Would the Existence of Psi Be a Really Cool Thing? If so, why?

Last April I attended the Toward a Science of Consciousness conference in Tucson where I was fortunate to hear many great presentations on consciousness, from such philosophers and scientists as  David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, and many others.

There was a particularly fascinating presentation by Julia Mossbridge on a meta-analysis of presentiment experiments.  She and her co-authors analyzed a large number of experiments while testing the hypothesis of presentiment in various participants.  That is, they measured and found a physiological effect in test subjects that anticipated results for which test subjects could not have predicted.  It's similar to precognition effects in psi, except in this case the focus was on physiological responses such as electrodermal activity, pupil dilation, and heart rate.  The meta-analysis was based on 26 studies published between 1978 and 2010.  Long story short, Mossbridge and her co-authors found that there was indeed an anomalous anticipatory effect, with the odds against the result being pure chance less than 2.7 < 10.^-12  

One quick point: It's my sense that a growing percent of the audience at this conference is growing sympathetic to the evidence supporting psi.  At the conference’s closing, Stuart Hameroff, one of the co-organizers of the conference, predicted that within a few years, psi will reach mainstream acceptance.  This prediction was met by a fair amount of applause among members of the audience.

Nevertheless, after Mossbridge presented her findings, during the question and answer period that followed, Susan Blackmore (a well-known psi skeptic) made a little effort to pour some cold water on the results.  There wasn't much she could say except that her familiar argument that she couldn't replicate a ganzfeld psi effect way back when.  (She seems to argue that her inability to get significant results means we should disregard all other results for ganzfeld experiments.)

She prefaced her comments with the words "It would be great if this were true" and that's been turning around in my head since the conference.  I assume that Blackmore is referring not just to presentiment but all of psi, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and telekinesis.  And I wondered, did Blackmore really think it would be wonderful it those things were true?  Would it really be wonderful or a really cool thing if the psi evidence is confirmed.  And if so, why?

I suspect that Blackmore prefaced her comments with these words to suggest that psi advocates might be biased toward accepting their findings because that's what they want to find.  Perhaps she believes that because she takes the opposing position that she is less likely to possess some emotional attachment that is skewing her ability to look at the data objectively.  This is something I've noticed before.  Sean Carroll makes a similar point in this debate on whether our consciousness survives the death of our body.  His point that our attitude that we might wish for life to go on after death may likely prevent us from looking at the evidence objectively.

If we leave out the question of survivability (which obviously one would wish for, but the evidence is more controversial), would it really be the case it would be wonderful if psi were true?  If so, why?

I can't deny that I do want the evidence to be true, but at the same time, I don't think that that prevents me from being sufficiently sober toward the data.  After all, we're all human and we're all subject to cognitive biases.  But presumably well designed experiments should overcome that.  And no one in the audience at the Tucson conference suggested otherwise.  So bottom line --- I don't think such comments contribute much in the presence of a well-designed meta-analysis of a diverse group of studies.

Nevertheless, why is psi appealing for me?  I think for me I am drawn toward a worldview that suggests something interesting that underlies our material world.  Perhaps I find the notion that we are interconnected in ways beyond the physical world with one another (and our world) ....what?....enchanting?  Could this open the door to perhaps a more miraculous way of looking at our world?  Or open the way of a more profound sense of meaning, beyond what would be possible if the foundations of our reality were nothing more than subatomic particles?

Comments anyone?

Whatever, I think these are exciting results.  I think we will be seeing more such results.  And this could mean something exciting unfolding in our world.

My two cents, anyway.

UPDATE:  By the way, there's something I meant to add. While comments such as "this would be really wonderful" appears to suggest "too good to be true" (and therefore invites skepticism) I think another response is warranted.  After all, if there really is some reason to think that it's a good thing, that should motivate to take a closer look.  Perform more experiments.  Be more open minded.  Not dismiss out of hand (as skeptics tend to do).  If it's really the case that psi means something very wonderful or cool for our world, that should justify more (not fewer) looks at the data (while remaining as rigorous and objective as possible, of course).