"Consciousness," the missing 'unified theory' factor?

[owl]

I was disappointed in my attempt to study the 16 double blind experiments mentioned above. The link to the original medical journal account was broken. Here is all I got from the

http://wwwCouncilForHealing.com link:

 

For the 16 trials with double blinds, average effect size 0.40 (p < .001). For 10 TT (ed: therapeutic touch) studies meeting selection criteria, average effect size 0.63 (p < .003). For prayer studies effect size 0.25 (p < .009). For "other" studies average effect size 0.38 (p < .073).

 

I thought p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073 were 'significant' positive results. But now it's all about what 'significant' means, so I expect the thread to bog down once again with the discussion of the Cap 'n's material about half of all statistical results being not accurate in the first place. Apparently there are no statisticians who know how to perform accurate statistical analysis, according to his sources. I will study his material when get it.

Edited February 25, 2012 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I was disappointed in my attempt to study the 16 double blind experiments mentioned above. The link to the original medical journal account was broken.

Here is the study:

 

http://annals.ba0.biz/content/132/11/903.short

 

I thought p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073 were 'significant' positive results. But now it's all about what 'significant' means, so I expect the thread to bog down once again with the discussion of the Cap 'n's material about half of all statistical results being not accurate in the first place. Apparently there are no statisticians who know how to perform accurate statistical analysis, according to his sources. I will study his material when get it.

Please do not misrepresent me. My claim is not that statisticians are incompetent, or that their computations of p-values are inaccurate. My claim is that one should not interpret p < 0.01 as meaning "we're 99% sure of our hypothesis", because that is false; the odds of a false positive are generally large.

[owl]

Here is the study:

 

http://annals.ba0.biz/content/132/11/903.short

 

 

Please do not misrepresent me. My claim is not that statisticians are incompetent, or that their computations of p-values are inaccurate. My claim is that one should not interpret p < 0.01 as meaning "we're 99% sure of our hypothesis", because that is false; the odds of a false positive are generally large.

My last reply did not post. (No clue why.)

To reconstruct...

I copied the study. Thanks. Will study it after weekend festivities.

I did not intend to misrepresent you. Sorry if that is how you saw my comments.

I saw your blog as debunking the standard interpretation of "statistical significance." That would make statisticians incompetent and half of all results wrong in the first place, because of a standard misinterpretation of "significance."

 

Beyond that, I wonder if anyone noticed the difference between the basic investigative questions:

 

"Does everyone have 'psychic' abilities?"... and

 

"Does anyone have 'psychic' abilities?"

 

...Just to keep it a broader conversation than the most technical questions of statistical significance.

[Iggy]

Here's a free pdf of the study,

 

Distant Healing': A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

 

To buttress the captain's very good and rashly rejected blog entry, from the wikipedia article on p-values:

 

The data obtained by comparing the p-value to a significance level will yield one of two results: either the null hypothesis is rejected, or the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at that significance level (which however does not imply that the null hypothesis is true). A small p-value that indicates statistical significance does not indicate that an alternative hypothesis is ipso facto correct.

 

Despite the ubiquity of p-value tests, this particular test for statistical significance has come under heavy criticism due both to its inherent shortcomings and the potential for misinterpretation.

 

There are several common misunderstandings about p-values.[5][6]

 

1. The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true.
   
2. In fact, frequentist statistics does not, and cannot, attach probabilities to hypotheses. Comparison of Bayesian and classical approaches shows that a p-value can be very close to zero while the posterior probability of the null is very close to unity (if there is no alternative hypothesis with a large enough a priori probability and which would explain the results more easily). This is the Jeffreys–Lindley paradox.
   
3. The p-value is not the probability that a finding is "merely a fluke."
   
4. As the calculation of a p-value is based on the assumption that a finding is the product of chance alone, it patently cannot also be used to gauge the probability of that assumption being true. This is different from the real meaning which is that the p-value is the chance of obtaining such results if the null hypothesis is true.
   
5. The p-value is not the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. This error is a version of the so-called prosecutor's fallacy.
   
6. The p-value is not the probability that a replicating experiment would not yield the same conclusion.
   
7. 1 − (p-value) is not the probability of the alternative hypothesis being true (see (1)).
   
8. The significance level of the test is not determined by the p-value.
   
9. The significance level of a test is a value that should be decided upon by the agent interpreting the data before the data are viewed, and is compared against the p-value or any other statistic calculated after the test has been performed. (However, reporting a p-value is more useful than simply saying that the results were or were not significant at a given level, and allows the reader to decide for himself whether to consider the results significant.)
   
10. The p-value does not indicate the size or importance of the observed effect (compare with effect size). The two do vary together however – the larger the effect, the smaller sample size will be required to get a significant p-value.
    

 

Because, for example, over 90% of articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology during the early 1990s used significance testing, there has been a controversy and a lot of criticism in that field and other social sciences regarding its widespread use and misuse.

 

There is a particularly good article by Jacob Cohen getting into it here: The Earth Is Round (p < .05). A cherry-picked well-turned phrase:

 

What's wrong with NHST [null hypothesis significance testing]? Well, among many other things, it does not tell us what we want to know, and we so much want to know what we want to know that, out of desperation, we nevertheless believe that it does!

 

EDIT:

 

since NHST is the tool used in Distant Healing': A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials, it would be difficult to understand or discuss the one without the other.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Iggy

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's worth noting that the paradoxical results I mentioned are essentially statistical examples of the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you test 1000 hypotheses, only 1 of which is actually true, you will be overwhelmed with statistically significant false positives.

 

Bayesian statistics takes into account the "prior probability" of a hypothesis being true, and estimates how likely a hypothesis is to be true given the new evidence collected.

 

Here's an account of how statistical problems affected another study searching for psychic powers:

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Wagenmakers-Why-Psychologists-Must-Change-the-Way-They-Analyze-Their-Data.pdf

[owl]

It's worth noting that the paradoxical results I mentioned are essentially statistical examples of the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you test 1000 hypotheses, only 1 of which is actually true, you will be overwhelmed with statistically significant false positives.

 

Bayesian statistics takes into account the "prior probability" of a hypothesis being true, and estimates how likely a hypothesis is to be true given the new evidence collected.

 

Here's an account of how statistical problems affected another study searching for psychic powers:

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Wagenmakers-Why-Psychologists-Must-Change-the-Way-They-Analyze-Their-Data.pdf

On the run here. Haven't yet read your previous pdf, but took a quick look at the above.

It is about precognition, or how the future might become the present before it's actually present... looking into the future.

 

You probably already know my opinion about that "hypothesis."

Case in point: This was

"an attempt to demonstrate that future events

retroactively affect people’s responses..."

 

"...participants had to guess the future position of pictures on

a computer screen, left or right."

 

So it was a guessing game experiment.

Despite the lack of a plausible mechanistic account of precognition, Bem was able to reject the null hypothesis of no precognition in eight out of nine experiments.

 

We conclude that Bem’s p-values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.

 

Because of the sci-fi nature of the 'time travel' assumption within this guessing game, I would not believe his rejection of the null hypothesis in eight out of nine experiments either.

 

And it may well be that "psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data."

I look forward getting into the study you cited. I have not yet rejected the premise of your blog, even though it does seem to assume that most positive statistics on psi phenomena show false positives... which may be true, implying that the statiticians doing the analysis are incompetent. Could be.

 

Edit; ps:

My comment in post 97 yesterday bears repeating.

 

“Of course (ed: part of) the rigor of control is in the meaningful quantification of both intent and effect.”

 

Without meaningful quantification as above, “statistical significance” is much to do about nothing.

[owl]

Cap 'n R,

I studied the 6 pg Sterne paper you linked in depth, and I can not say that I disagree with it. The "Comparison of frequentist and bayesian approaches to statistical inference" does indeed seem to be a major improvement in statistical analysis.

 

That said, I don't know where that leaves the analysis of the 16 double blind experiments summarized above. I think it makes my summary statement even more relevant:

 

"I thought p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073 were 'significant' positive results. But now it's all about what 'significant' means,..."

 

If "statistical significance" is a bogus concept as usually applied in experimental analysis, and if anecdotal accounts of psi phenomena are scientifically "worthless," that seems to leave the whole field of study of consciousness acting at a distance dismissed as debunked... I think without a "fair trial."

 

There are, however, some unresolved issues, two of which I have already mentioned. The experimental "rigor" of the laboratory demands an abandonment of the "real life" situations in which "gifted" healers, etc. often function best, whether in altered states of consciousness, or simply in supportive environments. I think that if science would emphasize more improved methods of "field studies" out of the lab, this effect would have a better chance of documentation.

Secondly, studies of mass populations (or even large sample lab studies) for "psychic abilities" must assume some "significant" level of its prevalence in the general population. If only one out of a million have such ability, and that one is not in the population studied... well, there you have it... a very large sample with no positive results. So, "there is no such thing as psychic ability" *... a false negative for humans with such abilities.

As I said, even one indisputable case would discard that* null hypothesis. And there are hundreds, maybe thousands of demonstrated cases, but they are only anecdotal... not "real science."

 

And even the rigorous double blind experiments cited above (with p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073) are discarded because "statistical significance" is misinterpreted in general.

 

I think that anything I can propose here in reasonable support of consciousness acting at a distance will continue to be shot down, so I think I will just give it rest.

 

An after thought about my disbelief in "precognition"... "seeing the future before it happens":

(Yes, another anecdote!)

My father, on several occasions, would announce to the family that his sister, who lived over 200 miles away, was about to call on the phone. (They called each other every week or two, not on a regular schedule.) Typically, that would happen within a minute or so of the announcement. We all knew that they had an excellent psychic connection.

Once there was a much longer delay, around 10 minutes or so between the announcement and the call. Dad asked her about the delay. She laughed and said, "You are good!", and then explained that she almost lifted up the phone to call and then decided to go to the bathroom first... and then showered... before calling.

"Believe it or not." (I don't care which!)

 

Edit: Btw, this is an example of telepathy, knowing when she was thinking about calling in real time, not "precognition," just to be clear.

Edited February 27, 2012 by owl

[ydoaPs]

One would think one of the people who can actually do these things would have taken Randi up on his challenge, proved psychic powers exist, and gotten a million USD richer.

[owl]

One would think one of the people who can actually do these things would have taken Randi up on his challenge, proved psychic powers exist, and gotten a million USD richer.

One would think...

Sometimes psychic abilities depend on real life situations where there is a need or a wish for help... or a dear friendship (like the brother/sister contact above) in intimate communication. Not even looking for fame or wealth in my family's case.

 

When challenged to submit to interrogation by such an intense psychic bully as "The Amazing Randi", psi debunker extrordinaire, on the promise of the million buck (or whatever) prize... try to imagine that such a challenge would only blow my father's gift away on that occasion.

I already tried to convey how fragile his altered state of consciousness was (the "trance" as it was usually called.)

 

If a red-neck heckler could disrupt his trance (which happened), until he was removed, I'm sure The Great Debunker could totally dominate and disrupt the whole evening of otherwise peaceful demonstration with his scathing skepticism.

That would be a "no, thanks."

[qsa]

Here is my story, I have always had this gift of some kind of psychic power thing,like if somebody lost a key or something. but only occusionaly.I used to amuse myself like concentrating on peoples minds and ask them to raise their hands or something and they will do it, only when I had the proper state of mind.One time In a strange kind of mood with nothing much to eat in three days I started predicting real weired accurate stuff like the goals in soccer match to the minute and I predicted the stock market crash for a particular day. On that day the stock market lost electric power. since I told my friends about it few days before ,we had such a laugh. Years later I remembered strangely that I asked God to give me a sign few day prior to these predictions. Now, I am not that religious and never was, but I thought that was realy weired.

 

 

 

Even now with my theory were reality is created as a natural processs ,I wonder. I don't believe in extra terrestials either. I think they would spend their time better that creating us or controlling us with all the intelligence they have devoloped.

 

I got tired of such games and never engaged in them in the past 20 years. they were mind draining and nothing that great came out of them relative to any hard work.

I think it might have something to do with our evolution, were we could not communicate with vocals. and now only the reminisants of that remains. Mabe some electromagnetic brain wave or something.

Edited February 28, 2012 by qsa

[owl]

While I was "giving it a rest," as I said above, I was browsing on the subject and found an interesting article about the effect of distance on psi phenomena.

 

(Ref: The distance was over 200 miles between my father and my aunt in the above "anecdote", also a true story, to credit where due... that not all psi anecdotes are lies or various confusions about the truth.)

 

Here is the link and a couple of quotes, out of context but giving a bit of the flavor of the present state of the science of "psi." (my bold and parenthetical comments)

From "Psi and Distance: A Premature Conclusion" at:

inclusivepsychology.com

ABSTRACT: This brief article describes eight considerations that suggest that the usual conclusion that psi is independent of distance is not yet justified, given presently existing

empirical evidence.

.....(deep into the text)

This interpretation is not unlike the quantum potential, pilot wave model proposed by the late physicist David Bohm (1986, 1990), in which such a potential/wave

is present and effective everywhere with the same form (and hence, with the same efficacy in influencing quantum physical processes) even though its intensity may decline with increasing distance. In Bohm’s model, the quantum potential depends only on the form, and not in the intensity of an omnipresent quantum field, so that even a very weak quantum field can strongly affect a particle, and distance becomes irrelevant in certain

quantum interactions.

....

 

8. The psi and distance relationship is confounded with additional psychological and biological factors of an adaptive nature. Our various processes and abilities have adaptive functions; they allow us to satisfy our physical and psychological needs. It is likely that psi processes also serve

our adaptation to our physical, psychological, and social worlds. If this is so, then being psychically sensitive to things, persons, and situations close at had would be more adaptive than responding to those at great distances from us, because the former are much more likely to have

important impacts upon us. This would suggest that our psychic functioning would privilege the

“targeting” of events that are relatively near us, in space and time, over more distant spatial and

temporal events. However, this proximal (versus distal) favoring is complicated by still another

adaptive consideration—namely, the meaningfulness or psychological or biological importance,

valence, or significance of the targeted events, regardless of their distance. The personal (and

species) significance, meaning, and importance of certain individuals, objects, or circumstances

might override the nearness-favoring relationship, leading us to attend to and influence the

former even if they occur at great distances. Thus, this need-serving function of psi may interact

with its nearness-serving function, obscuring the nature of the psi-distance relationship itself

(were all other factors equal). Indeed, the interaction of these two functions may, to some extent,

account for the vagaries of psychic knowing and psychic influence and contribute to the

inconsistent results of psi experiments and reported psi experiences. (This consideration #8 is

similar to consideration #2 above. However, #2 applies to experimental studies whereas #8

applies to spontaneously occurring cases.)

 

As I've already suggested, the demands of lab experiments are often not sensitive to the sometimes fragile and often environmentally dependent nature of psi "gifts."

 

Anthropology, for instance, is much better at studying shamanism, including healing and telepathy, than any lab experiment could ever be after dragging a shaman out of his/her natural environment and demanding performance in a rigidly (i.e., "rigorously") controlled Western science lab environment... and treated as if he were a fraud until he proves otherwise. Just a bit intimidating. Maybe drastic culture shock alone can fulfill the experiments' null hypotheses by intimidation alone, however unintentional.

[qsa]

repeatability is the final word when it comes to scientific evidence. and this phenomena is exteremely poor at it.

[owl]

repeatability is the final word when it comes to scientific evidence. and this phenomena is exteremely poor at it.

Science is no longer open to the available evidence when repeatability is elevated to the "final word" about what we know and how we know it... epistemology.

 

I think its true that psi performance is much less "repeatable" in formal lab situations with strict controls than in the natural environment of meaningful real life situations in which the phenomena usually happen... more "spontaneously."

 

Those accurately anticipated phone calls were "repeated" many times, but "The Amazing Randi" wasn't there to document it. Too bad! If he had been living with us waiting for the next episode, it would not have happened anyway, for the reason I have already explained about the hostile environment created by "Psi Cops," quite a militant debunking environment.

 

Is that the fault of those with legitimate 'psi' related "gifts" or is the "fault" in the assumptions about what constitutes "the scientific method" under strict laboratory controls, which can and do run over the subject being studied like a bulldozer hell bent on debunking... whatever?

(Not a 'real' question.)

[owl]

Getting back to a comment I made back in post 62:

"But entangled particles and entangled minds are a good subject of investigation for similarities."

 

So I took look at Wiki's intros to Roger Penrose's two books on the quantum model of consciousness (my italics):

 

The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics is a 1989 book by mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose.

 

Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wave function is seen as playing an important role in brain function.

 

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness is a 1994 book by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, and serves as a followup to his 1989 book... (ed:... above.)

 

Penrose hypothesizes that:-

 

* Human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer.

* Quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness, specifically, he believes that microtubules within neurons support quantum superpositions

* The objective collapse of the quantum wavefunction of the microtubules is critical for consciousness

* The collapse in question is physical behaviour that is non algorithmic and transcends the limits of computability.

* The human mind has abilities that no Turing machine could possess because of this mechanism of non-computable physics.

 

Wiki on quantum consciousness:

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, while quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

 

A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, but that quantum theory provides the missing aspects. However, most scientists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function

Wiki on the "microtubule hypothesis":

 

Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have constructed the Orch-OR theory in which human consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules. ...

 

Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior', he says.

 

But... a big "but" (wiki, cont'd);

Since this time, however, all arguments concerning the brain being "too warm and wet" have been dispelled, as multiple "warm and wet" quantum processes have been discovered.

 

So 'the game is afoot.' I'm nowhere close to understanding the arguments for and against a quantum theory of "entangled minds," but I'm glad science is investigating consciousness on this level.

Edited March 1, 2012 by owl

[owl]

A few unresolved questions:

Given the Cap 'n's link to an article on a "comparison of frequentist and bayesian approaches to statistical inference" and his blog on how statistical significance is misinterpreted by "frequentist" statisticians, ... what would it take to get statistically meaningful positive results (rejecting the null hypothesis) in lab experiments on consciousness acting at a distance?

(Case in point: the 16 rigorously controlled double blind experiments cited above in which "p" was less than .001 for one group of experiments, less than .003 in another group, and less than .073 in a third group... the latter being marginal?)

 

Next, do any scientists here recognize the problem inherent in studying environmentally dependent phenomena in a strictly controlled lab situation? Do all here reject anthropology as a legitimate way of studying "shamanic" consciousness centered healing and telepathic phenomena?

 

Next, do all agree that thousands of anecdotes testifying to psi phenomena are "worthless" to the general body of scientific knowledge on the subject?

 

Next, does anyone here understand the difference between investigating the proposition that a significant percentage of the population has psi "gifts" vs the question, "does anyone have a psi gift?"... in which one confirmed case would negate the null hypothesis that there is no such thing?

 

Next, how about the argument against Roger Penrose that such quantum effects in the brain (in consciousness) as he is studying can only happen in an extremely cold environment?

Do they happen in "warm, wet" environments or not. If they do, the major criticism against him is debunked.

 

Finally, are these all questions that this forum prefers to ignore because the answers might lend credibility to consciousness as, at least in some cases, a non-local phenomenon?

[owl]

Regarding my last question above, I must go with a "yes."

 

Or does throwing the thread into the speculative/pseudoscience basement make sure that it goes practically unnoticed, based on the false judgment that consciousness studies are not real science, i.e., not "mainstream" enough for this forum?

[Spyman]

Maybe people simply choose to ignore you because you don't seem to listen when they tell you why you are wrong.

[swansont]

Finally, are these all questions that this forum prefers to ignore because the answers might lend credibility to consciousness as, at least in some cases, a non-local phenomenon?

 

Regarding my last question above, I must go with a "yes."

 

Even if we posit that telepathy or clairvoyance, etc. are legitimate, why does the interaction have to be nonlocal?

[owl]

Maybe people simply choose to ignore you because you don't seem to listen when they tell you why you are wrong.

I listen and still sometimes disagree with people who tell me I am wrong.

You once showed how I was wrong in how I saw gravity working in a specific cosmology. I saw the error of my thinking and gave it up. (Thanks again.)

If you have any answers to my list of unresolved questions above, I am open to listen.

 

Even if we posit that telepathy or clairvoyance, etc. are legitimate, why does the interaction have to be nonlocal?

I don't understand your question.

When I was a long way away from my son or when my father and aunt were far away from each other, as in the two anecdotes shared in this thread, I see the distance between us (and them) as the definition of a nonlocal phenomenon, i.e., consciousness acting at a distance.

 

Maybe we are using the term in different ways. Please explain.

[Spyman]

I listen and still sometimes disagree with people who tell me I am wrong.

You once showed how I was wrong in how I saw gravity working in a specific cosmology. I saw the error of my thinking and gave it up. (Thanks again.)

If you have any answers to my list of unresolved questions above, I am open to listen.

Sure but most people likely remember you from the ontology threads which didn't go so well.

 

I myself don't belive in "psi phenomenas" and are not really interested in discussing it.

 

I just accidentaly stumbled over your thread and noticed that your chain-posting had ended with you assuming that you were getting "ignored in the unnoticed speculative/pseudoscience basement" but Speculations and Religion seems to be the two most active parts of this forum, so if people don't show up here then either the subject is boring or they presuppose posting is futile.

[owl]

Sure but most people likely remember you from the ontology threads which didn't go so well.

That would be from a 'popularity contest' perspective on what this science forum is about... all those demerits and all.

I thought my ontology threads conveyed what I intended to communicate in all cases. I was not and am not concerned with how popular my threads were.

 

Still open to being "corrected" on the changing distance to the sun with the changing frame of reference from which it is observed and measured.

 

I myself don't belive in "psi phenomenas" and are not really interested in discussing it.

 

I can not imagine being less interested in what you are "really interested in discussing..." or why you posted here anyway... besides the usual personal attack angle... historically speaking.

 

I just accidentaly stumbled over your thread and noticed that your chain-posting had ended with you assuming that you were getting "ignored in the unnoticed speculative/pseudoscience basement" but Speculations and Religion seems to be the two most active parts of this forum, so if people don't show up here then either the subject is boring or they presuppose posting is futile.

 

I'm not familiar with your term, "chain-posting," but I'm sure it must be a very bad thing, in your judgment.

 

I'm glad to hear that this section is one of the "two most active parts of this forum..." I was unaware of such statistics, because I don't care.

 

This subject may be both boring and futile, depending on one's interest. I had supposed that lack of interest would screen out those not interested in the subject, like yourself.

Apparently I was "wrong" again.

 

Edit; a small confession:

 

I said, "Still open to being 'corrected' on the changing distance to the sun with the changing frame of reference from which it is observed and measured."

 

Let's call it very dry and cutting sarcasm rather than a lie.

The distance to the sun does not change with how it is observed, and only just a little ("trivially") depending on Earth's position in its elliptical orbit... to remain totally honest... just an aside.

 

Another aside, a small tip on grammar; re:

I myself don't belive in "psi phenomenas" and are not really interested in discussing it.

 

"I myself..." is not plural, as suggested in "I... are not interested...," and the plural of phenomenon is phenomena, not phenomenas. No personal offense intended.

Edited March 8, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

Sorry it took so long to respond, mid-terms and such this past week. Anywho:

I agree that they are not valid scientific experimental evidence, but calling them worthless may just reflect your particular bias. My son didn't think that my unexplained return from (lets just say) way out of normal communication range and my presence at his hospital bedside was "worthless." And it is quite a closed minded approach to science to claim that the multitudes of similar anecdotes are all attributable to liars or "cognitive biases like memory plasticity, illusory correlation, availability bias, anchoring, etc., etc., etc."

 

Yes, it reflects my bias towards non-scientific evidences being completely irrelevant in a scientific discussion. So you are saying that you being with him at the hospital had nothing to do with some other sort of contact besides your feeling? I don't think you mentioned you felt which hospital he was at in describing your feeling. The multitudes of similar anecdotes are worthless unless they are put in context with the negative anecdotes as well. There are also multitudes of anecdotes about alien abduction, witches, etc, so to say it is close minded is incorrect. If your doctor told you to start leeching yourself every night because there were a lot of people saying it helped them wouldn't you ask for evidence for and against instead of just going with it?

 

 

Here is a link to Trends in Cognitive Sciences from

Volume 5, Issue 11, 1 November 2001, Pages 472–478;

A quantum approach to visual consciousness:

http://www.sciencedi...364661300017745

Please read the abstract.

 

I read the whole paper and it says nothing concerning non-locality outside the individual's brain. When they used non-locality they used it to describe multiple neurons, not multiple brains. They also have a cause and effect as well as a mechanism for their examples, you still do not since their discussion has nothing to do with yours.

 

 

Another alternative is that most normal, everyday brain functions and sensory/perception are quite local, while those called "extrasensory" depend on altered states of consciousness... altered by a wide range of situations.

 

Much testimony of "psychics" and "healer" is that they go into a variety of 'altered states' for their results, but when tested, the test situations themselves demand that they function rationally rather than "intuitively" or whatever. This is always taken by skeptics as just a lame excuse.

When my father was demonstrating "the power of the mind" in a "trance state" before an audience* (guided in and out by my mother) his usually positive results could easily be disrupted/blocked by a heckler. Once removed, the demonstration would proceed with results unexplainable by science.

*Btw, he never charged for admission and would not accept donations. He felt that accepting money to witness his 'gift' would have "corrupted" the gift.

 

Psychics can only be psychics if people believe they are and go along with them? Why would he need to be guided if he had such 'power of the mind'?

 

No, I do not. As I already said, my stomach pain and image of my son suffering far away, simultaneously with his hospitalization with an ulcer was 'susceptible' to memory distortion. Yet I immediately told my wife what brought me back home and recorded the whole experience in my journal soon after he got out of the hospital. So, it is reasonable to assume that the chances of or extent of such distortion were minimal. (Plus my whole academic career testifies to an excellent memory... for details studied for tests, etc.)

 

First part, saying they happened simultaneously, would be impossible to prove considering the time it takes to get the call, answer, talk, know exactly when his pain start and when he was picked up. Next is just saying, "nuh-uh, I wouldn't forget something like that."

 

 

Again, I'll get back to you with a specific critique of those most rigorously controlled experiments above. If you deny the significance of a one in a million chance of occurrence "by chance," for instance, then you deny the principle of statistical significance as a whole. (Some were, as I remember, very highly significant as per statistical analysis.)

I don't believe statistical significance means what you think it means.

 

 

[Spyman]

I can not imagine being less interested in what you are "really interested in discussing..." or why you posted here anyway... besides the usual personal attack angle... historically speaking.

Ok, my point was rough and personal, I apologize for any unwanted emotions I may have caused. However you did ask why the "forum prefers to ignore" all your questions to which I replied honestly and sincerely.

 

 

That would be from a 'popularity contest' perspective on what this science forum is about... all those demerits and all.

I thought my ontology threads conveyed what I intended to communicate in all cases. I was not and am not concerned with how popular my threads were.

You really should be, if you want to take part in a community and have discussions in good spirit then you need to care about your reputation.

 

 

I'm not familiar with your term, "chain-posting," but I'm sure it must be a very bad thing, in your judgment.

I don't know the correct term for it either, I ment when one poster make several post in a row without any reply from someone else inbetween. I think it is generally frowned upon in forums but I personally don't see it as a bad thing.

 

 

I'm glad to hear that this section is one of the "two most active parts of this forum..." I was unaware of such statistics, because I don't care.

It's only my personal opinion from regularly viewing today's posts, since it clearly affects your conclusions you know it is relevant.

 

 

Another aside, a small tip on grammar; re: "I myself..." is not plural, as suggested in "I... are not interested...," and the plural of phenomenon is phenomena, not phenomenas. No personal offense intended.

A lot of members here don't have english as their first language, I am one of them and I am sure I make a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes even though I do my best to avoid them. Thank you for pointing it out, none offence taken.

 

 

This subject may be both boring and futile, depending on one's interest. I had supposed that lack of interest would screen out those not interested in the subject, like yourself.

Apparently I was "wrong" again.

I won't disrupt your thread further, I hope it turns out great for you.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Spyman

[swansont]

I don't understand your question.

When I was a long way away from my son or when my father and aunt were far away from each other, as in the two anecdotes shared in this thread, I see the distance between us (and them) as the definition of a nonlocal phenomenon, i.e., consciousness acting at a distance.

 

Maybe we are using the term in different ways. Please explain.

 

In physics parlance, nonlocal essentially means acting faster than the speed of light. Interaction at a distance is not an inherent problem as long as the signal has time to reach the target. But that does raise question of what kind of signal it is and how it could objectively be measured.

[owl]

In physics parlance, nonlocal essentially means acting faster than the speed of light. Interaction at a distance is not an inherent problem as long as the signal has time to reach the target. But that does raise question of what kind of signal it is and how it could objectively be measured.

Yes it does. Maybe the human mind/consciousness is simply very much more sensitive than any invented measuring devise to "hidden variables" like an "implicate order" or even, in the extreme realm of speculation... to an "omnipresent consciousness."

As I've said I claim no expertise in quantum physics, but I am interested in variations of it pertaining to consciousness studies such as in the works of David Bohm.

A few quotes from Wiki on Bohm's theory of non-locality... (my bold):

 

His aim was not to set out a deterministic, mechanical viewpoint, but rather to show that it was possible to attribute properties to an underlying reality, in contrast to the conventional approach.[7] He began to develop his own interpretation (De Broglie–Bohm theory)— a non-local hidden variable deterministic theory, the predictions of which agree perfectly with the nondeterministic quantum theory.

 

Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that quantum mechanics is incomplete. These theories argue against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

Albert Einstein,(ed: was the) the most famous proponent of hidden variables...

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance

 

The most famous such theory (because it gives the same answers as quantum mechanics, thus invalidating the famous theorem by von Neumann that no hidden variable theory reproducing the statistical predictions of QM is possible) is that of David Bohm. It is most commonly known as the Bohm interpretation or the Causal Interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Bohm's interpretation, the (nonlocal) quantum potential constitutes an implicate (hidden) order, and may itself be the result of yet a further implicate order (superimplicate order).[5] Nowadays Bohm's theory is considered to be one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics which give a realist interpretation, and not merely a positivistic one, to quantum-mechanical calculations. By some it is considered the simplest theory to explain the orthodox quantum mechanics formalism.[6] Nevertheless it is a hidden variable theory.

Finally, re-quoting from an earlier link here on 'action at a distance' studies:

In Bohm’s model, the quantum potential depends only on the form, and not in the intensity of an omnipresent quantum field, so that even a very weak quantum field can strongly affect a particle, and distance becomes irrelevant in certain quantum interactions.

Edited March 8, 2012 by owl