Physicist Russell Targ gives talk on ESP research.

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Enthalpy said:

I'm always wary about genetics. One time the experts say "Neanderthals didn't interbreed with us" and next time "they did". And so on.

The available evidence improved...

Over to you.

[naitche]

I recall a book published around 20 yrs ago re; remote viewing etc in Russian experiments and research.

I can't comment on the veracity of any of it, or details of the author. Too long ago.

 

I agree akeena, that its premature to discredit or discount ESP or other so called paranormal phenomena.

I think science is done a disservice when personal prejudice and disbelief  do so prematurely. Its not been disproved.

As for evolutionary advantage, We have had witch hunts that still occur in some parts of the world.I think any 'ability' would have to be accepted and reliable before there were any evolutionary advantage.

[John Cuthber]

Soviet era propaganda, designed to frighten the West isn't actually evidence of their success.

However the fact that they use spies + satellites is evidence of their failure.

[naitche]

I didn't say it was evidence, or that i trusted its veracity. Just that akeena may find it of interest. But I recall there were limited results from what I saw as pretty minor stuff , and unreliable results if the goal was to frighten.

Still interesting, if your expectations are realistic (as opposed to some kind of occult super powers) 

It would be extremely hard, if you value credibility with your peers, for  any serious, well regarded scientist to openly undertake and then publish paranormal research with any positive results in this climate. 

Little incentive for real research, by real scientists who want recognition for that.

Edited April 30, 2018 by naitche

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, naitche said:

Little incentive for real research, by real scientists who want recognition for that.

True

But there's plenty of money on offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

So, you have to wonder why nobody has claimed it.

 

[naitche]

Not really.  The gist I took from the Russian experiments, and backed else where, is that probability indicates there is some thing to it, but its unreliable and without knowing whats going on theres no way to know why or how that  might be changed.

There was burn out and fatigue in the subjects, whos mental state should be positively confident . Results of remote viewing could be remarkably  accurate, but missing essential detail and rarely complete. Not much that can be relied on. Not much use. or with any real control, though no doubt many individuals prefer to fool themselves  otherwise.

I think its mistake to assume theres nothing there because its not what you think 'it' is.

Edited May 1, 2018 by naitche

[Strange]

1 minute ago, naitche said:

I think its mistake to assume theres nothing there because its not what you think 'it' is.

How abut concluding there is nothing because all scientific tests show there is nothing.

[naitche]

I prefer scientific tests given credibility by peer review have found no evidence there is some thing.

I'd  go with that. 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, naitche said:

I prefer scientific tests given credibility by peer review have found no evidence there is some thing.

I'd  go with that. 

Good. We are agreed then. There is no scientific evidence for ESP.

[naitche]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Good. We are agreed then. There is no scientific evidence for ESP.

Tho' a definitive answer either way relies on faith. For a no, In the impartiality and  perspective of the scientific community.

[Strange]

Just now, naitche said:

Tho' a definitive answer either way relies on faith. For a no, In the impartiality and  perspective of the scientific community.

That is not what "faith" means. You might be looking for the word "trust". But the whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and ensure we don't have to rely on the impartiality or perspective of individuals. And it seems to work pretty well in the long run. 

[naitche]

Yeah, mostly. There have been a quite a few hickups too .

[Strange]

Just now, naitche said:

Yeah, mostly. There have been a quite a few hickups too .

But we know about those because the scientific method works and reveals them.

[naitche]

Eventually, yes.

[Strange]

And research on ESP has been gong on so long that if there were flaws in early research, they would have been revealed by later research. And basically, that is what has happened: early, poor-quality studies have been repeated more carefully and any effects thought to be present have disappeared.

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, naitche said:

Tho' a definitive answer either way relies on faith. 

Except science isn't part of "either way". Science was never looking for definitive answers, but rather the best supported explanations (and research into ESP could never provide this support). Perhaps this is causing you to misapply the methodology.

[Enthalpy]

 

On 4/23/2018 at 7:59 AM, John Cuthber said:

The available evidence improved...

Over to you.

Yes. And before believing geneticists on other theses, I await them to change their mind on that topic too.

On 4/23/2018 at 2:59 AM, Phi for All said:

So your skepticism about genetics is an acceptable enough counter argument against selective forces wrt ESP? Incredulity vs theory, really? Even if it required genes from both parents, over time we'd still see measurable differences, if you define ESP in common terms and don't move the goalposts to claim ESP would have "no consequences for them". 

How long has cystic fibrosis afflicted humans to the most extreme point, and evolution had no effect on it?

Edited May 1, 2018 by Enthalpy

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Enthalpy said:

How long has cystic fibrosis afflicted humans to the most extreme point, and evolution had no effect on it?

Long enough for us to work out why it's not been eradicated.

.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2358959/

It's a bit like sickle cell anaemia.

Were you aware of that, or just airing your ignorance?

Edited May 1, 2018 by John Cuthber

[naitche]

On 02/05/2018 at 12:13 AM, Phi for All said:

Except science isn't part of "either way". Science was never looking for definitive answers, but rather the best supported explanations (and research into ESP could never provide this support). Perhaps this is causing you to misapply the methodology.

No. Thats what I meant by a definitive answer at this time relies on faith.

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, naitche said:

No. Thats what I meant by a definitive answer at this time relies on faith.

... and since science isn't looking for definitive answers, it doesn't rely on faith, and thus can't justify your use of "either way". There's only one "way" that uses faith as its primary belief system.

[naitche]

On 01/05/2018 at 10:55 PM, Strange said:

How abut concluding there is nothing because all scientific tests show there is nothing.

Phi for all,

Yep. Thats what I said.

I'm looking for a science forum.   

Not an Identity I can claim admission to because I accept the  limitations of its perspective and direction based on beliefs about what that identity can encompass.

[Enthalpy]

On 5/1/2018 at 10:32 PM, John Cuthber said:

Long enough for us to work out why it's not been eradicated.

.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2358959/

It's a bit like sickle cell anaemia.

Were you aware of that, or just airing your ignorance?

I'm happy to see that you agree with me: selective pressure doesn't necessarily suppress a mutation that is a huge drawback. Nor does it generalize one that looks like a huge advantage.

So be wary of misinterpretations of genetics and evolution. They don't make good reasoning help.

Many people understand the selective pressure as a way to keep within the theory of evolution a sense of perfection that belonged to a Creation. That's a mistake. The individuals, the species, the biosphere are not perfect nor optimized.

[John Cuthber]

 

10 hours ago, Enthalpy said:

selective pressure doesn't necessarily suppress a mutation that is a huge drawback.

Yes it does, that's more or less the definition of "drawback" isn't it?

And it promotes things that are a huge advantage.

It's just that sometimes the same trait can fall into either category depending on external circumstances,

10 hours ago, Enthalpy said:

Nor does it generalize one that looks like a huge advantage.

Well, it does. A big brain, for example, is a huge advantage- unless you don't need one for your lifestyle- in which case it's just a huge waste of calories.

 

It's often  an advantage for a useful trait to become widespread, but not universal, because of the value of diversity.

For example the sickle cell trait is only useful sometimes but not at others.

Can you explain the circumstances where a trait like, for example, mind-reading, would be a bad thing?

(especially give that it would intrinsically provide a warning of such a circumstance.)

[Enthalpy]

Such reasoning is a misunderstanding and misuse of the theory of evolution.

Let's apply the same wrong reasoning to other decisive advantages:

If intelligence existed, it would be a huge advantage to humans and animals, so the evolution would have generalized it.
Wrong reasoning.

If toolmaking existed, it would be a huge advantage to humans and animals, so the evolution would have generalized it.
Wrong reasoning.

If flying existed, it would be a huge advantage to humans and animals, so the evolution would have generalized it.
Wrong reasoning.

The same reasoning is wrong about mind reading.

[Sensei]

On 23.04.2018 at 12:56 AM, Enthalpy said:

One time the experts say "Neanderthals didn't interbreed with us" and next time "they did". And so on.

One scientist is using his/her "authority" to prove his/her word, without the real evidence, the other one is using raw data (comparison of DNA of humans and Neanderthals to find unique to Neanderthals parts in the current human DNA)..

It's not wrong, to be mistaken.. wrong is to continue claiming to be right even in the front of evidences..