to do with Psi or survival of consciousness, it cannot be trusted to give a balanced presentation.

I'd always recommend looking to the Psi Encyclopedia first. It is regularly updated on such topics, new articles are being added all the time.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...-stevenson

Yes, that is worth remembering - but even Wiki gave enough details about Stevenson and Tucker to inform anyone who didn't realise that this research has been conducted.

Unsurprising. Various Hindu schools believed in reincarnation. Though, some schools of Buddhists interpreted it as rebirth ~ of an entity, though without anything being brought along from previous incarnations.  Which is confusing, because apparently, said entities could still experience a Buddhist version of hell...

Yeah, the whole Hell thing is interesting when one considers the influence of NDEs w/ "hell tours" on Pureland Buddhism. In general the veering of Buddhism into No-Self doctrine is quite difficult for me to understand.

I just find it odd that "you" don't survive given Buddha talks about how the tears and blood shed across "your" lives is vaster than oceans...so much so that "you", after "swelling the cemeteries" with "your" deaths, become disenchanted by the cycle of rebirth and seek Liberation.

Of course, a perhaps easier way of looking at this is that Buddha is human like all of us and language failed him at some point to describe what he gained via Enlightenment.

'For how can one describe, as other than oneself, that which, when one saw it, seemed to be one with oneself?


This is no doubt why in the Mysteries we are forbidden to reveal them to the uninitiated.'
 -Plotinus

Also possible he realized the limitations of language and this is why he was reserved about answering directly re: the Soul's existence. I've mentioned this Attansio quote before:

"Jesus was a Rabbi, Siddartha a prince. Both learned, literate men. Yet they never wrote anything down. Why?

Because they were spell-breakers, not spell-binders."

Yes, that is worth remembering - but even Wiki gave enough details about Stevenson and Tucker to inform anyone who didn't realise that this research has been conducted.

Yes. And please don't take this personally, it is just a general concern.

The other player in this is the search engines. If I type the phrase "Reincarnation Research" into google, there are some good results, but the Psi Encyclopedia turns up on page 3, much later than some trashy article in the Daily Express.

Consequently I feel we who are interested in these topics can all play our part by linking to the highly relevant resources when we can, and not add publicity to the lesser stuff which is readily visible.

This at least as proponents here at Psience Quest is a small step we can take to help.

When Wikipedia is policed by editors who call themselves "Guerilla Skeptics", whose avowed aim is to edit out anything they consider pseudoscience (obviously that includes all of the stuff we discuss here), what chance a fair and unbiased treatment? This group is lauded by the media because they also target conspiracy theories and anti-vaccination misinformation. To these people it is all anti-science but to many of us there is a huge gulf between genuine parapsychology research and some politically motivated conspiracy theory.

Rupert Sheldrake (a contributor to the Psi Encyclopedia) has had his Wiki page "edited" by GSoW. He now has a section of his own website outlining the controversial activities of this group.

Wikipedia Cracked by Dogmatists (sheldrake.org)

And this is without flaws?

This is a good question.  Can we be certain it's bias free.  Most publications that use the word Psi or talk about such are unquestioningly believing and don't look to see if there are more likely explanations.

This is a good question.  Can we be certain it's bias free.  Most publications that use the word Psi or talk about such are unquestioningly believing and don't look to see if there are more likely explanations.

I suppose it depends on which publications. One might equally state that most publications that use the word Psi or talk about such are unquestioningly sceptical and don't look to see if there is any substance or evidence for these things.

The main thing is to look at all sides, rather than a single facet.

And this is without flaws?

Depends what you mean by flaws. Psi encyclopedia simply providea the evidence we have from experts who study it. One could say that there is some bias in the way it's presented since it's obviously pro psi research, but everything is there for someone to look at themselves. It's not like wikipedia where you get something that's not the full picture, isn't accurate with up to date information and is skewed towards a certain angle.

Depends what you mean by flaws. Psi encyclopedia simply providea the evidence we have from experts who study it. One could say that there is some bias in the way it's presented since it's obviously pro psi research, but everything is there for someone to look at themselves. It's not like wikipedia where you get something that's not the full picture, isn't accurate with up to date information and is skewed towards a certain angle.

Also, Psi Encyclopedia does include criticisms and sceptical viewpoints. It is not simply a one-sided view.

Also, Psi Encyclopedia does include criticisms and sceptical viewpoints. It is not simply a one-sided view.

That's really what I wanted to know.