User talk:Serge Patlavskiy

ARE THE SKEPTICS' AIMS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT? by Serge Patlavskiy E-mail: prodigyPSF@rambler.ru

Abstract

In the article the question is being issued whether the commonly accepted and many times verified methodology of investigation which is widely used in Physics can be effectively applied in cases when the objects of our investigation are, so called, paranormal consciousness-related effects. The definition of scientifically correct aim of the experimentation in the field of consciousness study, as the author sees it, is given. Some key ideas of Nonstatanalysis are presented. The new features in the relation between theory and practice are touched on.

Key words: skepticism, paranormal phenomena, methodology of investigation, scientifically correct aim, system of proofs, new meta-theory, theory of consciousness

1. What phenomena shall be called "normal"?

In my view the question "What are the paranormal phenomena?" cannot be understood without answering the question "What are the normal phenomena?". There are some groups of people to which even the ordinary ability to think is being regarded as some paranormal event. Remember the youngsters' gangs, drug-addicts' companies, hobos' societies, etc. On the other hand, the communities of absent-minded scholars, the movie stars' communities, the various poets', writers', artists', music composers', singers', Buddhist monks' communities, etc. exist, and for their members the periodical transition from the normal state to the unusual one (intuition, inspiration, creative ecstasy, ginger) is nothing but a professional routine. As a rule, the societies, the majority of members of which have their plank of normality set higher, are rather not stable, and such people can only live being dissolved (disseminated) among other people. According to Nonstatanalysis (it is some particular theoretical system, or meta-theory, see [1]) the cognitively independent entity has no immanent properties. This means that there are no phenomena which are immanently paranormal. They are we (the subjects of the cognitive process) who attribute the phenomena we are dealing with to such or other kinds. (Here I use the term "paranormal" in broad sense; e.g., psi-effects are the  phenomena; I mean that we may as well regard, say, the phenomena, etc.).

2. How to transform the paranormal phenomena into the "normal" ones?

One obvious way to do so is to move down the plank of paranormality (or, to move up the plank of normality). Maybe in ancient times the phenomena which are now being called paranormal were enough ordinary and peculiar to the ancient people. Since the position of the plank is rigidly determined by the human's historical development, I doubt it can be easily changed. But I don't reject the possibility that till our time some closed group of people (or separate individuals) survived, for whom the plank of normal abilities are set a bit high. Traditionally, the individuals with extraordinary abilities are trying to keep together and prefer not to "thrust themselves forward" (albeit some of them strive for their special human rights). I can well consider as enough possible the existence of vampires', undyings', ancient-secrets-keepers', homo-lesbo-sexuals', and other "bizarre" communities. For all of them the plank of normality has another location. (To the point, there are also skeptics' communities).

But does the other way of transforming the paranormal phenomena into the normal ones exist? Let us consider the following example. The phenomenon of lightning is not taken by the predominant majority of educated people as paranormal, because our theoretical base of the process of cognition (see [1]) has been developed enough to explain the phenomenon. But why the phenomenon of, say, anomalous information acquisition is being regarded as paranormal? The answer is plain: it is because our theoretical base of the process of cognition is not sufficiently developed. Then another reasonable question may be asked: what we have to do to develop our theoretical base, and in such a way to transform the presently unexplainable phenomena into the explainable ones? And, exactly, by answering this question a specific theoretical system, or meta-theory, named Nonstatanalysis, was constructed. In doing it, it was started with the "clear sheet of paper" (we didn't want to repeat the mistakes of others) and the first to be constructed was the *Applied ADC Theory* (see for details http://www.geocities.com/titanicpsf, section: "Theoretical background").

Let us assume that  means to construct the theory within the frames of which it will be seen as "routine" and predictable. Then, what is the role of the applied ADC theory in this process? By definition, the applied ADC theory takes any intellectual product (constructed by the subject of cognition) as its object of study. In other words, it deals with theories, hypotheses, assertions, postulations, speculations, etc. This theory states firstly that the creation of any intellectual product is constrained by a certain approach. Any approach consists of the two parts, viz.: the aim of approach and the criteria of approach. Secondly, the theory requires there to be four distinct levels of intellectual product that may be called:

1) the level of description (the D-level);

2) the level of generalization and systematization (the GS-level);

3) the level of applied theory (the AT-level);

4) the level of meta-theory (the MT-level).

Each of these levels has its own particular aim and criteria of approach (for details see [2], Appendices A and B).

Suppose, our task is to construct the theory within the frames of which the complex phenomena can be sufficiently explained. The applied ADC theory says that it is possible, but we have first to construct the appropriate meta-theory (the MT-level intellectual product) and only then to start to construct the applied theories (the AT-level intellectual products), for example: an applied theory of rare and anomalous phenomena, an applied theory of consciousness, an applied theory of diseases, etc. In other words, the applied ADC theory (here, the ADC -- it is the abbreviation from the appearance, development and compatibility of intellectual products) tells us what rules or general requirements we must obey for the constructing theory to be scientifically correct. For example, to construct Nonstatanalysis we had to formulate specific both aim and eight criteria of approach (for details, see [1]).

So, Nonstatanalysis, as the MT-level intellectual product, is an object of study for the applied ADC theory. But, on the other hand, (and it is easy to show) the applied ADC theory itself is one of the Nonstatanalysis' applied theories (see [1], Fig. 13). Speaking simply, those two intellectual products of different levels are functionally dependent on each other (they cannot exist one without other; they determine one another, etc.). Such a mutual link between the intellectual products of different levels is named functional tautology (the FT-relation).

3. What is the scientifically correct aim of the experimentation?

Let us assume that our task is to construct the theory of the paranormal consciousness-related phenomena. In case I investigate my consciousness, I am an investigator, a theorist and an object of investigation at the same time. Therefore, I (as the investigator, a theorist) am in the relation of functional tautology with me, as the object of investigation. Only under such a constraint the results of the experimentation will favor the development of the theory of consciousness or, the experiment will have the scientifically correct aim. Next, the extremely important conclusion follows: the experiment, where the functional tautology is present, will only favor the development of a theory, which itself is being constructed by using the relations of functional tautology as well. Here it is submitted that since no one of the hitherto proposed theories of consciousness (for the exception of the Nonstatanalysis' applied theory of consciousness) were presented with the FT-relations, there is no wonder why the paranormal consciousness-related phenomena still stay unexplained. It may be said in addition that the FT-relations take place every time when we investigate our ability to investigate, we try to understand our ability to understand, we want to be conscious about our consciousness, we think about our ability to think, or, in general, when we try to investigate our mind using our mind as an instrument of investigation (following the ancient investigative paradigm formulated as "Cognosce te ipsum").

Moreover, we have even to formulate, so called, the *Principle of Cognitive Indeterminacy*, which states:

"When the human investigates his own conscious subjective experience, then the more strictly he tries to enframe his conscious experience which is taken as the object of investigation (the term means , syn.: to select, to choose, to single out, etc.) the less strictly at the same time he can use this conscious experience as a theoretical base of such an investigation. And vice versa: the more strictly he uses his conscious experience which is taken as a theoretical base of investigation, the less strictly at the same time he can enframe his conscious experience as an object of investigation."

The whole matter resolves itself into the next few words: the Principle of cognitive indeterminacy says about the objective obstacles in the way of construction of the scientific theory of consciousness. When a scientist investigates some distant physical object, his ability to investigate (clarity of thinking, making logical conclusions, seeing real things, etc.) is unchangeable for a long time during the experiment. However, in case the scientist investigates his own consciousness (especially, the altered states of consciousness) he cannot further rely on the results being obtained. It happens because his ability to investigate, to think, to evaluate, etc. changes badly. And the above mentioned principle exactly talks about indeterminacy of results which takes place when we encroach on the province of the paranormal consciousness-related phenomena. I would say more: if some author's theory has pretensions of being proudly called , but does not show the ways of overcoming the Principle of cognitive indeterminacy, we may be confident that his theory won't serve its purposes. In Nonstatanalysis this Principle overcomes by using a specific theoretical modeling (a bit later we will come to this point in more details).

But let's return to our muttons. Why it was so important to determine what aim of the experiment may be called scientifically correct? The case is that we were much disappointed having found in Internet the information about the skeptics' challenge (see [3]). They promise to pay a big sum of money to any individual or individuals who will provide evidence of their paranormal abilities. The announcement is: "We are only interested in an actual demonstration" [4]. We hazard to remark that the results of the demonstration experiments on testing the presence of paranormal power may serve the popularization aims, or they may satisfy some reach man's curiosity, but they are of small value for the theorist who develops the theory of the mechanisms of the paranormal effects.

4. Some peculiarities of the IIS-experimentation.

Skeptics say that the providing evidence of paranormal abilities must be done under the "satisfactory observing conditions", the "proper observing conditions", the "mutually agreed-upon observing conditions" [3]. We may wander what do those conditions' attributions mean? Suppose we are walking along the street. Suddenly we feel that something happens with us. At first we cannot quite realize what the reason may be, but when we enter the home we learn that one of our relatives was about to die, and was taken to a hospital. Now then, if we will want to demonstrate the presence of a paranormal link between us and our relative (to prove that the phenomenon was real), the following experiment must be established: under the "satisfactory, proper, mutually agreed-upon" observing conditions we will have to walk several (at least three) times along the street being connected by wires to the numerous physical devices. At the same time, one experimentalist will torture our relative, and the other one will read the indications and conclude whether some my physiological parameters are changing. Do you understand the idea and the whole irony? Such an experiment is impossible on the variety of reasons, one of them -- morality. (We are not even discussing here the question whether the changing of the human's physiological parameters can be unambiguously linked with the presence of the paranormal force).

We have mentioned above that to explain the paranormal phenomena the particular theoretical base of the process of cognition must be developed. In Nonstatanalysis such a new base is developed using the Postulate on existence of the integrated information system (or, abbreviated -- IIS; for details see [1], [2]). According to the Postulate, 1) the particular form of information exists which includes all possible information about the experimental space (including the object investigated).

But such a new form of information: 2) already can not be regarded as a mechanical collection of the data received; 3) is described by universal both three systemic characteristics and one characteristic of its state; 4) has several universal properties; 5) obeys the Law of development, which is general for all similar systems.

The methodology of the IIS-experiment foresees the bringing of a single, separately taken phenomenon of Reality to the form of IIS. Then, according to the Postulate, the IIS{phenomenon} will behave like any other integrated information systems, having the universal properties and obeying the universal Law. The possibility to bring to the form of IIS of even one, separately taken phenomenon makes possible to use the IIS-modeling when investigating the non-replicable (or, non-statistical) phenomena. Among them are the major of rare, anomalous phenomena, psi-effect, etc. (hence the term  coins).

The "normal" consciousness-related phenomena take place when the state characteristic of the IIS{human} stays unchanged throughout the experiment. But when investigating the paranormal ones, we are dealing with the cases when the state characteristic of the IIS{human} changes to a such extent that we already cannot neglect of its change. The experiment, during which the state characteristic of the IIS{object} changes badly is called the *IIS-experiment*. Remember that to achieve the correct scientific aim during the experiment, the investigator must be the part of the experimental space -- he himself is the object of the experimentation (only in such a case an appropriate system of proofs can be used; see below in the text). Figuratively speaking, during the IIS-experiment the theorist demonstrates his "paranormal" abilities to himself (see [2], Appendix D, for a simple IIS-experiment). Therefore the investigator-theorist may safely rely upon the receiving data, because there is no sense of cheating himself. The traditional methodology of investigation (widely used, say, in Physics) when the investigator investigates some distant physical phenomenon cannot be applied in cases when the aim of our investigation is to construct the objective theory of the paranormal consciousness-related phenomena. In other words, if the method, that has been proved useful in Physics, is being applied in reference to the phenomena that by their nature differ from the physical ones, then that method cannot already be called scientific.

5. Is the existing system of proofs sufficient?

The system of proofs used in Physics is developed around the physical (material) objects and cannot be efficiently (by analogy) applied when studying the most of paranormal evanescent effects. To conduct the scientifically correct experiments in the field of consciousness studies, the principally another system of proofs is required, since we deal here with the IIS-experiments. Now then, the system of proofs which meets the requirements of the IIS-experimentation is developed in Nonstatanalysis (for the pictorial primary rendition of it see [1], Fig. 1) and is used in addition to the traditional one. We do not want to go here into much details and can only say that this system of proofs directly shows which phenomena are possible, real (albeit rare, or very unlikely), and which ones are impossible in principle. By using this system, the charlatanism may be easily determined without putting, say, the occult practitioner, under the scrupulous bench study.

In general, Nonstatanalysis was designed to give the scientists the additional tools in their efforts to explain Reality. It by no means opposes to the mainstream Science (albeit contradicts to some of its tenets), but rather augments it. Since the application of the IIS-methodology has an interdisciplinary character (it may be used in reference to various kinds of phenomena; see [1]), therefore any scientist being the specialist in his narrow field may participate in the improvement of Nonstatanalysis (see "The Open Theory Project" at http://patlavskiy.012webpages.com).

6. Is the gap between the theory and the practice immutable?

Skeptics announce: "PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration" [4]. The irony with this announcement is that in case of conducting the consciousness-related experiments with proviso the experiment has a scientifically correct aim, we are not allowed to talk about the demonstration without talking about the theory, and vice versa. From Nonstatanalysis follows that, in case of using the IIS-modeling, the change, done in the IIS-model of some physical process, can produce an influence upon the real physical process, which was modeled using the IIS-modeling. This means, first, that the traditionally known gap between the theory and the experiment disappears (cf.: the gap between the mind and body); secondly, many so called psychokinetic effects may be now satisfactorily explained; and the third, if Nonstatanalysis' conclusions are true, we are standing before the possibility of using the new and tremendously powerful means of influence upon Reality.

7. Conclusions

Other skeptics confess: "It's important to remember that as this is a scientific inquiry, a failure to successfully complete the test does not indicate that the power the challenger claims does not exist, it merely indicates that on this particular occasion it was not present, and that it remains unproved" (see [5]). We submit that experiments in the field of consciousness studies being conducted without the necessary theoretical background indicate nothing! But the question here is a valid one: why it is so necessary to prove the existence of the challenger's power? What is the big aim of proving it? What is it all for? We responsibly state that the paranormal consciousness-related phenomena do exist (and the 99.9% of people will maintain this statement), but the quite another problem is that having not got an appropriate theoretical basement for evaluation of the results obtained, we are risking not to understand and not to believe into the phenomenon's existence even in case we will ourselves be "flying under the ceiling". The case is that when some scholar-skeptic has no theory which explains the phenomenon, he will never believe in the reality of the phenomenon. You can hundred times demonstrate to him the presence of paranormal power, you may beat thousand-to-one, ten-thousands-to-one odds against a chance results, and, all the same, he will ask for a million-to-one odds against a chance result, and so on infinitesimally. At that his typical answer will be: "It does not exist because it mustn't exist according to my convictions grounded on the established meta-theory -- The Modern Scientific Picture of the World". Such is the nature of skepticism, alas!

Now then, with the advancement of Nonstatanalysis we are getting a new meta-theory which regards consciousness and the consciousness-related paranormal phenomena as the legitimate ingredients of Reality we live in. This meta-theory enables to construct an ensemble of applied theories including the theory of the complex and the consciousness-related phenomena (see [1], Figure 13). It is easy to show that without such a meta-theory (or the one similar to it), beyond the ensemble of the applied theories, the scientifically correct Theory of Consciousness cannot be constructed in principle. Therefore, the skeptics' organizations should rather make investments into theoretical investigations than for the popularizing demonstrations.

REFERENCES

1. Serge Patlavskiy, "Elaboration of the New Paradigm of Interdisciplinary Investigations", Journal of Conscientiology, Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 305-36, 1999, or at http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00003571/

2. Serge Patlavskiy, "The Key Ingredients of a Specific Interdisciplinary Approach to Consciousness" (at http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy).

3. Psi Research/Skepticism/Challenges http://www.psiresearch.net

4. James Randi Educational Foundation http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

5. Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/challenge.htm