The major difference between creationism and intelligent design

[George-ananda]

Then, if you're willing, explain what the experiment is, what it is testing for, and how it establishes the existence of psi?

That would too great an effort for a reply post. The internet is your best source (except I don't recommend Wikipedia). Dean Radin and Chris Carter make the case most clearly and are professionals in the field.

 

[dust1n]

That would too great an effort for a reply post. The internet is your best source (except I don't recommend Wikipedia). Dean Radin and Chris Carter make the case most clearly and are professionals in the field.

Dean Radin's website appears to list a slew of studies from a number of people (some which were already resounding discredited) and the only thing I can see he has down is supposedly down meta-studies. There are no dissenting opinions on his website. So he pretty much lists all the studies on the topic that agree with him, and exclude anything that don't. That's interesting.

On his website, he said August 2015,

"Most active researchers are focusing on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication. "

So active researches now are still focusing on actually developing adequate theoretical explanations? Were there none the last 100 years before hand? Replication of experiments isn't robust, yet?

An interesting thought about one of those pesky skeptics:

"Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena (HarperSanFrancisco 1997), says that "psi researchers have resolved a century of skeptical doubts through thousands of replicated laboratory studies" (289) regarding the reality of psychic phenomena such as ESP (extrasensory perception) and PK (psychokinesis). Of course, Radin also considers meta-analysis as the most widely accepted method of measuring replication in science (51). Few scientists would agree with either of these claims. In any case, most American adults—about 75%, according to a 2005 Gallup poll—believe in at least one paranormal phenomenon. Forty-one percent believe in ESP. Fifty-five percent believe in the power of the mind to heal the body. One doesn't need to be psychic to know that the majority of believers in psi have come to their beliefs through experience or anecdotes, rather than through studying the scientific evidence Radin puts forth in his book."

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

Chris Carter appears to misrepresent skeptics:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23744


I know, I know... skeptics are the one with closed minds, etc. and these guys no financial or career outcomes to worry about at all. Not like they are actively selling books or anything...

 

[George-ananda]

Dean Radin's website appears to list a slew of studies from a number of people (some which were already resounding discredited) and the only thing I can see he has down is supposedly down meta-studies. There are no dissenting opinions on his website. So he pretty much lists all the studies on the topic that agree with him, and exclude anything that don't. That's interesting.

On his website, he said August 2015,

"Most active researchers are focusing on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication. "

So active researches now are still focusing on actually developing adequate theoretical explanations? Were there none the last 100 years before hand? Replication of experiments isn't robust, yet?

An interesting thought about one of those pesky skeptics:

"Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena (HarperSanFrancisco 1997), says that "psi researchers have resolved a century of skeptical doubts through thousands of replicated laboratory studies" (289) regarding the reality of psychic phenomena such as ESP (extrasensory perception) and PK (psychokinesis). Of course, Radin also considers meta-analysis as the most widely accepted method of measuring replication in science (51). Few scientists would agree with either of these claims. In any case, most American adults—about 75%, according to a 2005 Gallup poll—believe in at least one paranormal phenomenon. Forty-one percent believe in ESP. Fifty-five percent believe in the power of the mind to heal the body. One doesn't need to be psychic to know that the majority of believers in psi have come to their beliefs through experience or anecdotes, rather than through studying the scientific evidence Radin puts forth in his book."

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

Chris Carter appears to misrepresent skeptics:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23744


I know, I know... skeptics are the one with closed minds, etc. and these guys no financial or career outcomes to worry about at all. Not like they are actively selling books or anything...

You are showing how this debate can be made to go forever. I have studied this and have become a skeptic of the skeptics by reading all the details and counter-responses to certain attacks. You don't need to present me with links to Skeptic websites as I am already well read on their positions.

Dean Radin has said he has moved on past stage 1; the discussion of whether any such things exist. I have also moved on and for reasons more compelling than the Ganzfeld experiments. I've done these debates before and if I mention anything specific the other person will mine the skeptic websites for negative comments I have heard before.

So we will have to disagree and let it go between us. I don't want you to waste your 20,000th post on this.

 

[dust1n]

You are showing how this debate can be made to go forever. I have studied this and have become a skeptic of the skeptics by reading all the details and counter-responses to certain attacks. You don't need to present me with links to Skeptic websites as I am already well read on their positions.

Dean Radin has said he has moved on past stage 1; the discussion of whether any such things exist. I have also moved on and for reasons more compelling than the Ganzfeld experiments. I've done these debates before and if I mention anything specific the other person will mine the skeptic websites for negative comments I have heard before.

So we will have to disagree and let it go between us. I don't want you to waste your 20,000th post on this.

But you haven't mentioned anything specific. When I asked about specifics, you linked me to two names, which I actually took the time to look through, and a number of the studies as well.

Let me ask one more question. Let's say I take 5 equally sized tablets with 5 different symbols on it. I put them all in a hat and mix them up randomly. I put one person in a room and put headphones on there ears, and covered their eyes. I take 100's of people who claim to be able to send thoughts to another mind and put them in the room right next to them and have them pull one of those tabs at random. Then I take all 5 tablets, and put them all up for the next person you see, and how them pick the picture they think the other person is sending. Generally you'd expect people to be roughly 20% correct, just by virtue of chance. 1 in 5. Now, if after I did my experiment and the results came out to be 26% correct. Can you think of anything other than psi that could account for this 26%? Would actually expect this to happen in my experiment? What's the control? How can we know it's psi and not something we have no considered. How do we know it's not an entirely different unseen process that is totally different than message from sender to receiver?

 

[George-ananda]

Let me ask one more question. Let's say I take 5 equally sized tablets with 5 different symbols on it. I put them all in a hat and mix them up randomly. I put one person in a room and put headphones on there ears, and covered their eyes. I take 100's of people who claim to be able to send thoughts to another mind and put them in the room right next to them and have them pull one of those tabs at random. Then I take all 5 tablets, and put them all up for the next person you see, and how them pick the picture they think the other person is sending. Generally you'd expect people to be roughly 20% correct, just by virtue of chance. 1 in 5. Now, if after I did my experiment and the results came out to be 26% correct. Can you think of anything other than psi that could account for this 26%? Would actually expect this to happen in my experiment? What's the control? How can we know it's psi and not something we have no considered. How do we know it's not an entirely different unseen process that is totally different than message from sender to receiver?

What the experiment shows is that something not understood by science is occurring. That would be step 1 per Radin. Step 2 is constructing theories as to what is going on. Step 3 is testing the theories. As Radin explains we have passed step 1 and are now at step 2.

 

[dust1n]

What the experiment shows is that something not understood by science is occurring. That would be step 1 per Radin. Step 2 is constructing theories as to what is going on. Step 3 is testing the theories. As Radin explains we have passed step 1 and are now at step 2.

Well, considering statistics, the 6% could be due to a number to reasons that is understood by science. But sure. So I theorize it's effective telecommunication, or psi. How is it possible to test this theory? How can I know it's psi, and not God hearing a prayer and delivering the message?

 

[viole]

It's not like the issue of being morally-questionable doesn't already apply to a fundamentalist Christian view of God (i.e. all those animals killed by a global flood).

Worse, actually. We have also to count all those men, women and children that died in the flood. Looks like He is morally questionable no matter what.

Possibly, but it wouldn't be in line with available evidence for evolution.

That is correct. And it is good to see that some Christians (most of them, I suspect) give priority to extra biblical evidence, at least when it is overwhelming, as it the case for evolution. But I wonder whether a fundamentalist Christian experiences fewer cognitive dissonance than a more liberal one.

Prima facie, it seems more intelluctually coherent, despite being obviously wrong, to hold a literal reading of the Bible rather than thinking that God uses such inefficient, wasteful and amoral mechanisms like evolution by natural selection to reach His goals.

True, He could have set the initial conditions with such precision (including the orbit of asteroids and their timing with evolution on earth) to provide any pre-determined solution He wanted. But I wonder whether it is not simpler to assume that all those contingencies are what they really seem to be: contingencies.

The fundamentalist view of God isn't much different, as it is observable that He allows countless animals to suffer and die whether or not evolution actual comes of it.

So, if the liberal view is not any worse than the fundamentalistic one, then liberal Christianity is justified? Same moral issues, but at least it is scientifically hip?

I think there is only one viable solution for this riddle

Ciao

- viole

 

[George-ananda]

Well, considering statistics, the 6% could be due to a number to reasons that is understood by science.

The whole purpose of the sophisticated protocol is to make 'any reasons known to science' not a possibility.

But sure. So I theorize it's effective telecommunication, or psi. How is it possible to test this theory? How can I know it's psi, and not God hearing a prayer and delivering the message?

As Radin says; science is now at the stage of developing theories and testing them but I don't think a definitive answer to science's satisfaction will happen in our lifetimes. However showing something unknown to science is indeed occurring in these experiments is a HUGE step.

As for me, my spiritual beliefs come not from formal science but an untold number of teachers of the eastern (Hindu) tradition who I have come to respect after objective consideration of all things.

 

[dust1n]

The whole purpose of the sophisticated protocol is to make 'any reasons known to science' not a possibility.

As Radin says; science is now at the stage of developing theories and testing them but I don't think a definitive answer to science's satisfaction will happen in our lifetimes. However showing something unknown to science is indeed occurring in these experiments is a HUGE step.

As for me, my spiritual beliefs come not from formal science but an untold number of teachers of the eastern (Hindu) tradition who I have come to respect after objective consideration of all things.

Welp, I'll just take Radin's evidence for his word then, and quote one of the studies he has listed under where he says, "Most active researchers are focusing on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication."

It says:

"Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate

Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn

"Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., ‘‘mind reading’’), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Moulton2008.pdf


Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Parsimony]

That is correct. And it is good to see that some Christians (most of them, I suspect) give priority to extra biblical evidence, at least when it is overwhelming, as it the case for evolution. But I wonder whether a fundamentalist Christian experiences fewer cognitive dissonance than a more liberal one.

I've had quite a bit of cognitive dissonance on both sides myself, but accepting current scientific evidence did help put my mind more at ease.

Prima facie, it seems more intelluctually coherent, despite being obviously wrong, to hold a literal reading of the Bible rather than thinking that God uses such inefficient, wasteful and amoral mechanisms like evolution by natural selection to reach His goals.

Depends on what His goals are. If His one and only goal was to create humans, I'd agree. However, He could have had others as well.

True, He could have set the initial conditions with such precision (including the orbit of asteroids and their timing with evolution on earth) to provide any pre-determined solution He wanted. But I wonder whether it is not simpler to assume that all those contingencies are what they really seem to be: contingencies.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what you mean by contingency.

So, if the liberal view is not any worse than the fundamentalistic one, then liberal Christianity is justified? Same moral issues, but at least it is scientifically hip?

Not necessarily, no, but it is at least more consistent with modern scientific findings.

I think there is only one viable solution for this riddle

Even if the classical Abrahamic God concept isn't compatible with evolution for some reason, you'd still have the option of a different kind of god causing evolution. Or some intelligent source that isn't a god (maybe aliens). So intelligent design is still potentially consistent with evolutionary theory.

 

[George-ananda]

Welp, I'll just take Radin's evidence for his word then, and quote one of the studies he has listed under where he says, "Most active researchers are focusing on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication."

It says:

"Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate

Samuel T. Moulton and Stephen M. Kosslyn

"Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., ‘‘mind reading’’), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Moulton2008.pdf


Thanks for the discussion.

That Moulton paper makes the following assumption common in western science:

Under the psi hypotheses, the stimuli are categorically different and should evoke different neuronal responses.

In the eastern view thought transference occurs above the physical level of brains and neurons (on the so-called mental plane). And in Vedic teachings thought occurs above the level of the brain and the brain shows only the physical correlate of thought but not the origin of thought. The function of the physical brain is to allow consciousness to act through a physical body. So the MRI shows thoughts received by the physical brain but not the activity on the mental plane level where thinking generates.

I'm sure Moulton and many other western scientists are great minds but they are operating under different (western) assumptions than those held by eastern (Vedic) science. I don't believe western science can crack the mystery of consciousness without accepting some elements long held by Vedic science.

 

[dust1n]

That Moulton paper makes the following assumption common in western science:

Under the psi hypotheses, the stimuli are categorically different and should evoke different neuronal responses.

In the eastern view thought transference occurs above the physical level of brains and neurons (on the so-called mental plane). And in Vedic teachings thought occurs above the level of the brain and the brain shows only the physical correlate of thought but not the origin of thought. The function of the physical brain is to allow consciousness to act through a physical body. So the MRI shows thoughts received by the physical brain but not the activity on the mental plane level where thinking generates.

Which Vedic teachings suggest thought occurs at the level of the brain?

I'm sure Moulton and many other western scientists are great minds but they are operating under different (western) assumptions than those held by eastern (Vedic) science. I don't believe western science can crack the mystery of consciousness without accepting some elements long held by Vedic science.

Ah, so there is another levels of things entirely unsupported I need to assume to be true, in order to get that result.