The Scientific Evidence for the Existence of PSI

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The Scientific Evidence for the Existence of PSI

Below is a link to a presentation on the scientific evidence for the existence of psi (psychic phenomena) given by parapsychology researcher Dean Radin. This is a "GoogleTechTalk." The actual presentation is about an hour, followed by a thirty minute Q & A session. The audience appears, based on the questions asked, to consist primarily of skeptics. I suggest you actually view the video before posting any comments. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Just FYI. In his book entitled "Entangled Minds," Dean Radin presents a theorectical framework to account for the psi evidence based on the idea of quantum entanglement (what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" ). The relevance of this evidence for  theism is that it supports a pantheistic and/or panenthestic worldview based on a quantum mind(s) hypothesis. Although he does not go into this theory in the video, he does hint at it toward the end of the Q & A session.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sitting through an

I'm not sitting through an hour video, but a quick google search shows Dean Radin is a pseudoscientist (parapsychology is pseudoscience.)

http://www.skepdic.com/essays/radin.html

 

If he was right, why hasn't he won the million dollar prize?

 

 

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I'm not

MattShizzle wrote:
I'm not sitting through an hour video, but a quick google search shows Dean Radin is a pseudoscientist (parapsychology is pseudoscience.)

This doesn't surprise me (that you won't watch the video). Hence, you're not qualified to comment.

MattShizzle wrote:
If he was right, why hasn't he won the million dollar prize?

He answers this question in the video (which is addressed to an audience of skeptics). Watch the video!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: The relevance

Paisley wrote:
The relevance of this evidence for  theism is that it supports a pantheistic and/or panenthestic worldview based on a quantum mind(s) hypothesis.

So you are a pantheist Paisley? Then why won't you answer my question in your "evidence for God" thread? And why do you keep quoting the bible? And how is PSI evidence for any God, even a pantheistic one. I don't see the connection.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:So you are a

Nikolaj wrote:
So you are a pantheist Paisley? Then why won't you answer my question in your "evidence for God" thread? And why do you keep quoting the bible? And how is PSI evidence for any God, even a pantheistic one. I don't see the connection.

I wrote the following in the OP. I trust that you understand English.

Paisley wrote:
I suggest you actually view the video before posting any comments.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Like I said, I'm not sitting

Like I said, I'm not sitting through a hour long video (I seriously doubt if many - if anyone - will. ) Most of the time I'm online I listen to podcasts so audio/video is a pain. I might have watched it if it was like 10 minutes but an hour is WAYYYYYY too long. Find or make a summary.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Like I

MattShizzle wrote:
Like I said, I'm not sitting through a hour long video. Most of the time I'm online I listen to podcasts so audio/video is a pain. I might have watched it if it was like 10 minutes but an hour is WAYYYYYY too long. Find or make a summary.

Okay. Then I will just disregard any further posts from you. If you can't watch the video, then you can't participate. It's that simple.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
It is not required to watch

It is not required to watch the video in order to make a comment about psi.

If there was any evidence of psi the scentific community would drop everything they were doing and concentrate solely on research of psi because of what it would imply, but there is none.

I watched some of it and skipped through the rest.

From what I watched, most of the video consists of Radin criticizing nonbelievers.
 

Radin's 'evidence' is virtally nonexistent.
 

Who does not need $1,000,000? Radin never even tried to collect it from James Randi. What can be concluded? Radin. himself. doesnt even believe he has enough evidence to collect it.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:It is not

aiia wrote:
It is not required to watch the video in order to make a comment about psi.

If there was any evidence of psi the scentific community would drop everything they were doing and concentrate solely on research of psi because of what it would imply, but there is none.

I watched some of it and skipped through the rest.

From what I watched, most of the video consists of Radin criticizing nonbelievers.
 

Radin's 'evidence' is virtally nonexistent.
 

Who does not need $1,000,000? Radin never even tried to collect it from James Randi. What can be concluded? Radin. himself. doesnt even believe he has enough evidence to collect it.

You obviously didn't watch any of it.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Google "Dean Radin is a

Google "Dean Radin is a fucktard" or "Dean Radin is an asshat" and see how many hits you get! Also the Skepdic article I linked to on him is good.

 

There are more articles linked to there. Blaming it on "western science" or saying scientists just refuse to look at his "evidence" is absolute proof that he's full of shit.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: Nikolaj

Paisley wrote:
Nikolaj wrote:
So you

are

a pantheist Paisley? Then why won't you answer my question in your "evidence for God" thread? And why do you keep quoting the bible? And how is PSI evidence for any God, even a pantheistic one. I don't see the connection.

I wrote the following in the OP. I trust that you understand English.

Paisley wrote:
I suggest you actually view the video before posting any comments.

I'll watch the video. I don't mind watching pseudo-scientists. It's interesting sometimes, and I have lots of time on my hands. But I wasn't commenting on the video.

I was asking you a question. Are you a pantheist? And if yes, then what's with the bible quotes, and why won't you answer my question in your "Evidence for God" thread.

Will my question be answered if I watch the video?

Does this guy say: "I will in this lecture answer the question: Is Paisley, of the RRS forums a pantheist, and will he respond to Nikolaj's question in the "Evindence for God" thread."?

Well, I'll be watching the video now.

Will you be answering in the meantime?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Paisley wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

Paisley wrote:
Nikolaj wrote:
So you

are

a pantheist Paisley? Then why won't you answer my question in your "evidence for God" thread? And why do you keep quoting the bible? And how is PSI evidence for any God, even a pantheistic one. I don't see the connection.

I wrote the following in the OP. I trust that you understand English.

Paisley wrote:
I suggest you actually view the video before posting any comments.

I'll watch the video. I don't mind watching pseudo-scientists. It's interesting sometimes, and I have lots of time on my hands. But I wasn't commenting on the video.

I was asking you a question. Are you a pantheist? And if yes, then what's with the bible quotes, and why won't you answer my question in your "Evidence for God" thread.

Will my question be answered if I watch the video?

Does this guy say: "I will in this lecture answer the question: Is Paisley, of the RRS forums a pantheist, and will he respond to Nikolaj's question in the "Evindence for God" thread."?

Well, I'll be watching the video now.

Will you be answering in the meantime?

Please don't attempt to hijack my thread.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Does this guy

Nikolaj wrote:

Does this guy say: "I will in this lecture answer the question: Is Paisley, of the RRS forums a pantheist, and will he respond to Nikolaj's question in the "Evindence for God" thread."?

Well, I'll be watching the video now.

 

Yes, that's his proof of psi

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Here's a much better (and

Here's a much better (and only about 40 minutes) video on recognizing pseudoscience.

 

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: Please don't

Paisley wrote:
Please don't attempt to hijack my thread.

This is not "your" thread. And I'm not asking you to answer here. I'm asking you to revisit your "Evidence for God" thread.

Meanwhile, I'm watching the video now. Very interesting. I'll have comments on when I'm done

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:This is not

Nikolaj wrote:
This is not "your" thread. And I'm not asking you to answer here. I'm asking you to revisit your "Evidence for God" thread.

Actually, this is my thread. That's why my name (Paisley) is on the OP.

Nikolaj wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm watching the video now. Very interesting. I'll have comments on when I'm done.

It is an interesting video. But the main point is that Radin presents compelling evidence for PSI - evidence that cannot simply be ignored. That's why I started the thread and insist that individuals view the video before commenting. Also, I suggest that you view the entire "Q & A session" (not just the presentation) because he probably addresses your questions.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Google

MattShizzle wrote:
Google "Dean Radin is a fucktard" or "Dean Radin is an asshat" and see how many hits you get! Also the Skepdic article I linked to on him is good.

 

There are more articles linked to there. Blaming it on "western science" or saying scientists just refuse to look at his "evidence" is absolute proof that he's full of shit.

I suggest you grow up. Your immaturity does not speak well for you or your cause.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
-

Paisley wrote:
It is an interesting video. But the main point is that Radin presents compelling evidence for PSI - evidence that cannot simply be ignored. That's why I started the thread and insist that individuals view the video before commenting. Also, I suggest that you view the entire "Q & A session" (not just the presentation) because he probably addresses your questions.
The main thrust of his presentation was to try to substantiate this "taboo" against dealing with "psi" in academia.

The so-called evidence is nothing more than a "meta-study" and careful data mining. His attempts to explain away the inability to get repeatable results (human performance variables, impact of Earth's magnetic field, lunar cycle) are bizarre - science already has methods to handle phenomenon with that kind of range of effect, namely large and repeated sampling.

He also says the reason there is no set of falsifiable theories is that the field is "too young" and in the observation only stage (whatever that may really mean). That would seem to contradict the idea that there is evidence of psi anything out there, rather only that some odd things have been observed. That's not evidence of much of anything. Without so much as a hypotheses to try and explain these observations he dives into conclusions (entanglement, non-material causal mind, brain-as-receiver).

It just doesn't seem to be solid science at all.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
So, I've watched the video

So, I've watched the video and have found it very interesting. I pride myself on keeping an open mind to new ideas and evidence, and this cetainly hasn't closed my mind to anything. But what he presents in the talk (I don't know about his books), is not an idea, it's just evidence. Evidence that I find somewhat intriuging, certainly, but still, just some observations, without any idea or explanation behind it.

So I ask you this:

If, and only if, I were to fully accept all of the studies he presented as absolutely flawless, what does that mean?

Quote:
That people are apparently capable of affecting eachother with very simple and concrete thoughts (like the thought of an elephant), without any direct sensory stimulus from sender to reciever.

And that people are apparently able to preconsive a simple, emotional state, one second in advance.

Very interesting, if you accept it all, and certainly a compelling field of further study.

Now, can I infer from the evidence presented that the entire universe has a collective consciousness? That God exists? That the Bible contains profound truths? That yoga is good for your "soul"? That I have been, and will be reincarneted countless times?

Or can I infer simply:

Quote:
That people are apparently capable of affecting eachother with very simple and concrete thoughts (like the thought of an elephant), without any direct sensory stimulus from sender to reciever.

And that people are apparently able to preconsive a simple, emotional state, one second in advance.

So what?

Fine, let's look into it.

Oh, wait, we already are.

Well, what's the problem then?

 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Okay. Then I

Paisley wrote:

Okay. Then I will just disregard any further posts from you. If you can't watch the video, then you can't participate. It's that simple.

BZZZZT! Wrong! We don't have to watch an hour long video just to comment on this. Present what you think is the evidence for psi and we'll discuss that. What will NOT happen is me wasting more than an hour of this fine Saturday watching woo woo videos on fake psi abilities. I have a feeling that almost everyone here will agree with me that demanding we watch a hour long video to discuss psi is absurd.

When I made a thread mentioning a book and a movie I just described what I thought was relevant from each for the discussion. I did not demand that everyone watch an hour and a half long video or read a whole book just to comment on what I had said. You should do the same thing. Make your claims and let us respond. I think that isn't asking too much from you. But it is asking too much to demand that I watch that woo woo video.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
... i coulda swore PSI stood

... i coulda swore PSI stood for "Pounds per Square Inch"

I think your looking for PSY

*shrug*

What Would Kharn Do?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It is often abbreviated

It is often abbreviated "psi" for psionics.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:The main

JillSwift wrote:
The main thrust of his presentation was to try to substantiate this "taboo" against dealing with "psi" in academia.

No doubt, that's part of the theme. After all, the video is entitled "Science and the Taboo of PSI." However, he does discuss at length the results of parapsychology experiments to support the existence of psi.

JillSwift wrote:
The so-called evidence is nothing more than a "meta-study" and careful data mining.

No, it is not simply a "meta study." He has conducted numerous experiements himself.  Where's the data mining?

JillSwift wrote:
His attempts to explain away the inability to get repeatable results (human performance variables, impact of Earth's magnetic field, lunar cycle) are bizarre - science already has methods to handle phenomenon with that kind of range of effect, namely large and repeated sampling.

First, he has produced repeatable results. Secondly, he cited skeptics who have produced the same results. And why is the human performance variable bizzare? And why doesn't the meta study count as a "large and repeated sampling?"

JillSwift wrote:
He also says the reason there is no set of falsifiable theories is that the field is "too young" and in the observation only stage (whatever that may really mean).

This is true. Parapsychology is a young science. There's only a small number of full-time researchers in the field. 

JillSwift wrote:
That would seem to contradict the idea that there is evidence of psi anything out there, rather only that some odd things have been observed. That's not evidence of much of anything. Without so much as a hypotheses to try and explain these observations he dives into conclusions (entanglement, non-material causal mind, brain-as-receiver).

It's evidence for psi (psychic phenomena). Scientists do not have the luxury of dismissing the data simply because it does not jibe with a materialistic worldview. Besides, two Nobel Laureate scientists disagree with you.

Quote:
In January, 1998, Nobel Laureate physicist Brian Josephson wrote in the (British newspaper), the Guardian: "If asked to nominate the most significant scientific event of 1997, I would cite the publication of this book." Entangled Minds is being translated into Romanian, Portuguese and Japanese (as of December 2006). Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis has added Entangled Minds to his list of recommended books on his website.[6]

source: Wikipedia: Dean Radin

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So psi is now "God" or part

So psi is now "God" or part of "god"?

Keep broadening your "god", Paisley. all your doing is making him more unnecessary.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually, QM heavily relies

Actually, QM heavily relies on Psi.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:So, I've

Nikolaj wrote:
So, I've watched the video and have found it very interesting. I pride myself on keeping an open mind to new ideas and evidence, and this cetainly hasn't closed my mind to anything.

Good! This separates you from the majority of individuals on this forum.

Nikolaj wrote:
 But what he presents in the talk (I don't know about his books), is not an idea, it's just evidence. Evidence that I find somewhat intriuging, certainly, but still, just some observations, without any idea or explanation behind it.

Yes, it's evidence for the existence of psi (psychic phenomena).

Nikolaj wrote:
So I ask you this:

If, and only if, I were to fully accept all of the studies he presented as absolutely flawless, what does that mean?

Quote:
That people are apparently capable of affecting eachother with very simple and concrete thoughts (like the thought of an elephant), without any direct sensory stimulus from sender to reciever.

And that people are apparently able to preconsive a simple, emotional state, one second in advance.

Very interesting, if you accept it all, and certainly a compelling field of further study.

1) It means that there is evidence for psi.

2) It qualifies as evidence against materialism. Why? Materialism cannot account for psychic phenomena. This is why the subject is taboo!

Nikolaj wrote:
Now, can I infer from the evidence presented that the entire universe has a collective consciousness? That God exists?

Dean Radin considers a "collective mind" (God) to be a real possibility. Here's the link. You can fast forward to time "9:15."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvJfkI5NVc 

I have only read his book entitled "Entangled Minds." In that book, he does present an explanation based on quantum entanglement (hence the title of the book). Also, the title of his first book "The Conscious Universe" suggests the same concept.

More importantly, the evidence in parapsychology is supporting various interpretations of QM that invoke the primacy of consciouness (e.g. the many minds interpretation, CCC, etc.) Aslo, there are "quantum mind" hypotheses that have been formulated by prominent physicists/mathematicians (Penrose, Stapp, Bohm, etc.). See Wikipedia: Quantum mind

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So psi is now

jcgadfly wrote:
So psi is now "God" or part of "god"?

Keep broadening your "god", Paisley. all your doing is making him more unnecessary.

I guess a "collective mind" does not qualify as God...huh? LOL!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, it is not

Paisley wrote:
No, it is not simply a "meta study." He has conducted numerous experiements himself.  Where's the data mining?

First, he has produced repeatable results. Secondly, he cited skeptics who have produced the same results. And why is the human performance variable bizzare? And why doesn't the meta study count as a "large and repeated sampling?"

The data mining was what produced the idea that those "skeptics" agreed there was a phenomenon of "psi", where if you read what they had to say in context, they only agreed there was unusual results worth looking into. I can't find any reference outside his writing to any other experiments producing positive results, either.

I don't mean that human performance variance is bizarre, but that it's a bizarre excuse since we already have ways of managing that sort of data.

His experiments don't count for anything until they are independently reproduced. I find it telling that such experiments don't get statistically significant results with regularity, myself. I was involved in experiments with clairvoyance back in university, and the only repeatable result we ever got was accurate guesses at the same rate as pure chance.

Paisley wrote:
This is true. Parapsychology is a young science. There's only a small number of full-time researchers in the field.
That doesn't at all excuse the lack of solid definitions and hypothesis. It definitely doesn't excuse his having conclusions despite having no falsifiable theory.

Paisley wrote:
It's evidence for psi (psychic phenomena).
No it is not. It could eventually be, if and only if he can hammer it all out into something solid. Right now it's a mess.

Paisley wrote:
Scientists do not have the luxury of dismissing the data simply because it does not jibe with a materialistic worldview.
That's true. However, it can be dismissed as such sloppy work as not worth wasting time on.

Paisley wrote:
Besides, two Nobel Laureate scientists disagree with you.
Meaningless: Appeal to authority.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Isn't it ironic that Paisely

Isn't it ironic that Paisely now has 666 posts?

 

Is Paisely becoming the theist version of Luminon?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Proof of PSI.

Photobucket

Proof of PSI.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So psi is now "God" or part of "god"?

Keep broadening your "god", Paisley. all your doing is making him more unnecessary.

I guess a "collective mind" does not qualify as God...huh? LOL!

LOL LOL LOL we're using non-sequiturs to link the undefined to the unsubstantiated.

I can haz pseudoscience?

Don't you miss church yet? Are you done with this panentheistic charade?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So psi is now "God" or part of "god"?

Keep broadening your "god", Paisley. all your doing is making him more unnecessary.

I guess a "collective mind" does not qualify as God...huh? LOL!

Not until you can back up what the collective is made up of.

Or are you saying we are all part of the collective mind so we're all God? Doubt if that would be the case as we don't think exactly the same way all the time. Or is your God scatterbrained?

In either case, back up your claim.

*cue I am God as You*

Anyway, keep doing what your doing. Your panentheist version of Christian Science is amusing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Is Paisely

MattShizzle wrote:

Is Paisely becoming the theist version of Luminon?

I thought Luminon was the theist version of Luminon... -_-

What Would Kharn Do?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Umm, what isn't god ? What

Umm, what isn't god ? What is not a mystery, a phenomena ? What is not natural ? What's the point Paisley, an idol to worship ??? Why not worship the obvious ? Why something more than what is right in front of us, and what we are ? 

Why do you ignore my questions as well ? Are you god or not ? Is god of abe, in it's entirety,  to be honored or rejected as presented in the major religions ? Yes or No ?  Should wisdom include untruths ? What is too prove ? What is pure ? How does one find peace of mind ?  In your caring, what is your advise, and motive ? 

Woodstock ~ Joni Mitchell .... we are star dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SjqGfe-yM

Olivia Newton John - Magic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvfE-Cf9Qcc

                               

               

 

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I did it. I put my best

I did it. I put my best effort into watching this video and was able to reach the 15 minute mark. Where to start. Oh, where to start. If anyone here wants to see an instructional film on how to misconstrue data, then this is the film for you. This guy takes data that researches says is statistically insignificant and then tries to claim that they are just suppressing the truth and upholding a taboo. His example is a study in which only one in sixteen pairs of people had any deviation from what was expected. The researchers said that 1 out 16 is not good enough to count as evidence. And they are right: if I said that I could guess what you were thinking and took 16 tries to get it right you would NOT think I had psi powers. This guy (for brevity's sake he will be referred to as Captain Asshat from now on) also says that skeptics say there is some interesting stuff. Ok, Captain Asshat has me there. There are interesting things all right, just no interesting things that are evidence for psi. And that is why I could not watch anymore of Captain Asshat's video. I may not be a scientist, but I am a senior in my university's engineering program and I have a basic grasp of why you need evidence to support claims and how statistical insignificance works.

Captain Asshat's poor grasp of how evidence works is not what made me stop watching this video. In fact, I was quite entertained by his complete lack of understanding how to analyze data. What made me unable to continue watching was the conspiracy theory elements of Captain Asshat's speech. He seems to be under the delusion that there is evidence for psi, but those mean old scientists don't want you to see it. He makes about as much sense as a 9/11 truther. If I wanted to hear conspiracy theories I would talk to my crazy uncle; at least his crazy man theories are more entertaining than Captain Asshat's.

Oh and to  Paisley:  just present your argument if you want  to  discuss it.  I  doubt many here could make it through this  entire film.  I've seen  Kent  Hovind's films and I could only make  it 15 minutes into this  garbage.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Still waiting...

Paisley wrote:
Materialism cannot account for psychic phenomena. This is why the subject is taboo!


There is no theory explaining psychic phenomena, so there is no way of telling wether it it compatible with materialism. All Radin has observed is something, as yet, unexplainable. He has (possibly) discovered something new about the nature of the universe, and maybe, it is completely immaterial in cause, but until there is evidence for that, it hasn't countered materialism in any way. If there is a part of our brains, that produce some weird quantum effect that produces psionic phenomena, then there is a materialistic reason for it. So it isn't evidence against materialism. It is just evidence for what I wrote in the quote-box in my last post:

Quote:
That people are apparently capable of affecting eachother with very simple and concrete thoughts (like the thought of an elephant), without any direct sensory stimulus from sender to reciever.

And that people are apparently able to preconsive a simple, emotional state, one second in advance.


Paisley wrote:
Dean Radin considers a "collective mind" (God) to be a real possibility.


And Newton believed in God. The personal religious and philosophical musings of various scientists are of no value as an argument in this case. I would gladly have a philosophical discussion with Radin. He seems like a friendly, and very humble guy, but his personal experiences and opinions are just that: personal. I'm sure he loves his wife, if he has one. Does that mean I should love her too?

Paisley wrote:
I guess a "collective mind" does not qualify as God...huh? LOL!


You guess right. A collective mind qualifies as a collective mind.

But a collective mind qualifies as a God, like a hammer qualifies as a staff-meeting. If those two are the same, you have to argue for it, instead of just proclaiming it and starring blankly at people who ask: "What does a hammer have to do with a staff-meeting?"

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I reject idols

I reject idols ........................................... I am atheist.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I love giving him the name

I love giving him the name "Captain Asshat."


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Mutiny .... I reject all

Mutiny .... I reject all separate gods .... as I am what I am, god as you .... show me the idol .... ????  Save me Captain Paisley  Thanks for trying Mr. P ..... LOL .... BUT I don't need saving .... I am god as you   

Matt , don't hurt the Captain , he cares , doing the best he can .... Paisley says "God is Love" ..... I like love .... I wish god cared more ...    Hey god, get with it .... wake the fuck up .... I must pray louder .....   God must be dead , I can't summon thee ..... We are on our own ..... no god in sight , Should we pray harder ?  

    Would more smileys help .....


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Paisley

Nikolaj wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Materialism cannot account for psychic phenomena. This is why the subject is taboo!


There is no theory explaining psychic phenomena, so there is no way of telling wether it it compatible with materialism.

Please tell me how materialism explains psychic phenomena. 

Nikolaj wrote:
All Radin has observed is something, as yet, unexplainable. He has (possibly) discovered something new about the nature of the universe, and maybe, it is completely immaterial in cause, but until there is evidence for that, it hasn't countered materialism in any way.

To begin with, Radin is not the only one who has observed the experimental results. The experiments have been successfully repeated.

Also, if the proponents of materialism cannot account for the results, then materialism can no longer be considered a viable metaphysical position because it does not accord with the scientific facts.

Nikolaj wrote:
If there is a part of our brains, that produce some weird quantum effect that produces psionic phenomena, then there is a materialistic reason for it. So it isn't evidence against materialism. It is just evidence for what I wrote in the quote-box in my last post:

Wrong! Quantum effects (which are considered by the standard interpretation of QM to be probabilistic events) already undermine materialism! If you link quantum events with psi phenomena, then you are tacitly making an argument for some kind of neutral monism, interaction dualism, idealism or panpsychism. Indeed, you are making Dean Radin's argument of "entangled minds."

Nikolaj wrote:
It is just evidence for what I wrote in the quote-box in my last post:

Quote:
That people are apparently capable of affecting eachother with very simple and concrete thoughts (like the thought of an elephant), without any direct sensory stimulus from sender to reciever.

And that people are apparently able to preconsive a simple, emotional state, one second in advance.

If you say that it is evidence that people (minds) can affect each other (causality) with thoughts, then you are saying that it is evidence psi (psychic phenomena). 



Paisley wrote:
Dean Radin considers a "collective mind" (God) to be a real possibility.


And Newton believed in God. The personal religious and philosophical musings of various scientists are of no value as an argument in this case. I would gladly have a philosophical discussion with Radin. He seems like a friendly, and very humble guy, but his personal experiences and opinions are just that: personal.

You asked...

Nikolaj wrote:
Now, can I infer from the evidence presented that the entire universe has a collective consciousness? That God exists?

And my answer was basically "yes" - yes you can infer this (collective consciousness or mind or God), unless you have a better theory to explain the facts.

Paisley wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I guess a "collective mind" does not qualify as God...huh? LOL!


You guess right. A collective mind qualifies as a collective mind.

I don't know why you are playing this semantical game now. You have already went on record in a previous post and equated "collective consciousness" with God.  Also, you have displayed that you understood that "collective mind" is a God-concept by making a rebuttal that "Newton beleived in God" in response to Dean Radin's idea of a collective mind. Clearly, a collective mind, collective consciousness, universal mind, oversoul, world-soul, paramatman (the Hindu term for it), dharmakaya (the Buddhist term), etc. are God-concepts.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Did someone say something

Did someone say something about predicting emotional states in advance?  That's not psi.  It's science.

Brain Scanner Predicts Your Decisions In Advance

Guess what?  Materialism does account for it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 I sat through the whole

 I sat through the whole thing, and I'll admit, I want to see more.  But going from, 'something seems to be happening' to 'you're science is complete trash and therefore this is God' is a few leaps too far.

 

The fact that there may be something doesn't automatically put this into the realm of magic and miracles.  If a race of deaf creatures saw us talking they would be mystified at our seeming ability to mystically coordinate actions across distances in which sight wasn't possible.  That doesn't mean that there is an unseen being coordinating our activities.

 

All it means, is that something is going on.  If there is something happening, smart money says we will be able to explain it.

 

For the video itself, it was unfortunate to see that he actually addressed the free-will accusation.  That seemed like baiting and immaterial (heh) for the debate at hand.  

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
In the battle of science vs.

In the battle of science vs. pseudoscience - why does peudoscience bother?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:In the battle

jcgadfly wrote:
In the battle of science vs. pseudoscience - why does peudoscience bother?

 

because the sci fi channel pays them?

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote:jcgadfly

Balrogoz wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
In the battle of science vs. pseudoscience - why does peudoscience bother?

 

because the sci fi channel pays them?


SciFi channel? no problem.

When I start seeing it on History or Discover - I get perturbed.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That pisses me off how the

That pisses me off how the History Channel has pretty much become the pseudoscience channel. Discovery is still mostly real science but the bullshit is leaking in. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to tell them apart and crap gets a bigger market share than rational thought and science.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Please tell me

Paisley wrote:
Please tell me how materialism explains psychic phenomena.
This just kills me. It's a meaningless question, because one must first establish that there is a phenomenon to explain.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How does math explain

How does math explain vampires?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:The data

JillSwift wrote:
The data mining was what produced the idea that those "skeptics" agreed there was a phenomenon of "psi", where if you read what they had to say in context, they only agreed there was unusual results worth looking into. I can't find any reference outside his writing to any other experiments producing positive results, either.

I don't mean that human performance variance is bizarre, but that it's a bizarre excuse since we already have ways of managing that sort of data.

His experiments don't count for anything until they are independently reproduced.

You obviously did not view the entire video. His presentiment or precognition experiment on the autonomous nervous system was independently verified by Dick Bierman (University of Amsterdam). Also, the effect was independently repeated by Chester Wildey (University of Texas) who not only used people as subjects, but also earthworms. It was also repeated by Spottiswoode and May, Vassy and Paulinyi (Hungary), and Rollin McCraty. Fast forward to time 40:00 and get the facts straight.

JillSwift wrote:
I find it telling that such experiments don't get statistically significant results with regularity, myself. I was involved in experiments with clairvoyance back in university, and the only repeatable result we ever got was accurate guesses at the same rate as pure chance.

I find it telling that you are so mentally lazy that you cannot even sit and watch the video in its entirety.

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is true. Parapsychology is a young science. There's only a small number of full-time researchers in the field.
That doesn't at all excuse the lack of solid definitions and hypothesis. It definitely doesn't excuse his having conclusions despite having no falsifiable theory.

The experiments have been repeated. Also, he does say that the results are compatible with quantum entanglement and nonlocality (both of which undermine materialism). What is your explanation? To simply dismiss the data?

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Scientists do not have the luxury of dismissing the data simply because it does not jibe with a materialistic worldview.
That's true. However, it can be dismissed as such sloppy work as not worth wasting time on.

Translation: "I can't acknowledge his experimental results because it threatens my worldview."

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Besides, two Nobel Laureate scientists disagree with you.
Meaningless: Appeal to authority.

Sorry, but I hold the viewpoints of two Nobel Laureate scientists on what constitutes good scientific practice as having more authority on the subject matter than you.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I find it

Paisley wrote:
I find it telling that you are so mentally lazy that you cannot even sit and watch the video in its entirety. ... Translation: "I can't acknowledge his experimental results because it threatens my worldview."
I was polite enough not to attack either you or Radin personally, and merely disagreed. If I'm wrong, fine. But insults and putting words in my mouth are unnecessary tactics. I note you constantly fall back on tactics.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Paisley

JillSwift wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I find it telling that you are so mentally lazy that you cannot even sit and watch the video in its entirety. ... Translation: "I can't acknowledge his experimental results because it threatens my worldview."
I was polite enough not to attack either you or Radin personally, and merely disagreed. If I'm wrong, fine. But insults and putting words in my mouth are unnecessary tactics. I note you constantly fall back on tactics.

Oh, puhlease! I suppose the terms "meaningless, inexcusable, sloppy, messy" are not ad hominems...right? The fact is that you haven't watched the video in its entirety even though you are making this pretense that you have. That's not only mentally lazy, but also dishonest.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead