Alex Tsakiris and the Skeptiko Podcast - CRITICAL LOOK AND OVERVIEW. - Page 9

Arouet · 7th March 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Cool. Which arguments?

Oh my, I disagree with so many of Alex's arguments! You should come over to the Skeptiko forum and get into them with me! (some of the the Skeptiko proponents hate when I invite JREFrs over so this is just for them! - you know you're reading this thread!

)

Daylightstar · 7th March 2012, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Arouet

Yeah, it's subtle. I don't really classify rhetorical devices under dishonesty. But really my point isn't much deeper here than I think Alex is sincere in his beliefs and presentation of them. Do I know for certain? No ,but having listened to most of his podcasts and argued with him quite a lot over on Skeptiko I have no reason to doubt him.

Some rhetorical devices can easily be classified as dishonest.
However I am not stating he is dishonest, although, as I stated, I would not claim that he is clearly honest in his approach - which' statement I made in the context of Alex's approach to his guests, not his beliefs or presentation of them.
Alex leaves no doubt about him believing ...... the stuff he believes

Originally Posted by Arouet

...
Unfair ...

Yes, that sounds quite reasonable.

Originally Posted by Arouet

... sorry, back on the fraud again! ...

What do you mean?

Daylightstar · 7th March 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Arouet

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Cool. Which arguments?

Oh my, I disagree with so many of Alex's arguments! You should come over to the Skeptiko forum and get into them with me! (some of the the Skeptiko proponents hate when I invite JREFrs over so this is just for them! - you know you're reading this thread!

)

Perhaps I misinterpreted both statements with respect to concentrating on- and attacking Alex's arguments as his arguments with respect to the Dean Radin focused attention test.
Perhaps you meant to acknowledge implicitly that Alex has no arguments there and you wanted to move on to any other of Alex's arguments.

Am I correctly representing your position?

Arouet · 7th March 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Some rhetorical devices can easily be classified as dishonest.
However I am not stating he is dishonest, although, as I stated, I would not claim that he is clearly honest in his approach - which' statement I made in the context of Alex's approach to his guests, not his beliefs or presentation of them.
Alex leaves no doubt about him believing ...... the stuff he believes

Sure, I should have left out clearly and rather just said, based on being a longtime member of Skeptiko Alex has given me no reason to doubt that he sincerely believes what he is setting out. I agree it won't be as clear to someone with less experience dealing with Alex! So I think that brings us both to the same page here! (I hope)

Quote:

What do you mean?

I just meant that I had been responding to the fraud allegation again.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Perhaps I misinterpreted both statements with respect to concentrating on- and attacking Alex's arguments as his arguments with respect to the Dean Radin focused attention test.

Sorry, I was referring to Alex' arguments in general. On his take on the quantum mechanics I don't get the sense that Alex has a good handle on it. Then again, most of us don't. I think some of us are better at recognizing that than others.

I would like to see some commentary on radin's experiment though.

Quote:

perhaps you meant to acknowledge implicitly that Alex has no arguments there and you wanted to move on to any other of Alex's arguments.

No I was just talking in general.

Quote:

Am I correctly representing your position?

Hopefully the above clarified. I think I could have been more clear the first time out! Sorry!

Daylightstar · 7th March 2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Arouet

...
Hopefully the above clarified. I think I could have been more clear the first time out! Sorry!

Sure, thanks a lot.

With respect to the mentioning of fraud by the other poster, I wouldn't want to call inventing stuff a correct typification of that poster's remark.
It's partly due to Alex's own way of dealing with his guests and beliefs, he has a tendency to provoke such thoughts.

But anyways, I'd welcome Alex's own thoughts about Radin's experiment as well.
Perhaps Alex could indicate whether he would see a possibility to improve Radin's experiment.
Perhaps his thoughts on how to isolate* consciousness better than Radin did.
It's a challenge for sure.*

Piero · 12th March 2012, 01:43 PM

The posts on this thread are getting increasingly surreal. I'll explain my take on the matter as succintly as I can, which unfortunately won't me very succintly at all.

Does consciousness determine the results of an experiment? Obviously not, fot the following reasons:

1. Are we referring to consciousness as self-awareness or merely as being conscious of (i.e. perceiving) the experiment being carried out? Let's say a dog watches a double slit experiment: will the experiment be altered by the dog watching it?

2. If that was the case, photons or electrons or whatever would have behaved differently before conscious entitities existed, and that makes no sense at all, because particles of matter or energy cannot possibly be affected by an emergent, immaterial property of a brain's functioning.

3. Consciousness is not an on-off switch. We can surely recognize consciousness in chimps, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos. They sure know who they are. To a lesser extent, it is quite obvious thas dogs, cats, dolphins and other mammals exhibit some consciousness. So, before human existed, was the double-slit experiment affected somehow, but not that much really? That's an absurd proposition.

4. As far as we know, the Earth is the only planet that supports life, and hence consciousness. Does that mean that in galaxies far far away electrons do whatever they want in the double-slit experiment, because we are not observing them?

5. If consciousness affects the double slit experiment, why does it not affect the path of my car? Why doesn't a car driven by an unconscious person (say, someone who just had a brain haemorrage) follow a different path from a car driven by a conscious but paralyzed driver?

6. By what mechanism could consciousness alter the result of an experiment? I understand why shining a light on an electron alters its orbit and energy level; after all, the electron is being bombarded by photons. But what does consciousness bombard the electron with? Ideas? Concepts? Desires to eat chocolate cake? Come on, let's be serious.

Daylightstar · 12th March 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Piero

...
6. By what mechanism could consciousness alter the result of an experiment?...

The key to understanding this, is realizing that consciousness really does alter the result of a (double slit) experiment.

After the experiment.

Piero · 13th March 2012, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

The key to understanding this, is realizing that consciousness really does alter the result of a (double slit) experiment.

After the experiment.

How? Suppose we set up a double-slit experiment in Mars, together with a detecting device (a robot) and a cat. The experiment runs automatically, so that no conscious beings are watching it. The robot is programmed to kill the cat if the thickness of the interference lines is greater than some threshold, and to self-destroy if it is smaller. Two centuries later, a space mission goes to Mars and finds a rusty robot and the fossilized skeleton of a cat. Where was the cat during those two centuries? Did it die and decompose instantaneously as soon as a conscious being perceived it? Or was he dead from the moment the robot killed it?

Is the migration of photons from the centre of a star to its edge dependent upon observation by a conscious entity? Does that mean that the universe is there only when some conscious entity observes it? Was the universe in an ambiguous state of existence until conscious being arose? Can we say that the universe is about 14 billion years old when conscious, semi-conscious or barely-conscious beings are no more than 3 billion years old?

We are pretty confident that human beings are more conscious than amoebas. Would an advanced alien race consider us to be conscious or would they regard us as we regard amoebas? What level of consciousness is required to modify the outcome of an experiment?

The whole consciousness business is totally incoherent, and so far the only benefit derived from it has been to fill Deepak Chopra's already deep pckets.

Daylightstar · 14th March 2012, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Piero

How? ...

Like this:

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

He will most likely create false correlations from whatever 'data' he will gather.

There's no valid reason to think that consciousness can and will change the results of a double slit experiment directly or immediately.
Only afterwards.

Originally Posted by Piero

... What level of consciousness is required to modify the outcome of an experiment? ...

We'd first need to establish that consciousness could have any direct or immediate influence on the (double slit) experiment at all.
This has not yet been established.

Originally Posted by Piero

...
The whole consciousness business is totally incoherent, ...

It's pure magical thinking.

Piero · 19th March 2012, 02:23 PM

Daylightstar:
"It's pure magical thinking."

I couldn't agree more. For some unknown reason, some people have chosen to believe that a human observer is different from a non-human observer in a fundamental way. I cannot see the logic of that, unless we dismiss gorillas, chimps and bonobos as figments of our imagination (or should I say ,"figments of our consciousness"?).

Kuko 4000 · 18th April 2012, 02:22 AM

Still no progress on this whole consciousness and the DSE thing:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...-member-5.html

Alex, what's going on? What's your evidence that human consciousness alters the DSE process? You were being pretty strong about your views on this when discussing it with Jerry Coyne:

Quote:

Dr. Jerry Coyne: And I cannot read every paper on quantum mechanics. You surely haven’t yourself to ask me enough questions about whether this has any effect on evolution or not.

Alex Tsakiris: Not at all because it’s so basic and fundamental I don’t have to go there.

Dr. Jerry Coyne: Okay, then you tell me how it’s so basic and fundamental for evolution if you think that this finding of quantum…

Alex Tsakiris: It’s the observer effect, Jerry. It’s the double-slit experiment. It’s our…

Dr. Jerry Coyne: Yeah, okay, what does that have to do with…

Alex Tsakiris: Are photons waves or particles, right? So it’s like…

Dr. Jerry Coyne: What does that have to do with evolution?

Alex Tsakiris: It has to do with evolution because what we find is that it’s consciousness. If we put our consciousness one way or another it measures this way or that way. We no longer have laws of physics the way that you talk about them in this high school science way in your USA Today articles.

Why the silence now when you're asked to back your claims and views on this "basic and fundamental" issue?

Kuko 4000 · 24th April 2012, 03:16 AM

Arouet do you know if Alex has clarified his position on the double-slit experiment and his comments to Jerry about it? I have only looked at the thread he opened for it, but nothing else.

Arouet · 24th April 2012, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Arouet do you know if Alex has clarified his position on the double-slit experiment and his comments to Jerry about it? I have only looked at the thread he opened for it, but nothing else.

Not that I recall.

Kuko 4000 · 3rd May 2012, 03:31 AM

From the latest podcast:

Originally Posted by Alex Tsakiris

...Another guest we’ve had on that I really appreciated is Dr. Larry Dossey, who was a physician for a long time in Dallas and got into prayer research. There’s really some unbelievably impressive data that gets drowned out by a lot of Atheist skeptic types that shows that prayer is efficacious, prayer works, and at the same time the rub for Christians is the best evidence suggests that Christian prayer is no more efficacious than Buddhist prayer or Muslim prayer or anything like that.

Alex Tsakiris, would you mind citing this "unbelievably impressive data" which shows "that prayer is efficacious and that it works"?

Kuko 4000 · 3rd May 2012, 03:33 AM

Additionally, they are again promoting the strange idea that atheists are somehow threatened by scientific evidence that would show that there is something real to the religious / believers position.

Speaking of myself, I am not at all philosophically threatened by any evidence whatsoever, I just accept the best scientific explanations as being the best knowledge about nature that we currently have. There's nothing threatning about it for me, things change all the time, which means that we have more accurate knowledge, and I want to know about it.

steenkh · 3rd May 2012, 05:55 AM

It is a pity that no special kind of prayer works better than others. If, say, only Methodist prayer had worked, I would simply start believing in the Methodist god, no problem. I would not feel threatened at all.

But as it stands, it is more likely that they have made a protocol error, so I will stick to my atheism, a while yet, because this is what the evidence is pointing to. I am still not feeling threatened.

Kuko 4000 · 8th May 2012, 11:43 PM

Just a little heads up, Daryl Bem responds to critics on the latest episode of Skeptiko, I haven't listened to it yet, but should be...interesting.

GnaGnaMan · 9th May 2012, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Just a little heads up, Daryl Bem responds to critics on the latest episode of Skeptiko, I haven't listened to it yet, but should be...interesting.

I've listened to it. It's just unbelievable. Bem must have gone completely bonkers. The less said, the better.

zooterkin · 9th May 2012, 02:07 AM

57% versus 53% is significant?

Doesn't Alex like spreading unfounded insinuations? The Edinburgh Secret Society is not a secret atheist alliance, or whatever he was trying to suggest. Nor do I think Randi's work is negated by the immigration status of his partner.

Steve001 · 14th May 2012, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

57% versus 53% is significant?

Doesn't Alex like spreading unfounded insinuations? The Edinburgh Secret Society is not a secret atheist alliance, or whatever he was trying to suggest. Nor do I think Randi's work is negated by the immigration status of his partner.

Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan

I've listened to it. It's just unbelievable. Bem must have gone completely bonkers. The less said, the better.

It does some good to critique here, but it might be even better too critique there. We all know Alex's views are skewed. Why not engage in pointing that over at Skeptiko ?

Arouet · 14th May 2012, 08:22 AM

Substantive though please! Don't just come over and shout bonkers or the post will probably be deleted - its a no-flame forum now.

Kuko 4000 · 23rd May 2012, 01:54 AM

From the latest podcast:

http://www.skeptiko.com/anthony-peak...ath/#more-2271

Originally Posted by Anthony Peake

It’s an interesting point. You say that we all exist within this consensual reality and time is part of that consensual reality but you and I both know, of course, that if you actually apply some elements of quantum physics to this and you apply the idea of the implications of the Copenhagen interpretation in the sense that the act of observation actually collapses the wave function into a point- particle, which actively suggests that the act of observation by a conscious mind literally creates the universe around you.

zooterkin · 23rd May 2012, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Steve001

It does some good to critique here, but it might be even better too critique there. We all know Alex's views are skewed. Why not engage in pointing that over at Skeptiko ?

No, thanks. I was not impressed by the experience of the comments section for the show, with perfectly polite posts being removed, and sniping by Alex's cheerleader/sockpuppet being allowed. I can think of better uses of my time than battling against willful ignorance and capricious moderation.

Steve001 · 23rd May 2012, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

No, thanks. I was not impressed by the experience of the comments section for the show, with perfectly polite posts being removed, and sniping by Alex's cheerleader/sockpuppet being allowed. I can think of better uses of my time than battling against willful ignorance and capricious moderation.

Sorry to hear that. I'm not impressed either, but remember. When battling against willful ignorance and capricious moderation you can make your point to all the lurkers. Isn't that worth something ?

P.S. I was actually speaking about commenting in the forum not the podcasts per say.

Kuko 4000 · 23rd May 2012, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

...and sniping by Alex's cheerleader/sockpuppet being allowed.

I guess you mean this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alex_Tsakiris

Quote:

In the comments section of each transcript (and on the mind-energy.net forums), he also posts as a sockpuppet, "Enrique Vargas".

Is there any evidence for that claim though? RationalWiki should be more accurate in cases like this.

zooterkin · 23rd May 2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

I guess you mean this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alex_Tsakiris

Is there any evidence for that claim though? RationalWiki should be more accurate in cases like this.

I don't know if it is Alex or a separate person, which is why I said "cheerleader/sockpuppet" rather than one or the other.

Kuko 4000 · 23rd May 2012, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I don't know if it is Alex or a separate person, which is why I said "cheerleader/sockpuppet" rather than one or the other.

Yeah, noted, the RW article just popped to my mind immediately.

Kuko 4000 · 10th September 2012, 07:47 AM

It's been a long time since I last posted in this thread, but of course I've been listening to the show.

I still haven't heard or seen any clarification from Alex to his position regarding the double slit experiment and consciousness issue, please let me know if he has spoken or written about it in more detail.

Something Alex said about climate science caught my attention in a recent interview:

http://www.skeptiko.com/184-dr-ruper...ee-from-dogma/

Quote:

Alex Tsakiris:

At some level that’s true and at another level it’s equally true that science has been fundamentally discredited in recent years. We can look at Climate Gate or Peak Oil or even UFOs and ghosts. Even evolution. All those are topics that have come to the fore and science has had their say. In one way or another it’s come out of it pretty battered as a result.

...

Alex Tsakiris:

They are but I think people are able to understand technology and engineering and say, “Wow, this is great. My new iPhone 5 is fantastic.” And they’re able to separate that from the “scientist” who stands up there and says this or that about climate change or about any of these other topics that then turn out to be not only provably wrong but just kind of on the surface of it silly.

Alex, would be nice to hear your position on AGW as well, the interview makes it sound like you don't give much credence to climate science, and you mentioned "Climate Gate" in the same context.

It still puzzles me why he thinks that good evidence of afterlife, etc. would be so scary to atheists or skeptics. It wouldn't, on the contrary, it would be very interesting. Maybe you should talk about this issue with some of your atheist or skeptic guests...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 10th September 2012, 03:47 PM

He recently interviewed Rupert Sheldrake. I thought it was rather uninteresting.

~~ Paul

Steve001 · 17th September 2012, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

It still puzzles me why he thinks that good evidence of afterlife, etc. would be so scary to atheists or skeptics. It wouldn't, on the contrary, it would be very interesting. Maybe you should talk about this issue with some of your atheist or skeptic guests...

It puzzles me too. All of the pro-psi folks there at Skeptiko think the same. I'll even go so far as stating that belief seems to be a prevalent throughout the psi community.

Kuko 4000 · 22nd September 2012, 07:18 AM

http://www.skeptiko.com/william-beng...ncer-industry/

So, William Bengston, President of the Society for Scientific Exploration has done (and replicated) rigorous lab studies on mice where he shows that people, including himself, can cure mice of a serious cancer just by keeping their hands around the cage. Other people who want to participate have to go through a training session first where Bengston teaches the healing technique.

He also claims that he can differentiate a sealed envelope with hair from a sick animal from a control envelope (in a double blind setting) with amazing accuracy.

I would guess that both of these are eligible for the JREF MDC.

Oh my

xtifr · 22nd September 2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Steve001

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

It still puzzles me why he thinks that good evidence of afterlife, etc. would be so scary to atheists or skeptics. It wouldn't, on the contrary, it would be very interesting. Maybe you should talk about this issue with some of your atheist or skeptic guests...

It puzzles me too. All of the pro-psi folks there at Skeptiko think the same. I'll even go so far as stating that belief seems to be a prevalent throughout the psi community.

I think there's two reasons, one broad, and one more specific to the afterlife thing.

1. Projection. The thought that some of this stuff might not be true scares them. They want it to be true so badly they can taste it. Many have made important changes in their lives based purely on the assumption that it's true, and if it's not, they'll have nothing but regrets. So they assume the reverse is true for us.

2. All atheists are immoral, sinning bastards who are going straight to hell. If they found that the afterlife was true, they'd be forced to realize that. After all, morality can only come from God.

The first I can at least sympathize with, even while diagnosing it as obviously flawed thinking. The second is not only offensive and shallow, but misguided in two different ways:

First, obviously, most atheists are moral people because of empathy and the desire to live in a civilized society. I like to ask these people "if God said it was ok to torture kittens, would that make it ok? Personally, I don't need an excuse to not torture kittens. If you do, you might want to see a shrink about that."

Second, it shows the same flaw in critical thinking as those who believe that creationism/ID is pro-Bible. There are thousands of religions, tens of thousands of gods, followed/worshipped by various people across the globe. Proof of directed creation or the afterlife doesn't constitute any sort of proof of Christianity. If we did find evidence, I'd consider converting to Hinduism long before I'd consider worshipping their evil bastard of a God.

skiba · 27th September 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Steve001

It puzzles me too. All of the pro-psi folks there at Skeptiko think the same. I'll even go so far as stating that belief seems to be a prevalent throughout the psi community.

Knowing how the universe / world works brings comfort and safety. If an afterlife would be proven true, it would be a radical shift for those who oppose it or question it deeply. All new radical ideas have been resisted through out time, be it from the side of religon, politics or science, its nothing new.
People who have alot invested in a particular worldview would naturally be more affraid of big changes. Example: check the rise in suicide rate after the collapse of communism.

I'm not saying it would be a problem for open minded skeptics, but for alot of folks it would be.

Daylightstar · 27th September 2012, 10:40 AM

As far as the then upcoming paper by Radin is concerned, I downloaded and looked at his refence #2:

Quote:

²S. Gro¨ blacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 446, 871 (2007).

(Vol 446| 19 April 2007| doi:10.1038/nature05677)

Of this reference Radin states in his own paper, on the bottom right of the first page # 157:

Quote:

... the curious effect whereby quantum objects appear to behave differently when observed than when unobserved.²

The referenced page appears to me to say no such thing.
It seemed to me that Radin based his statement about 'the curious effect' on the in the reference first page #871 appearing statement that:

Quote:

Therefore it is reasonable to consider the violation of local realism a well established fact.

Or in other words, therefor it supports my (Radin's) curious effect; a difference between observation and non observation.

Subsequently I lost interest.

Daylightstar · 27th September 2012, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by skiba

Knowing how the universe / world works brings comfort and safety. If an afterlife would be proven true, it would be a radical shift for those who oppose it or question it deeply. ...

If an afterlife would be proven true, that would than be part of how the universe/world works. Wouldn't that bring comfort and safety also?

Or do you really mean something else with:

Originally Posted by skiba

Knowing how the universe / world works ...

?

skiba · 27th September 2012, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

If an afterlife would be proven true, that would than be part of how the universe/world works. Wouldn't that bring comfort and safety also?

Or do you really mean something else with:

?

Eventually it would bring comfort, but its natural for humans to resist change if your attached and invested in a particular worldview. It becomes part of who you are and you will defend that at all cost.

Would it make you feel safe if tomorrow you woke up from the matrix?

Daylightstar · 27th September 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by skiba

Eventually it would bring comfort, but its natural for humans to resist change if your attached and invested in a particular worldview. It becomes part of who you are and you will defend that at all cost.
...

This reminds me of the ultra rigid mindset of psi- and other irrationality promotors.

My advice would be, unambiguously establish the reality (not conviction) of psi. If you'd still experience the same problems there'd be a basis for your complaint if based on facts.

Originally Posted by skiba

...
Would it make you feel safe if tomorrow you woke up from the matrix?

This is an irrational question.

skiba · 27th September 2012, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

This reminds me of the ultra rigid mindset of psi- and other irrationality promotors.

My advice would be, unambiguously establish the reality (not conviction) of psi. If you'd still experience the same problems there'd be a basis for your complaint if based on facts.

Well yes ofcourse once the dust has settled, but the initial shock would be great. After all it would be THE discovery of all time

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

This is an irrational question.

Just trying to convey what it could be like if your world view crumbled. It wouldn't feel very comforting even though you would be closer to the truth.

tsig · 28th September 2012, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by skiba

Well yes ofcourse once the dust has settled, but the initial shock would be great. After all it would be THE discovery of all time

Just trying to convey what it could be like if your world view crumbled. It wouldn't feel very comforting even though you would be closer to the truth.

I've had my world view crumbled many times in life. You get over it.

Daylightstar · 28th September 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by skiba

Well yes ofcourse once the dust has settled, but the initial shock would be great. After all it would be THE discovery of all time
...

There would be surprise I suppose, not too much dust in scientific circles. Except perhaps from some actual scientists trampling over each other to investigate further.

7th March 2012, 10:30 AM	#321
Arouet Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Daylightstar Cool. Which arguments? Oh my, I disagree with so many of Alex's arguments! You should come over to the Skeptiko forum and get into them with me! (some of the the Skeptiko proponents hate when I invite JREFrs over so this is just for them! - you know you're reading this thread! )
	__________________ _{Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire}

7th March 2012, 11:12 AM	#322
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by Arouet Yeah, it's subtle. I don't really classify rhetorical devices under dishonesty. But really my point isn't much deeper here than I think Alex is sincere in his beliefs and presentation of them. Do I know for certain? No ,but having listened to most of his podcasts and argued with him quite a lot over on Skeptiko I have no reason to doubt him. Some rhetorical devices can easily be classified as dishonest. However I am not stating he is dishonest, although, as I stated, I would not claim that he is clearly honest in his approach - which' statement I made in the context of Alex's approach to his guests, not his beliefs or presentation of them. Alex leaves no doubt about him believing ...... the stuff he believes Originally Posted by Arouet ... Unfair ... Yes, that sounds quite reasonable. Originally Posted by Arouet ... sorry, back on the fraud again! ... What do you mean?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

7th March 2012, 11:26 AM	#323
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by Arouet Originally Posted by Daylightstar Cool. Which arguments? Oh my, I disagree with so many of Alex's arguments! You should come over to the Skeptiko forum and get into them with me! (some of the the Skeptiko proponents hate when I invite JREFrs over so this is just for them! - you know you're reading this thread! ) Perhaps I misinterpreted both statements with respect to concentrating on- and attacking Alex's arguments as his arguments with respect to the Dean Radin focused attention test. Perhaps you meant to acknowledge implicitly that Alex has no arguments there and you wanted to move on to any other of Alex's arguments. Am I correctly representing your position?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium Last edited by Daylightstar; 7th March 2012 at 11:38 AM. Reason: or=and

7th March 2012, 01:33 PM	#324
Arouet Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Daylightstar Some rhetorical devices can easily be classified as dishonest. However I am not stating he is dishonest, although, as I stated, I would not claim that he is clearly honest in his approach - which' statement I made in the context of Alex's approach to his guests, not his beliefs or presentation of them. Alex leaves no doubt about him believing ...... the stuff he believes Sure, I should have left out clearly and rather just said, based on being a longtime member of Skeptiko Alex has given me no reason to doubt that he sincerely believes what he is setting out. I agree it won't be as clear to someone with less experience dealing with Alex! So I think that brings us both to the same page here! (I hope) Quote: What do you mean? I just meant that I had been responding to the fraud allegation again. Originally Posted by Daylightstar Perhaps I misinterpreted both statements with respect to concentrating on- and attacking Alex's arguments as his arguments with respect to the Dean Radin focused attention test. Sorry, I was referring to Alex' arguments in general. On his take on the quantum mechanics I don't get the sense that Alex has a good handle on it. Then again, most of us don't. I think some of us are better at recognizing that than others. I would like to see some commentary on radin's experiment though. Quote: perhaps you meant to acknowledge implicitly that Alex has no arguments there and you wanted to move on to any other of Alex's arguments. No I was just talking in general. Quote: Am I correctly representing your position? Hopefully the above clarified. I think I could have been more clear the first time out! Sorry!
	__________________ _{Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire}

7th March 2012, 02:31 PM	#325
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by Arouet ... Hopefully the above clarified. I think I could have been more clear the first time out! Sorry! Sure, thanks a lot. With respect to the mentioning of fraud by the other poster, I wouldn't want to call inventing stuff a correct typification of that poster's remark. It's partly due to Alex's own way of dealing with his guests and beliefs, he has a tendency to provoke such thoughts. But anyways, I'd welcome Alex's own thoughts about Radin's experiment as well. Perhaps Alex could indicate whether he would see a possibility to improve Radin's experiment. Perhaps his thoughts on how to isolate* consciousness better than Radin did. It's a challenge for sure.*
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

12th March 2012, 01:43 PM	#326
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	The posts on this thread are getting increasingly surreal. I'll explain my take on the matter as succintly as I can, which unfortunately won't me very succintly at all. Does consciousness determine the results of an experiment? Obviously not, fot the following reasons: 1. Are we referring to consciousness as self-awareness or merely as being conscious of (i.e. perceiving) the experiment being carried out? Let's say a dog watches a double slit experiment: will the experiment be altered by the dog watching it? 2. If that was the case, photons or electrons or whatever would have behaved differently before conscious entitities existed, and that makes no sense at all, because particles of matter or energy cannot possibly be affected by an emergent, immaterial property of a brain's functioning. 3. Consciousness is not an on-off switch. We can surely recognize consciousness in chimps, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos. They sure know who they are. To a lesser extent, it is quite obvious thas dogs, cats, dolphins and other mammals exhibit some consciousness. So, before human existed, was the double-slit experiment affected somehow, but not that much really? That's an absurd proposition. 4. As far as we know, the Earth is the only planet that supports life, and hence consciousness. Does that mean that in galaxies far far away electrons do whatever they want in the double-slit experiment, because we are not observing them? 5. If consciousness affects the double slit experiment, why does it not affect the path of my car? Why doesn't a car driven by an unconscious person (say, someone who just had a brain haemorrage) follow a different path from a car driven by a conscious but paralyzed driver? 6. By what mechanism could consciousness alter the result of an experiment? I understand why shining a light on an electron alters its orbit and energy level; after all, the electron is being bombarded by photons. But what does consciousness bombard the electron with? Ideas? Concepts? Desires to eat chocolate cake? Come on, let's be serious.

12th March 2012, 03:35 PM	#327
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by Piero ... 6. By what mechanism could consciousness alter the result of an experiment?... The key to understanding this, is realizing that consciousness really does alter the result of a (double slit) experiment. After the experiment.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

13th March 2012, 07:42 PM	#328
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	Originally Posted by Daylightstar The key to understanding this, is realizing that consciousness really does alter the result of a (double slit) experiment. After the experiment. How? Suppose we set up a double-slit experiment in Mars, together with a detecting device (a robot) and a cat. The experiment runs automatically, so that no conscious beings are watching it. The robot is programmed to kill the cat if the thickness of the interference lines is greater than some threshold, and to self-destroy if it is smaller. Two centuries later, a space mission goes to Mars and finds a rusty robot and the fossilized skeleton of a cat. Where was the cat during those two centuries? Did it die and decompose instantaneously as soon as a conscious being perceived it? Or was he dead from the moment the robot killed it? Is the migration of photons from the centre of a star to its edge dependent upon observation by a conscious entity? Does that mean that the universe is there only when some conscious entity observes it? Was the universe in an ambiguous state of existence until conscious being arose? Can we say that the universe is about 14 billion years old when conscious, semi-conscious or barely-conscious beings are no more than 3 billion years old? We are pretty confident that human beings are more conscious than amoebas. Would an advanced alien race consider us to be conscious or would they regard us as we regard amoebas? What level of consciousness is required to modify the outcome of an experiment? The whole consciousness business is totally incoherent, and so far the only benefit derived from it has been to fill Deepak Chopra's already deep pckets.

14th March 2012, 10:20 AM	#329
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by Piero How? ... Like this: Originally Posted by Daylightstar He will most likely create false correlations from whatever 'data' he will gather. There's no valid reason to think that consciousness can and will change the results of a double slit experiment directly or immediately. Only afterwards. Originally Posted by Piero ... What level of consciousness is required to modify the outcome of an experiment? ... We'd first need to establish that consciousness could have any direct or immediate influence on the (double slit) experiment at all. This has not yet been established. Originally Posted by Piero ... The whole consciousness business is totally incoherent, ... It's pure magical thinking.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

19th March 2012, 02:23 PM	#330
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	Daylightstar: "It's pure magical thinking." I couldn't agree more. For some unknown reason, some people have chosen to believe that a human observer is different from a non-human observer in a fundamental way. I cannot see the logic of that, unless we dismiss gorillas, chimps and bonobos as figments of our imagination (or should I say ,"figments of our consciousness"?).

18th April 2012, 02:22 AM	#331
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	Still no progress on this whole consciousness and the DSE thing: http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...-member-5.html Alex, what's going on? What's your evidence that human consciousness alters the DSE process? You were being pretty strong about your views on this when discussing it with Jerry Coyne: Quote: Dr. Jerry Coyne: And I cannot read every paper on quantum mechanics. You surely haven’t yourself to ask me enough questions about whether this has any effect on evolution or not. Alex Tsakiris: Not at all because it’s so basic and fundamental I don’t have to go there. Dr. Jerry Coyne: Okay, then you tell me how it’s so basic and fundamental for evolution if you think that this finding of quantum… Alex Tsakiris: It’s the observer effect, Jerry. It’s the double-slit experiment. It’s our… Dr. Jerry Coyne: Yeah, okay, what does that have to do with… Alex Tsakiris: Are photons waves or particles, right? So it’s like… Dr. Jerry Coyne: What does that have to do with evolution? Alex Tsakiris: It has to do with evolution because what we find is that it’s consciousness. If we put our consciousness one way or another it measures this way or that way. We no longer have laws of physics the way that you talk about them in this high school science way in your USA Today articles. Why the silence now when you're asked to back your claims and views on this "basic and fundamental" issue?
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 18th April 2012 at 03:37 AM.

24th April 2012, 03:16 AM	#332
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	Arouet do you know if Alex has clarified his position on the double-slit experiment and his comments to Jerry about it? I have only looked at the thread he opened for it, but nothing else.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

24th April 2012, 07:28 PM	#333
Arouet Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 Arouet do you know if Alex has clarified his position on the double-slit experiment and his comments to Jerry about it? I have only looked at the thread he opened for it, but nothing else. Not that I recall.
	__________________ _{Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire}

3rd May 2012, 03:31 AM	#334
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	From the latest podcast: Originally Posted by Alex Tsakiris ...Another guest we’ve had on that I really appreciated is Dr. Larry Dossey, who was a physician for a long time in Dallas and got into prayer research. There’s really some unbelievably impressive data that gets drowned out by a lot of Atheist skeptic types that shows that prayer is efficacious, prayer works, and at the same time the rub for Christians is the best evidence suggests that Christian prayer is no more efficacious than Buddhist prayer or Muslim prayer or anything like that. Alex Tsakiris, would you mind citing this "unbelievably impressive data" which shows "that prayer is efficacious and that it works"?
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

3rd May 2012, 03:33 AM	#335
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	Additionally, they are again promoting the strange idea that atheists are somehow threatened by scientific evidence that would show that there is something real to the religious / believers position. Speaking of myself, I am not at all philosophically threatened by any evidence whatsoever, I just accept the best scientific explanations as being the best knowledge about nature that we currently have. There's nothing threatning about it for me, things change all the time, which means that we have more accurate knowledge, and I want to know about it.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 3rd May 2012 at 03:55 AM.

3rd May 2012, 05:55 AM	#336
steenkh Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 3,482	It is a pity that no special kind of prayer works better than others. If, say, only Methodist prayer had worked, I would simply start believing in the Methodist god, no problem. I would not feel threatened at all. But as it stands, it is more likely that they have made a protocol error, so I will stick to my atheism, a while yet, because this is what the evidence is pointing to. I am still not feeling threatened.
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

8th May 2012, 11:43 PM	#337
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	Just a little heads up, Daryl Bem responds to critics on the latest episode of Skeptiko, I haven't listened to it yet, but should be...interesting.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

9th May 2012, 01:12 AM	#338
GnaGnaMan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 192	Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 Just a little heads up, Daryl Bem responds to critics on the latest episode of Skeptiko, I haven't listened to it yet, but should be...interesting. I've listened to it. It's just unbelievable. Bem must have gone completely bonkers. The less said, the better.
GnaGnaMan Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 192

9th May 2012, 02:07 AM	#339
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,589	57% versus 53% is significant? Doesn't Alex like spreading unfounded insinuations? The Edinburgh Secret Society is not a secret atheist alliance, or whatever he was trying to suggest. Nor do I think Randi's work is negated by the immigration status of his partner.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th May 2012, 05:40 AM	#340
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Originally Posted by zooterkin 57% versus 53% is significant? Doesn't Alex like spreading unfounded insinuations? The Edinburgh Secret Society is not a secret atheist alliance, or whatever he was trying to suggest. Nor do I think Randi's work is negated by the immigration status of his partner. Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan I've listened to it. It's just unbelievable. Bem must have gone completely bonkers. The less said, the better. It does some good to critique here, but it might be even better too critique there. We all know Alex's views are skewed. Why not engage in pointing that over at Skeptiko ?
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533

14th May 2012, 08:22 AM	#341
Arouet Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 165	Substantive though please! Don't just come over and shout bonkers or the post will probably be deleted - its a no-flame forum now.
	__________________ _{Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire}

23rd May 2012, 01:54 AM	#342
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	From the latest podcast: http://www.skeptiko.com/anthony-peak...ath/#more-2271 Originally Posted by Anthony Peake It’s an interesting point. You say that we all exist within this consensual reality and time is part of that consensual reality but you and I both know, of course, that if you actually apply some elements of quantum physics to this and you apply the idea of the implications of the Copenhagen interpretation in the sense that the act of observation actually collapses the wave function into a point- particle, which actively suggests that the act of observation by a conscious mind literally creates the universe around you.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

23rd May 2012, 03:05 AM	#343
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,589	Originally Posted by Steve001 It does some good to critique here, but it might be even better too critique there. We all know Alex's views are skewed. Why not engage in pointing that over at Skeptiko ? No, thanks. I was not impressed by the experience of the comments section for the show, with perfectly polite posts being removed, and sniping by Alex's cheerleader/sockpuppet being allowed. I can think of better uses of my time than battling against willful ignorance and capricious moderation.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

23rd May 2012, 04:54 AM	#344
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Originally Posted by zooterkin No, thanks. I was not impressed by the experience of the comments section for the show, with perfectly polite posts being removed, and sniping by Alex's cheerleader/sockpuppet being allowed. I can think of better uses of my time than battling against willful ignorance and capricious moderation. Sorry to hear that. I'm not impressed either, but remember. When battling against willful ignorance and capricious moderation you can make your point to all the lurkers. Isn't that worth something ? P.S. I was actually speaking about commenting in the forum not the podcasts per say.
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533

23rd May 2012, 06:12 AM	#345
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	Originally Posted by zooterkin ...and sniping by Alex's cheerleader/sockpuppet being allowed. I guess you mean this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alex_Tsakiris Quote: In the comments section of each transcript (and on the mind-energy.net forums), he also posts as a sockpuppet, "Enrique Vargas". Is there any evidence for that claim though? RationalWiki should be more accurate in cases like this.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 23rd May 2012 at 06:52 AM.

23rd May 2012, 06:56 AM	#346
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,589	Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 I guess you mean this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alex_Tsakiris Is there any evidence for that claim though? RationalWiki should be more accurate in cases like this. I don't know if it is Alex or a separate person, which is why I said "cheerleader/sockpuppet" rather than one or the other.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

23rd May 2012, 07:22 AM	#347
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	Originally Posted by zooterkin I don't know if it is Alex or a separate person, which is why I said "cheerleader/sockpuppet" rather than one or the other. Yeah, noted, the RW article just popped to my mind immediately.
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 23rd May 2012 at 07:23 AM.

10th September 2012, 07:47 AM	#348
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	It's been a long time since I last posted in this thread, but of course I've been listening to the show. I still haven't heard or seen any clarification from Alex to his position regarding the double slit experiment and consciousness issue, please let me know if he has spoken or written about it in more detail. Something Alex said about climate science caught my attention in a recent interview: http://www.skeptiko.com/184-dr-ruper...ee-from-dogma/ Quote: Alex Tsakiris: At some level that’s true and at another level it’s equally true that science has been fundamentally discredited in recent years. We can look at Climate Gate or Peak Oil or even UFOs and ghosts. Even evolution. All those are topics that have come to the fore and science has had their say. In one way or another it’s come out of it pretty battered as a result. ... Alex Tsakiris: They are but I think people are able to understand technology and engineering and say, “Wow, this is great. My new iPhone 5 is fantastic.” And they’re able to separate that from the “scientist” who stands up there and says this or that about climate change or about any of these other topics that then turn out to be not only provably wrong but just kind of on the surface of it silly. Alex, would be nice to hear your position on AGW as well, the interview makes it sound like you don't give much credence to climate science, and you mentioned "Climate Gate" in the same context. It still puzzles me why he thinks that good evidence of afterlife, etc. would be so scary to atheists or skeptics. It wouldn't, on the contrary, it would be very interesting. Maybe you should talk about this issue with some of your atheist or skeptic guests...
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 10th September 2012 at 07:48 AM.

10th September 2012, 03:47 PM	#349
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	He recently interviewed Rupert Sheldrake. I thought it was rather uninteresting. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

17th September 2012, 06:49 AM	#350
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 It still puzzles me why he thinks that good evidence of afterlife, etc. would be so scary to atheists or skeptics. It wouldn't, on the contrary, it would be very interesting. Maybe you should talk about this issue with some of your atheist or skeptic guests... It puzzles me too. All of the pro-psi folks there at Skeptiko think the same. I'll even go so far as stating that belief seems to be a prevalent throughout the psi community.
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533

22nd September 2012, 07:18 AM	#351
Kuko 4000 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 1,566	http://www.skeptiko.com/william-beng...ncer-industry/ So, William Bengston, President of the Society for Scientific Exploration has done (and replicated) rigorous lab studies on mice where he shows that people, including himself, can cure mice of a serious cancer just by keeping their hands around the cage. Other people who want to participate have to go through a training session first where Bengston teaches the healing technique. He also claims that he can differentiate a sealed envelope with hair from a sick animal from a control envelope (in a double blind setting) with amazing accuracy. I would guess that both of these are eligible for the JREF MDC. Oh my
	__________________ Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM." Last edited by Kuko 4000; 22nd September 2012 at 07:43 AM.

22nd September 2012, 01:20 PM	#352
xtifr Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sol III Posts: 563	Originally Posted by Steve001 Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 It still puzzles me why he thinks that good evidence of afterlife, etc. would be so scary to atheists or skeptics. It wouldn't, on the contrary, it would be very interesting. Maybe you should talk about this issue with some of your atheist or skeptic guests... It puzzles me too. All of the pro-psi folks there at Skeptiko think the same. I'll even go so far as stating that belief seems to be a prevalent throughout the psi community. I think there's two reasons, one broad, and one more specific to the afterlife thing. 1. Projection. The thought that some of this stuff might not be true scares them. They want it to be true so badly they can taste it. Many have made important changes in their lives based purely on the assumption that it's true, and if it's not, they'll have nothing but regrets. So they assume the reverse is true for us. 2. All atheists are immoral, sinning bastards who are going straight to hell. If they found that the afterlife was true, they'd be forced to realize that. After all, morality can only come from God. The first I can at least sympathize with, even while diagnosing it as obviously flawed thinking. The second is not only offensive and shallow, but misguided in two different ways: First, obviously, most atheists are moral people because of empathy and the desire to live in a civilized society. I like to ask these people "if God said it was ok to torture kittens, would that make it ok? Personally, I don't need an excuse to not torture kittens. If you do, you might want to see a shrink about that." Second, it shows the same flaw in critical thinking as those who believe that creationism/ID is pro-Bible. There are thousands of religions, tens of thousands of gods, followed/worshipped by various people across the globe. Proof of directed creation or the afterlife doesn't constitute any sort of proof of Christianity. If we did find evidence, I'd consider converting to Hinduism long before I'd consider worshipping their evil bastard of a God.
	__________________ "Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll

27th September 2012, 05:19 AM	#353
skiba Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 162	Originally Posted by Steve001 It puzzles me too. All of the pro-psi folks there at Skeptiko think the same. I'll even go so far as stating that belief seems to be a prevalent throughout the psi community. Knowing how the universe / world works brings comfort and safety. If an afterlife would be proven true, it would be a radical shift for those who oppose it or question it deeply. All new radical ideas have been resisted through out time, be it from the side of religon, politics or science, its nothing new. People who have alot invested in a particular worldview would naturally be more affraid of big changes. Example: check the rise in suicide rate after the collapse of communism. I'm not saying it would be a problem for open minded skeptics, but for alot of folks it would be.
skiba Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 162

27th September 2012, 10:40 AM	#354
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	As far as the then upcoming paper by Radin is concerned, I downloaded and looked at his refence #2: Quote: ²S. Gro¨ blacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 446, 871 (2007). (Vol 446\| 19 April 2007\| doi:10.1038/nature05677) Of this reference Radin states in his own paper, on the bottom right of the first page # 157: Quote: ... the curious effect whereby quantum objects appear to behave differently when observed than when unobserved.² The referenced page appears to me to say no such thing. It seemed to me that Radin based his statement about 'the curious effect' on the in the reference first page #871 appearing statement that: Quote: Therefore it is reasonable to consider the violation of local realism a well established fact. Or in other words, therefor it supports my (Radin's) curious effect; a difference between observation and non observation. Subsequently I lost interest.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

27th September 2012, 10:47 AM	#355
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by skiba Knowing how the universe / world works brings comfort and safety. If an afterlife would be proven true, it would be a radical shift for those who oppose it or question it deeply. ... If an afterlife would be proven true, that would than be part of how the universe/world works. Wouldn't that bring comfort and safety also? Or do you really mean something else with: Originally Posted by skiba Knowing how the universe / world works ... ?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium