It doesn’t evidence remote viewing, they couldn’t say what caused it, just read the conclusions, all of them.
1 Like
Okay, I understand that this is not enough for science to accept it as evidence, but there has been a statistically significant effect observed over a long period of time. This may not qualify as evidence, fine, but this effect must be studied and explained, not left with unanswered questions. At the very least, the causes of this observed effect should be clarified.
So, we observe something, can’t explain it, and just ignore it? Is that it?
At least say ‘it’s a fraud’ or something, but just saying ‘nobody knows’—what kind of conclusion is that?
There is no may about it:
“Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena”
That’s from your own link.
Do you imagine repeating this question will change the facts? What are you suggesting be done with an inexplicable statistical anomaly?
The effect was not evidenced, that was the conclusion of the report.
That was not concluded in the report. Though it did say:
“The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and required substantial subjective interpretation.”
Do you need that spelled out? It suggests the results contained subjective bias.
That’s not what it says, they know no paranormal phenomena were evidenced, and your disappointment that the conclusion doesn’t say what you want to it, is irrelevant. Remote thinking has never been evidenced, and is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists.
It isn’t evidenced, and doesn’t support panpsychism anyway, which was what was originally claimed.
Dear JESUS_IS, etc.,
I maintain collegial relationships with current and former military personnel in the intelligence branch.
Being on the practical receiving end of military intelligence and maintaining awareness of that community’s techniques is also something I have experienced.
Remote viewing has not been, and is not, one of those techniques.
Yours from the Other Side, Bluedoc
1 Like
Remote Viewing is what the ESP con-men started calling ESP; when people stopped taking the phrase “ESP” seriously. It is the same old con.
2 Likes
Men who stare at goats. Fun Movie! All about “REAL” ESP. And the con men that bilked the US military out of millions.
2 Likes
What’s telling for me is how people who don’t use critical thinking in their rationale at all, leap on, and misrepresent findings in research to support what they want to believe. Even when the research itself states as plainly as is possible that the phenomenon being tested could not be evidenced at all.
Religions and the religious do this all the time, always making appeals to mystery. This of course is not a great surprise, as bias is inbuilt in most religions, I have seen it so many times now, there is little surprise left.
It all comes down in the end to whether you care more about the truth of a claim, or are more emotionally invested in the claim itself. If it’s the latter, as always seems to be the case with religious apologists, then subjective bias is inevitable, and critical or sceptical rigour all but impossible, it simply isn’t valued if one thinks the belief is more important than (literally) anything else.
Has the effect been observed? YES
Has the cause of it been clarified? NO
Has the paranormal been demonstrated? NO
Has the paranormal been discarded? NO
Is it useful for information gathering? NO
Is it potentially useful? FURTHER RESEARCH REQUIRED
Do you agree with that?
Now, compare it with what I have said from the beginning:
Why do you still pretend that I’m not being honest?
Where is the difference between what I’ve said from the beginning and what this study is saying?
No it hasn’t, how many times are you going to repeat this lie?
From the paper you linked:
And they stated unequivocally the effect (remote viewing) had not been evidenced. So how you keep leaping from an inexplicable statistical anomaly, to “something” being demonstrated, only you can know, but this is precisely the bias bourne from a lack of objective or critical rigour, I am referring to.
You’re not understanding me. I’m not saying they have observed remote viewing or anything paranormal, nor that they have demonstrated such phenomena. I’m saying they have obtained some positive results for which they don’t know the causes. I’m not affirming or suggesting that this PDF demonstrates remote viewing or anything paranormal; I’m only stating that positive effects have been observed. I’ve been saying this from the beginning.
Why is it so difficult to agree on what is stated in the PDF itself? Maybe I’m missing something here… I don’t know. But I think I have made it clear from the beginning that positive effects have been observed, while the causes remain unknown. That’s it.
That’s not what you said:
The effect being researched was remote viewing, it has never been observed, or evidenced, the statistical anomaly doesn’t evidence it either, the researcher’s conclusions were very clear about that.
You’re describing a statistical anomaly, which they could not explain, but which they accepted could not be attributed to an observation of the effect they were looking to evidence.
Because you introduced, and are attaching a significance, to one small part, in answer to my asking another poster, ratty, to evidence his assertion that “remote viewing” was evidence for panpsychism, and it is a part of that research, that on investigation, is simply something they could not explain, and which they specifically acknowledge, did not evidence the phenomenon they were researching, put plainly it is meaningless. So words like positive and significant are being used by you out of context.
What do you imagine these “positive effects” were, and what are you asserting is their significance here?
Given that link points to a necessity for subjective interpretations of the results, I see nothing in that research, but decades of no evidence to support so called “remote viewing”.
This is perhaps why mainstream scientific opinion, still regards it as pseudoscience. In the context of this thread, the unevidenced phenomenon was offered as evidence by ratty, for panpsychism, which I asked him to evidence of course, that was when you offered that link, I am at a loss as to its relevance, still.
Dang: This is so simple a child could find information on the topic " A variety of scientific studies on remote viewing have been conducted. Early experiments produced positive results, but they had invalidating flaws.[8] None of the more recent experiments have shown positive results when conducted under properly controlled conditions.[4][n 1][12][n 2][27] This lack of successful experiments has led the mainstream scientific community to reject remote viewing, based upon the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results.[6][28][8][29]
Science writers Gary Bennett, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer and professor of neurology Terence Hines describe the topic of remote viewing as pseudoscience.
C. E. M. Hansel, who evaluated the remote viewing experiments of parapsychologists such as Puthoff, Targ, John B. Bisha, and Brenda J. Dunne, noted that there was a lack of controls, and precautions were not taken to rule out the possibility of fraud. He concluded the experimental design was inadequately reported and “too loosely controlled to serve any useful function.”[34]
Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are far too low to convince the scientific community to “abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles” due to its findings still not being replicated successfully under scrutiny.[n 4]
The lights are off and the refrigerator door is closed.
1 Like
Like panpsychism then, it is 1) unevidenced, and 2) has no explanatory powers. Though it has been tested, and no evidence found in decades of research that it exists, outside of the overactive imaginations of proponents.
1 Like
Eww!!! Eww!!! There’s a banana inside!!!
Oh, you’ve forgotten again that panpsychism is a logical implication of the idea of emergent properties… but who cares.
I mean, this isn’t a debate to discover the truth or where it leads, but rather a competition to see who can repeat the same idea the most times and get the last word… even if it makes no sense at all and is just an elaborate sophism.
Not just a banana… a whole plantation of bananas, with the rest of the jungle… and elephants roaming around…
It’s not, you failed to produce a sound syllogism to support your bare claim, or had you forgotten? This claim which you failed to support with evidence or a sound argument si also nothing to do with my post, and no that wasn’t the context at all, it was ratty claiming that “remote viewing” evidenced panpsychism, except there is no evidence for remote viewing either, which is widely regarded as unevidenced pseudoscience. I usually check the context carefully, but especially when posters like you hop from one evidenced superstitious claim to another, like a frog on amphetamines.
You lost the debate when you failed to demonstrate any objective evidence or rational arguments, to support your woo woo ideas. We are still waiting for you to offer a cogent explanation as to why you believe panpsychism evidences a deity, anything beyond pure assumption. I am guessing wait we shall, as well.
Add the words relentlessly irrational, and that pretty much sums your posts up. I can only debate what is offered, I am not responsible if the ideas you have presented are woefully supported, and you think endlessly repeating the original claims, while ignoring all objections, represents cogent debate or compelling argument.
No it isn’t, this is merely another of your unsupported blind assertions.
Just because data processing can emerge from some simpler systems, doesn’t for one moment mean it will emerge from all simpler systems. But I’m used to seeing mythology fanboys engage in rampant quantifier abuse of this sort.
Only when mythology fanboys start trying to peddle unsupported assertions as fact.
You just described apologetics.
2 Likes
- Premise 1: All emergent properties are based on underlying fundamental properties in matter.
- Premise 2: If qualia is an emergent property, there must be fundamental properties in matter from which it emerges.
- Conclusion: Therefore, there must be fundamental properties in matter that produce qualia.
Correction. An emergent property is one that results when multiple parts of a system act together, but which does not appear from those parts in isolation.
So already your pseudo-syllogism is starting to fail.
Slight problem - conditional statements are not part of a syllogism. So you’ve failed again.
Furthermore, until you have a proper, rigorous definition of “qualia”, youre in no position to present any assertions on the subject.
Fail. See above.
2 Likes