owl

It’s not that convoluted. I remember the simple facts of the account very clearly. I tell it nearly* the same every time. (*See above footnote on that from previous post.) There are not many “moving parts” or “gray areas” for “memory distortion” to mess with. You are free to disbelieve my account, which you clearly do, but it happened exactly as said. I never said that I’ve only ever had one upset stomach. It’s true that this one coincided with his ulcer and with my mental image of him in distress, which urgently brought me “out of the wilderness” to check on his condition. It wasn’t all that funny. I just liked working a skilled trade with my hands as well as a profession with my head, so I did both... umm... not at the same time. I have never lied here. The above implies that I have. I don’t see most of my history as a mystic as relevant here. I don’t claim that my rare visions, even “cosmic visions,” lend any more credibility to my speculative cosmology than any other scientist’s (amateur or pro) envisioning process as a part of developing a cosmology.... which, btw, is not the subject of this thread anyway.

ydoaPs: It is not a complicated account. See the list of facts above. My retelling of it is always nearly* the same, and the sequence of events was exactly as I said in my account above. ... in your not-so-humble personal opinion as a very biased materialist who would not believe such an account under any circumstances... not to mention that you were not there and have no idea what I experienced... or how clear my memory of it is. The account is true exactly as I stated it. I have sorted out distorted memories with my clients throughout my career. I understand the dynamics very well. There are no distortions in my above account. I have already acknowledged the difference and presented my anecdote as personal testimony in support of consciousness acting at a distance, not as experimental evidence, which I have urged that we return to rather than making it all about me. My anecdote was specific to consciousness as a factor 'at a distance'... like entangled particles "communicating" at a distance. My "How big is God?" question at age 5 has no place here. You bring it here (and the rest of what you quoted) with intent to assassinate my character (as a mystic) whom we all know are cannon fodder for materialistic scientists to ridicule, as already evident here. I have been very candid with the above instance for a very specific purpose. You are the one dragging my mystic history into the forum for the obvious reason stated above. Yes. Even quantifying a significant degree of healing is difficult, and showing a statistically significant connection with distant healing intention (not identical with "prayer," btw) demands very rigorous experimental design. I worked my way through college as a mason's helper and then became a mason (stonemason/brick layer) and did both, masonry and psychology for many years.

You said yesterday: ... in reply to my previous reply that it happened long ago and that I have shared the account many times. This implies* that, in the meantime, I have introduced elements that are no longer an accurate description of the account. (You didn't address my questions about what you mean by "coincidence" and "suggestibility" as elements which could falsify the telepathic experience.) *I replied to that implication yesterday: Fact: I was out of communication for many days. Fact: I had eaten the same diet all those days. Fact: I got a burning sensation in my stomach and an internal visual image of my son in distress. Fact: I found him hospitalized with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer. Fact: He had had no history of ulcers or any stomach problems. Which of these simple facts do you suppose were "edited memory?" (See bolded re-statement above.) I had not intended this thread to be all about the above personal/family experience. How about the experiment list and commentary on healing at a distance linked above? I have never introduced my spiritual/mystic/visionary writings in this forum for obvious reasons. Science has an extreme disdain for this whole realm, and I have been the object of extreme ridicule in other forums in which these writings were cited, not introduced by myself. (Btw, such "visions" are extremely rare for me, not ubiquitous as Iggy suggests above.) My father's passion in life was the interface between science and the realm of consciousness, and I share that passion. He was a pioneer in demonstrations of the "power of the mind" through hypnosis, which I also used in my career as a psychologist. We did a lot of telepathy experiments with excellent positive results at home. I will not make this thread about them and make this into a feeding frenzy of ridicule. I'd like to get back to the body of experiments cited in my link yesterday, if anyone here is interested in the experimental evidence for consciousness as a force or medium of information at a distance. Edit; a correction to my statement in post 19: Turns out (having read the source material) that only 16 of those 23 were double blind trials.

On what evidence do you base your personal opinion that my memory is "heavily edited?" I told the truth as I experienced it. It wasn't complicated. I didn't forget or alter any aspect of what happened. To what "coincidence" do you refer? Simultaneous pain in the stomach? Mine with no reason and his without previous history? How do you see "suggestibility" as part of the situation?

Many years ago. Many times. The facts of the account are simple and unforgettable.

Regarding: ..."deluded by misinterpreting odd psychological experiences as psychic."... Note: The following is not presented as experimental evidence but rather merely experiential testimony in support of telepathy, or consciousness communicating at a distance. Though I am a retired psychologist, I can not speak for the multitudes who have shared anecdotes of personal telepathic experience, i.e., whether or not they are all deluded. I can, however, speak for myself from personal experience. I invite you to critique the following for how I might have been deluded by this "odd psychological experience." I had been camping for a week or so in a wilderness area far from home, way before cell phones... totally out of communication. A burning sensation began in my stomach, though my diet had been the same for a week with no problem. It got worse, very painful, in fact, and an image of my son in distress kept appearing in my visual cortex, not "seeing" him as an external presence. I finally hiked out and drove home to find that he was in the hospital with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer. There had been no previous episodes or indications of a stomach problem. How did I get that information? But, back to experimental evidence, regarding the Edzard Earnst summary of results cited abov... 57% of the most rigorously controlled 27 experiments showing statistically significant positive results... McTaggart footnotes the above as published in "Healing Research," by Benor. I have not yet checked them out, but I intend to do so, and I invite readers to do likewise. Edit; a link with sections on "Landmark Studies," "Recent Studies," and "Meta-analysis." : http://councilforhealing.org/ResearchOnHealing.html

Where to begin on specifics? McTaggart estimates that there are about 150 studies showing positive effects (more or less) of distant healing, not including demonstrations of telepathy independent of healing intention. She cites “the most cautious analysis of such results” by Edzard Earnst, “the exacting and skeptical” chair of complimentary medicine at Exeter University in Britain. Among the most “rigorously scientific “ (her words), those with double blind trials, he concluded that of 23 studies, 57% showed a statistically significant positive effect. A couple of brief statements on Edzard Earnst from Wiki: Seems that even one very rigorously controlled experiment with positive results would negate the null hypothesis, that there are no legitimate positive results. Btw, I had not intended my mention of the vast number of anecdotes for telepathic communication to be considered as experimental evidence, just a lot of testimonial support for the existence of telepathy as experience by a vast number of people, I being one among them. It's difficult to deny all of it without calling all of them liars on the assumption that it is obviously impossible.

I think that the link I gave was the whole book free for 10 minutes or so of patience for downloading. I didn't try it, since I already have the book. I know because I read the book. The parameters of "intention" were very well defined and controlled. It was "qualified" by past history resumes and recent tests in some cases, not "quantified" as if you could read a force on an ammeter, though immediate results of intention were often well documented as contrasted with control subjects or objects. So this is your "I'm superior" dodge of the question, "How do entangled particles communicate at a distance?" Then you have no need for an intelligent answer. Ref to "this"; my: It is not "quantified" except by the vast number of such accounts over a vast history from many cultures. You can call all of it lies, but that is highly unlikely and merely reflects your absolute materialist bias. To my: you reply: You are "honored" to outright deny the truth of the testimony of multitudes because you simply don't think it is possible? Moreover you, "... refuse to even hear it. It is nonsense." Period. Conclusion without a fair "hearing." Bad science! Extreme bias! I have studied "consciousness" all my life. This is not the physics section. Philosophy is permitted to ask what consciousness is and what merit ther might be in experiments on its effects, both within a "conscious" person (for self healing, for instance) and beyond, as in the disputed volume of experiments. I thought most of the volume was a record of such "evidence." Of course, if you haven't read it, you have not even considered the evidence presented. Yet you spout your vile contempt for the whole subject. Just as expected. Another arrogant, condescending insult from the rocket doctor. No comment on the substance of the argument, as always. But, of course, studies of consciousness are not real science, like in rocket science. So it is all pseudoscience. Thanks, Doc. Please don't waste your time or mine posting in this thread.

Have you read The Intention Experiment in preparation for an intelligent critique or are you just popping off with your usual expertise on everything, including consciousness studies? (A rhetorical question.)

This was a relatively small part of the many experiments in the book. Did you bother to read the book or did you just cherry pick the more easily dismissed material? Control groups were compared with groups targeted for healing intention. Significant differences were found. Read the book. What "mechanism" do you conceive for how entangled particles "communicate" at a distance?... yet they do. It "must" huh? There are a lot of recorded instances in which, when a loved one died or had a severe trauma, a relative (spouse, family member, etc.) "knew" at a distance prior to being informed by the usual means. The fact that these depend on personal testimony does not make them false or the testimony lies. Nor does science calling it all ridiculous nonsense make it so. Quite true. There is also a lot of completely closed mindedness about the whole subject by hard core materialists like you... who, as I said, "simply exclude the possibility and will not critique the experiments"... or allow that the reams of testimony might be true. Wiki on epiphenomenon:

I've got a hard copy of it so not familiar with net availability, but here is one link: http://www.firstload.com/?uniq=5324f35a7da50191&log=47382&fn=mctaggart+intention+experiment+pdf Wikipedia has surface coverage, as do other sites. Just search around for the full text.

What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? I offered two sources of scientific study of consciousness awhile back in a discussion with the Cap'n. One was Lynne McTaggart's compilation of many different experiments edited into "The Intention Experiment." I cautioned that this body of experiments is not well accepted by "peer review" from, shall I say, hard core material scientists, like the physicists on this forum. Yet I find many of them very well done experiments confirming the effect of "consciousness" as "intention" in a wide variety of situations. I also mentioned "The Journal of Consciousness Studies," which has a mix of contributors including brain phsysicians/ scientists and others more open to the possibility of consciousness as an agent of some kind of force. I will not make an opening essay of this, but I do wonder how "entangled particles" communicate with each other "at a distance" and how the many claims of "healing" by intention at a distance can all be "explained away" by physicists who simply exclude the possibility and will not critique the experiments. I suggest that "The Intention Experiment" be required reading for participation in this thread. (But I know that will not happen. It would simply make a more intelligent conversation of this thread.)

I say "both" to your first two statements. Who creates lightening? (assuming a divine agent, of course)... 'Lets call him Thor'... or whatever. Who created the world/universe?... lets call "him" god, by different names in different cultures. Then we get into all the "holy wars" (the ultimate oxymoron) over whose god is the best or 'true' god. Yes to the last statement. Usually rational people would not believe that a 'stinking' (decomposing) corpse could be brought back to life again. But "good Christians" conspire to believe the biblical story of Lazarus's resurrection by the divine power of his old friend, Jesus. (I think it's about peer pressure from the the church through the congregations.)

Interesting links. The second one is a good pseudo-scientific version of idealism; that the world is all in our heads. I think that the world is real and that "God" is a concept in our heads, and yes, religious folks do cop to that to explain what they (we) don't yet understand. Wow, I agree with Feynman on this one!

Here is an old saw along the same lines, kind of a 'chase your tail' mind game: The statement below is a lie. The statement above is true. One still wonders if earth has a "true shape" considering relativity. (No, I'm not starting in again, just wanting to have the "last word" on the subject, gaming-wise.)

About my request for civility; is that too much to ask? How about an equally sincere reply to my post? Or is it not a legitimate question? If not, why not. Does SR make knowing earth's shape impossible?

One last try, then I'll quit on it. Still trying to reconcile what we know about earth's shape (and the distance between cosmic bodies) with what we know about the constant speed of light as per SR. (I know about the experiments confirming this.) It really is a philosophical question. *If* earth has a shape all its own, independent of frames of reference and how we look at it, and *if* that shape does not change (drastically morph) then can we know that shape, as given by lots of measurements in the at rest frame with earth, or do other frames of reference actually yield equally valid descriptions, like the very oblate spheroid from a high speed frame? If the latter is true, then earth has no "true shape" and all distances between objects depend on how you look at them. The latter says that cosmos has no reality of its own, because it all depends on how we look at it. I was calling that philosophy a contemporary form of idealism. I would appreciate replies that are philosophically astute about the issue as stated, not just reiteration of the SR claim that length is not invariant or that there are no preferred frames of reference. Thanks. This is a sincere (continuing) inquiry and I hope we can keep it civil?

I am saying that reality is as it is regardless of observers. Science at its best seeks to know reality as it is. There are many ways to observe. At rest is best. All frames are not equal. But that requires philosophical perspective, a realm to bash here. An after- thought posed as a rhetorical question: How stupid do you need to be to believe that the earth changes shape or that the distance between stars (and planets to stars) depends on the observations of high speed travelers? Just asking.( Expecting more SR bs.)

How about the principle that an extreme force would be required to change earth's shape? You avoided my question yet again on your position on that. You also avoid that science *knows* perfectly well what earth's shape is... and how far it is to the sun. Relativity theory has not changed that. The justification is in the principles of experimental design, which I have repeated so many times already. An alien ship assigned to measure and describe our earth and solar system would compensate for whatever *appearance* of extreme oblateness or shortened distance to the sun, using their equivalent of the Lorentz equations, and report the usual shape of planets in general, which is nearly spherical, as earth science already well *knows.* Or, they would slow down and go into orbit for a good close examination, at rest with earth. But this is so obvious! Just a convention of philosophy... realism, idealism, fanaticism, etc. It is the meaning that counts, like the difference between believing that either earth changes shape ('solid' body that it is) or that science is incapable of knowing its shape, which is blatantly ridiculous, philosophically speaking. When you say that observation determines earth's shape, that is idealism, even if there are other quantities which do not vary. "As you have said"... being not only a "real" physicist but also an expert in philosophy, which you despise. 'Earth's shape changes depending on how you look at it' is idealism. Get over it. If wise-cracks and personal attacks could win an argument you would have it in the bag, no contest. You ignore earth science and astronomical evidence consistently to claim that earth changes shape and the distance to the sun varies. ("LENGTH IS NOT INVARIANT.") But such "evidence can't make (you) change (your) mind."

You really know how to hurt a guy's feelings. Yet you will not engage in the substance of arguments here. You are the one who reminded the forum that there are no large scale confirmations of length contraction, and you have not shown how the micro results from accelerator studies transfer to the "flattened earth" claim or the very much contracted earth-sun distance. Do you endorse the latter two claims? Do you think earth has a true shape,or does it depend on how we look at it. And how about that cat?... Both dead and alive, because mutually exclusive states are both somehow present until we open the box and check? No reality besides observation? Are you saying that math makes earth change shape? (A “philosophy of science” question.) I think we agree that earth is a semi-solid/rigid body and that “length contraction” is not a “force” that squeezes it into different shapes. Please clarify your position. Is it that we can not know its "true shape," there being no such thing as true shape, and all frames of reference yield equally valid descriptions? If observation determines reality, then however we see it is how it is? (“appears” = “is”?) If so how is this not idealism, substituting “frame of reference” for “subject.” That neither math or constant ‘c’ can make earth change shape. That leaves the option above, that we can not know its shape, all possible observed shapes being equal. This requires that one forget about earth science and astronomy... it's overwhelming pile of evidence... and forget that there is no large scale evidence for length contraction or a "bridge" between how subatomic particles *appear* in an accelerator and how earth might *appear* from a near 'c' fly-by... or that "appears" is different than "is." Other than that, sure, if LENGTH IS NOT INVARIENT, then it varies, including earths diameter and the Au. It all depends on how you look at it. My point is that this is an example of "science" unconsciously based on a contemporary form of idealism... which is a very well debunked philosophy.

"True shape" does not mean some inscrutable property which can not be known, as you imply above. It means that we are challenged to find the best way to know about its true shape. You missed the philosophical essence there. The nearly spherical earth is real too. To say that other shapes are just as "true"... is false. There are no experimental results supporting a different description of earth. And if there were, then we could wonder how it changes shape if it does actually "vary" (Not Invariant) with frames of reference. How do length contraction experimental results relate to “real-world referents” like the actual shape of earth or the actual distances between cosmic bodies? Are there no "real world referents" anymore, like “actual shape of earth” etc? Then it's all about how we observe it from here or there or at different relative velocities, you say. Many of us do not buy it and hope that soon science will do its best to describe the “real world”... and it ain’t full of extremely oblate spheroids, even if that's how it looks from a very high speed pass through.

I've answered many times, not of course "framed" in a way you consider a suitable answer from your "length is not invariant" absolute assumption about "reality," i.e., that it varies with how you look at it. It's like the old, sophomoric argument from idealism: "How do you know that the world doesn't disappear when you are not observing it?" You agreed that it doesn't cease to exist when you blink, (ridiculous, of course) but how do you know for sure? Yet we all know that reality does not depend on observation in the above case. (Don't we?) So, go from a blink to the principle that things exist independent of observation, and there is your answer. Earth, the solar system, all naturally occurring space/distance between bodies... all exists independently of observation. So science finds the best way to look at things to ensure the most accurate observation and measurement possible. For microscopic objects, that will be 'at rest with the objects' under a microscope, not flying through the lab at super high speed. Same for Earth and distance to the sun. At rest with observed object is best, and that is probably obvious to everyone who is not brainwashed by the dictum that length (shape of solid objects and distances between them) varies with how you look at it or that observation, from all frames as equal, determines reality, so reality varies with observation. This contrasts realism with idealism yet again. Well, first, it is a hypothetical effect, since no one has ever flown through the solar system, fast enough to 'see' earth as flattened. Secondly, since science already knows* earth's shape (nearly spherical), any deviation from that would be a distortion, not its true shape. *Study epistemology for how we know what we know. Lots of empirical evidence in this case, plus a-priori knowledge that it does not change shape... but minimally over eons of time. If you will review my “ontology of time” thread you will find that I am very consistent in how I represent it. Define “dimension.” As a coordinate system, whatever "scaffolding" or conceptual aid works for the math is fine. But when GR claims, as it does in all cases, that mass curves spacetime and that curvature guides objects in curved paths, this claims that spacetime is more than such a model for math, i.e., that "it is curved... etc." That is a claim about the real world... that mass curves something. Ontology challenges the existence of that "something." Please explain how you see time as nonlinear in the following context provided by Wikipedia on non nonlinear systems and on the superposition principle referenced in the former (my emphasis): wiki on the superpositional principle:

That still leaves the philosophical question, does earth have a "true shape" (intrinsic, objective, in and of itself, independent of observation and measurement?) Do you think so or not? I have never said that "objects have different shapes in different frames." I agree that objects may appear to have different shapes in different frames. Ontology examines the difference and philosophy challenges the assumptions that reality IS as IT APPEARS, granting all observations equal status for valid description and measurement. I've been doing that for a long time. Most recently, I studied the article you linked above. I still have serious sincere questions. Let’s take another look at Schrodinger’s cat from the Kenneth Chang article: Philosophically (specifically, logically), as I said, two mutually exclusive conditions (dead and alive) can not both exist at the same time. In fact, the cat is either dead or alive, not both dead and alive. Why deny the either/or and our lack of knowing which until we look? Sure, both possibilities exist until we discover which is a manifest fact. Why insist that the cat “ oscillates between life and death and only when the box is opened is its fate decided?” If the poison killed the the cat, it died then, regardless of when we opened the box and found out its condition. I don’t know what “quantum superposition” means, but one must question whether this is simply a conceptual paradox, because “clockwise” and “counterclockwise” are mutually exclusive directions, so what would “a mix of the two” mean in the real world? Is the word possibilities being confused with “actualities” as manifest phenomena? What does “a ghostly mix of the two possibilities” mean? Maybe we just imagine that our experiment has created a zombie cat, both dead and alive... " a ghostly mix of the two possibilities"... just because we really don’t know which until we check. I think Dr. Pearle nailed it saying, But those are ontological questions about “the real world”, of no interest to the “science” focus of this forum. Even if it's only in our minds... since models need no referents in the real world anymore... Spacetime might as well just be Factor X... or a rabbit pelt, right? Ok, we have been here over and over, but... We agree that "length contraction" is not a force that changes earth's rigid shape. So earth does not change shape (but trivially.) Science asked, a long time ago, 'What shape is it?" That has been answered conclusively and precisely and repetitively. You, on the other hand, have no evidence that earth does change shape, so you can not make the claim that "it varies" simply based on an unfounded dictum, "LENGTH IS NOT INVARIANT." In the real world, observation does not dictate reality, though idealist believe that it does. I have "admitted" that earth might look severely oblate if one were flying by at near 'c.' If it did, it would be an observational distortion of its true, well know, extremely well documented nearly spherical shape... which you deny based on the above shouted dictum.(My shouting here echoing yours from awhile back.) I've agreed hundreds of times that "time elapses" as things move, and often said that I can live with calling it a "dimension" as long as it is not confused with spatial axes... or made into "something" combined with space, "woven together" into that fabric... you know... Minkowski's "spacetime, a glorious non-entity." Yes, miles per hour is a common example of what we call velocity. And air traffic controllers do a good job of keeping aircraft from being in the same space at the same time. So you can quit misrepresenting my position on "time"... anytime now.

“Checked” with which authority? All these years of very good earth science and astronomy have compiled a very reliable estimate of the precise shape of earth and average distance to the sun. I only “demand” that what we (science) already knows about earth and our solar system not be discarded for an idealist-based theory with no confirming evidence... the flattened earth and contracted Au via extreme frames of observation, etc. You've told me many times that a flattened earth is just as valid as a nearly spherical earth, depending on who is looking from where and and at what velocity. Also you seem to deny that earth has a "true shape." If I'm wrong about that, please explain how. About your last statement: Three dimensions (axes) describe 3-D objects. Is that an "assumption" or a fact? I know of no 4-D objects. We can add the time factor, but that is not another spatial dimension. And Minkowski's 4-D "spacetime" is quite another subject.