Post-Materialist Science

thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/toward-a-postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730.html

Manifesto For A Post-Materialist Science

We are a group of internationally known scientists, from a variety of scientific fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, psychiatry), who participated in an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality and society. The summit was co-organized by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD and Mario Beauregard, PhD, the University of Arizona, and Lisa Miller, PhD, Columbia University. This summit was held at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona, on February 7-9, 2014. Our purpose was to discuss the impact of the materialist ideology on science and the emergence of a post-materialist paradigm for science, spirituality, and society. We have come to the following conclusions:


1.
The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that complex things can be understood by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things such as tiny  material particles.
2. During the 19th century, these assumptions narrowed, turned into dogmas, and coalesced into an ideological belief system that came to be known as "scientific materialism." This belief system implies that the mind is nothing but the physical activity of the brain, and that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains and bodies, our actions, and the physical world.
3. The ideology of scientific materialism became dominant in academia during the 20th century. So dominant that a majority of scientists started to believe that it was based on established empirical evidence, and represented the only rational view of the world.
4. Scientific methods based upon materialistic philosophy have been highly successful in not only increasing our understanding of nature but also in bringing greater control and freedom through advances in technology.
5.
However, the nearly absolute dominance of materialism in the academic world has seriously constricted the sciences and hampered the development of the scientific study of mind and spirituality. Faith in this ideology, as an exclusive explanatory framework for reality, has compelled scientists to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience. This has led to a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of ourselves and our place in nature.
6. Science is first and foremost a non-dogmatic, open-minded method of acquiring knowledge about nature through the observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Its methodology is not synonymous with materialism and should not be committed to any particular beliefs, dogmas, or ideologies.
7. At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists discovered empirical phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics. This led to the development, during the 1920s and early 1930s, of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM). QM has questioned the material foundations of the world by showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects—they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times.
Most importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked. According to one interpretation of QM, this phenomenon implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed, and that mental events can affect the physical world. The results of recent experiments support this interpretation. These results suggest that the physical world is no longer the primary or sole component of reality, and that it cannot be fully understood without making reference to the mind.
8. Psychological studies have shown that conscious mental activity can causally influence behavior, and that the explanatory and predictive value of agentic factors (e.g. beliefs, goals, desires and expectations) is very high. Moreover, research in psychoneuroimmunology indicates that our thoughts and emotions can markedly affect the activity of the physiological systems (e.g., immune, endocrine, cardiovascular) connected to the brain. In other respects, neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and the placebo effect demonstrate that mental events significantly influence the activity of the brain.
9. Studies of the so-called "psi phenomena" indicate that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses, and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Furthermore, psi research demonstrates that we can mentally influence—at a distance—physical devices and living organisms (including other human beings). Psi research also shows that distant minds may behave in ways that are nonlocally correlated, i.e. the correlations between distant minds are hypothesized to be unmediated (they are not linked to any known energetic signal), unmitigated (they do not degrade with increasing distance), and immediate (they appear to be simultaneous). These events are so common that they cannot be viewed as anomalous nor as exceptions to natural laws, but as indications of the need for a broader explanatory framework that cannot be predicated
exclusively on materialism.
10. Conscious mental activity can be experienced in clinical death during a cardiac arrest (this is what has been called a "near-death experience" ). Some near-death experiencers (NDErs) have reported veridical out-of-body perceptions (i.e. perceptions that can be proven to coincide with reality) that occurred during cardiac arrest. NDErs also report profound spiritual experiences during NDEs triggered by cardiac arrest. It is noteworthy that the electrical activity of the brain ceases within a few seconds following a cardiac arrest.
11. Controlled laboratory experiments have documented that skilled research mediums (people who claim that they can communicate with the minds of people who have physically died) can sometimes obtain highly accurate information about deceased individuals. This further supports the conclusion that mind can exist separate from the brain.
12. Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.
13. It is important to realize that psi phenomena, NDEs in cardiac arrest, and replicable evidence from credible research mediums, appear anomalous only when seen through the lens of materialism.
14. Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto. This failure tells us that it is now time to free ourselves from the shackles and blinders of the old materialist ideology, to enlarge our concept of the natural world, and to embrace a post-materialist paradigm.
15. According to the post-materialist paradigm:
a) Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic.
b) There is a deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world.
c) Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.
d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds.
e) NDEs in cardiac arrest suggest that the brain acts as a transceiver of mental activity, i.e. the mind can work through the brain, but is not produced by it. NDEs occurring in cardiac arrest, coupled with evidence from research mediums, further suggest the survival of consciousness, following bodily death, and the existence of other levels of reality that are non-physical.
f) Scientists should not be afraid to investigate spirituality and spiritual experiences since they represent a central aspect of human existence.
16. Post-materialist science does not reject the empirical observations and great value of scientific achievements realized up until now. It seeks to expand the human capacity to better understand the wonders of nature, and in the process rediscover the importance of mind and spirit as being part of the core fabric of the universe. Post-materialism is inclusive of matter, which is seen as a basic constituent of the universe.
17. The post-materialist paradigm has far-reaching implications. It fundamentally alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power, as humans and as scientists. This paradigm fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, and peace. By emphasizing a deep connection between ourselves and nature at large, the post-materialist paradigm also promotes environmental awareness and the preservation of our biosphere. In addition, it is not new, but only forgotten for four hundred years, that a lived transmaterial understanding may be the cornerstone of health and wellness, as it has been held and preserved in ancient mind-body-spirit practices, religious traditions, and contemplative approaches.
18. The shift from materialist science to post-materialist science may be of vital importance to the evolution of the human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
We invite you, scientists of the world, to read the Manifesto for a
Post-Materialist Science and sign it, if you wish to show your support
(see http://opensciences.org/).


[long list of distinguished signatures omitted]

Charles Tart is one of the authors of the manifesto. I hope he mentioned it in his talk at the Buddhist Geeks conference this year.

A similar call was made at the beginning of the year
A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness

Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted http://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_academic_opinion_regarding_parapsychology) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

(2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics e.g., (Storm et al., 2010; Bem, 2011; Hameroff, 2012; Radin et al., 2012).

(3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses (Sherwood and Roe, 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Bösch et al., 2006; Radin et al., 2006; Storm et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Tressoldi, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2012).

(4) These meta-analyses and other studies (Blackmore, 1980) suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation (Wiseman et al., 1996; Schönwetter et al., 2011). A psi trial registry has been established to improve research practice http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/TrialRegistryDetails.html.

(5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine (Utts, 1991; Richard and Bond, 2003).

(6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research developments, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems (Sheehan, 2011; Lambert et al., 2013).

With respect to the proposal that “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence,” the original intention of the phrase is typically misunderstood (Truzzi, 1978). Even in its inaccurate interpretation what counts as an “exceptional claim” is far from clear. For instance, many phenomena now accepted in science such as the existence of meteorites, the germ theory of disease,or, more recently, adult neurogenesis, were originally considered so exceptional that evidence for their existence was ignored or dismissed by contemporaneous scientists. It is also far from clear what would count as “exceptional evidence” or who would set that threshold. Dismissing empirical observations a priori, based solely on biases or theoretical assumptions, underlies a distrust of the ability of the scientific process to discuss and evaluate evidence on its own merits. The undersigned differ in the extent to which we are convinced that the case for psi phenomena has already been made, but not in our view of science as a non-dogmatic, open, critical but respectful processthat requires thorough consideration of all evidence as well as skepticism toward boththe assumptions we already hold and those that challenge them.

[long list of distinguished signatures omitted]

Although these specifically refer to 'psi phenomena', I figure the entire contemplative culture could benefit from the rise of post-materialist science.

As this is my current interest, I'm gonna liberally add relevant links below as I find them
Peer Reviewed Publications on Psi Research
David Bohm Interview 1
David Bohm Interview 2
Skeptical About Skeptics
J J, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
In the past I would have rooted for these guys to really take the cake and start some sort of post-materialist science revolution. But as Jed McKenna says: "don't bet against Maya". Not to imply that the post-materialist paradigm has any more reality than a materialist paradigm does.

Although a post-materialist paradigm might shake things up more, the point is that people in general, will not be interested in the kinds of ideas expressed because "they believe it's all BS".

Which is somewhat true, the list of signatures belie mostly PhDs in Psychology, but nothing hard in the natural sciences, and very little in STEM fields. Occasionally people who push these kinds of things root for fringe ideologies, this never works out. I was a big astrology buff in the past, as well an occult, psi, magick, whatever buff.

Keep in mind that the field of epistemology, has more to do with how we know things, as opposed to what is actually real. The Buddha instructs us to put aside "personal truths" and these involve truths like: are the body and mind separate, etc.

This whole subject vexes me so I leave you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_Divided_Line

According to Socrates, models of the transient, sensate world are only accurate and justified if they are based on "true belief", e.g: "My toaster worked for the past 365 days, I will operate on the assumption that it will work today."

They are not justified however, if they are not based on true belief: "My toaster is a home to a magical being that heats my bread with his fire breath."

As such as materialist, post-materialist, whatever-materialist paradigm, simply operates on conjecture, and conjecture is a narrow view of the world.

Sciences like math and computer science are legitimate because we create the worlds in which we work, physics etc. These are more difficult as we are attempting to map the unmappable.

However the greatest knowledge, according to Socrates, is the knowledge of form, which is essentially the instinct for the beautiful, the true and lovely, the Good.

This is not knowable, but something we can recognize, it's a love, a movement towards, a love of wisdom (philosophy).

Cheers,

James
thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
Hi, your post seems to be based on assumptions I don't find particularly useful or essential. Debating these assumptions is beyond the scope of this thread, but here are some brief lines of inquiry: What do you mean by 'real' or 'reality'? What do you mean by 'knowledge' and 'know'? Can we not make 'conjectures' without basing our worldviews on them?

I find the empirical data supporting 'psi phenomena' more compelling than 'philosophy'. With respect to STEM, David Bohm, a theoretical physicist who contributed to quantum mechanics, was sympathetic to these sorts of ideas. In particular, point 7 of the manifesto. LEJ Brouwer was into mysticism, Bohm was into mysticism and was friends with Krishnamurti, Wolfgang Pauli was into synchronicity and psi, Einstein considered himself a pantheist, etc etc. Ken Wilber's book Quantum Questions really drives the point home that many of the contributors to quantum mechanics were interested in the relationship between science and mysticism.

I'm gonna add some links to studies with empirical data, Bohm, and other related topics as I find them (as this is my current interest).
J J, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 225 Join Date: 3/31/14 Recent Posts
Hi, well I figured you'd say something like that. I don't really have a dog in this fight, or rather discussion, but here goes.

First of all whenever I type on this forum, I have no idea what I'm talking about, I never attempt to convey facts (there are no facts) but rather I attempt to curb the agendas of other posters, or seeking of approval from other posters. For example: I'm assuming the reason you post this because you are hoping that others will chime in and agree with you that this post-materialist paradigm is a good change, and one that is more accurate and will flourish.

I unilaterally believe that this is false. Regardless of whether or not the world is mind-born or matter-born, it does not remove the fact that there are only so many things you can know, and most of them are existential. The unfalsifiable notion of whether or not the world is really from the mind, (and in that context, what would be the mind?) doesn't really matter.

I just want to get you change your perspective, so yes I have an agenda, yes I feel that you are very into fringe things, particularly because you feel that they are "underdog" and will have more "unsung" truth to them. I seek to remove that attitude. Yes I believe that discussion has a purpose, not the validation of opposing viewpoints, but the changing of another person's viewpoint to something more accurate.

The reason I wish for you to change your perspective is not because (necessarily) that there is a more accurate one, but because you will loosen your grip on truths and realize that perspectives are superfluous.

Plus, who really cares if the world is really real or not? It feels real as shit.

There are no valid views or perspectives, fringe views are not more valid or more accurate than non-fringe views. Toss them.

Cheers,

JJ

P.S Whether or not science is materialist or post-materialist, doesn't change the fact that both models assume that there is stuff to discover, and know.

There is nothing to discover, and nothing to know. You will never "hard" know anything.

Also, unrelated: but change is never necessary.

Also, there are no problems.
thumbnail
tom moylan, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 896 Join Date: 3/7/11 Recent Posts
..yeah..what's real...

The points made about the limitaions of the strict materialist worldview are , to me, very obvious.  science being a method rather than a result.  the relation of the materialist dogma to physiscs is also a very clear statement about these limitations.  before einstein, newtons' answers were the last word.  einstein could not accept several of the , now effectively proven, aspects of quantum mechanics, entanglement, observational influence etc.

the disconnect between what physicists now regularly observe and the stale mechanistic worldview is clear and obvious.  the integration of this, now century old knowlege, into our understanding the subtle heirarchy of reality is only a matter of time and perhaps more palpable / useable breakthroughs but is IMO both unavoidable and highly desireable.

entrenched concepts and territorial defense will continue to hamper that integration though.

tom
thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
@tom
I agree completely. My prediction for the future of the human race would be significantly more optimistic if materialist science were abandoned sooner rather than later.

@J J
From a pragmatic point-of-view, it seems to me that supporting post-materialist science is worthwhile. I'm interested in 'fringe' views because I find most mainstream views intellectually and pragmatically unsatisfying. Regardless of whether anyone supports post-materialist science or not, I see value in spreading the word about it (literally). It's difficult to discuss something when there isn't a known word that specifies the relevant category. The introduction of the word 'post-materialist science' into the common lexicon will have subtle far-reaching effects that aren't immediately obvious. I also enjoy discussing my interests, and showing off my neat internet finds.

I appreciate that you aren't dogmatic, and that you emphasize different perspectives. From a pragmatic POV, I don't, however, think that no perspective has value.
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
A long time ago, they used to believe the earth was the center of the universe. Based on this assumption - which was supported by observation, the earth is still for us, after all - they were able to create very complex mathematical systems based on probability to map the movements of the planets, stars, sun, and moon. Then along came Galileo, among others, who discovered that, if they assumed the sun was the center rather than the earth, they could map the movements of the planets very precisely with simple calculations.

I think quantum mechanics is in the same state as the pre-solar-centric mathematics. QM is a set of mathematical principals used to describe the effects of experiments. It doesn't produce outcomes, it only maps observations. I think sometime in the future, someone will find an explanation for quantum effects that doesn't require any of the science fiction or magic they use to describe it today.

Personally, I'm always a bit disappointed when a scientist starts talking about spirituality. What part of the spirit are they hoping to measure, examine, or test? I've found neuroscience and psychology to explain everything I've experienced. Also, they aren't being honest when they say there has been legitimate psi research. It simply isn't true to say that psi research has provided any kind of evidence. There was a period where people really did take it seriously, too. The ganzfeld experiments ended up being the only legit-seeming experiments, but they ended up being discredited for bias and poor experimental design.
thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
A long time ago, they used to believe the earth was the center of the universe. Based on this assumption - which was supported by observation, the earth is still for us, after all - they were able to create very complex mathematical systems based on probability to map the movements of the planets, stars, sun, and moon. Then along came Galileo, among others, who discovered that, if they assumed the sun was the center rather than the earth, they could map the movements of the planets very precisely with simple calculations.

I think quantum mechanics is in the same state as the pre-solar-centric mathematics. QM is a set of mathematical principals used to describe the effects of experiments. It doesn't produce outcomes, it only maps observations. I think sometime in the future, someone will find an explanation for quantum effects that doesn't require any of the science fiction or magic they use to describe it today.
I don't think many scientists are using science fiction or magic to describe it. Maybe the many-worlds interpretation is a little sci-fi-ey. Einstein agrees with you about the finding new explanations
Einstein's refusal to accept the revolution as complete reflected his desire to see developed a model for the underlying causes from which these apparent random statistical methods resulted. He did not reject the idea that positions in space-time could never be completely known but did not want to allow the uncertainty principle to necessitate a seemingly random, non-deterministic mechanism by which the laws of physics operated. Einstein himself was a statistical thinker but disagreed that no more needed to be discovered and clarified.[4]
Also, the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is deterministic.

I assume electromagnetism used to be considered magical and spiritual... until science was able to harness it with mathematical models. I don't think science will ever be able to account for all 'spiritual' phenomena with mathematical models. But, it seems plausible to me that science will be able to conclusively demonstrate an anomaly that seems 'spiritual', at least statistically.

Have you personally read any parapsychological studies? How many? When you say 'they ended up being discredited', who is 'they'? Discredited by whom? The Ganzfeld experiment has been reproduced at universities all over the world. Meta-analyses have accounted for the file-drawer effect, all kinds of biases, and experimental design. There are several meta-analyses that conclude a significant effect, and several that don't. And, there are still arguments back and forth about experimental flaws. I'm currently agnostic on the matter, but it doesn't seem to me that your opinion is based on thorough, unbiased research. Have you read any of the meta-analyses of the Ganzfeld experiment?
thumbnail
Not Tao, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 997 Join Date: 4/5/14 Recent Posts
I was actually biased towards psi phenomena for a long time - I eventually had to give it up though.  The ganzfeld stuff was exciting, particularly, but then I read some very clear-headed explanations that showed how all the anomolous findings were within the margin of statistical error.  I've even run my own experements with frinds, haha, because I was convinced we could tell what color the other person was thinking about.  In a controlled setting, though, it fell flat.  It must have been due to environmental factors.  I was definitely disappointed by all of it, I'll tell you.

So, yeah, I mean it would be fun if the world worked this way, but it just doesn't seem to IMHO.  Also, when I stopped researching paranormal type things and dug into philosophy of consciousness and neurology - I discovered a whole different level of rigor and self-analysis that simply isn't replicated in parapsychology.  Material scientists probably have the right to be disappointed - they hold themselves to a very high standard and expect other things that take on the name "science" to do so as well.  I've been much more satisfied reading materialist explanations of things.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
This comic is actually a pretty brilliant argument against the efficacy of psi phenomena:

thumbnail
John, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 396 Join Date: 9/23/14 Recent Posts
Well, my dad had a borehole drilled. The guy who drilled it found the water by dowsing with his false leg. True story. It's what he said anyway. Maybe it was just a big aquifer that was hard to miss.
thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
Hi, can you link to the clear-headed explanations? I'm confident there are counter clear-headed explanations. It would seem that there are meta-analyses that support both views. Have you studied any statistics? In order for your personal experiment to get results, you would have had to run A LOT of experiments over a LONG time.

The comparison between parapsychology and philosophy of consciousness/neurology seems illegitimate. Does anyone fault geology for not being chemistry? Mathematics is the most rigorous subject; should we throw out every subject but mathematics?

@BCDEFG
Except no one is claiming that psi is reliably reproducible.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:
@BCDEFG
Except no one is claiming that psi is reliably reproducible.

My mistake, I didn't read point (5) in your initial post. My mistake came from a logical conclusion, though, namely, that if you want to legitimately study psi phenomena, you must first assume it is reliably reproducible.

To expand: What's the point of studying something that isn't reliably reproducible? If you admit that it isn't reproducible, you are admitting that it basically acts at random, that we can't predict when it'll happen or why, that the causes will forever elude us, and thus that it's something that is ultimately useless to study. You could say that it has complex causes, and the reason it isn't reproducible is because we don't understand those causes yet, and once we do, it *will* be reproducible, but that's not what you are saying, if I understand you correctly.
thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
It's statistically reliably reproducible, but not reliable enough for any pragmatic uses (as far as we know).

For example, the Ganzfeld experiment has an expected chance of 25%. The hit rate (depending on whose meta-analysis you believe) found experimentally over thousands of trials is between 27%-33%. This hardly seems impressive, but consider this: Flip a coin 1000 times, 2000 times, etc and record the trials. It should eventually even out to 50-50. But, imagine after thousands of trials you got 45-55. While this doesn't seem like a big difference, after so many trials it's highly significant, and you must conclude that the coin isn't fair. Or, it was a monstrous anomaly

Scientists don't need an explanation for anomalies to report them
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 2198 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Droll Dedekind:
It's statistically reliably reproducible, but not reliable enough for any pragmatic uses (as far as we know).

Okay, you have to be precise with terms. You can't just say that you weren't saying it's reliably reproducible, then when I point out that that's insane, you say oh it is reliably reproducible, but not a lot.

Anyway, if it is reliably reproducible, to whatever degree, then that means there is something there, the causes of it could be figured out, we could get better and better at reliably reproducing it, etc. And there would be an application. I can even think of one already. You said:
Droll Dedekind:
For example, the Ganzfeld experiment has an expected chance of 25%. The hit rate (depending on whose meta-analysis you believe) found experimentally over thousands of trials is between 27%-33%. This hardly seems impressive, but consider this: Flip a coin 1000 times, 2000 times, etc and record the trials. It should eventually even out to 50-50. But, imagine after thousands of trials you got 45-55. While this doesn't seem like a big difference, after so many trials it's highly significant, and you must conclude that the coin isn't fair. Or, it was a monstrous anomaly

Scientists don't need an explanation for anomalies to report them

That would be more than enough to win ridiculous amounts of money at a casino, or to claim the JREF's $1,000,000 prize. Why hasn't anybody exploited this opportunity?
thumbnail
Droll Dedekind, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 634 Join Date: 11/15/13 Recent Posts
I assumed you had read the OP and understood that I meant unreliable for exploitation by corporations.

The p-value Randi requires is extraordinary, even for science. Dean Radin calculated that to meet his requirements in one large experiment, it would take several years and more than $1 million, at least, with the Ganzfeld experiment. Also, there have been many people that question Randi, his ethics, and his challenge. Here are some
Personally, if I were 'psychic' in a reliable way I don't know why I would bother with Randi's challenge and the media attention that would doubtlessly ensue. I would just go to a casino, 'get lucky', and quietly cash out. If I were a 'psychic' I'm not sure that I would need or want to be rich.
thumbnail
John, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 396 Join Date: 9/23/14 Recent Posts
8. Psychological studies have shown that conscious mental activity can causally influence behavior, and that the
explanatory and predictive value of agentic factors (e.g. beliefs, goals, desires and expectations) is very high. Moreover, research in psychoneuroimmunology indicates that our thoughts and emotions can markedly affect the activity of the physiological systems (e.g., immune,endocrine, cardiovascular) connected to the brain. In other respects, neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and the placebo effect demonstrate that mental events significantly influence the activity of the brain.
Some good stuff but I had to stop at 8.
The claim is that our mind can influence our body, which is fair enough, but that can be seen as neurotransmitters acting on the body in response to a physical stimulous. This doesn't imply some mysterious mind over matter Cartesian dualistic process, which I think is what they are getting at.
I don't think that in any example they list that there is a free isolated entity called the mind mysteriously exerting free will over the matter of the body and environment, the mind seems to always act on (on the body) in response to an environmental queue.
The only way out of this that I can think of is to treat the environment as another aspect of mind, so it's "external" mind acting on "internal" mind which in turn acts on "external" mind again -  with what appears to be external simply being a self projection.
thumbnail
John, modified 6 Years ago.

RE: Post-Materialist Science

Posts: 396 Join Date: 9/23/14 Recent Posts
Small point - Einstein gave a mass/energy equivalence, so any materialistic paradigm is also an energetic one, and vica versa.

Breadcrumb