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

[swansont]

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."

 

But why does it have to be nonlocal? It doesn't seem to me that this is implied or required.

 

As for the mind being sensitive to … whatever, you run into the condition of needing to be able to objectively measure a phenomenon in order to consider it scientific. If you're positing a new interaction, that's a tough uphill climb. If you're positing an existing interaction (i.e. Electromagnetic), it's a different uphill climb.

[owl]

But why does it have to be nonlocal? It doesn't seem to me that this is implied or required.[/Quote]

 

What do you mean by "...have to be nonlocal?" It's not all about lightspeed communication.

 

I don't know whether the telepathy between my son and myself... or between my father and my aunt... was instantaneous (no signal across space required) or propagated at lightspeed. At 200+ miles (or less in the case with my son) the difference was not convenient (if possible) to measure.

 

As for the mind being sensitive to … whatever, you run into the condition of needing to be able to objectively measure a phenomenon in order to consider it scientific. If you're positing a new interaction, that's a tough uphill climb. If you're positing an existing interaction (i.e. Electromagnetic), it's a different uphill climb.

 

As a materialistic scientist who considers psi to be basically b.s., I must presume, you are the one running "into the condition of needing to be able to objectively measure a phenomenon in order to consider it scientific."

 

I agree that this topic is not easily accessible presently to the methods of objective measurements with devised instruments.

 

It is not a "new interaction." The history of human life is full of telepathic and distant healing and "seeing" episodes... all "merely anecdotal." Science as we know it is in denial of all this "information"... some valid... a lot bogus sham and superstition. Anthropology is better at getting valid info on such "gifts" than extremely "rigorous" lab science... subjecting subjects to an unfamiliar environment.

 

Regarding:

'If you're positing an existing interaction (i.e. Electromagnetic), it's a different uphill climb."...

 

Your "i.e. Electromagnetic" assumes that mode of (known) transmission and denies the possibility of any unknown-as-yet "implicate order" or "hidden variables" like "god forbid!" omnipresent cosmic consciousness. (No I am not "religious!")

 

The fact that present day science can not detect telepathic communication with instruments is not a good reason to dismiss it. Very "materialistic."

 

 

Yes, it reflects my bias towards non-scientific evidences being completely irrelevant in a scientific discussion.

 

I have agreed several times that anecdotes are not experimental evidence. Yet I have insisted that they can not be ignored just fort that reason. Some are b.s. and some are not. Scientific investigation (even anthropology, a 'second class' social "science") must be open to *all* evidence and must sort out the wheat from the chaff.

 

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.

 

What? Very off the wall!... makes no sense to me... And, NO, I am not saying that... whatever it was.

 

I came directly home and told my wife what I felt and "saw" and she told me that he was in the hospital, and we went there immediately. No, I didn't "see" which hospital he was in. This is all your fabrication out of total disbelief. Btw, I do not expect you to "believe." I tell the truth of it anyway, and it was all very intense and "unforgettable," subjectively speaking.

 

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?

 

If you want to equate telepathic experiences to "alien abduction" 'experiences' to make an argument for the similarity and how crazy both accounts are...

Well, you disappoint me... and it is a false/flawed form of argument by association.

Nice touch with the crazy, gullible patient using leeches on doctor's orders.

But seriously... and yours is not a serious argument...

 

Read my post to swansont on nonlocality... no need to repeat.

 

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'?

 

So now you are an expert on how psychic gifts are all about whether suckers believe it or not. Not so, and I say this from direct experience, as related above (over and over.)

 

There was a natural symbiosis between my parents in this realm. She led him in and out of the "trance" (altered state of consciousness) and recorded what he wrote while in trance. She was also the "go between" in telepathic experiments from one room of the house to another... as one would "send images" (from a stack of magazines) and he would write down what he "saw"... one page/image at a time... like "go" and "stop" and "next magazine; next randomly (more or less) selected image.

 

The above will become 'chum' for a feeding frenzy for you "sharks" at this point, but if it becomes personally abusive (again)... I'm outta here... or I will just ignore personal abuse and converse with any real "scientists" out there.

 

First part, saying they happened simultaneously, would be impossible to prove

.

 

See my opening to swansont above.

 

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

 

See my replies to the Cap 'n's statistical blog above. So now, even a "p"= .001 or .007 is not "significant."

Now there is no such thing as a significant positive result in experiments on psi, so I've abandoned that approach.

[Ringer]

I have agreed several times that anecdotes are not experimental evidence. Yet I have insisted that they can not be ignored just fort that reason. Some are b.s. and some are not. Scientific investigation (even anthropology, a 'second class' social "science") must be open to *all* evidence and must sort out the wheat from the chaff.

 

No, science doesn't have to be open to *all* evidence, because most of the things people spout as evidence is crap. Anecdotal evidence isn't completely ignored, just when it is used as a basis for proof is it ignored. It can open the door to investigation, but after that it is all but useless due to all the things already talked about.

 

What? Very off the wall!... makes no sense to me... And, NO, I am not saying that... whatever it was.

 

You said you being at his bedside wasn't worthless to him, unless you were there due to this 'feeling' I don't see the reason you would have mentioned it. . . Unless it was an appeal to emotion which can turn into fallacy far to quick to be used in this discussion.

 

I came directly home and told my wife what I felt and "saw" and she told me that he was in the hospital, and we went there immediately. No, I didn't "see" which hospital he was in. This is all your fabrication out of total disbelief. Btw, I do not expect you to "believe." I tell the truth of it anyway, and it was all very intense and "unforgettable," subjectively speaking.

 

 

What about the time it took you to get there and back? That is plenty of time for a memory to be changed. Even the time of the phone call is more than enough for a memory to be distorted.

 

As I said, I don't know why you mentioned being at his hospital not being worthless as if you would not have been there if not for this 'feeling'. Apologies if I assumed your statement meant something more than it did, but I don't see why it was mentioned otherwise.

 

 

If you want to equate telepathic experiences to "alien abduction" 'experiences' to make an argument for the similarity and how crazy both accounts are...

Well, you disappoint me... and it is a false/flawed form of argument by association.

Nice touch with the crazy, gullible patient using leeches on doctor's orders.

But seriously... and yours is not a serious argument...

 

I do equate them both because no instance of abduction or telepathy have ever been shown to be true other than by anecdotal evidence. They both also have thousands and thousands of years of history, I include demonic abduction as well. Finally, both have been shown, by and large, to be false. Everything a psychic can do people who admit to using tricks can do just as well and people can be goaded into experiencing an abduction. Both can be explained through memory distortion, confirmation bias, and many other cognitive effects. So how are they different?

 

Doctors used leeching all the time not that long ago. The reason you believe it is crazy is because you know there isn't enough evidence to support the idea that it has any medicinal value. Was everyone who allowed their trained doctor to prescribe such a treatment crazy and gullible? I would assume they had faith that the professionals knew what they were doing. Instead of leeches let's use chiropractors.

 

Please actually address the points instead of just saying you don't like the comparison. It's not my purpose to make analogies you enjoy or agree with, these things are genuinely equivalent on many levels and it would be nice if you would actually inform me as to why they are not.

 

Read my post to swansont on nonlocality... no need to repeat.

 

As I see it using non-locality, in the sense of traveling faster than lightspeed, to explain psi answers no questions while raising hundreds and still has no experimental evidence.

 

 

So now you are an expert on how psychic gifts are all about whether suckers believe it or not. Not so, and I say this from direct experience, as related above (over and over.)

 

There was a natural symbiosis between my parents in this realm. She led him in and out of the "trance" (altered state of consciousness) and recorded what he wrote while in trance. She was also the "go between" in telepathic experiments from one room of the house to another... as one would "send images" (from a stack of magazines) and he would write down what he "saw"... one page/image at a time... like "go" and "stop" and "next magazine; next randomly (more or less) selected image.

 

No, but I don't know what your dad's 'gift' was, and assuming I knew such and assuming I knew this gift needed someone else is your mistake, not mine. I don't have psi gifts so I can't read your mind or your past to know every detail of how this game was played. I'm not an expert on any such thing, but again every ability a psychic has had has been replicated using 'tricks' and none have been able to actually show that they have 'gifts' around anything other than people who believe they are psychics anyway.

 

Was his writing not recorded? If so, why rerecord it? Again, everything you talk about can be explained by using tricks.

 

 

 

See my opening to swansont above.

 

Then you admit you aren't sure of how much time passed between the actual incident and your feeling?

 

 

 

[swansont]

What do you mean by "...have to be nonlocal?" It's not all about lightspeed communication.

 

I don't know whether the telepathy between my son and myself... or between my father and my aunt... was instantaneous (no signal across space required) or propagated at lightspeed. At 200+ miles (or less in the case with my son) the difference was not convenient (if possible) to measure.

 

Right. So there is no reason, for someone proposing psi to be real, to take on the additional burden of it being nonlocal (in the physics sense).

 

As a materialistic scientist who considers psi to be basically b.s., I must presume, you are the one running "into the condition of needing to be able to objectively measure a phenomenon in order to consider it scientific."

 

Not at all. I don't have to measure anything. Anyone who contends that psi is real is the one who shoulders the burden of proof.

[owl]

Right. So there is no reason, for someone proposing psi to be real, to take on the additional burden of it being nonlocal (in the physics sense). [/Quote]

 

Correct, "in the physics sense" as you see it as a physicist. How about in the sense as David Bohm saw it as referenced in the links/quotes I cited?

 

Whether telepathy is instantaneous, as per say "transpersonal" consciousness "knowing," transcending 'signal delay'... or not... I am more interested in scientific validation of telepathy (and psi in general) than in that specific speed- of- transmission question.

 

Not at all. I don't have to measure anything. Anyone who contends that psi is real is the one who shoulders the burden of proof.

 

Well, if you throw out all experimental evidence based on "statistical significance" (the usual protocol) as a debunked concept, as the Cap 'n has argued,...

 

And you throw out all anecdotal accounts as "worthless," as if sorting out the 'wheat from the chaff' is impossible...

assuming that even very good anthropological studies are not 'real science' (mere social science, not physics, the only real science)...

 

Then demand "proof" without using either of those tools of science...

Not much of a "fair fight" with both hands tied behind my back (i.e., the collective 'back' of psi investigation.)

 

Ringer,

Most of what I just said to swansont also applies as a reply to you... to avoid a bunch of repetition.

I repeat, "yours is not a serious argument."

As to your dismissal of all anecdotes as worthless, I repeat, just for you:

"Scientific investigation (even anthropology, a 'second class' social "science") must be open to *all* evidence and must sort out the wheat from the chaff."

 

As to my memory of the event with my son...

You keep hammering on the fallibility of memory, to which I have already agreed as a psychological principle in general. Yet I insist that I have always had an excellent memory and do have a very clear memory of the very simple sequence of events in question... and a journal record of the event soon after it happened, which is the same account as I have shared here in all relevant details.

 

Then you hammer on against the "worth" of my being at his hospital bedside... quite a peripheral issue.

 

As I said, I don't know why you mentioned being at his hospital not being worthless as if you would not have been there if not for this 'feeling'. Apologies if I assumed your statement meant something more than it did, but I don't see why it was mentioned otherwise.

 

I mentioned it in reply to your general assertion that anecdotes are worthless, as if what actually happens to real people doesn't matter if science can not prove it in a lab experiment.

 

To recap: My "feeling" was a painful burning in my stomach while deep in a wilderness, totally out of communication-as-we-know-it. My "mental picture" accompanying this sensation was of him in severe distress. That combination brought me home, where I found out that he was hospitalized. I went immediately to his bedside, which he very much appreciated. I would not have been home for another few days without the "prompt" by no known means of communication. Therein lies the "worth."

[swansont]

Correct, "in the physics sense" as you see it as a physicist. How about in the sense as David Bohm saw it as referenced in the links/quotes I cited?

 

Whether telepathy is instantaneous, as per say "transpersonal" consciousness "knowing," transcending 'signal delay'... or not... I am more interested in scientific validation of telepathy (and psi in general) than in that specific speed- of- transmission question.

 

The Bohm interpretation, like any other QM interpretation, is not actually science — there's no way to test (most of) it.

 

 

Well, if you throw out all experimental evidence based on "statistical significance" (the usual protocol) as a debunked concept, as the Cap 'n has argued,...

 

And you throw out all anecdotal accounts as "worthless," as if sorting out the 'wheat from the chaff' is impossible...

assuming that even very good anthropological studies are not 'real science' (mere social science, not physics, the only real science)...

 

Then demand "proof" without using either of those tools of science...

Not much of a "fair fight" with both hands tied behind my back (i.e., the collective 'back' of psi investigation.)

 

I think the bottom line here is that you cannot present any set of "statistically significant" positive results without consideration for all of the negative results, because you expect some number of false positives. This is why you occasionally see an "eating dirt is good for you" medical story, because statistically speaking you will get the occasional positive result. Further skewing this is that negative results usually don't get published, because they are "as expected".

 

In some sense it's not a fair fight, but it's not supposed to be. Any given hypothesis does not have an equal chance of being right, only nature gets to decide that. But the process is fair, because all hypotheses go through it. But, as they say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, if you throw out all experimental evidence based on "statistical significance" (the usual protocol) as a debunked concept, as the Cap 'n has argued,...

That's not my point. Statistical significance is not worthless; it is misunderstood and misused. In the evaluation of "psychic" phenomena, it is of limited use, because of the constraints you have imposed. We must test many individuals to find those with "true" psychic abilities -- but because of the inevitability of false positives when one tests hundreds of people, we must have a procedure to separate the "real" psychics from the false positives. (False positives are guaranteed to happen simply by chance -- someone guesses the right answers more often than you'd expect.) But then you say that psychic phenomena are not always repeatable and reliable, as they depend on the environment and many other factors. So if someone passed the preliminary tests and failed your second test, you can't say they're not really psychic, since perhaps some environmental factor changed.

 

This makes it very, very difficult to evaluate psychic phenomena statistically. First we must test hundreds of individuals, some of whom are guaranteed to get lucky and appear to be psychic; then we must test those with apparent psychic powers to establish their veracity, when the powers come and go at random.

 

Perhaps the most convincing evidence you could present is a psychic who could consistently and repeatedly demonstrate their abilities under controlled experiments, since that would convincingly rule out a false positive. I haven't yet seen that done.

 

The perils of psychic research are best demonstrated by Project Alpha:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

[owl]

Before I get to 'new business' ... a piece of unanswered trivia from Ringer's challenge (which I forgot to address):

 

Was his writing not recorded? If so, why rerecord it? Again, everything you talk about can be explained by using tricks.

 

(This is a small case of "NIGYSOB" from an old book by Eric Bern, "The Games People Play"; one game being, "Now I've got you, S.O.B!")

I said in post 127:

There was a natural symbiosis between my parents in this realm. She led him in and out of the "trance" (altered state of consciousness) and recorded what he wrote while in trance.

 

He "wrote" using a small first grade teaching aid, an alphabet board, on the table in front of him, pointing to the letters while he was in deep trance, which was easier in his altered state than actually "writing." My mother "wrote" down the letters he indicated, transcribing what he spelled out that he was "seeing"... the images being 'sent' from another room.

 

You also requested that I, "Please actually address the points instead of just saying you don't like the comparison."

 

I intentionally refuse the request for the reason already mentioned... the so called 'guilt by association' bogus argument comparing crazy crap to legitimate* study of consciousness acting at a distance. (*Whether or not, in your personal opinion, such studies are "legitimate," which, on my scale of caring, rates exactly zero.)

 

Back after I study the "Project Alpha" link.

Edited March 9, 2012 by owl

[owl]

That's not my point. Statistical significance is not worthless; it is misunderstood and misused. In the evaluation of "psychic" phenomena, it is of limited use, because of the constraints you have imposed. We must test many individuals to find those with "true" psychic abilities -- but because of the inevitability of false positives when one tests hundreds of people, we must have a procedure to separate the "real" psychics from the false positives. (False positives are guaranteed to happen simply by chance -- someone guesses the right answers more often than you'd expect.) But then you say that psychic phenomena are not always repeatable and reliable, as they depend on the environment and many other factors. So if someone passed the preliminary tests and failed your second test, you can't say they're not really psychic, since perhaps some environmental factor changed.

 

This makes it very, very difficult to evaluate psychic phenomena statistically. First we must test hundreds of individuals, some of whom are guaranteed to get lucky and appear to be psychic; then we must test those with apparent psychic powers to establish their veracity, when the powers come and go at random.

 

Perhaps the most convincing evidence you could present is a psychic who could consistently and repeatedly demonstrate their abilities under controlled experiments, since that would convincingly rule out a false positive. I haven't yet seen that done.

 

The perils of psychic research are best demonstrated by Project Alpha:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

I read the link, and yes, I agree that fakery is rampant in the psi field. I also agree with the gist of what you said above, and that it is a very difficult field to study for all the reasons you gave.

As to your last paragraph, the only psychic I knew who fit that description for sure was my father, and his example is not going to change the world of psi investigation.

I will, however, go out on a limb and describe a well controlled telepathy experiment (to which I referred above in reply to Ringer) which we did at home when I was about 12 yrs old.

First, there was no "audience" to impress for this experiment.

My father would sit in the living room in front of a table with an alphabet board (mentioned in last post) in front of him. He would sit still for a half hour or so starting with a neck and shoulder massage by my mother for deep relaxation.

 

I would sit in my bedroom by the closed door with a pile of magazines which Dad had never seen (borrowed from a neighbor) at my feet. At Mother's signal, (a "go" knock on the door), I would pick up a mag and flip through until I found an interesting image, then knock back with my "ready" signal.

She would go back to Dad and and say, "ready." He would sit until he "picked up an image" and then spell it out on the board as Mom recorded each letter of what he 'saw.'

 

We did ten trials, and he got nine of them unquestionably correct. I count the tenth as a "hit" too though, and I will explain why.

I was "sending" an advertised image of a "Fab" soapbox. (Ok, not that "interesting" an image, but anyway...)

He got a soapbox all right but he 'saw' it as a "Felsnaptha" box. His debriefing report afterwards was that he had seen a soapbox with a label starting with "F", asked himself consciously what soap started with "F" and immediately spelled out the above, a soap used in his childhood home.

 

This experiment was a case where there was no question about his accuracy or any need for statistical analysis. All images were common objects like a horse, a sailboat, a diamond ring, etc.

 

You can see why telepathy is a reality for me, as it remained much later in life between my son and myself, as related in this thread. There have been other such episodes in my life as well, but the above should suffice for my testimony.

[Ringer]

So, to summarize, you refuse to answer me although I gave, what I believe to be, very good reasons my analogies were suitable and you refuse to acknowledge them, you misrepresent the statistics argument, you dance around the non-locality issue, you seem to add more to your stories every time you post something new, you use QM terminology without acknowledging what the terms actually mean, and, here's the kicker, you want us to believe in telepathy because of a trick you believed when you were 12?

 

Yeah, I think I'm done with this.

[owl]

So, to summarize, you refuse to answer me although I gave, what I believe to be, very good reasons my analogies were suitable and you refuse to acknowledge them, you misrepresent the statistics argument, you dance around the non-locality issue, you seem to add more to your stories every time you post something new, you use QM terminology without acknowledging what the terms actually mean, and, here's the kicker, you want us to believe in telepathy because of a trick you believed when you were 12?

 

Yeah, I think I'm done with this.

I'm very glad to hear that you are done with it, because you have misrepresented me on all counts.

You "believe" that your "analogies" with a bunch of crackpot crap were "suitable." Again, "guilt by association" is no argument, and there is a large body of scientific *investigation*(results still being debated) of consciousness acting at a distance by well credentialed scientists (besides the crackpots and fakers.) Not so for your crazy examples.

 

I acknowledged Cap 'n R's statistical argument and asked what it would take to throw out the null hypothesis in cases of psi experiments with extremely good probabilities like a "p" of .001 or .007. (Assuming you have read that exchange.)

 

I was using "non-local" in the sense of consciousness itself being a non-local phenomenon, not in the very limited sense used in physics, as swansont argued. In this sense, consciousness acting at a distance is non-local whether or not it is instantaneous or limited to lightspeed. This is a peripheral issue compared to the more general investigation.

 

I know the essence (not the math) of David Bohm's argument from QM, and his "hidden variables" or "implicate order" theory has not been debunked. Neither has Roger Penrose's theory of QM in a "wet warm environment" like the brain. (I know this is a 'within the brain' argument, not about transpersonal telepathic communication.)

 

I "added" another story in reply to the Cap 'n's comment about the rarity of finding a really good, well demonstrated instance of psi.

It was a well controlled experiment on telepathy done in our home as a private investigation with no audience present... not "trick I believed." And it scored 10 "hits" out of 10 trials... if you count the wrong brand of soap, both starting with an "F" as a hit, which I do.

Again, I have no expectation that you "believe" the above. I just told it as it happened, and the record is still extant (somewhere)... not dependent on my memory of the experiment.

[Ringer]

I'm very glad to hear that you are done with it, because you have misrepresented me on all counts.

You "believe" that your "analogies" with a bunch of crackpot crap were "suitable." Again, "guilt by association" is no argument, and there is a large body of scientific *investigation*(results still being debated) of consciousness acting at a distance by well credentialed scientists (besides the crackpots and fakers.) Not so for your crazy examples.

 

So do you admit that the thousands of years of anecdotal evidence is worthless in regards to alien abduction? If so what happened to this?

 

. . . 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 . . .

. . . thousands of anecdotes testifying to psi phenomena are "worthless" to the general body of scientific knowledge on the subject? . . .

. . .and consciousness 'acting at a distance' as per a huge body of anecdotal accounts . . .

. . . 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." . . .

 

And all the other arguing you did over not being able to discount huge bodies of anecdotes.

 

 

I acknowledged Cap 'n R's statistical argument and asked what it would take to throw out the null hypothesis in cases of psi experiments with extremely good probabilities like a "p" of .001 or .007. (Assuming you have read that exchange.)

 

You can never really 'throw out' a null hypothesis, but a few positive results, that have problems with sample size and such, within a fairly large body of negative results, not to mention the huge body of non-published negative results, show nothing but regular variation expected when taking tests. Consistent positive results would be a good way to help support psi, but as you have admitted psi doesn't work consistently.

 

And this still doesn't negate the fact you have been consistently misrepresenting Cap's argument. Else, why would he be consistently repeating the same thing over and over.

 

I was using "non-local" in the sense of consciousness itself being a non-local phenomenon, not in the very limited sense used in physics, as swansont argued. In this sense, consciousness acting at a distance is non-local whether or not it is instantaneous or limited to lightspeed. This is a peripheral issue compared to the more general investigation.

 

So you use your own definition of non-local. . . That sounds like dancing around the issue to me.

 

I know the essence (not the math) of David Bohm's argument from QM, and his "hidden variables" or "implicate order" theory has not been debunked. Neither has Roger Penrose's theory of QM in a "wet warm environment" like the brain. (I know this is a 'within the brain' argument, not about transpersonal telepathic communication.)

 

Even if everything these people said is true it does nothing to support your conclusions of psi.

 

I "added" another story in reply to the Cap 'n's comment about the rarity of finding a really good, well demonstrated instance of psi.

It was a well controlled experiment on telepathy done in our home as a private investigation with no audience present... not "trick I believed." And it scored 10 "hits" out of 10 trials... if you count the wrong brand of soap, both starting with an "F" as a hit, which I do.

Again, I have no expectation that you "believe" the above. I just told it as it happened, and the record is still extant (somewhere)... not dependent on my memory of the experiment.

 

So you want us to accept an anecdote of a trick from when you were twelve as a well controlled scientific experiment?

 

So where did I misrepresent you again?

[owl]

So do you admit that the thousands of years of anecdotal evidence is worthless in regards to alien abduction? If so what happened to this?[/Quote]

 

First, you really disappoint me by changing your mind about going away. You are clearly here to harass me, out of your prejudice against the whole realm of "psi" investigation... or specifically, the question, "What is consciousness and how does it communicate at a distance?... if it does... no "if" about it in my experience, 'anecdotal' as it is.

 

... selected cherry picking quotes out of context... interested readers can check it out...

 

And all the other arguing you did over not being able to discount huge bodies of anecdotes.

 

You ignore everything I said about anthropology as better equipped than physics to investigate this realm of experience.

We can "sift the wheat from the chaff" through very good investigation of these claims (or reputations) *in the field*... not just in the laboratory. But, of course, anthropology is only a "social science," not a real science like physics. (Good grief! the elitism of physics is astounding!)

 

You can never really 'throw out' a null hypothesis, but a few positive results, that have problems with sample size and such, within a fairly large body of negative results, not to mention the huge body of non-published negative results, show nothing but regular variation expected when taking tests. Consistent positive results would be a good way to help support psi, but as you have admitted psi doesn't work consistently.

 

Yes, you can "really throw out a null hypothesis." That is why they are stated as specifically as possible before the experiment. The most general null hypothesis in this discussion is something like, "Psi phenomena do not exist."

One example of its existence, like my family's private experiment, "throws out" the above null hypothesis.

 

The only question left is one of credentials and sanctions and "peer review" and getting the experiment published in a respected scientific journal... and, of course, the all important, becoming popular, like here on this forum.

 

And this still doesn't negate the fact you have been consistently misrepresenting Cap's argument. Else, why would he be consistently repeating the same thing over and over.

 

One reason might be that he has just exposed a major flaw in how statistics is done, which challenges all statistical analysis, including (but somehow, especialy) psi related statistics, even the ones with extremely high probability (very low "p.")

 

So you use your own definition of non-local. . . That sounds like dancing around the issue to me.

 

Who cares what it sounds like to you. You think psi phenomena are impossible, like "The Amazing Randi." You are clearly biased against all possible testimony and experimental evidence, and apparently dedicating to eradicating all those liers and superstitious idiots and who believe or have experienced it.

It was not "my own definition of non-local." You hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest. David Bohm's theory is non-local in the same way I use the term as applied to consciousness.

 

Even if everything these people said is true it does nothing to support your conclusions of psi.

 

Both Penrose and Bohm have a focus into the same investigation, the subject of this thread. The fact that you don't get it does not supprise me.

 

So you want us to accept an anecdote of a trick from when you were twelve as a well controlled scientific experiment?...And all the other arguing you did over not being able to discount huge bodies of anecdotes.

 

Didn't I cover this already? See..., it was not a trick. It was in fact a very well controlled experiment (not observed or sanctioned by the scientific community.) But I am repeating. You clearly think I am a liar. That is not an argument in favor of your extreme prejudice.

 

Still hoping you give up the harassment and go away.

[Ringer]

First, you really disappoint me by changing your mind about going away. You are clearly here to harass me, out of your prejudice against the whole realm of "psi" investigation... or specifically, the question, "What is consciousness and how does it communicate at a distance?... if it does... no "if" about it in my experience, 'anecdotal' as it is.

 

Darn, and here I was hoping beyond hope that I could acquire your approval.

 

... selected cherry picking quotes out of context... interested readers can check it out...

 

Indeed they can, and see every one was you being angry about everyone telling you that anecdotal evidence means nothing.

 

You ignore everything I said about anthropology as better equipped than physics to investigate this realm of experience.

We can "sift the wheat from the chaff" through very good investigation of these claims (or reputations) *in the field*... not just in the laboratory. But, of course, anthropology is only a "social science," not a real science like physics. (Good grief! the elitism of physics is astounding!)

 

Because everything you said about anthropology being better equipped works for alien abductions as well, mainly because neither of them is better investigated by anthropology. Anthropology studies people and societies, not any sort of cognition, QM, or anything discussed in this thread other than people believing in supernatural phenomena. You clearly believe QM may be able to explain psi, yet you keep saying physics shouldn't be used to investigate it. Don't you see the inconsistency?

 

 

Yes, you can "really throw out a null hypothesis." That is why they are stated as specifically as possible before the experiment. The most general null hypothesis in this discussion is something like, "Psi phenomena do not exist."

One example of its existence, like my family's private experiment, "throws out" the above null hypothesis.

 

No, null hypothesis can either be supported by evidence or unsupported but never completely disproved. Since it can't be utterly disproved it can never, technically, be thrown out.

 

The only question left is one of credentials and sanctions and "peer review" and getting the experiment published in a respected scientific journal... and, of course, the all important, becoming popular, like here on this forum.

 

Yes, it's about popularity. That's why so many scientists agree on so many things, it's because all of them only accept what is already accepted. All these acts about further studies are complete rubbish because we all know what will be published.

 

Do you seriously believe the people on this forum are telling you you're wrong because you're unpopular? Isn't it more likely that people here, who, for the most part, have no connection other than being members, are from various different specialties and fields, and have little to no interaction outside this forum, are telling you you're wrong because you are unpopular? Wouldn't it be more likely if we were just trying to team up on you to be hateful the amount of people posting would increase as time went on? Personally I would assume if the amount of people who posted dwindled down during the discussion before being even close to resolved is because the person arguing refuses to listen and is just being stubborn.

 

Seriously, isn't it more probable that we are saying the things we are because you are mistaken about something. Even if you began with good points they have been lost in your inability to actually even take a second to think you could be mistaken in any part of your argument. As soon as someone points something out you immediately either misrepresent the argument to make them sound ridiculous or assume it's a personal attack. Even when you accepted that Cap's statement on statistical significance you continue to misrepresent what the meaning of it was.

 

 

One reason might be that he has just exposed a major flaw in how statistics is done, which challenges all statistical analysis, including (but somehow, especialy) psi related statistics, even the ones with extremely high probability (very low "p.")

 

At this point I really don't know if you're purposefully misrepresenting this or you honestly can't, or won't, understand what statistical analysis of a phenomena includes and needs in order to be established as having good supporting evidence. If what you say about your IQ and academic career are true I am honestly flabbergasted as to how you still misunderstand this sort of thing.

 

On a side note, I never thought I would have used flabbergasted. ..

 

Who cares what it sounds like to you. You think psi phenomena are impossible, like "The Amazing Randi." You are clearly biased against all possible testimony and experimental evidence, and apparently dedicating to eradicating all those liers and superstitious idiots and who believe or have experienced it.

 

I have no problems with superstitions and actually have a few that I still follow. Nor am I dedicated to any sort of eradication. I didn't go out of my way to search for this thread or its subject matter. You posted it to talk about it which is what we have all done. To get angry at people for an honest discussion of a topic you asked for an honest discussion on is beyond asinine.

 

It was not "my own definition of non-local." You hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest. David Bohm's theory is non-local in the same way I use the term as applied to consciousness.

 

I would be pretty confident that Bohm, a fairly famous physicist, uses the same physics definition as Swansont, another physicist.

 

Both Penrose and Bohm have a focus into the same investigation, the subject of this thread. The fact that you don't get it does not supprise me.

 

I'm sorry if their ideas are too much for me, perhaps you could simplify it for me?

 

As I see it Penrose believed consciousness didn't necessarily need to be simplified in an algorithmic fashion, but it still followed deterministic laws. The ideas of which use certain QM phenomena inside the neurons, or groups of neurons, to explain the seeming holistic experience of consciousness.

 

Bohm's ideas of a multidimensional holograph inside the brain that stores memories and experiences has no experimental evidence that I am aware of. Neither does his ideas of the brain relying through different muscular contractions of sets of target contractions on prior 'memory' through this dimensional holograph. Although memory is helped by something similar it does not 'rely' on it.

 

Didn't I cover this already? See..., it was not a trick. It was in fact a very well controlled experiment (not observed or sanctioned by the scientific community.) But I am repeating. You clearly think I am a liar. That is not an argument in favor of your extreme prejudice.

 

I don't see how this was a well controlled experiment. If it was well controlled, what was the control group?

 

I never said you were a liar, I specifically said you believed the trick. I am saying your parents tricked you, maybe not in a way that was harmful but a trick none the less.

 

Still hoping you give up the harassment and go away.

 

How have I harassed you? I am merely doing what people do on a discussion forum, discuss.

[owl]

Ringer,

I showed how you misrepresented me, point by point, in post 136. None of your extensive arm waving has addressed those points.

 

Indeed they can, and see every one was you being angry about everyone telling you that anecdotal evidence means nothing.

 

First, you flatter yourself assuming the power to make me angry. I've explained repeatedly the difference as I see it between field studies of consciousness (including phenomena of shamanic healing and verified telepathic accounts, agreed upon by more than one party... unlike "abduction" accounts, etc.) and the tons of unverified crap you mention.

I will not keep repeating, just because you can not hear it.

 

You clearly believe QM may be able to explain psi, yet you keep saying physics shouldn't be used to investigate it. Don't you see the inconsistency?

 

I never said physics shouldn't be used to investigate it. This alone shows how you distort what I say. I have repeatedly acknowledged that QM is a legitimate focus in the investigation of consciousness, both within the brain, as per Penrose's studies, the primary criticism of which has apparently been debunked... as I have detailed... and beyond the brain, as per Bohm's theory of the non-locality of consciousness in the context of an omnipresent "implicate order" involving "hidden variables."

 

No, null hypothesis can either be supported by evidence or unsupported but never completely disproved. Since it can't be utterly disproved it can never, technically, be thrown out.

 

"Technically?" I will repeat, If the null hypothesis is "Psi phenomena do not exist," and someone unmistakeably demonstrates 10 hits out of 10 trials in a telepathy experiment (which my father did), then the null hypothesis is wrong and must be discarded.

Your calling it a "trick" after my detailed account just demonstrates that you will not believe any evidence for psi.

 

Yes, it's about popularity.

... blah, blah, blah...

 

No self respecting scientist would appeal to popularity as a factor in support of an argument. The history of science is full of unpopular theories which turned out to be true. Nuff said on that.

You say:

 

At this point I really don't know if you're purposefully misrepresenting this or you honestly can't, or won't, understand what statistical analysis of a phenomena includes and needs in order to be established as having good supporting evidence.

 

On the statistics issue, you really need to study what Cap 'n R said on it and how I replied.

On 3/9 he wrote (my bold):

 

...In the evaluation of "psychic" phenomena, it is of limited use, because of the constraints you have imposed. We must test many individuals to find those with "true" psychic abilities -- but because of the inevitability of false positives when one tests hundreds of people, we must have a procedure to separate the "real" psychics from the false positives. (False positives are guaranteed to happen simply by chance -- someone guesses the right answers more often than you'd expect.) But then you say that psychic phenomena are not always repeatable and reliable, as they depend on the environment and many other factors. So if someone passed the preliminary tests and failed your second test, you can't say they're not really psychic, since perhaps some environmental factor changed.

 

This makes it very, very difficult to evaluate psychic phenomena statistically. First we must test hundreds of individuals, some of whom are guaranteed to get lucky and appear to be psychic; then we must test those with apparent psychic powers to establish their veracity, when the powers come and go at random.

 

Perhaps the most convincing evidence you could present is a psychic who could consistently and repeatedly demonstrate their abilities under controlled experiments, since that would convincingly rule out a false positive. I haven't yet seen that done.

 

I agreed with the above entirely and related our Mom and Pop (and me) telepathy experiment (not a trick) as "the most convincing evidence (I) can present."

 

The "difficulty of evaluating psychic phenomena statistically" does not invalidate the phenomena. It just makes it an extremely challenging field. And we have no instruments which can detect consciousness or its content "at a distance" so all evidence there lies in verification of the claims.

 

Finally, you say:

I don't see how this was a well controlled experiment. If it was well controlled, what was the control group?

 

I never said you were a liar, I specifically said you believed the trick. I am saying your parents tricked you, maybe not in a way that was harmful but a trick none the less.

 

You seem to have a very narrow idea of what a well controlled experiment is. I already explained the controls in detail, and we were not comparing one group with another.

I also told you that this experiment had no audience for whom to perform a "trick." It should go without saying that my parents were honest people, not tricksters trying to fool me, the implication of which is quite offensive to me and my family.

 

This is an afterthought for those who may be following this thread... not directed to Ringer, (except for a demand for an apology below) as I care not in the least about his very biased opinion and grasping at straws to discredit the whole field and specifically the last experiment discussed.

 

About the opinion that my parents "tricked" me:

This should have been obvious from my details about the experimental controls. I was the "sender" behind my closed bedroom door. I was the one who verified Dad's accuracy in describing the ten images "sent" after it was over. Also, I had 'dog-eared' the pages containing the image sent in each of the ten cases. There was, therefore, no way I could have been "tricked" by some ill-conceived and sinister conspiracy to deceive me on their part. In fact such an accusation requires an apology for his character assassination of my parents' integrity.

I will not hold my breath, given the nasty nature of his attacks against me and my parents. (Not worthy of a serious science forum.)

Edited March 14, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

Ringer,

I showed how you misrepresented me, point by point, in post 136. None of your extensive arm waving has addressed those points.

 

I thought I did, what about my reply didn't address that my post wasn't a misrepresentation?

 

 

First, you flatter yourself assuming the power to make me angry. I've explained repeatedly the difference as I see it between field studies of consciousness (including phenomena of shamanic healing and verified telepathic accounts, agreed upon by more than one party... unlike "abduction" accounts, etc.) and the tons of unverified crap you mention.

 

You seemed irritated in those post, if I was mistaken in that I apologize. But I couldn't care less if I had any emotional effect on you. As to you calling what I mention unverified crap; Chiropractic practitioners have positive result studies as well, and I said I would use that example instead of leaches, so why is it so far off. Why can't I use that analogy instead?

 

I used alien abduction as an example of having a huge amount of anecdotal evidence while still being false. I didn't say they were exactly the same, only that they were comparable if anecdotes were taken into account. Not to make the entirety of psi look ridiculous by comparison, only to address your claim that using anecdotes was legitimate. If it makes you feel better I will use alien sightings instead (including UFO, crop circles, etc).

 

 

I don't see why you keep addressing my analogies and calling them ridiculous instead of actually making points as to why they are ridiculous.

 

I will not keep repeating, just because you can not hear it.

 

I do hear it, it is just extremely unsatisfactory.

 

I never said physics shouldn't be used to investigate it. This alone shows how you distort what I say. I have repeatedly acknowledged that QM is a legitimate focus in the investigation of consciousness, both within the brain, as per Penrose's studies, the primary criticism of which has apparently been debunked... as I have detailed... and beyond the brain, as per Bohm's theory of the non-locality of consciousness in the context of an omnipresent "implicate order" involving "hidden variables."

 

You have said repeatedly anthropology was better suited to explore the phenomena than physics, sorry if my wording came off as a distortion, but when you are using QM to explain something you can't go on to say that the people who study QM are not as suited to explore it as people who have probably never taken a QM course in their entire life.

 

These people theories only speak of an individuals consciousness, so again I say that even if both of them are entirely correct it does nothing to explain psi.

 

 

"Technically?" I will repeat, If the null hypothesis is "Psi phenomena do not exist," and someone unmistakeably demonstrates 10 hits out of 10 trials in a telepathy experiment (which my father did), then the null hypothesis is wrong and must be discarded.

Your calling it a "trick" after my detailed account just demonstrates that you will not believe any evidence for psi.

 

No, evidence did not support the null hypothesis. What if further evidence in later experiments supported the null hypothesis, if it was already discarded how will the evidence be explained?

 

Just because I don't accept an anecdote doesn't mean I won't accept any evidence.

 

... blah, blah, blah...

 

No self respecting scientist would appeal to popularity as a factor in support of an argument. The history of science is full of unpopular theories which turned out to be true. Nuff said on that.

 

. . . I suppose that I needed a sarcasm sign.

 

Did you just completely ignore the rest of what I said. You have been the one using an appeal to popularity as a factor as to way we do not believe psi.

 

 

I agreed with the above entirely and related our Mom and Pop (and me) telepathy experiment (not a trick) as "the most convincing evidence (I) can present."

 

The "difficulty of evaluating psychic phenomena statistically" does not invalidate the phenomena. It just makes it an extremely challenging field. And we have no instruments which can detect consciousness or its content "at a distance" so all evidence there lies in verification of the claims.

 

Yet you keep saying that statistic analysis is useless and we are using it to specifically attack the studies you have been using. We don't need to actually detect consciousness or its content, only that a psi phenomena occurs consistently under controlled conditions.

 

 

You seem to have a very narrow idea of what a well controlled experiment is. I already explained the controls in detail, and we were not comparing one group with another.

I also told you that this experiment had no audience for whom to perform a "trick." It should go without saying that my parents were honest people, not tricksters trying to fool me, the implication of which is quite offensive to me and my family.

 

What did you control for? There was nothing and nobody there to make sure your parents didn't cheat.

 

This is an afterthought for those who may be following this thread... not directed to Ringer, (except for a demand for an apology below) as I care not in the least about his very biased opinion and grasping at straws to discredit the whole field and specifically the last experiment discussed.

 

About the opinion that my parents "tricked" me:

This should have been obvious from my details about the experimental controls. I was the "sender" behind my closed bedroom door. I was the one who verified Dad's accuracy in describing the ten images "sent" after it was over. Also, I had 'dog-eared' the pages containing the image sent in each of the ten cases. There was, therefore, no way I could have been "tricked" by some ill-conceived and sinister conspiracy to deceive me on their part. In fact such an accusation requires an apology for his character assassination of my parents' integrity.

I will not hold my breath, given the nasty nature of his attacks against me and my parents. (Not worthy of a serious science forum.)

 

You really expect me to apologize for saying that psi phenomena isn't real, and by extension your parents weren't psychic? If your entire family was in front of me demanding an apology for saying what they did was a trick I would respond the same way I am now:

 

I will apologize as soon as you show that it wasn't a trick. Plenty of mentalists and magicians do the same type of trick without using any sort of psychic ability, so it's a much safer assumption that it was a trick instead of psychic ability.

 

I have not once attacked you or your parents. I said your parents tricked you, and I believe it. It's no more of an attack than if you were to say my parents tricked me when they told me Santa brought me presents on Christmas.

[md65536]

But, of course, anthropology is only a "social science," not a real science like physics. (Good grief! the elitism of physics is astounding!)

 

Create a silly quote. Dumbfoundedly take offense at your own quote.

 

Employ sarcasm. Immediately react as if you don't understand sarcasm.

 

Glad to see you're still bringing an element of humour to these long threads!

 

 

[owl]

I do hear it, it is just extremely unsatisfactory. [/Quote]

 

I said regarding the "the tons of unverified crap you mention" in comparison:

"I will not keep repeating, just because you can not hear it."

 

Anthropology has done a good job of “separating the wheat from the chaff” in many field studies of psi phenomena. The body of studies is large. I will not spoon feed it to you.

 

What “wheat” has been found in the tons of "chaff" (crap) you mention in “comparison?”

 

You will just have to remain "unsatisfied."

 

Regarding QM as relevant to the subject, You say:

These people theories only speak of an individuals consciousness, so again I say that even if both of them are entirely correct it does nothing to explain psi.

 

I mentioned Penrose's theory/model of QM *in an individual brain* as a new model of the brain as a quantum computer, not as proof of consciousness acting at a distance.

His model would be a game changer in consciousness studies.

 

The argument against him was that the quantum computer model requires very low temperature, so his model was dismissed. Then others claimed, not so; It works in a "wet, warm environment" too. Is that criticism legitimately silenced or not. No comments here from any QM experts, and I am certainly not one.

 

Then we have Bohm's work which does extend to the "field" beyond the individual brain, as per my mention of:

Bohm's theory of the non-locality of consciousness in the context of an omnipresent "implicate order" involving "hidden variables."

 

Then the 'physics department' here plays the "unfalsifiable" card. Of course he left it in the theoretical stages, but he was very well credentialed quantum physicist, so his is a good foundation to work from as applied to the subject here.

 

No, evidence did not support the null hypothesis. What if further evidence in later experiments supported the null hypothesis, if it was already discarded how will the evidence be explained?

 

I will repeat one more time:

 

... If the null hypothesis is "Psi phenomena do not exist," and someone unmistakeably demonstrates 10 hits out of 10 trials in a telepathy experiment* (which my father did), then the null hypothesis is wrong and must be discarded.

 

The ten out of ten hits did in fact reject the null hypothesis as stated.

* Btw, these were not some standard geometric figures being 'sent', in which, if there are five of them, each trial has a 20% chance of a hit. Out of all possible images in a magazine, what are the chances of getting a hit on "horse" or "sailboat?" It was quite a different animal than the statistics of the former 'chances of a hit.'

 

"What if"... later experiments with dozens or hundreds of people without telepathic ability show no hits or only hits expected by chance? That does not debunk the validity of the experiment I cited.

 

We don't need to actually detect consciousness or its content, only that a psi phenomena occurs consistently under controlled conditions.

What did you control for? There was nothing and nobody there to make sure your parents didn't cheat.

Ten out of ten is very consistent. I explained the controls already. My parents were not tricksters or cheaters.

I will apologize as soon as you show that it wasn't a trick.

 

I already explained how it was impossible for them to "trick" me. You have ignored that too.

This was a private, family investigation of telepathy with no deception involved. We did not need "Psi Cops" present to insure that there was no deception. You are welcome to cling to your opinion that my family are liars, cheaters, tricksters, fakers, frauds... pick your own derision. I'm done explaining it to you.

 

I have not once attacked you or your parents. I said your parents tricked you, and I believe it.

 

That really is tricky. They are tricksters, which makes them fraudulent liars (or your choice from above), but you are not "attacking them." Again, I explained how they could not have tricked me (and why they would not have, with honest intent to investigate telepathy) yet you persist.

 

It's no more of an attack than if you were to say my parents tricked me when they told me Santa brought me presents on Christmas.

 

Right; Psi fraud is the same as fairy tales for kid's delight (until age 4 or 5 when "the truth comes out.")

Kinda like studies of consciousness acting at a distance (in general) are "like" stories of alien abduction and all sorts of other crap you see as similar.

 

Ref; (me):

But, of course, anthropology is only a "social science," not a real science like physics. (Good grief! the elitism of physics is astounding!)

 

Create a silly quote. Dumbfoundedly take offense at your own quote.

 

Employ sarcasm. Immediately react as if you don't understand sarcasm.

 

Glad to see you're still bringing an element of humour to these long threads!

Glad you enjoyed it. The implied opinion of the 'physics department' here has consistently been that physics is the only science that matters, i.e., that social science is not real science, though not explicitly stated as such.

But swansont, in this thread dismissed David Bohms work on QM as applied to consciousness studies as unfalsifiable (or to that effect) because of his intended application of theory to an "implicate order" of "hidden variables."

Of course, the goal of that field of *scientific* study is to reveal those possible variables. Theoretical speculation is a legitimate part of science, even if that is news to swansont.

Edited March 15, 2012 by owl

[md65536]

I already explained how it was impossible for them to "trick" me. You have ignored that too.

This was a private, family investigation of telepathy with no deception involved. We did not need "Psi Cops" present to insure that there was no deception. You are welcome to cling to your opinion that my family are liars, cheaters, tricksters, fakers, frauds... pick your own derision. I'm done explaining it to you.

I disagree that it was impossible for them to trick you.

The example that you cite has been previously documented, describing these facts:

- The witness to these experiments was under hypnosis at the time and highly receptive to suggestion.

- The witness "hardly remembered" the events but was told of them in hushed tones afterwards.

- The witness describes being lied to and told to accept the lies --- but was not tricked???

- The witness describes the experiment as a "created reality" based on the will of the experimenter.

 

Are you sure that the witness cannot possibly be mistaken?

Might there not be an alternative explanation for the experiment that you cite?

 

There is documented evidence of false memories being planted in subjects under hypnosis. How can you rule out that possibility, in order to support your claim that some new scientific theory is needed to explain the experiment?

 

i.e., that social science is not real science, though not explicitly stated as such.

It was explicitly stated. You were the one who stated it.

 

 

I don't see anyone else stating that social science isn't a real science, only that the principles of physics apply to your claims. Are you describing a social science theory here, or are you proposing a theory that involves physics?

 

 

[owl]

I disagree that it was impossible for them to trick you.

The example that you cite has been previously documented, describing these facts:[/Quote]

 

You are intentionally confusing two very different situations for your usual reason, trying to show how wrong I am, claiming that I contradict myself. I will clarify.

 

In the telepathy experiment I cited, I was not hypnotized. I was the image sender in a normal state of consciousness. After the experiment, I confirmed the accuracy of Dad's image reception and Mom's record of it in all 10 trials, and I had the dog-eared magazine pages of reference for all ten images. There was no way they could have "tricked me" And, as I've said, there waas no reason for trickery, as we were not looking to publish for money or fame... just an honest, home grown scientific experimental test of Dad's telepathic reception ability.

 

The hypnosis demonstration you are trying to confuse the above with was a very different situation. I was, in fact under deep hypnosis for this demonstration.

First, you misrepresent hypnotic suggestion as, "being lied to and told to accept the lies ..."

and you lie about me ("the witness") describing being hypnotized as,

" The witness describes being lied to and told to accept the lies..."

 

It is true that I was given a "post hypnotic suggestion" to forget what happened under hypnosis, as my father thought it my be difficult for me to integrate into 'normal life.' My brother, however, sometimes "filled me in," though I don't presently remember him using "hushed tones" ( perhaps more fabrication as if it was all a very sinister endeavor.)

You say:

- The witness describes the experiment as a "created reality" based on the will of the experimenter.

 

Yes. The way hypnosis works is that, once hypnotized, the subject is in a state of "suspended disbelief" and accepts what the hypnotist "suggests" as "reality." That is the only way hypnosis can work. It is false to call these principles of hypnosis 'trickery' in the sense of some shady or sinister motive, as to imply a lack of integrity in the demonstration.

 

Are you sure that the witness cannot possibly be mistaken?

Might there not be an alternative explanation for the experiment that you cite?

 

Here you again assert the intentional obfuscation to confuse the two situations above.

Same applies to your:

There is documented evidence of false memories being planted in subjects under hypnosis. How can you rule out that possibility, in order to support your claim that some new scientific theory is needed to explain the experiment?

 

I don't see anyone else stating that social science isn't a real science, only that the principles of physics apply to your claims. Are you describing a social science theory here, or are you proposing a theory that involves physics?

 

Have you read the thread? Must I keep repeating? The study of consciousness has many fronts including theories of the individual brain as a quantum computer and theories of "transpersonal consciousness" based on variations of the QM model (physics.)

I've had a lot to say about how a very well controlled lab environment and/or a harshly critical environment can disrupt or "blow away" some of the more "sensitive" requirements of psi phenomena, as they often depend on a supportive environment. (Not conspiracy, but, being among "friends" often helps.) In these cases, anthropology is more productive at "sifting the wheat from the chaff."

The elitist attitude of the 'physics department' here doesn't have much use for science other than physics, as I see it. If I am wrong... fine. It's a peripheral point anyway.

Edited March 16, 2012 by owl

[md65536]

In the telepathy experiment I cited, I was not hypnotized.

 

 

Perhaps I'm confusing different experiments. The one I was thinking of is documented thusly:

 

 

OK, one quick example: I was put in trance as a "transmitter" to Dad as "receiver". He would then go into receptive trance in another room, sitting with hands on a "device" for writing while in trance. I was provided with a stack of ten images freshly torn out of various magazines. Mother was the "go between" putting each image on a table in front of me, one at a time, and signaling me to focus and "send". Then she would go to Dad's room and record the words or phrases describing each image as he spelled them out with an indicator on an alphabet board. We would often "hit" 10 out of 10 correctly.

 

 

 

Were there additional experiments without the hypnosis, and without a "go between" who could transfer information from sender to receiver through ordinary means?

 

 

First, you misrepresent hypnotic suggestion as, "being lied to and told to accept the lies ..."

and you lie about me ("the witness") describing being hypnotized as,

 

 

 

 

No, I am correct. As you know I try to use words according to their accepted meaning. A lie is "a false statement deliberately presented as being true", which is exactly what you describe in one of your examples.

 

Yes, I've been sloppy and mixed together some of the example experiments you've mentioned. Nevertheless, your examples do in fact describe deception (eg. being told that someone else is your mother) in other cases. Therefore it is difficult to accept the impossibility of deception in some cases, when there is direct evidence of it in other cases.

 

The words I used do not denote anything sinister. The reasons for the deception, whether well-intentioned or bad, are irrelevant. Likewise, trickery need not be sinister (not all magicians are evil).

 

The problem is that some of your examples suggest simple explanations for others of your examples. If you want to convince people that something extraordinary happened, and not something simple, then you need extraordinary proof. "They had no reason to trick me" doesn't cut it.

 

Have you read the thread? Must I keep repeating? The study of consciousness has many fronts including theories of the individual brain as a quantum computer and theories of "transpersonal consciousness" based on variations of the QM model (physics.)

No, I've only skimmed it. No need to repeat.

Perhaps I was wrong, but my understanding of it was that you're claiming there are physics-based explanation for PSI phenomena. If it suits you to abandon physics in favor of anthropology, that's fine. But I don't think you can start with physics, propose a hypothesis using physics, completely remove the physics, and still claim that the hypothesis is valid.

 

Now that would be quite the magic trick. By the way, I also don't think that all deception is intentional.

 

 

[owl]

(me)

Have you read the thread? Must I keep repeating? The study of consciousness has many fronts including theories of the individual brain as a quantum computer and theories of "transpersonal consciousness" based on variations of the QM model (physics.)

 

md:

No, I've only skimmed it. No need to repeat.

Perhaps I was wrong, but my understanding of it was...

(see his post above)

 

And this is called a science forum.

.. 'no, I haven't read it, but...'

 

Yes, you were wrong. Read the thread before you continue to spout off.

 

Note: There are distortions of my memory of the above episode. ( Edit: I was only 6 or 7 yrs old at the time of the hypnosis demonstration. I was around 12 during the telepathy experiment. The details change in my mind... quite true... but the overall experiment was as I said. Dog-eared or torn out... damn! Set aside for sure.)

 

md is right to show the discrepancies in my memory and accounts. (He seems to have stalked me for a long time. Not an accusation, just my perception of him.)

 

I'm 66 and losing some memory pieces. It's all true as I remember it.

Not great evidence for science, but true testimony... with obvious memory glitches.

There it is.

The "fight" over it isn't really worth it. Materialists will remain materialists, and there is no reason (for them) to "believe" otherwise.

 

Having (having had, technically) the gift makes me a target for skepticism, and many 'sharp-shooters' are gunning for psi frauds. Skepticism is a very good thing for science.

 

I'm a bit weary with the battle.

 

I'll see how it goes after the weekend.

Edited March 16, 2012 by owl

[md65536]

The "fight" over it isn't really worth it. Materialists will remain materialists, and there is no reason (for them) to "believe" otherwise.

Well that's the thing... it's not really a fight. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I think it's possible you might be wrong.

 

 

Changing accepted science isn't about convincing people to see it your way. It's about showing that it needs to be changed because some evidence can't fit into the accepted theories. If it's possible to fit into accepted theories, there's no need to change them. So the process is meticulous and usually slow and taken in small steps, including repeating experiments and eliminating other possible explanations.

 

 

I want to believe in PSI phenomena. Nothing in science proves that it's all theoretically impossible. But like you mentioned, a controlled lab environment can disrupt some of the effects of psi phenomena... which leads to the possibility that the effects are psychological and not parapsychological. The evidence needs to be meticulous before it can be accepted.

Edited March 16, 2012 by md65536

[owl]

I just reviewed my website piece from which md was quoting and comparing versions of the telepathy experiment in question.

I think I wrote the original version (above) around 2000 when I first put up my website. (No reference offered... a spiritually focused site... no need to bring on more heat in a science forum.)

 

My memory has clearly eroded since then, as that was the accurate version. I was in hypnotic trance for the "sending," not in a normal state of consciousness, as posted above. I was hypnotized to be a totally focused transmitter of images.

 

The confusion lies in the following quote from my site:

 

I was provided with a stack of ten images freshly torn out of various magazines.

 

I would browse the magazines ahead of each experiment session and dog-ear pages with images that appealed to me for easy focus. As it turned out, Mom would tear out the pages and put them on my table. They were both dog-eared (pre-selected) and then torn out for easy access as a stack of ten pages on my table.

I think one of my five sibs still has the records of those experiments, including the sets of magazine pages, each with Moms record of Dad's "spelling it out." I'm going to find out who has those archives and review them.

 

Well that's the thing... it's not really a fight. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I think it's possible you might be wrong. [/Quote]

 

I was clearly wrong about a couple of details as just explained.

 

Changing accepted science isn't about convincing people to see it your way.

 

How do you see that as different from telling it as I see it as best I can remember it?

 

It's about showing that it needs to be changed because some evidence can't fit into the accepted theories. If it's possible to fit into accepted theories, there's no need to change them.

 

It depends on what we agree to accept as evidence, doesn't it? None of the results of our image sending experiments, "fit into accepted theories."

 

So the process is meticulous and usually slow and taken in small steps, including repeating experiments and eliminating other possible explanations.

 

That was our intention in that series of experiments, repeating the results several times (not all 10 out of 10.) I can think of no other possible explanation of the results than that he "saw" what I "projected" without any known means of communication.

 

... which leads to the possibility that the effects are psychological and not parapsychological.

 

If I may substitute "transpersonal" for "parapsychological" (a more contemporary field of psychology), both our telepathy experiments and my "seeing/feeling" my son's urgent crisis were not just individual psychological effects but clearly transpersonal.

[Ringer]

I said regarding the "the tons of unverified crap you mention" in comparison:

"I will not keep repeating, just because you can not hear it."

 

Anthropology has done a good job of “separating the wheat from the chaff” in many field studies of psi phenomena. The body of studies is large. I will not spoon feed it to you.

 

What “wheat” has been found in the tons of "chaff" (crap) you mention in “comparison?”

 

So say the practitioners of homeopathy and chiropractors. . . I still don't see the difference.

 

You will just have to remain "unsatisfied."

 

So it seems

 

I mentioned Penrose's theory/model of QM *in an individual brain* as a new model of the brain as a quantum computer, not as proof of consciousness acting at a distance.

His model would be a game changer in consciousness studies.

 

The argument against him was that the quantum computer model requires very low temperature, so his model was dismissed. Then others claimed, not so; It works in a "wet, warm environment" too. Is that criticism legitimately silenced or not. No comments here from any QM experts, and I am certainly not one.

 

Then we have Bohm's work which does extend to the "field" beyond the individual brain, as per my mention of:

 

 

Then the 'physics department' here plays the "unfalsifiable" card. Of course he left it in the theoretical stages, but he was very well credentialed quantum physicist, so his is a good foundation to work from as applied to the subject here.

 

I couldn't find anything about Bohm's work outside the individuals brain other than a side mention of species wide memory and I don't remember reading it in the links offered. Is there a certain source linked or could you link one.

 

As I said, I don't see what Penrose's work does for psi since it involves only an individuals brain. Since its quantum computer models only seem to work for interconnected neurons within a sheath of membrane it couldn't function outside the individual.

 

 

 

 

The ten out of ten hits did in fact reject the null hypothesis as stated.

* Btw, these were not some standard geometric figures being 'sent', in which, if there are five of them, each trial has a 20% chance of a hit. Out of all possible images in a magazine, what are the chances of getting a hit on "horse" or "sailboat?" It was quite a different animal than the statistics of the former 'chances of a hit.'

 

"What if"... later experiments with dozens or hundreds of people without telepathic ability show no hits or only hits expected by chance? That does not debunk the validity of the experiment I cited.

 

It would indeed damage the validity of your data of the previous experiment. If there are huge outliers when comparing data sets, especially if there is only a single set with outliers, that data set was probably incorrectly gathered or the data was erroneous.

 

 

Ten out of ten is very consistent. I explained the controls already. My parents were not tricksters or cheaters.

 

I already explained how it was impossible for them to "trick" me. You have ignored that too.

md is right to show the discrepancies in my memory and accounts. (He seems to have stalked me for a long time. Not an accusation, just my perception of him.)

I'm 66 and losing some memory pieces. It's all true as I remember it.

Not great evidence for science, but true testimony... with obvious memory glitches.

 

This was a private, family investigation of telepathy with no deception involved. We did not need "Psi Cops" present to insure that there was no deception. You are welcome to cling to your opinion that my family are liars, cheaters, tricksters, fakers, frauds... pick your own derision. I'm done explaining it to you.

My memory has clearly eroded since then, as that was the accurate version. I was in hypnotic trance for the "sending," not in a normal state of consciousness, as posted above. I was hypnotized to be a totally focused transmitter of images. . .

I would browse the magazines ahead of each experiment session and dog-ear pages with images that appealed to me for easy focus. As it turned out, Mom would tear out the pages and put them on my table. They were both dog-eared (pre-selected) and then torn out for easy access as a stack of ten pages on my table.

 

I think one of my five sibs still has the records of those experiments, including the sets of magazine pages, each with Moms record of Dad's "spelling it out." I'm going to find out who has those archives and review them.

 

I could come up with a ton of ways this method could be used for tricks. If you want me to I could give a few examples of how this could easily be done without psychic ability.

 

That really is tricky. They are tricksters, which makes them fraudulent liars (or your choice from above), but you are not "attacking them." Again, I explained how they could not have tricked me (and why they would not have, with honest intent to investigate telepathy) yet you persist

 

Or it could have been something fun to do to entertain a 12 year old child?

 

 

 

Glad you enjoyed it. The implied opinion of the 'physics department' here has consistently been that physics is the only science that matters, i.e., that social science is not real science, though not explicitly stated as such.

But swansont, in this thread dismissed David Bohms work on QM as applied to consciousness studies as unfalsifiable (or to that effect) because of his intended application of theory to an "implicate order" of "hidden variables."

Of course, the goal of that field of *scientific* study is to reveal those possible variables. Theoretical speculation is a legitimate part of science, even if that is news to swansont.

 

I'm not even a physicist, what does the physics departments opinion of other sciences have to do with ANYTHING I've been saying?

 

.. 'no, I haven't read it, but...'

 

I have read it and I didn't see anyone else say that social sciences are not science, though it has been said on other threads but I don't believe any who say that have been strongly involved in this.

 

 

 

 

 

I was clearly wrong about a couple of details as just explained.

 

How do you see that as different from telling it as I see it as best I can remember it?

 

It depends on what we agree to accept as evidence, doesn't it? None of the results of our image sending experiments, "fit into accepted theories."

 

That was our intention in that series of experiments, repeating the results several times (not all 10 out of 10.) I can think of no other possible explanation of the results than that he "saw" what I "projected" without any known means of communication.

 

If I may substitute "transpersonal" for "parapsychological" (a more contemporary field of psychology), both our telepathy experiments and my "seeing/feeling" my son's urgent crisis were not just individual psychological effects but clearly transpersonal.

 

Since your other memory wasn't exactly correct do you not think you could also be mistaken in your other memory?

 

I don't think saying, "well I think this should be evidence," (even though it would not be accepted as evidence for any hypothesis) is a valid form of argument.

 

I apologize that I'm getting lazy in my replies, I'm very busy for the next couple weeks.