The Good Place

Perhaps there is a significant distinction to be made, beyond all the semantics here.

Obviously some people don't accept the existence of anomalous phenomena, or even any real possibility of their existence. For those people, there's no great need to accommodate anything non-material in their view of the world.

For those who are open to other possibilities, there remains the question of whether they can be investigated and explained by scientific methods, or whether in some sense they are beyond science - perhaps beyond reason altogether. The former view could be called naturalism, or maybe physicalism (though, as I said above, I think that term is liable to be interpreted as materialism).

Coincidentally, I've come across this divergence of opinion a couple of times in the past few days. Listening to Eric Wargo being interviewed about his ideas, it seems his thinking is that psi phenomena can be explained by naturalistic laws involving precognition/retroactive influence, which could be accommodated by theoretical physics without too much of an upheaval (though he seems shy of stepping entirely under the umbrella of materialism):
https://expandingmind.podbean.com/e/expa...ps-092718/
https://expandingmind.podbean.com/e/expa...-2-100418/

Also on her blog, Sharon A. Hill (who seems more interested in people than phenomena) has been discussing how cryptozoologists and ghost researchers seem to fall into two camps - one oriented towards scientific ideas, and the other towards ideas of intuition and faith. I don't have much doubt that similar camps exist among those interested in psi and post mortem survival:
https://sharonahill.com/2018/10/04/super...igfooters/
https://sharonahill.com/2018/10/05/legit...authority/

Perhaps there is a significant distinction to be made, beyond all the semantics here.

Obviously some people don't accept the existence of anomalous phenomena, or even any real possibility of their existence. For those people, there's no great need to accommodate anything non-material in their view of the world.

For those who are open to other possibilities, there remains the question of whether they can be investigated and explained by scientific methods, or whether in some sense they are beyond science - perhaps beyond reason altogether. The former view could be called naturalism, or maybe physicalism (though, as I said above, I think that term is liable to be interpreted as materialism).

Though there's also the view that physicalism is ultimately unintelligible/unreasonable, perhaps one of the few metaphysical points Sam Harris and I would agree on.
 
Also what exactly would make something "beyond reason altogether"? Because one can make the argument that brute facts like supposed natural laws are believing in something beyond reason (see here for an intro into this discussion). Also the idea of genuine indeterminism where something happens for no reason (as in causal agents) at all.

All that aside I agree most people in this world care more about the Does X Exist question rather than the underlying substance/process that would explain, to some degree, God/Psi/afterlife.

But it goes much deeper.  The two blocks with their real-world descriptions, have differing vectors for future interaction with their environment's unknown - but probabilistic real - futures events.  They will be afforded different future states, as to the outside probabilities for interaction with their environments.  While identical on the "inside" they must differ as to how the random and intentional events around them evolve.

If I had offered identical twins as the thought-experiment - then it would be easy to common sense understand that they are different because of differing mental attributes.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. A physical description of two identical blocks doesn't consist of just their "inside", but also their environment, unless they are isolated. Yes, two non-identical physical states will evolve differently. How is that relevant to what I asked? And you didn't answer the second (and most important) part of my question.

What would Information say about how those two non-identical states evolve, or how two identical isolated states evolve, which is different from what Physicalism would say (given that Physicalism also has something to say about random influences (e.g. Brownian motion)). 

Linda

I have to agree with Linda here...I don't really see how the two-block example, or the identical twin example, invalidate physicalism in favor of information realism?

I know there's some stuff going with Information as Fundamental (goes to Closer to Truth) and more than just physical measurement but admittedly I've not delved too deeply...

Though there's also the view that physicalism is ultimately unintelligible/unreasonable, perhaps one of the few metaphysical points Sam Harris and I would agree on.
 
Also what exactly would make something "beyond reason altogether"? Because one can make the argument that brute facts like supposed natural laws are believing in something beyond reason (see here for an intro into this discussion). Also the idea of genuine indeterminism where something happens for no reason (as in causal agents) at all.

All that aside I agree most people in this world care more about the Does X Exist question rather than the underlying substance/process that would explain, to some degree, God/Psi/afterlife.

I wasn't suggesting that it was reasonable to assume everything could be explained scientifically, or that it was unreasonable to assume that some things were beyond reason. I was just trying to pick out an aspect of this largely semantic discussion that might reflect a practical distinction between different points of view. Some people seem to be taking it as given that everything "real" will be amenable to scientific investigation. But I think others fundamentally disagree with that.

Some people seem to be taking it as given that everything "real" will be amenable to scientific investigation. But I think others fundamentally disagree with that.

And yet they bemoan endlessly academia doesn't give psi the respect those that disagree think it deserves. Respect must be earned not whimsically given.

And yet they bemoan endlessly academia doesn't give psi the respect those that disagree think it deserves. Respect must be earned not whimsically given.

I think it's more likely that this bemoaning is done by those who think psi is amenable to scientific investigation.

It is often difficult to get sceptical comments about some of the prima facie evidence for psi. The Global Consciousness Project is one that sceptics just don't seem to want to address (other than as a caricature of what was really involved). I've thought quite a lot about it. The findings could no doubt be explained in terms of outright fraud on the part of Roger Nelson. But otherwise I'm stumped to see an explanation in conventional terms.

I asked only a few days ago whether anyone was aware of sceptical criticisms of the experimental work wth Sean Harribance, which seemed to provide extremely strong prima facie evidence for psi. It wasn't a rhetorical question - I was really hoping that there was a well informed sceptical critique of those studies. But if there was, no one seemed to know about it.

It's no use saying "respect must be earned", and then just ignoring attempts to earn it.

I think it's more likely that this bemoaning is done by those who think psi is amenable to scientific investigation.

It is often difficult to get sceptical comments about some of the prima facie evidence for psi. The Global Consciousness Project is one that sceptics just don't seem to want to address (other than as a caricature of what was really involved). I've thought quite a lot about it. The findings could no doubt be explained in terms of outright fraud on the part of Roger Nelson. But otherwise I'm stumped to see an explanation in conventional terms.

I asked only a few days ago whether anyone was aware of sceptical criticisms of the experimental work wth Sean Harribance, which seemed to provide extremely strong prima facie evidence for psi. It wasn't a rhetorical question - I was really hoping that there was a well informed sceptical critique of those studies. But if there was, no one seemed to know about it.

It's no use saying "respect must be earned", and then just ignoring attempts to earn it.

We even have an entire subforum about member experiments now and you d think the oh so rational sceptics who see soo many issues with current experiments would be all over that designing test after test to plug all the holes they see. But have they done that? No, of course not. It's not in the nature of a sceptic to actually put effort into seriously investigating something they are allegedly sceptical about. Just to insult and dissuade those that do. That has certainly been my experience with sceptics.

We even have an entire subforum about member experiments now and you d think the oh so rational sceptics who see soo many issues with current experiments would be all over that designing test after test to plug all the holes they see. But have they done that? No, of course not. It's not in the nature of a sceptic to actually put effort into seriously investigating something they are allegedly sceptical about. Just to insult and dissuade those that do. That has certainly been my experience with sceptics.

Then again, on that I have to say that Oliver (I don't say he's a sceptic) did suggest a very reasonable experimental test of Out-of-Body Experiences - a very obvious one I've suggested myself in the past:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-m...7#pid21637

Then again, on that I have to say that Oliver (I don't say he's a sceptic) did suggest a very reasonable experimental test of Out-of-Body Experiences - a very obvious one I've suggested myself in the past:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-m...7#pid21637

Yes he did, and if I had any real interest in the skill of OBE's I'd pursue it, but I have no interest in it, If I'm going to go for one of the psi prizes it's going to be with direct telekinesis and nothing else. Honing skills in projection and OBE was only ever meant to regain and rebuild what I lost with direct telekinsesis. Now I've got a proof of concept and am now trying to implement it so those things are no longer neccessary to train.

Let someone else who has passion for OBE's do that test, they'll likely get much better results than I ever would.

We even have an entire subforum about member experiments now and you d think the oh so rational sceptics who see soo many issues with current experiments would be all over that designing test after test to plug all the holes they see. But have they done that? No, of course not. It's not in the nature of a sceptic to actually put effort into seriously investigating something they are allegedly sceptical about. Just to insult and dissuade those that do. That has certainly been my experience with sceptics.

There's an entire forum of skeptics known as the International Skeptics Forum. Go ask them to evaluate the experiments you deem worthy perhaps starting with your own.