The philosophical ramifications of psi

[Outsider]

The existence of a psi effect is surprising, even shocking, to the common viewpoint. It is therefore worth asking: what is wrong with this viewpoint? For there must be something wrong with this viewpoint if it cannot admit that psi exists when psi has been demonstrated so clearly and so soundly.

Given the dogmatic opposition to parapsychology frantically offered by the scientific establishment, it would seem inevitable that someone's belief system cannot withstand the evidence in favor of extrasensory perception. Yet even though it may seem easier to explain parapsychological phenomena within a religious or spiritual framework, rather than a materialistic one, does supernaturalism really explain the psi effect any better than strict materialism?

For example, we might say that it is the human spirit that allows man to read minds or see into the future. But how is this accomplished? Is there a sort of fourth spiritual dimension where information leaks through? Do spirits share arcane connections with one another, and if so, how does this allow thoughts and feelings to be shared, and why can humans sense things about inert matter? Do angellic agents whisper the answers to parapsychological tests on supernatural frequencies? And if any of these explanations are true, then why do so many seem to demonstrate ESP, and why do people tend so frequently to get answers wrong?

Materialistic speculations can do just as well. Consider Hans Eysenck's suggestion that the psi "event" occurs not when the subject answers a question, but long after the fact, when the researcher first checks it against the correct answer. This is not so problematic; after all, longstanding principles of quantum physics tell us that multiple realities concurrently exist on the quantum level, and then "collapse" into a single reality when an observer checks to see what happened. (In other words, Schrodinger's cat is simultaneously alive and dead until we open the box to check, and which point the possibilities collapse on either a live cat or a dead one.) The explanation leaves a great deal unanswered, but it is clearly no worse than supernatural explanations.

One might use this to suggest that all explanations for a psi effect are ridiculous, and that the prospect of any extrasensory perception is absurd. Yet before anyone takes this stance regarding psi, he must remember that to do so would nullify not only this pesky fringe science called parapsychology, but the most central and well regarded science of all - physics! After all, psi is no more absurd than either a non-deterministic universe or a relativistic universe. If these concepts do not seem counterintuitive right now, that is only because we were raised with them - researchers frantically searched for an "ether" so that light waves would have a medium to travel through, thus preserving the non-relativistic universe of Newton, and Einstein's response to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was to lamely insist that "God doesn't play dice," yet it is now widely understood that Einstein was wrong.

Even more, the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's rate of expansion remains totally at odds with what is known about the fundamental forces of the universe. Astronomers declare this phenomena is caused by "dark energy," as though this somehow removes the mystery inherent to a universe which not only expands without limit, but expands at an accelerating rate. This is devastating to the belief in a cyclic universe which undergoes periodic bangs and crunches into infinity (this was a popular way of avoiding the need for a Creator by deftly removing the concept of creation - clever, but sadly falsified by science).

So the viewpoint which seems to be at odds with the psi effect is not Godless, unspiritual materialism per se, because supernatural explanations can do no better at explaining how precisely people seem to be able to guess the color of a hidden card with greater than chance accuracy. Rather, it appears to be the arrogant viewpoint of the man who thinks that all things have been understood which is shaken by the findings of parapsychology. Dark energy, relativistic effects like time dilation, and quantum uncertainties don't hit nearly so close to home; most people can go through their entire lives without ever considering them. But extra-sensory perception clearly challenges the supposition that modern man has all the answers - an embarrasing and even asinine supposition when considering how much educated modern man not only does not know, but refuses even to believe.

[Seeker]

Thanks.

I believe Socrates said it best, 'ouk imae idenai, ah mae oido!' this translates to 'The more you know the more you know you don't now.'

I wonder if and when, humans, will know every detail of everything in life, from quantum physics, the origins of the universe to the way the human brain works and also ESP. For now, sci fi is all we have...

I have a gut feeling that a unifying theory of physics (which IMHO will explain the topics mentioned above) will be so radical yest so simple.

[Outsider]

I wonder if and when, humans, will know every detail of everything in life, from quantum physics, the origins of the universe to the way the human brain works and also ESP. For now, sci fi is all we have...

I predict that humans will never know anything like that. If they are fortunate, one of the species into which they evolve might be able to advance to levels close to those you describe. Unfortunately however, modern reproductive trends which prevail throughout most human groups favor less intelligence, rather than more.

[Seeker]

Unfortunately however, modern reproductive trends which prevail throughout most human groups favor less intelligence, rather than more.

Yes, spot on! I wonder if we are actually de-evolving ourselves. The human race has got its values wrong IMHO.

The people that are considered attractive by the main stream seem to be the sexy, rich, flashy, crazy, loud, non-educated, or whatever the 'attractive' trend is at the time. I certainly see less appreciation of inquiry-minded, studious people, respectful, just plain smart people around.

The majority follows cultural trends blindly, and there is a lot to follow and a lot that can distract otherwise great minds.

The politically correct thing to say is that we all have the same genes = same smartness. Thus who your parents where does not matter, you can still win the Nobel prize and invent space engines. In this sense, physical eveloutin is not happening, evolution stopped with us. The next human evolution is not a physical one, but a cultural one, since all our genes are the same and they do not evolve, and that accomplished individuals are equal to everybody else in every corner of this planet. But, this is the politically correct thing to say, that humans are not evolving.

I am not a biologist or geneticist, but from high-school level knowledge I can say that every living is evolving in some direction, loosing parts they don't need and strengthening ones they need. Except for humans, we don't use our brains' abilities to reason and invent, in fact we poison ourselves every day, but we are not loosing any of our brains' abilities.

I am not against the cultural evolution idea though.

[Outsider]

Yes, spot on! I wonder if we are actually de-evolving ourselves. The human race has got its values wrong IMHO.

The people that are considered attractive by the main stream seem to be the sexy, rich, flashy, crazy, loud, non-educated, or whatever the 'attractive' trend is at the time. I certainly see less appreciation of inquiry-minded, studious people, respectful, just plain smart people around.

The majority follows cultural trends blindly, and there is a lot to follow and a lot that can distract otherwise great minds.

Well, this has less to do with actual, genetic evolution than it does with the cultural values associated with cosmopolitanism (or "individualism," or "liberalism," or "postmaterialism," if you prefer). Cosmopolitan societies tend to value appearances, because ties are so loose that relationships are constantly breaking and reforming. Makeup sales is a strong correlate of cultural cosmopolitanism; as a related aside, the ancient Romans also liked their makeup.

One thing you ought to appreciate about cosmopolitanism, however, is that even though it tends to encourage its share of shallowness, it also allows for better social equality and tolerance, and much greater personal freedom; this in turn encourages innovation, whether artistic, scientific, or technological. In fact, cosmopolitanism is arguably the main explanation for Western wealth and creativity; likewise, the Eastern nation which shows the highest levels of both wealth and innovation is Japan, which is more cosmopolitan in its outlook than any other Asian nation of which I am aware.

I am not a biologist or geneticist, but from high-school level knowledge I can say that every living is evolving in some direction, loosing parts they don't need and strengthening ones they need. Except for humans, we don't use our brains' abilities to reason and invent, in fact we poison ourselves every day, but we are not loosing any of our brains' abilities.

Actually many humans do have the ability to reason and invent, and they do. What causes human intelligence to evolve downwards is that such people, along with anyone else who has good innate intelligence, tends not to reproduce, while people who are less intelligent tend to reproduce at higher rates. Because very few people fail to survive into reproductive age, (and because the people who do die don't strongly tend to be of either high or low intelligence,) intelligence is inevitably declining. In a similar fashion, human height and weight are changing, although here individuals with greater height and greater weight leave more descendants. Of course, I don't have a very good idea of how the gene frequencies underlying other traits are changing, but just about any trait we might imagine is probably evolving in some direction.