I just remembered this. A possible scientific explanation for ESP and a worrisome sign for the future.

"Galway Girl" is a song by Steve Earle I really like. Here's his performance:



Whoda thunkit, the song is very popular in Galway, Ireland. It's been recorded by a bunch of Irish performers. Here's a wonderful performance in, yes, Galway:

That is so cool. — Benkei

I agree. I first saw the show 10 years ago and I can't get it out of my mind. Whenever I see a baby, I think of how much more is going on in their minds than we can see.

When I have a chance I will try to check it out. If you can can you give me a short summary of what the book is about? — dclements

It's a book of examples of purported psychic phenomena which, on examination, were shown not to be authentic. Some of the examples were poorly designed and implemented, but sincere, scientific studies. Others were bogus claims and performances by so-called psychics. Here's what Amazon says:

In this lively collection, Gardner examines the rich and hilarious variety of pseudoscientific conjectures that dominate the media today. With a special emphasis on parapsychology and occultism, these witty pieces address the evidence put forth to support claims of ESP, psychokinesis, faith healing, and other pseudoscience.

Question: can you offer a better explanation? — Art48

I forgot to answer this. I don't know if this is better or not. I think a direct experience of transcendent phenomena is common, although obviously not universal. What does that mean? For me it is a sense that I belong in the universe. That we grew up together. That the world is a welcoming place. A sense of gratitude. I think that could be called a god, although not a personal one. I have talked to Christians who have what I would call similar experiences, although they probably would disagree.

I recognize that is no kind of rigorous evidence.

The OP is my attempt to understand a phenomena I've witnessed many times. — Art48

I don't understand how you can observe this personally. It may be based on observation, but it is made up mostly of assumptions about children's motivations and thoughts, which are not directly observable.

After the infant learns there are people and objects external to herself, in time she naturally attributes certain properties to the parent(s), qualities such as source of comfort and protection, as source of knowledge and instruction, as able to do wonderful things (feed her, give her toys, take her to the ocean or mountains for vacation). As she grows, she learns that the parent isn’t ideal, that the parent doesn’t fit the mold perfectly. Sometimes the parent makes her go to bed early, eat her spinach, takes her to the doctor for a needle.

If the parent ceases to occupy the mold, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the mold collapses. Quite the contrary, the child has built the mold in her mind where it may continue existing. But it’s empty.

In time, the person fills the mode with Jesus or Allah or Krishna. — Art48

The OP presents a thesis, a possible explanation, but doesn't not present a proof. — Art48

I have no problem with that, although I think you're theory is probably wrong.

Consider this evidence: The relationship of extreme power between parent and child is more prevalent in more conservative societies and households, and far more prevalent in the past. The more this extreme relationship holds, the more religiosity we observe. Corresponding with liberalization, and the softening of the parent-child relationship, we see a corresponding trend towards secularism. — hypericin

I don't see that as evidence for your point at all.

I would add that a (typically) a parent occupies a overwhelming position of power in relation to their child. The parent decrees what is right and wrong, dispenses reward and punishment, at their whim as does the God of the OT. This power differential creates in your terms a mold which inevitably the parent cannot actually fill. But as you say, the mold remains, and is fulfilled by personal gods. — hypericin

As noted earlier by myself and others, no evidence has been provided that this is really the way things work. It doesn't seem likely to me.

According to Wikipedia:

Chimpanzees are the closest living primate to humans genetically. They are more dimorphic in size than humans. They have hierarchical, male-dominated societies. Even so, dominant males do not normally restrict access to females for mating by other males. Bonobos are a subspecies of chimpanzee. While they are not monogamous, their societies are matriarchal and males do not compete physically for mates.

I am curious about what genuinely motivates the neo-Luddite perspective. — Bret Bernhoft

Calling it "neo-Luddite" gives a pejorative tint to reasonable skepticism. I think humanity is at a very dangerous stage. Our science has developed technologies that can change the very nature of our world and all of humanity. Examples - genetic modification of organisms including people, cloning, artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons, virtual reality, nanotechnologies, pandemics. People who develop technologies have never shown any particular social conscience. Science generally works for whomever pays, which means that profit may be more important than human well-being. Scientists will often lie and cheat when it suits their purposes.

Suspicion of science and technology and its effects is not necessarily unreasonable.

I neglected to link to you in my post above.

When this subject comes up, I often discuss the work of Karan Wynn on the cognitive abilities of very young children. Here's a link to Wynn's publications page:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZBkyZBIAAAAJ&hl=en

Here's a link to an interesting 60 Minutes piece on her work with moral judgement in children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

It's 13 minutes long and it changed my thinking about human nature.

If you really did it, it was a rotten thing to do.

I provided it to those who are capable of searching Google Scholar. Those who can't are just screwed. — Tate

I did search as you indicated. The first item I came across is the one I quoted in a previous post that contradicts your position. Here's a link to my post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13479/why-is-monogamy-an-ideal/p2

Monogamous animals are usually sexually monomorphic. We're dimorphic, so our monogamy is unusual. — Tate

You have not provided any evidence for this claim.

I recommend a book by Martin Gardner - "Science, Good, Bad, and Bogus." It discusses many claims of scientific proof for psychic powers which have been shown to be false. Sometimes the problem was caused by bad science performed in good faith, but often it was a case of fraud. It's a good book. Gardner focuses on the types of errors investigators make in psychic experiments.

I agree with you, but T Clark was complaining why I said that birds do not count. I said birds do not count because in my previous post I mentioned mammals, not all possible animals. — Eros1982

we turn monogamy into ideal because we want to show that we can differ from other mammals, are two different things. — Eros1982

Many non-human animals; whether they're mammals, birds, or something else, are monogamous. That undermines your argument that human monogamy is somehow exceptional. We're animals too.

birds do not count — Eros1982

That undermines your argument. You wrote:

we are able to connect with people spiritually to such a degree as to set our desires and inclinations under the control of our brains — Eros1982

You claim humans have monogamy because we can connect with people spiritually, but then you say other animals are monogamous for other reasons. I don't find this very convincing. Do you have any evidence.

Because we somehow show we can be different from all mammals... and we are able to connect with people spiritually to such a degree as to set our desires and inclinations under the control of our brains (which often are socially/ethically oriented). — Eros1982

This is why the topic intrigues me. The fact that males and females are dimorphic reminds us of our basic earthly makeup. Our ideas about monogamy are opposed to this, attempting to leave the earth behind in some ways. — Tate

Many bird species are monogamous, as are some mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. I think that casts doubt on any spiritual interpretation of monogamy.

Likewise the fact that the eyes of white men of a certain age tend to be spaced apart just so that they provide improved long distance depth perception, — Tate

Now, Tate... we've already talked about this.

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from assigning views to me that I did not express. — Tate

You made a specific claim that the relative lack of black quarterbacks in the NFL is because of racial differences in eyesight.

You have stated explicitly and without evidence that, given biological differences between human males and females, human families should be expected to be made up of one male and more than one female or, as you say, harems. You then go on to provide unconvincing and unnecessary explanations.

This is starting to derail — Tate

If it's derailing, it's because of your unsupported and unlikely claims about the social effects of sexual and racial differences.

Does that seem racist to you? — Tate

I didn't say it was racist.

I just thought it was funny. — Tate

That's not true. You didn't say you thought it was funny. You said it was the reason there are fewer black quarterbacks in the NFL than one might expect.

The reason most NFL quarterbacks are white isn't what you'd expect. It's not a history of racism. It's that white males between 32 and 43 have superior long range depth perception. — Tate

I've never heard that. It's kind of stupid because NFL quarterbacks don't call the plays. They don't have to be very intelligent. — Tate

You've avoided the question - do you have any credible evidence about white people's vision vs. black people's? You're using that as evidence that selection of quarterbacks does not reflect racial prejudice. As I noted, a weak argument.

It's not a history of racism. It's that white males between 32 and 43 have superior long range depth perception. Go figure. — Tate

Do you have evidence for this? They used to say it was because black players weren't smart enough. If you don't have specific credible evidence you can share, you should be ashamed of yourself.

For what it's worth, black quarterbacks make up between 15 and 20 percent of quarterbacks in the NFL while black people make up 12 percent of the US population.

From the web:

The evolution of primate monogamy is described as an ordered sequence of choices by generalized, hypothetical females and males. Females first choose whether or not to associate with other females. Predators encourage gregariousness in diurnal primates; however, nocturnality or scarce and evenly distributed food supplies may enforce separation. A testable group size model based on food patch size is developed and qualitatively supported. If females choose solitude, males then choose either to defend a single female and invest in her offspring, or to compete with other males for access to several females, usually by defending a territory or establishing dominance over the home ranges of several females. The decision rests on the defensibility of females and on the availability of an effective form of male parental investment. Both of these factors are dependent on local female population density. A model is developed that assumes that territorial defense is the principal form of male parental investment, and it predicts that monogamy should occur at intermediate densities: at high densities, males should switch to defense of multiple females, and at low densities there is no investment value in male territorial defense. — A T Rutberg

Well, gorillas seem to have survived pretty well using that reproductive system. They've been doing it for 7 million years, so I assume it has the potential to work. — Tate

That's a very weak response. A non sequitur. Human babies take much more care than gorillas. I think you have you're own preconceived notions and are not interested in examining them more thoroughly.

Children of a harem system thrive. — Tate

Do you know that's true? Anyway, only rich guys can have harems. In societies where multiple wives are allowed, most men have only one. Pew says that only 2% of marriages world-wide have more than one wife even though polygamy is legal in many Islamic countries.

Hey, @Jamal. A source I found on the web says polygamy is legal in Russia. Is that true?

This all supposes power on the part of every male in society. — Tate

It only assumes that any society, human or otherwise, will only work if it can take care of it's children.

China is having big social problems now because there are too many men and two few women because of the abandoned one-child policy. The wifeless men are not individually powerful, but as a group they can be disruptive.

I think the reasons are probably pretty prosaic. Human children require a lot of care and use up a lot of resources. Having more than one spouse would not be feasible except for the rich and powerful. Also, without monogamy there would not be enough women for all the men, which would lead to social disruption. I'm pretty sure women would not think it is a very good idea.

As a married human male, I can't imagine having to deal with more than one wife. Just one is hard enough.

An empirical claim is a philosophical claim nitwit. — I like sushi

You should take a look in the Shoutbox. @Hanover and I were just discussing a right wing commentator who wrote that casting a black woman as the lead in "The Little Mermaid" was scientifically inaccurate. I think your comment is almost as dumb.

The last 3 lines of your 5 line paragraph are ad hominem. Just wanted to point that out. — Art48

I made comments referencing your arguments, not you personally. So they are not ad hominem arguments. You shouldn't use jargon you don't understand.

Your OP is fine. Ignore those looking to smear you rather than offer any kind of constructive criticism. — I like sushi

As I noted, I said nothing about Art48, only his arguments. Perhaps I smeared his ideas, but not him personally. The argument in the OP is weak, as are both of your responses to my comment.

You clearly don't believe God exists. In this and other posts you look for psychological reasons why people believe as they do. E.g. Pre-science and scientific mentality; Dormant mind; Faith vs. Intelligence. Your ideas are expressed in condescending language which shows a lack of respect for religious believers. They also show a lack of understanding of human motivation and belief and don't provide any evidence beyond "seems to me."

Just wanted to point that out.

I don't think you're seeing my point — keystone

That's true and I don't think you've seen mine and I don't think either of us is going to change.

Your long-running thread about the Tao Te Ching is full of its guidance and inspiration.
I have tried to internalize it so that it helps on a subconscious level, as well as being
rationally helped and directed by it. WWTTD: what would the Tao do? — 0 thru 9

The Tao Te Ching is the book of the Way, but it's only one way. There are dozens, hundreds, thousands of ways in the world. Is that what you mean by guidance? It seems hopelessly broad and vague.

I’ll report back if my feelings on the subject charge after reading the whole thing... — 0 thru 9

Seems like you are talking about conscience. Why do we need a new word when the old one works well?

I forgot to say - Welcome to the forum.

Like with a lottery, to win a lottery is almost impossible, you could play lottery all your life and never win something because the chances you will actually win is astronomically low. Isn't that also for the people living right now on earth in this present? The odds for a humanbeing living right now would be so impossibly high, and yet here we are. — Persain

The probability of dealing a royal straight flush in order in spades from a standard, well-shuffled deck of 52 playing cards is exactly the same as dealing a hand consisting of 3 of diamonds, 7 of spades, Jack of diamonds, 10 of clubs, and Ace of hearts in that order.

The fundamental forces run their couplings. They are all fractured and very different in the cold/large universe of today. But all their strengths and properties (probably) converge at the Planck scale in one simple Grand Unified Theory – a vanilla form of quantum action that is the contents of a general relativity spacetime container of smallest scale. — apokrisis

Thanks.

runs its couplings — apokrisis

I think I understand what you are saying about scaling, but I am not familiar with this phrase. What does it mean?

But physics tells us that this is not fundamental, just a passing stage. The Big Bang had quite a different kind of ontology. And physics has worked up a decent account of the maths required to track how each stage evolved into its next. — apokrisis

Seems like physics is always trying to compress all this multitude of stories about reality at many scales and stages into a single narrative that covers everything at once.

I don't think you and I are disagreeing much.