Would they if only 0.001% of the population had a sense of humor? If movies and books and cartoons were made for the other 99.999% and contained no humorous references? > and even if the peer review editors had no psi ability themselves they > could deduce that other people had them if they did. But they don't so they > can't. > Maybe, but not necessarily. We have words for things like luck and kismet and destiny, which could not easily be modeled as physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing at all to them in all cases. > > > In science though, we can't claim that we know for certain that any >> course of research is misguided, only that it has not proved anything so >> far. >> > > We know with certainty that all the paranormal research of the last > century has produced absolutely nothing and they might as well of kept > their hands in their pockets for the last hundred years; so if you were a > talented researcher with good judgement would you pick that field, would > you spend your finite resources on that crap? > I'm not personally drawn to investigate those areas, but then again, I have my own framework for understanding non-ordinary awareness. If I were personally impacted by some psi-related event or capacity, I don't see any reason not to spend time and effort looking into it. We don't all have to be watching infinitesimal particle collisions on multi-billion dollar racetracks. > > The record of AI development is similarly fruitless at demonstrating >> computer awareness. >> > > Computers are far smarter than they were 10 years ago, but making machines > behave intelligently is supposed to be the easy AI problem, the hard > problem is making them conscious; armchair philosophers are constantly > spinning theories that they think will solve the hard problem, you've done > it yourself, and yet they don't even attempt to solve the easy problem. Why > is it that you can solve the hard problem but don't even claim to know the > first thing about solving the easy problem? It's because the "easy" problem > is far far more difficult than the "hard" problem. > The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. It is like trying to reconstruct the recipe for apple pie using a mass spectrometer and electron microscope. It is not easy by any means, but it is much easier than trying to explain why and there is a such thing as an experience of tasting the flavor of apple pie. In naming the two problems hard and easy, Chalmers was just trying to make the point that it is a whole different order of difficult. The easy problem is quantitatively difficult, but progress is inevitable with applied effort. The hard problem is qualitatively difficult, so that not only is progress not inevitable, but it is not necessarily a realistic possibility. > > You know that Rupert Sheldrake was the Director of Studies in >> Biochemistry and Cell biology at Cambridge, right?and a Research Fellow of >> the Royal Society. From 1974 to 1985 he worked in Hyderabad in India as >> Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute >> > > My beef with Sheldrake has nothing to do with him helping farmers grow > more food, my complaint is that he's a crackpot. He wouldn't be the first > scientist to go nuts, Brian Josephson was a much better scientist than > Sheldrake ever was and in the early 60's wrote an absolutely brilliant > paper on superconductivity and won a Nobel Prize, but very soon after that > he abandoned the scientific method. The parapsychology meme virus infected > his mind and he hasn't had a creative thought since and for the last half > century has accomplished precisely nothing. There seems to be no idea so > screwy he can't make himself believe it. The poor man has lost his mind. > Genius and madness are notoriously close. If it weren't for crackpots though, we would never likely be tempted to explore new areas. Why doesn't some respectable non-crackpot reproduce Sheldrake's experiments and prove him wrong? > > >> > If you want to understand something which challenges the status quo, >> you can't always do it in a way that the status quo is going to embrace. >> > > All junk science researchers fantasize that they are misunderstood > geniuses that history will eventually vindicate, but what history has > actually shown us is that for every Galileo there are 6.02 * 10^23 > crackpots. > And for every methodical scientist working under the radar toward some measure of greatness there are 6.02 * 10^23 dull-minded careerists whose life's work will never amount to more than unread publications. Human attention is not so finite and precious that we cannot afford for a tiny fraction of the population to deviate from the herd. I say that increasing that number 10 fold could only help. Craig > John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M0Bt8cw2WawJ. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.