What exactly does parapsychology mean? Is it much like pseudoscience? If so, "Lucid dreaming" shouldn't really be a part of it, seeing as this is something that can and does happen on a daily basis.
Parapsychology?
- Thread starter Sci-Phenomena
- Start date
Lucid dreaming was probably considered as paranormal before. Things like telepathy and clairvoyance are considered as paranormal now, but in the future they won't be paranormal anymore because people will experience and understand them.
Paranormal is a word for something we don't understand at the moment, so it appears to be paranormal. Nothing can really be paranormal/supernatural because everything is part of nature.
Paranormal is a word for something we don't understand at the moment, so it appears to be paranormal. Nothing can really be paranormal/supernatural because everything is part of nature.
It's pseudoscience. The two forums should be merged.
Where then would lucid dreaming go? Human science? Well, that answers my own question.
Human science sounds good to me.
Yes indeed, if anything happens, it is science.
Parapsychology is simply a label. Many Scientists, admittedly of vastly ranging talents and approaches, have attempted to tackle a kind of perceptual reality experienced by many, many people. I myself can point to no demonstrable ‘evidence’ for a ‘paranormal’ aspect to this altered state of consciousness but there again how are we to define paranormal? Surely we must have some concept of normality in order to attribute this term? By paranormal do we not been ‘unproven’, and as a few previous posters have suggested many phenomenon have qualified as paranormal, then graduated to theoretical before being proven.
Essentially then we are dealing with attempts to scientifically investigate those phenomenons which have been the focus of mystics throughout the centuries. Some fascinating neuro-biological research undertaken by Andrew Newberg et al. suggests that such mystical experience has a locus in the brain itself, and further this brain function is unique to such experience. These findings, along with the link to certain types of epilepsy which effect this brain area and create religious hallucinations, have been taken as confirmation that spiritual experiences are in fact a kind of mental disorder. You can however argue the opposite and say that the brain appears to have a hard wired capacity for such experience and those who have followed a spiritual path are able to access this.
Many philosophers and scientists believe in the concept of a holistic universe, an interconnected web of phenomenon within which mind and consciousness does not stand apart in a dualistic Cartesian sense. Quantum physics, and particularly the none locality of the collapse of the wave function, has often been used to put forward such theories. Placing mind in such an interrelated relationship with the physical universe does suggest the possibility that mental states could effect physical ones, and thus minds could have none verbal contact and, perhaps, contact to other realities, times and spaces (considering the relativity and fluidity of all these concepts in the totality of the universe). Quantum theory however is by no means a sure foundation for such theories and much criticism abounds for attempts to draw the kind of conclusion I have just suggested. For example John Bells theorem suggests that whilst sub-atomic particles can collapse from their state of potentiality as either a wave of localised particle, this occurring when the particle is excited by contact with other particles, in such a way as to breach Einstein’s principle of the speed of light being the maximum attainable by any object (essentially a collapsing wave function in an atom in my brain can bring about a collapsing wave function on Mars, in your head or on the surface of the sun). However Bell asserts that this function does not allow for a transfer of information, a common critique of ‘quantum consciousness’.
Whatever conclusions you draw from Quantum physics, and I would urge you to do your own research as it is a fascinating area, one thing which can be said is that the physical existence we all take for granted is based on some pretty ‘weird’ science. Science which is counter Newtonian, and certainly throws out the baby of a mechanistic, materialistic world view with its revolutionary bath water. So what is normal? A universe in which matter does not exist, or not exist, but show tendencies to do so, in which matter can appear from nothing and return to nothing?
Studying what mystics have long claimed is an experiential connection to the totality of existence, I would argue, seems a logical step in attempting to come to grips with a key aspect of human experience. Our sense of existence itself, how our brain and mind have evolved to cope with this concept and whether or not this capacity allows enhanced perception, and if so to what extent; is this perceptual range beyond what has previously been thought possible? (psychical ability, ESP, etc, etc.)
The difficulty in this endeavour is that experience is thought to be a none-physical domain and cannot therefore be studied directly in a way which offers the kind of validity one, as a sceptic, could reasonably demand in order to be convinced. Indeed the burden of proof always lies with those who make extraordinary claims, and rightly so. However I would simply ask that for those who reject parapsychology out of hand, do you do so on the basis of a sound analysis of methodology, having assessed the many attempts to bring replicablility and validity into this methodology; is this assessment an open, objective and free minded act by an enlightened rationalist who has closed off no possibilities?
If so, I must concede that on balance no earth shaking break through in this field has as yet been made. My own contention is that a new paradigm of science must be reached before such a breakthrough may be possible. This paradigm will be one in which an equal role will be given to experience and the old dualism is finally laid to rest. I do suspect however that much sceptical ‘critique’ is in fact ignorance, intellectual poverty of aspiration and childish name calling. I would welcome an adult debate however, and hopefully I’ve given us a few starting points!
Essentially then we are dealing with attempts to scientifically investigate those phenomenons which have been the focus of mystics throughout the centuries. Some fascinating neuro-biological research undertaken by Andrew Newberg et al. suggests that such mystical experience has a locus in the brain itself, and further this brain function is unique to such experience. These findings, along with the link to certain types of epilepsy which effect this brain area and create religious hallucinations, have been taken as confirmation that spiritual experiences are in fact a kind of mental disorder. You can however argue the opposite and say that the brain appears to have a hard wired capacity for such experience and those who have followed a spiritual path are able to access this.
Many philosophers and scientists believe in the concept of a holistic universe, an interconnected web of phenomenon within which mind and consciousness does not stand apart in a dualistic Cartesian sense. Quantum physics, and particularly the none locality of the collapse of the wave function, has often been used to put forward such theories. Placing mind in such an interrelated relationship with the physical universe does suggest the possibility that mental states could effect physical ones, and thus minds could have none verbal contact and, perhaps, contact to other realities, times and spaces (considering the relativity and fluidity of all these concepts in the totality of the universe). Quantum theory however is by no means a sure foundation for such theories and much criticism abounds for attempts to draw the kind of conclusion I have just suggested. For example John Bells theorem suggests that whilst sub-atomic particles can collapse from their state of potentiality as either a wave of localised particle, this occurring when the particle is excited by contact with other particles, in such a way as to breach Einstein’s principle of the speed of light being the maximum attainable by any object (essentially a collapsing wave function in an atom in my brain can bring about a collapsing wave function on Mars, in your head or on the surface of the sun). However Bell asserts that this function does not allow for a transfer of information, a common critique of ‘quantum consciousness’.
Whatever conclusions you draw from Quantum physics, and I would urge you to do your own research as it is a fascinating area, one thing which can be said is that the physical existence we all take for granted is based on some pretty ‘weird’ science. Science which is counter Newtonian, and certainly throws out the baby of a mechanistic, materialistic world view with its revolutionary bath water. So what is normal? A universe in which matter does not exist, or not exist, but show tendencies to do so, in which matter can appear from nothing and return to nothing?
Studying what mystics have long claimed is an experiential connection to the totality of existence, I would argue, seems a logical step in attempting to come to grips with a key aspect of human experience. Our sense of existence itself, how our brain and mind have evolved to cope with this concept and whether or not this capacity allows enhanced perception, and if so to what extent; is this perceptual range beyond what has previously been thought possible? (psychical ability, ESP, etc, etc.)
The difficulty in this endeavour is that experience is thought to be a none-physical domain and cannot therefore be studied directly in a way which offers the kind of validity one, as a sceptic, could reasonably demand in order to be convinced. Indeed the burden of proof always lies with those who make extraordinary claims, and rightly so. However I would simply ask that for those who reject parapsychology out of hand, do you do so on the basis of a sound analysis of methodology, having assessed the many attempts to bring replicablility and validity into this methodology; is this assessment an open, objective and free minded act by an enlightened rationalist who has closed off no possibilities?
If so, I must concede that on balance no earth shaking break through in this field has as yet been made. My own contention is that a new paradigm of science must be reached before such a breakthrough may be possible. This paradigm will be one in which an equal role will be given to experience and the old dualism is finally laid to rest. I do suspect however that much sceptical ‘critique’ is in fact ignorance, intellectual poverty of aspiration and childish name calling. I would welcome an adult debate however, and hopefully I’ve given us a few starting points!
That was a lot of words which seem to say to become a parapsychologist you still need to just print the word on your business card.
The interesting thing about telepathy is that during an abduction (alien in nature) Whitley Strieber was told "The visitors tell me that there is an organic quality in our skulls that dampens telepathy, and that this is going to fade." This basically implies that the aliens themselves lack a skeletal system similar to ours, thereby allowing them to communicate mentally. If true then we've found the answer of why humans aren't capable of the same thing.
Skin Walker, no that was a lot of words to say there is a serious debate and a childish one, which is it? Yes, of course anything dealing with extraordinary and fantastical claims is bound to attract a few nutters and con artists. That dosen't mean there is no serious science and no real issues.
Try http://www.paradigm-sys.com/index.cfm for a very interesting site by Charles Tart, lots of online papers and resources which should get you started.
Also try researching Ganzfeld testing, which is a double-blind technique for investigating telepathy, with varying and as yet inconclusive results (point being the methodology is sound)
Or for a great, and soundly critical, introduction to the role of Parapsycholgy in consiousness debates have a look at Susan Blackmores pages http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si01.html, or better yet her excellent book "consciousness studies".
Or for research undertaken under the CIA and NSA's Stargate remote viewing program look up Hal Puthoff. Also there is the Parapsychology unit at Edinborough University which does some interesting work.
Would be very interested to have an issues based debate with you, rather than silly stereotyping that says anyone interested in such things must be a crackpot, you may as well say any Darwinian biologist must be a Nazi or any Atheiest must be a militant communist.
Try http://www.paradigm-sys.com/index.cfm for a very interesting site by Charles Tart, lots of online papers and resources which should get you started.
Also try researching Ganzfeld testing, which is a double-blind technique for investigating telepathy, with varying and as yet inconclusive results (point being the methodology is sound)
Or for a great, and soundly critical, introduction to the role of Parapsycholgy in consiousness debates have a look at Susan Blackmores pages http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si01.html, or better yet her excellent book "consciousness studies".
Or for research undertaken under the CIA and NSA's Stargate remote viewing program look up Hal Puthoff. Also there is the Parapsychology unit at Edinborough University which does some interesting work.
Would be very interested to have an issues based debate with you, rather than silly stereotyping that says anyone interested in such things must be a crackpot, you may as well say any Darwinian biologist must be a Nazi or any Atheiest must be a militant communist.
Your appeals to authority aside, I assert that there have been no meaningful tests of the things you say, and Ganzfield was thoroughly refuted by more than one legitimate scientist that took the time to look it over.
In the end, the "parapsychology" nutters keep going on about how there is validity to their magical thinking, yet nothing they've done in the way of "work" has produced any meaningful results. There's plenty of muddied waters where they point to various debunked and refuted "tests" that they seem to cling to, but nothing in the way of reproducibility.
My snide comment was made in error, however. I received the email notification of this thread in my inbox and replied thinking it was a similar thread in which someone asked "how do you become a parapsychologist?" In that thread, there was a bit of humor being tossed about. I hadn't realized someone dusted the cobwebs off of this thread.
In the end, the "parapsychology" nutters keep going on about how there is validity to their magical thinking, yet nothing they've done in the way of "work" has produced any meaningful results. There's plenty of muddied waters where they point to various debunked and refuted "tests" that they seem to cling to, but nothing in the way of reproducibility.
My snide comment was made in error, however. I received the email notification of this thread in my inbox and replied thinking it was a similar thread in which someone asked "how do you become a parapsychologist?" In that thread, there was a bit of humor being tossed about. I hadn't realized someone dusted the cobwebs off of this thread.
Appologies in that case, I'm new to the forum anyway...
Well your exactly right, the contention is replicability in Ganzfeld, or any other study for that matter. Without Poppers falsification criterion we have a problem. However that dosen't just apply to Parapsychology, many mainstream psychological experiments and methods can, and do, have the precise same critique levelled against them.
I assume the particular debunking your refering to is critique by people like Ray Hyman, particularly of one of the more respectable papers on Ganzfeld (Bem, D.J. & C. Honorton (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin). As you rightly say the crux is replicability.
Hyman does however strongly critise the lack of good critque of Parapsychology, he recognizes, as do i, that many dismiss the work out of hand as 'crackpot' science. He is also enthusiastic to see more ganzfeld work undertaken, suprising for a prominent sceptic. Scepticism is about rational doubt and scientific rigour, not blindness and outright rejection.
Finally, I would simply say once more that perhaps current science is simply unequipped to account for such phenomonon. I'd refer you to my original post on this point, but if we are talking about minds which transfer their states to others then surley mind which is looking to falsify will affect the subjects.
I personally prefer the path of experiencing my spiruality for myself and don't hold out great hope for scientific break throughs, as i say, its gonna take a genius to bridge the gap between conscious experience and scientfic method. But in terms of experience, i know something is there. But can i proove it, can i hell!!
Well your exactly right, the contention is replicability in Ganzfeld, or any other study for that matter. Without Poppers falsification criterion we have a problem. However that dosen't just apply to Parapsychology, many mainstream psychological experiments and methods can, and do, have the precise same critique levelled against them.
I assume the particular debunking your refering to is critique by people like Ray Hyman, particularly of one of the more respectable papers on Ganzfeld (Bem, D.J. & C. Honorton (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin). As you rightly say the crux is replicability.
Hyman does however strongly critise the lack of good critque of Parapsychology, he recognizes, as do i, that many dismiss the work out of hand as 'crackpot' science. He is also enthusiastic to see more ganzfeld work undertaken, suprising for a prominent sceptic. Scepticism is about rational doubt and scientific rigour, not blindness and outright rejection.
Finally, I would simply say once more that perhaps current science is simply unequipped to account for such phenomonon. I'd refer you to my original post on this point, but if we are talking about minds which transfer their states to others then surley mind which is looking to falsify will affect the subjects.
I personally prefer the path of experiencing my spiruality for myself and don't hold out great hope for scientific break throughs, as i say, its gonna take a genius to bridge the gap between conscious experience and scientfic method. But in terms of experience, i know something is there. But can i proove it, can i hell!!