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

[owl]

A later contemplation;

My advice to the physicists here invoking the rules of the scientific method:

Paranormal events involving consciousness “acting at a distance” are not often available for examination by scientists insisting on the usual methods.

So “stories” must be investigated with rigor but not rejected just because they are stories. Some stories are true and some are not. Science sorts it out.

Demands to perform, by "scientists" with their "rigorous" agendas, often kill the consciousness- environment that supports spontaneous paranormal events.

 

Then the null hypothesis is inevitably confirmed. "No positive results"... a false negative when a potential (even promising) event is just stuffed (edit: snuffed) out by scientific protocol.

Edited May 17, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

I ignored your post 195 precisely because I had already repeated the same answer over and over, and your opinion does not make my answers "crap" just because they disagree with your steadfast opinion as to what qualifies as evidence or science in general.

I'll address your last criticism in this post and then answer yet again your tirade in post 195.

 

Nor does your opinion make anecdotes evidence. There is a reason you won't see anecdotes in a scientific journal.

 

(Me... again...: "There was, of course, much criticism of our experimental method, but I invite review.")

 

You distort the experiment to suit your skepticism. I addressed this already when you brought it up originally.

He did not "have the pages he needed to know." My mother was the "go between" and controller of the experiment, including keeping the magazine pages for each run hidden from him. Your accusation that she could have cheated denies the integrity and honesty of my family and the controls and legitimacy of the experiment.

 

The point is it can't be used for evidence nor count as verified. Not because she definitely cheated, but because it would have been easy for her to cheat. That's why it doesn't hold up, what I think happened or what you think happened holds no weight. The methodology is flawed.

 

Not quite a

The talk of the journal and what to record

 

I don't care what swansont said, what is wrong with how I proposed to write the journal? Otherwise it's just reinforcing personal belief and cherry-picking. As I said before

If I say I have the ability to move objects at a distance and I only record the times when objects move I am not doing science, I am reinforcing a personal belief.

 

If we had cell phones (not yet invented) and he had called and told me about his condition, there would be no question about it, that he communicated his condition to me. But lack of known means "begs the question" that he communicated with me? I got the information and it turned out to be true and specific information about his condition.

 

It begs the question because it was assumed communication while trying to show that the event was paranormal (communication without known means). If it wasn't communication it wasn't paranormal. The base statement assumes a paranormal communication to show it was a paranormal event. How is that not begging the question?

 

 

Also, from Swansont (again): "The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence."

 

Neither your opinion nor his equates to "how things are." If all details of an anecdote are verified, as above, it is "evidence" for paranormal communication. "Evidence" of course does not equal "proof." Maybe that is the semantic point of disagreement.

 

No, I am not arguing it's not proof. I am arguing that it cannot be used as evidence in a scientific discussion. Since he is a practicing scientist he opinion of the necessities of science trumps yours, though what would be accepted as evidence in a science setting isn't an opinion, it's a practice.

 

I was criticized as "culpable" as one who misunderstands the scientific method. My background having taught it at college level is obviously relevant to that criticism. "The scientific method" is not a universal law carved in stone... especially as pertains to scientific investigation of possible paranormal events. And evidence is not proof. There is a huge body of claims of paranormal events. The job of science is to investigate all the "evidence" in detail and sort it out (discarding what can not be verified), not just dismiss all of it on the arbitrary grounds that "anecdotes are not evidence." (IIRC ?)

 

It may be, but doesn't that negate your statement of how his credentials as a practicing scientist aren't relevant? Your teaching an undergrad course, I can't remember how long ago and don't feel like searching, and him actively practicing for how-ever many years makes his experience supersede yours as to what is currently accepted in science.

 

Will we have to get back on the chiropractor kick to show anecdotes shouldn't be used?

[owl]

Nor does your opinion make anecdotes evidence. There is a reason you won't see anecdotes in a scientific journal.[/Quote]

 

Maybe not in physics journals but those focused on paranormal phenomena examine lots of "claims" that you call "anecdotes" and dismiss. The Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS), for instance, does not avoid such accounts but brings very relevant criticism to each account. And the range of parameters covered is vast. Here is an example from a JCS intro to an article, Empathy and Consciousness by Evan Thompson:

(The link was way long... I'll fix it later)

 

This article makes five main points. (1) Individual human consciousness is formed in the dynamic interrelation of self and other, and therefore is inherently intersubjective.

(2) The concrete encounter of self and other fundamentally involves empathy, under- stood as a unique and irreducible kind of intentionality. (3) Empathy is the precondition (the condition of possibility) of the science of consciousness. (4) Human empathy is inherently developmental : open to it are pathways to non-egocentric or

self-transcendent modes of intersubjectivity. (5) Real progress in the understanding of intersubjectivity requires integrating the methods and findings of cognitive

science, phenomenology, and contemplative and meditative psychologies of human transformation.

(my bold)

You:

The point is it can't be used for evidence nor count as verified. Not because she definitely cheated, but because it would have been easy for her to cheat. That's why it doesn't hold up, what I think happened or what you think happened holds no weight. The methodology is flawed.

 

If a team of scientists had visited and watched to verify the controls, then there would be no "flaws" because of sanction by authority? "... it would have been easy for her to cheat" is a very lame criticism. We were all honest amateur scientists with integrity of intent, testing for telepathy. It is not all about credentials. She did not cheat.

 

Regarding

"The talk of the journal and what to record...

 

I don't care what swansont said, what is wrong with how I proposed to write the journal? Otherwise it's just reinforcing personal belief and cherry-picking....

I don't care what you said either. As I said early in the example of field study of the life of pissants, that is the subject and the scientist focuses on and records relevant information only.

When studying paranormal phenomena, what qualifies as that, as I've said many times, is a demonstrated correlation (co-relation) between two events (at a distance in the case of empathic telepathy)... not a recording of 'all bad feelings' etc. for whatever designated period of time as you insisted.

 

It begs the question because it was assumed communication while trying to show that the event was paranormal (communication without known means). If it wasn't communication it wasn't paranormal. The base statement assumes a paranormal communication to show it was a paranormal event. How is that not begging the question?

 

I hope my above reiteration cleared up your confusion on this point. My information turned out to be accurate about his very specific symptoms. That is what communication is.

The fact there there was no known means made it paranormal communication. Got it yet?

 

No, I am not arguing it's not proof. I am arguing that it cannot be used as evidence in a scientific discussion.

Neither you nor swansont is the supreme judge of what the 'scientific court' here determines to be admissable as evidence. Some "evidence" turns out to be verified, some not. That is what the 'court of science' decides.

 

Since he is a practicing scientist he opinion of the necessities of science trumps yours, though what would be accepted as evidence in a science setting isn't an opinion, it's a practice.

 

See above 'argument against' yet again. Credentials again?

("Whose sideshow is this, anyway?" Mostly yours at this point.)

I taught the subject and I have been interested in paranormal studies all my adult life. Would have gotten my psychology degrees in "transpersonal psychology" if there were such a field when I was in school. But I have studied it post grad... not for credit... in depth. His "opinion" trumps mine? Didn't we cover this in depth in my thread about how much personal opinion matters... or not... in science?

 

...More blah, blah, blah about whose opinion and credentials "trumps" whose. Enough comment on that.

[Ringer]

Maybe not in physics journals but those focused on paranormal phenomena examine lots of "claims" that you call "anecdotes" and dismiss. The Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS), for instance, does not avoid such accounts but brings very relevant criticism to each account. And the range of parameters covered is vast. Here is an example from a JCS intro to an article, Empathy and Consciousness by Evan Thompson:

(The link was way long... I'll fix it later)

 

 

(my bold)

 

I don't see an example as an anecdote being used as evidence

 

 

If a team of scientists had visited and watched to verify the controls, then there would be no "flaws" because of sanction by authority? "... it would have been easy for her to cheat" is a very lame criticism. We were all honest amateur scientists with integrity of intent, testing for telepathy. It is not all about credentials. She did not cheat.

 

It's not about her lying or not, it's about the methodology being flawed. Science doesn't take someone's word no matter how honest they are.

 

 

Regarding

I don't care what you said either. As I said early in the example of field study of the life of pissants, that is the subject and the scientist focuses on and records relevant information only.

When studying paranormal phenomena, what qualifies as that, as I've said many times, is a demonstrated correlation (co-relation) between two events (at a distance in the case of empathic telepathy)... not a recording of 'all bad feelings' etc. for whatever designated period of time as you insisted.

 

 

An observation study is completely different from what we are talking about. Again I ask why wouldn't my way of doing the journal be valid, because only recording positive results is still cherry-picking.

 

I hope my above reiteration cleared up your confusion on this point. My information turned out to be accurate about his very specific symptoms. That is what communication is.

The fact there there was no known means made it paranormal communication. Got it yet?

 

No, because you said before you had stomach pain and an image of him. That doesn't mean it was communicated. You can't logically assume communication just because it was correlated and you can't empirically conclude it can be communicated when you only have positive results recorded.

 

Neither you nor swansont is the supreme judge of what the 'scientific court' here determines to be admissable as evidence. Some "evidence" turns out to be verified, some not. That is what the 'court of science' decides.

 

Yeah, neither are you. The court of science has so far decided psi is bunk.

 

See above 'argument against' yet again. Credentials again?

("Whose sideshow is this, anyway?" Mostly yours at this point.)

I taught the subject and I have been interested in paranormal studies all my adult life. Would have gotten my psychology degrees in "transpersonal psychology" if there were such a field when I was in school. But I have studied it post grad... not for credit... in depth. His "opinion" trumps mine? Didn't we cover this in depth in my thread about how much personal opinion matters... or not... in science?

 

...More blah, blah, blah about whose opinion and credentials "trumps" whose. Enough comment on that.

 

I'm pretty sure I already said it's not opinion of what gets accepted, it's a practice. He is more familiar with the practice than you are.

 

I said opinion because you said that, in your opinion, science should accept anecdotes. You brought opinions into it.

[owl]

I don't see an example as an anecdote being used as evidence

[/Quote]

 

Rather than cite specific examples, here is a link to (and a 'teaser' of quotes from) an article from a JCS "Special Issue" on "First Person Methodologies":

 

From Varela and Shear; First Person Methodologies: What, Why, How?

(trouble with pdf link)

(Another edit):

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://blog.lib.umn.edu/madamek/embodiedmethodologies/Relevant%2520Articles/First%2520Person%2520methodologies.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3vnf5Rn82A8XzzfDLc4rZEF4D17g&oi=scholarr

 

Science is permeated by the procedural and social regula-

tions that go under the name of scientific method, that permits the constitution of a corpus of shared knowledge about natural objects. The linchpin of this constitution is

public verification and validation according to complex human exchanges. What we take to be objective is what can be turned from individual accounts into a body of

regulated knowledge. This body of knowledge is inescapably in part subjective, since it depends on individual observation and experience, and partly objective, since it is

constrained and regulated by the empirical, natural phenomena.

 

This brief reminder that the subjective is already implicit in the objective high- lights how the received distinction between objective and subjective as an absolute

demarcation between inside and outside, needs to be closely scrutinized. Mutatis mutandis, dealing with subjective phenomena is not the same as dealing with purely

private experiences, as is often assumed. The subjective is intrinsically open to inter- subjective validation, if only we avail ourselves of a method and procedure for doing

so. One central purpose of this first-person methodologies Special Issue is, precisely, to survey some major current approaches that attempt to provide the basis for a

science of consciousness which includes first-person, subjective experience as an explicit and active component.

...

Much wasted ink could have been saved by distinguishing the irreducibility of first- person descriptions from their epistemic status.

...

Setting the question as we just did, the next point to raise is what is the status of first- person accounts? In some basic sense, the answer cannot be given a priori, and it can

only unfold from actually exploring this realm of phenomena, as is the case in the contributions presented herein.

...

Third, it would be futile to stay with first-person descriptions in isolation. We need to harmonize and constrain them by building the appropriate links with third-person

studies.

...

The proof of the pudding is not in a priori arguments, but in actually pointing to explicit examples of practical knowledge, in case studies.

It's a good read for those actually interested in the subject, not just parroting "anecdotes are inadmissible as scientific evidence."

Edited May 22, 2012 by owl

[owl]

A footnote... a call for respect between the apposing camps of parapsychologists and skeptics by JCS editor, J.E. Alcock, in the introductory article of the "Psi Wars" issue... (He is firmly in the skeptics camp):

 

As a result, parapsychologists and sceptical scientists most often speak to each other in a dialogue aux sourds, a dialogue of the deaf.

...

Arguably, the only significant differences that distinguish the proponents from the sceptics in this collection of articles are in terms of their a priori subjective weighings of the likelihood that psychic phenomena exist, which in turn may influence their evaluations of the adequacy of the research protocols that have been employed in parapsychological research and the quality of the data thus obtained.

...

Thus, to the sceptical reader, I stress that these parapsychological writers are in our camp, the scientific camp. They believe in science and strive to apply it.

 

So do I, even though I have no doubt at all that "psi" exists, as I and my family have directly experienced it, as related in three instances in this thread (two "anecdotal" and one experimental.) We "strived to apply" the scientific method in the related telepathy experiment. Our lack of professional credentials (or lack of being monitored by a certified team of scientists) does not disqualify the method from being scientific or the result from verifying positive telepathy results, IOW rejecting the null hypothesis (that telepathy does not exist.)

PS: How would science determine "the odds" of getting a "hit" on a selected magazine image that I "sent" which my father had never seen? (Granting, hypothetically, that we were not liars or cheating frauds, which we were not.) How about the compounded odds of 10 hits out of 10 trials? How about the further compounded odds of several repetitions of the experiment getting a very high percentage of hits (85% or so, we figured, depending on how "close" qualifies as a hit)?

[imatfaal]

Owl - this thread is NOT about personal experience nor about the difference between said experience and scientific observation. We veered a long way off track - let's not be determined to stay off topic. Either attempt to bring the thread back to its OP or let it die - please do not continue to harp on about personal anecdotes v scientific observation.

[owl]

I honestly don’t understand why recent posts are considered off topic.

My opening post began with the question:

 

“What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? “...

and focused up front on two sources pertaining to that topic:

The Intention Experiment and the Journal of Consciousness Studies.

 

The recent debate has been about whether or not “anecdotes” or first person accounts constitute “scientific evidence” as per the first topic question. One JCS issue cited went into depth about that issue.

 

Cap ‘n R early on raised the issue of errors in methods of statistical analysis. He also commented to the effect that extraordinary claims about paranormal consciousness phenomena require extraordinary evidence. My last “PS” was offered as an example fulfilling that requirement, and the “what are the odds” questions address the extraordinary statistics of probability evident in that experiment, though no numbers could possibly be assigned as "the odds."

 

Yet I’m hit with the gag rule yet again. Seems that even in the “speculations” section any contributions not in line with “mainstream” thinking are subject to censorship.

 

Ps: I do realize that the subtitle “...the missing ‘unified theory’ factor?” was way too ambitious, as I admitted recently. And, as I said, I will go with David Bohm’s speculation on consciousness as a transcendental “implicit order” in that regard, but of course that remains only speculation.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

"What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? "...

 

 

!

Moderator Note

the rules of this particular forum require that you back up your claims with proper evidence, which is incidentally something you have been requested to provide on numerous occasions within this thread. Regaling us with tales of days gone by does not count, since anecdotes are still not evidence by any stretch of the definition.

 

This thread will be closed if you chose to ignore this request.

 

[Daedalus]

The thread proceeded to look at experimental evidence for consciousness as a force acting at a distance, and there were criticisms of such experiments, including methods of statistical analysis.

 

I offered one such "home grown (my home), Mom and Pop" telepathy experiment with exceptional results including a run of 10 out of 10 "hits" on images from magazines, not your average (classic experiment) "chance" of a hit out of five or so geometric figures ( with20% chance of a hit for any trial.) There was, of course, much criticism of our experimental method, but I invite review.

 

...

 

The focus of scientific investigation in such cases must be "How can such claims be verified?", not an outright dismissal of all such claims. When a mother "feels and sees" that her child has died in an accident before any normal notification, this is a paranormal event... or she is a liar. One stance is that all such accounts are from liars. This is pseudo-science by flat out denial.

Ok... Let's devise an experiment right here so that we can verify your claims. I'll create several images and send a PM including one of the images to anyone a referee who is willing to participate at a specified time (must be someone like Swansont or Cap'n). Then, at the specified time that is agreed upon by everyone, we will think about the image for 10 minutes (or whatever time you think is necessary for you to get a mental picture of the image). We will count the number of images that you get correct. I will count a hit even if you can only get part of the image correct. Are you game?

Edited May 25, 2012 by Daedalus

[owl]

Ok... Let's devise an experiment right here so that we can verify your claims. I'll create several images and send a PM including one of the images to anyone a referee who is willing to participate at a specified time (must be someone like Swansont or Cap'n). Then, at the specified time that is agreed upon by everyone, we will think about the image for 10 minutes (or whatever time you think is necessary for you to get a mental picture of the image). We will count the number of images that you get correct. I will count a hit even if you can only get part of the image correct. Are you game?

 

I am sorry but I can not play that game with you. My father died in '87, and our 'psi' connection was probably both genetic and meta-genetic, on a level beyond material science (which I will not argue here.) It is not a case of everyone having the same "gifts", (not meant as from a deity.)

 

I don't think I still have the "gift" anyway. It has been a long time since my last telepathic/empathic experience. It is more of a "global consciousness" inner experience/meditation for me now... which has no place in this forum... and would certainly be "off topic."