Causation, Mind, and Psionics

[bennyboy]

Wow. That's a lot of ideas for one post.

First of all, I want to see links for this, because I'm pretty dubious that these results are generally accepted:

Today even committed skeptics acknowledge that some rigorously performed psi experiments produce statistically significant results. The thoughts from a 'sender' to a 'receiver' can increase the hit rate of the receivers from 25% to 32%.

Second, I'm not sure why you are calling probabilistic cause efficient cause.

But you know that time-space is pixelated and particles pop in and out of existence from the quantum vacuum. Motion is occurs when a particle cease to exist in one location and randomly appears at another within a field of probability. Despite this new scientific knowledge

I don't know that. Is it considered scientific fact? I once argued that the pixelation of timespace not only explained the limitations of the speed of light, but also determined its velocity; I got forum-raped and generally mocked for thinking on my own. Here it is:

---

The argument goes like this:
-if spacetime is pixellated, then it's theoretically possible for two fast-moving objects to have their centers of gravity occupty the exact same space.
-if this happens, then the universe will do a "divide by zero acceleration" causing nasty ambiguities between infinity and non-infinity and breaking the whole system.
-this can be avoided by ensuring that two objects MUST collide before they can occupy the same point, i.e. that the maximum velocity of the particles is limited to their radius / tick.
-if you reduced the size of particles, they would have to move slower; if you increased the resolution of time, they could move faster, etc.
-therefore, one possible reason for the constant, "c," is that the spacetime is pixelated.

---

I agree with you about science. The problem is that it uses inductive reasoning to arrive at "sensible" conclusions, and then does a tricky little shell game where those conclusions are treated as proven fact, and used as givens for deductive reasoning. Then you get statements like, "Well, obviously the brain creates mind," or even, "It's obvious that the mind is just brain function."

I have ideas about some of your other comments, but I'd really like to see those links first.