babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » If you were in tune with the universe you'd already know the title of this thread

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: If you were in tune with the universe you'd already know the title of this thread
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 March 2002 06:03 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was watching the Nature of Things yesterday and was completely surprised by the vacuous content of the show. It was on "intuition" and it tried to explore the phenomenon of precognition and stuff like that. The distributed nature of my memory instantly accesses my repository of knowledge and a phrase pops into my consciousness: "jump the shark".

The show had a psychic that apparently found some body that the police couldn't find (the officer said Skeptical Inquirer just trashed him… good for them). Some guy explained that the distance didn't matter in remote sensing. You could see something from an adjacent room as easily as something around the world. Uh, sure. I've read that the US has funded "remote viewing" research off and on for almost thirty years, finally ending the research in 1995 because it was unreliable. There was something about a physiological response from a person before viewing a disturbing image. They had a graph which was shown to prove it. I looked at the graph. I studied the graph. I didn't see any proof of anything. A woman was on saying it's time we studied "love". Faith healers work.

There was nary a skeptic view to be heard in the entire program.

The reason all this was on a show that, up until now anyway, is about science was because of some tenuous connection with all this paranormal crap and quantum mechanics. The "spooky action at a distance" aspect is trumped up to explained that this all could be true because of its nonlinear nature. Great. I have a feeling that it is becoming quite fashionable to use the esoteric workings of quantum mechanics to justify ghosts and parapsychology, but never expected it on the venerable Nature of Things. Then a term popped up for which I had never heard before, something called "quantum holograms". The explanation flew by me pretty quick and the scant few minutes devoted to it left me wondering what the hell it had to do with the content of the show.

So I looked it up in the book of collective human knowledge called google and found this:

quote:
Certain alternative healing therapies are theorized to involve non-local effects that utilize an etheric "élan vital" or vital energy. Proponents of these techniques have claimed that this previously unrecognized force infuses organisms with life sustaining energies and/or balances existing energies resulting in improved health. This long-standing and widespread belief in the existence of an etheric force, called "prana" by the Hindus, "chi" by the Chinese, and "ki" by the Japanese, is the source most often associated with the "soul, spirit, and mind." In fact, there are references made to human energy fields or the body’s aura in 97 different cultures, according to John White in his book "Future Science."1

Equally mystifying and unexplainable are the plethora of parapsychological (psi) phenomena that are often referred to as extrasensory perception, precognition, remote viewing, etc., and that have evaded scientific description. Modern scientists have repeatedly sought evidence for these unexplained psi phenomena. Although staunchly criticized by mainstream science, meta analysis of the psi experiments has demonstrated that the probabilities of the reported results occurring by chance was less than a trillion to one.2
. . .
The theories of a holographically-based universe were originally championed by two of the world’s most eminent thinkers: physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein’s, and Karl Pribram, a highly-respected neurophysiologist from Stanford University. Their holographic model received dramatic experimental support in 1982 when a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect in Paris demonstrated that the web of subatomic particles that compose our physical universe, possesses what appears to be an undeniable “holographic” property.
. . .
Russian scientists have likely measured this holographic bioenergy without discovering its holographic nature. Their research, which suggests the existence of a previously undetectable subtle radiation linked to physical DNA may support the hypothesis of an intact energy field containing relevant organismal information that is capable of being coupled to an optical imaging device. The DNA optical radiation effect was first observed in Moscow at the Russian Academy of Sciences as a surprise effect during experiments measuring the vibrational modes of DNA in solution using a sophisticated laser photon correlation spectrometer.4,5 The Russian experiments revealed that when DNA was removed from the scattering chamber, post-measurements looked distinctly different from the ones obtained before the DNA was placed in the chamber. This observation was contrary to the expectation that the autocorrelation function would return to pre-test baselines.

After duplicating the initial experiment many times with re-calibrated equipment, the scientists were forced to accept the working hypothesis that some new field structure was being excited from the physical vacuum. In turn, this phenomenon was dubbed the “DNA phantom” in order to emphasize that its origin was related, but not physically linked, to the actual DNA. The new feature that makes this discovery distinctly different from many other previously undertaken attempts to measure and identify bioenergy fields is that the field of the DNA phantom has the ability to be coupled to conventional electromagnetic fields of laser radiation and, as a consequence, can be reliably detected and positively identified using standard optical techniques.



Don't ask me what the Journal of Theoretics is 'cause I just don't know. An experiment was done that produced some pretty snazzy pictures by a really snazzy method; it's worth a look. I don't pretend to know exactly everything they are talking about, but I get the jist to understand that this is a bold statement:
quote:
Further, the recent discovery of the information-containing 3-D spatial-encoding within the original DelaWarr remotely-obtained images, provides compelling evidence that macro-scale quantum holography is, indeed, a replicable and acceptable phenomenon. The intention required by the operator of the DelaWarr system to extract usable information from a quantum hologram forces us to conclude that evolved consciousness is antecedent in producing measurable non-local causal events.

Get that? Someone's thoughts influenced an observable event through completely unconnected (physically, that is) means.

Now, if you followed that, or more importantly if you didn't follow, this is a more accessible account of what quantum holograms are all about. I only point out the first link for it's snazzy pictures.

quote:
In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head.

What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal.


It gets better:

quote:
The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.

quote:
But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only
selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.


I stick by my claim that the show was crap. Now, had it been about this quantum holograms with a small tangent on para-psychological phenomenon, I'd be making a post about how interesting Nature of Things was last night.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 March 2002 08:54 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm also going to note here that the CSICOP website (publishers of the Skeptical Inquirer) have no hits for "quantum holograph". Nor does the Skeptics Dictionary. Nor does anything come up on Scientific American, Nature or American Scientist. Fringe is right. I even tried "bohm", "Alain Aspect", and "non-locality".

I did find this in Discover, though (full text is not available):

quote:

Heresy

Rupert Sheldrake earned the righteous scorn of his fellow biologists for suggesting that pets communicate telepathically with their masters by way of invisible "morphic fields." But some physicists think he may be onto something
By Brad Lemley

Rupert Sheldrake gazes, rapt, at the TV monitor. The videotape he is showing as part of a public lecture at Cambridge University portends, in his view, nothing less than the shattering of modern biology. It also features a cute dog. The tape, produced by an Austrian television station, looks more like a low-budget domestic farce than a paradigm smasher. On the right side of the split screen, the dog's owner, a woman named Pam Smart, is shown gadding about the English village of Ramsbottom. On the left side, her terrier-cross, Jaytee, who has remained at home, lies curled up at the feet of Pam's mother, Muriel. Beneath each of these slow-moving dramas, synchronized videotape counters tick by, confirming that the camera locked on Jaytee and the camera tracking Pam show simultaneous activity. Suddenly, a researcher accompanying Pam tells her it's time to leave. Eleven seconds later, as Pam exits a churchyard and strides toward a taxi stand to get a ride home, Jaytee rises and trots to a window. The Austrian reporter's voice-over states the dog waited patiently there for 15 minutes until his mistress walked in through the door.



And this letter in response to the article:
quote:
I greatly appreciated that Brad Lemley, the author of "Heresy," identified Rupert Sheldrake's body of work with David Bohm's interpretation of quantum theory. However, Lemley greatly distorted the plausibility and degree of acceptance that Bohm's ideas enjoy.

The experiments of Alain Aspect noted by Lemley hardly count as strong support for Bohm. In fact, they were widely recognized as settling the debate over "hidden variable" explanations of quantum theory in favor of the "Copenhagen" interpretation, [which states that the act of observing affects the nature of reality at the subatomic level].

This reading of quantum mechanics eliminates the need for hidden variables like those postulated by Bohm (and of course Sheldrake's "morphic fields" are hidden variables writ large). It is true that Bohm's interpretation can be made consistent with the findings, but only after violating relativity theory, a problem the Copenhagen reading does not share.

While I for one have little time for Sheldrake's ideas, I applaud Discover for giving unusual notions like this a public hearing. Mainstream science is ill served by presenting itself dogmatically, as some of Sheldrake's critics do.


Anyway, CSICOP might not be up-to-date on quantum holographs but it does have this to say:

quote:
Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory developed early in the century to account for the anomalous behavior of light and atoms, are being misconstrued so as to imply that only thoughts are real and that the physical universe is the product of a cosmic mind to which the human mind is linked throughout space and time. This interpretation has provided an ostensibly scientific basis for various mind-over-matter claims, from ESP to alternative medicine. "Quantum mysticism" also forms part of the intellectual backdrop for the postmodern assertion that science has no claim on objective reality.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 27 March 2002 12:09 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is fascinating.

quote:
If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.

The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims,every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.


It is also profoundly poetic, not something that I would have expected to see in even "fringe" science and ultimately quite a wonderful way to view the world.

The CSICOP article debunking the theory seemed a little pedantic. I didn't understand the physics well enough to completely "get" the argument but I was rather put off by the dismissive tone. I thought scientists were supposed to make leaps of faith yet the article seemed quite critical of those doing so. Maybe I've been living in Tory Ontario for too long, but their summary defending the "common sense" aspect of classical physics, seemed not to be a useful way of explaining the mysteries of the universe.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 March 2002 12:46 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'll happily get pedantic when dealing with the claims of Deepak Chopra and other mystics.

There's a difference between classical physics (or classical mechanics, or Newtonian mechanics), which prevailed before relativistic and quantum physics came along, and modern physics, which, arguably, includes all three.

An irritatingly small point, you might think, except that it leads into an important one. At subatomic scales, quantum mechanics is, most physicists are convinced, the best description of the phenomena they observe.

As you consider larger and larger objects -- the objects of everyday reality -- quantum mechanics ceases to be relevant, and ordinary (or "common-sense") classical mechanics becomes the best description.

As the CSICOP article puts it:

quote:
Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics.

(By the way, there's nothing at all "common-sense" about quantum mechanics -- it's very counter-intuitive! Unless, that is, you've studied it closely and worked with it for some time, which I freely admit I haven't. The definition of "common sense" is context-specific, and much of scientific education is aimed at inculcating or developing one's intuition or common sense, in the desired context.

(It grieves me, too, that the Ontario Tories have so perverted the noble and democratic idea of common sense. But the CSICOP author can hardly be blamed for that. He's probably never even heard of Mike Harris -- if he's lucky, that is).

Again, at very large scales or at "relativistic" speeds (that is, speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light), relativistic physics becomes the best description.

But notice how I've been putting this. Science (at least in my view, which, since it's pinched from several much better thinkers, represents at least a significant minority tendency, if not a consensus) isn't so much about making definitive statements on the order of This Is The Way The World Works. Its interpreters and popularizers may give that impression, but most working scientists, I believe, take a humbler view. It may be because of the interpreters and popularizers that most people get an inaccurate view of science, expect perhaps too much of it, just as (I believe) they expect too much of medicine.

Scientists, in their work, aren't supposed to make leaps of faith, really -- or even attempt to explain "the mysteries of the universe." (Many are uneasy with such language, finding it a bit grandiose, and would say that a problem or anomaly can, potentially, be explained, but a mystery can only be revealed -- and not by them, mere working mortals).

They might -- should -- make leaps of imagination in trying to solve a problem or anomaly -- why does light sometimes behave like a wave and sometimes like a particle? why are all galaxies apparently receding from us? -- to name only two famous ones. But then they have to test their hypotheses, typically through hard, grinding, repetitive work.

(And you know, I'm convinced much scientific discovery is driven not by a desire to explain the mysteries of the universe -- although that might well motivate someone to become a scientist -- but rather by a desire to solve some little, nagging, seemingly insignificant but nonetheless annoying problem of the kind that just gets under your skin and won't go away!)

Einstein more or less created relativistic physics through pure thought and insight and said leaps of imagination. (And mathematics, of course). But it wasn't generally accepted until independent, physical corroboration was discovered. It was part of the greatness of his theories that they predicted just where such evidence might be found.

Faith, however, implies belief without evidence. This might be valid enough in some contexts, but not the scientific one. Of course one can be a scientist and a spiritual or religious believer at the same time, but to my way of thinking they can't really be combined successfully, or convincingly, since they work in rather different ways and deal with rather different questions.

But then, I'm rather weak in the philosophy of science -- in philosophy generally -- and am certainly not mysically inclined, at least at this householder stage of my life... besides, I'm ashamed to confess I might well qualify as a materialist, or a rationalist, or a Cartesian dualist, or some other such dreadful and unfashionable thing!

So I await to be routed by the combined forces of rasmus, Michelle, skdadl, Mandos, Trespasser...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 27 March 2002 01:31 PM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I watched it and did indeed find it interesting. Did you miss the intro? Where they stated that usually they dedicate their shows to "debunking" such claims, but that since new discoveries -the quantum physics aspect- had been made that they were going to give the other side a chance? If we just keep closing the door to it, and we don't have serious studies of it, we'll never have answers.

Healthy doses of skepticism are vital to any field of study, but out-right nay-saying is totally useless. Makes you sound like this idiot I was listening to last night on the radio that said the Grand Canyon was caused by a flash flood and not millions of years of steady erosion and seperation. Questioning is fine, but calling it all "crap" is totally useless to any pursuit to understand things that are "inexplicable" but have happened to millions of people. The quantum physics aspect was intriguing. That's a "hard science" discovery.

What part of the graph didn't you understand? Her nervous system reacted 3 seconds prior to viewing the distubing image, that was shown on the top line, the images on the bottom.

I personally have had things happen that I cannot explain, period. Just two days ago while I'm on the phone with my husband, our DVD wound-up on the floor. He was sitting on the couch, heard a thud behind him, and there was the DVD on the floor. It had been upright, snugly placed amongst the rest of them, on a deep, level book shelf. "Crap" like that has been happening for months in this new apartment.

Be skeptical, please, but don't dismiss everything that you don't understand.

You might find this study interesting, one of the rare serious looks at mediums.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P1782279

http://openmindsciences.com/whitecrow.htm

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1383579


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 March 2002 02:21 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By the way, there's nothing at all "common-sense" about quantum mechanics -- it's very counter-intuitive! Unless, that is, you've studied it closely and worked with it for some time, which I freely admit I haven't.

I've found it to be less than stunningly counterintuitive, interestingly enough.

Your explanation, BTW, is fine enough for me, so fear not.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 March 2002 05:57 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head.

"What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal."


This is standard claptrap. It can be found in Jung, for example. There is always someone who knows something "they couldn't have known." In Jung's case, it turned out that there was a clear source for all the "mystically acquired" knowledge.

In the case of the woman who intuited the colour of the prehistoric reptile, I would ask why there was no intuition of prehistoric ANYTHING, prior to the discovery of the bones themselves? Afterwards, it's easy.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
doseq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1792

posted 27 March 2002 06:09 PM      Profile for doseq     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I watched disclosure as well. The segment on the FBI psyhcic was particularily interesting and troubling. It brought up the point that repeated proof of a phenomenon should be valid in the absence of an understanding of its mechanism. This I agree with, and if she repeated solved cases that couldn't be solved I either believe her or start following her. What troubled me was when she began identifying suspects from touching the blodied shirt of a victim. If she provides a profile that directs the investigation of police I'm not comfortable with that.
From: Quebec City | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 March 2002 07:53 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There were a number of things I found suspect in the show. In regards to the psychic who found the body, did anyone not witness her "reading" that was done on camera? "I see a woman. Yes. And a ring! Yes, the ring is important. There is a woman..", etc. Did anyone not think it odd that she cut the reading short? "I can't do this anymore". How convenient. Yeah, I want psychics employed by police forces where their ability to foresee is dependant on how gruesome the crime is. Please.

Or how about the thought projection experiment, where the woman correctly guessed the picture of the little plant thingies. Only four pictures to choose from? Chance would dictate a 25% success rate alone. Does the experimenter really need to prompt the subject about each picture? I expect to see this on Fox, not on the CBC.

quote:
I watched it and did indeed find it interesting. Did you miss the intro? Where they stated that usually they dedicate their shows to "debunking" such claims, but that since new discoveries -the quantum physics aspect- had been made that they were going to give the other side a chance?

This is my whole point. If the show had been about quantum holographs, fine. Like, c'mon, apparently it's all proven and can be detected reliably and consistently (as per the Journal of Theoretics paper). You don't need to give me a Dan Akroyd and his paranormal investigations to discuss that.
quote:
It is also profoundly poetic, not something that I would have expected to see in even "fringe" science and ultimately quite a wonderful way to view the world.

Well, to be quite honest, that's the lure. But being profoundly poetic does not constitute a proof of an objective fact. It may be a wonderful view of the world, but it doesn't make it any more right.

In case people missed it in my first link, that paper is explaining an experiment where they were able to take a drop of blood from a pregnant lady and, using that sample, make a photograph of the fetus. Russian scientists discovered that the quantum signatures (or whatever) of an empty chamber were different after an object was placed in the chamber than it was when nothing was in it. And the paper claims this is all repeatable. There are no spooks, no psi energies in these experiments. Where was a show about that?

There was no show about it because it's all hogwash. The paper itself has telltale signs of problem thinking. "96 cultures have a concept of energy." Most cultures have a concept of supernatural beings, gods, too. A clue into the importance of this claim might lie in the reading of "The Chinese have 'chi', the Japanese have 'ki'". I'm totally amazed that two cultures, geographically bordering each other both have a concept of energy which, oddly enough, they seem to use phonetically similar words for. Call Scientific American! I got a paper they need to publish!

Then there is the claim, in both my links, I think, that a "meta analysis" of psi studies show that there is something there. Fine. But are the studies included in the meta-analysis sound? Is a phenomenon meaningful (or paradigm shifting.. this is big stuff) if it can't be detected in any given study but can be shown to have slight effects when taken together? Scientists may need to bash a million protons together to finally find that sub-meson but that is the subatomic world.

Or how about the claim about this Bohm guy, a protégé of Einstein. Gee, sounds like Bohm's interpretation is not widely accepted, yet the Copenhagen one is. While I don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics, I find it odd that with the current theoretical framework and interpretations they are starting build quantum computers now. Qubits and the like. Sounds like the framework seems pretty stable to me.

I'll just tie this back into why I thought this show was atrocious. Do a show on quantum theory and interpretation instead. If these holograms are real and as fantastic as that "fringe science" site claims, then there shouldn't be a problem concentrating on this as opposed to the psi stuff.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 27 March 2002 08:04 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, a pang of guilt came over me. I apologize for the use of the words crap and hogwash. I'm being needless confrontational again.

I will, however, use the phrase "highly suspect".


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 27 March 2002 08:39 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, to be quite honest, that's the lure. But being profoundly poetic does not constitute a proof of an objective fact. It may be a wonderful view of the world, but it doesn't make it any more right.

I know. But so what?

I also mean that just because something hasn't been proven yet doesn't then make it wrong. Does it?


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 28 March 2002 11:55 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And furthermore andrean, it's pretty damn hard to even attempt to "proove" this stuff when only ONE "reputable" university has done a semi-comprehensive study of mediums, let alone telekinesis, intuition, precognition, telepathy, remote viewing, ghosts, poltergeists, etc.

When all others are throwing hands in the air scoffing and pointing to the lowest common denominator -some psychic reading scam on late night tv- as the "prime example", dismissing it completely and shameing anyone else who may possibly give it a chance as a fruitcake, chances are, we aren't going to get anywhere close to understanding the physics of these phenomenon do to closed minded bigots.

Reactions and attitudes like this lead me to believe that the people that dismiss all of this stuff, that has been reported as happening for thousands of years as "hogwash", are just terrified of what they don't understand. If THEY can't explain it, understand it, or repeat it for themselves, then they aren't in control. Do I know how, or why some of these things happen? NO. But I am no so arrogant as to say that it's all crap because I, the all knowing geru of science Trinitty, can't understand it. This same type of nay-saying is used by fundamentalists who argue till blue in the face that Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian, and walked with man. Why? Because they are scared to look at the other possibilities because that would mean they could possibly be wrong.

I'm done now. Sorry clockwork, you just pissed me off. I've had a tonne of these things happen to me, -no I don't know how or why- and I'm tired of being passed-off like some raving lunatic, or be called a liar, and I'm sure the other few million people who have had similar experiences feel the same way.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 28 March 2002 07:38 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry you're done now. But this is good because it gives me the last word.

First, I back pedaled on my hogwash comment. I realize I'm coming off pretty strong.

Next, I don't think that people who believe psychic phenomenon are raving lunatics. Of course, I think they are wrong but that is no different then someone thinking I'm close minded because I don't believe in psi. I've known a few people who swear they've been to a psychic or whatever and it's all true. Do I believe they are mad? No. Do I believe they are trying to purposely mislead me? No. Do I think they honestly beleive? Yes.

There was a period in my life where I read everything possible about stuff like this. I even wanted to believe. But there came a point when I realized that the mind is a very powerful and obstinate tool. It can hold anything as a truth and can take disparate events and meld them together in some rather weird ways, even though to the mind itself, the person, it all makes complete sense. Indeed, at this point I can easily launch into a rant about common sense.

quote:
This same type of nay-saying is used by fundamentalists who argue till blue in the face that Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian, and walked with man. Why? Because they are scared to look at the other possibilities because that would mean they could possibly be wrong.

I'm not disagreeing that this kind of dynamic exists. Even in the sciences: if you study all you're life arguing a certain point, researching a certain view and then some smarmy grad student manages to refute 25 years of your work, I think it's pretty easy to predict what will happen. Acceptance of the refutation probably means your career is over. Obviously you're not going down without a fight. But, luckily, I have no vested interest in this.

I what if I turn the tables. What happens if I make the same point to you? Could you accept that maybe you are wrong? Could you accept that your experiences, which I'm not going to doubt, could ever be explained by much more mundane phenomena? (Mundane is probably the wrong here. The works of the mind are far from mundane.)

The point about no reputable researchers studying this either doesn't mean much to me. Very few researchers are trying to figure out the original cold fusion experiment either. Nor does the fact that this type of phenomenon has been happening for thousands of years mean much either. Human history is filed with some wacky stuff, a lot of it untrue.

Heheh? there is a good tidbit in this book I'm reading about China. The emperors of the Xing dynasty employed European priests to accurately figure out solstices, or the rising of the sun, or some such celestial events. They did this to bolster the claim that their lineage is directly from the gods. Imagine, you're a little peasant labourer in Nanjing, "Oh, our emperor must be divine because he told us when the full moon would be!"

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sherpafish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1568

posted 28 March 2002 11:47 PM      Profile for sherpafish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*BUMP* You'd like this thread Dr Strnglve
From: intra-crainial razor dust | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 31 March 2002 12:03 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then there is the claim, in both my links, I think, that a "meta analysis" of psi studies show that there is something there.

I have been informed since I've written this that (josh-darnit) meta-analysis do not enjoy a widespread acceptance among sciences.

For instance:

quote:
We performed a meta-analysis of the findings for cardiovascular mortality, comparing the results from the six observational studies recently reviewed by Jha et al(27) with those from the four randomised trials. For the observational studies the results relate to a comparison between groups with high and low ß carotene intake or serum ß carotene concentration, whereas in the trials the participants randomised to ß carotene supplements were compared with those randomised to placebo. With a fixed effects model, the meta-analysis of the cohort studies shows a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk reduction 31% (95% confidence interval 41% to 20%, P0.0001)) (fig 2). The results from the randomised trials, however, show a moderate adverse effect of ß carotene supplementation (relative increase in the risk of cardiovascular death 12% (4% to 22%, P=0.005)).

Source

quote:
Meta-analysis attempts to apply quantitative methods to systematic literature review. It essentially posits that the world of studies is an adequate proxy for the real world. Therefore, quantitative assessment of reports is analagous to the quantitative assessment of data. Accepting this dubious stand, for the sake of argument, it should be noted that conscientious meta-analysts attempt the difficult job of exhausting the universe of relevant, including unpublished, studies. On several occasions different meta-analyses have come to different conclusions about the same question, depending upon the extensiveness of their search. Further, it is recognized that error occurs frequently in coding of studies. Therefore checks must be in place for coding reliability. It is also known that computer searches of databases, using key words, results in a substantially attenuated sample of relevant studies as compared to hand searches (Hunter & Schmidt, 1991).
?
Finally, Kirsch and Sapirstein (1998) should at least have mentioned that meta-analysis, even when well done, has been severely criticized in many different publications. For instance, LeLorier, Gregoire, Benhaddad, Lapierre, and Derderian (1997) found substantial discrepancies between meta-analyses and large clinical trials. The meta-analyses would have lead to rejection of a useful treatment in 4 out of 12 cases.


Source
I feel fairly confident that not only am I right to question the results of these "meta-analysis" studies, but I could also criticize the use of meta-analysis itself.

I was also given a small speech on probabilities. While I'm shaky on the concepts being conveyed (alas, I have never actually taken any kind of statistics course), I think I understand the general idea. You cannot assign probabilities to events that have already happened. For instance, if you're in a car on the road and you look at the license plate of the vehicle in front of you, you might be tempted to think that you have just been apart of a freak occurrence. If you calculate the chances of seeing that particular plate, you'd find that it was a one in one million (assuming that there are a million license plates of that particular province, or one in one trillion or something like that if you assume every conceivable plate exists). But that is not the proper way to look at the situation. You saw the plate. There is no probability involved with that. The correct use of probabilities here is if you were given a random plate number and then saw that plate on the road.

To tie this into the conversation, think of these types of problems when you encounter something like that openmindedsciences link and are given the claim that the probability of the result is extremely low. (and, to add, I'd like to see that study done in Brampton where the psychic would correctly pick names like "Mandeep", "Troung", and "Kwado" as opposed to "Mike", "George" and "Joe").


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 02 April 2002 11:27 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clockwork,

*guess I wasn't done*

Yes, I would be willing to accept a plausible explanation of things that have happened to me throughout my life.

I WANT them to be explained, my curiosity is killing me. I will not, however, accept that I have imagined them -because there have been several witnesses to some of these events- or accept elements that were not present at the time of their occurrence, such as wind blowing, or radios playing.

Am I certain that things flying off of their shelves and taps turning on are the ghost of the old lady that died a week after moving out of the apartment that I now live in? NO. I would be willing to accept that it is hormonal or stressful energy being emitted from myself, my husband or my cats unconsciously causing these things to happen. Or some sort of electrical pulse that's building up some sort of wild static energy. Those are the only other thing I can think of. I LOVE science, molecules fascinated me the first time I watched them explained on "Eureka!", -that cartoon that came on between Saturday morning cartoons- and would be HAPPY to have "science" explain these things.

If I'm causing these occurrences in some unconscious way, GREAT, explain it to me, I still think that would be intriguing, as you said, the human mind is a complex, yet-to-be-understood thing.

The problem is, nobody has done that yet.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 02 April 2002 11:10 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I too find it hard to believe in, whether we call it the supernatural or any other name. On the other hand I too have experienced things that I could not explain. Often the answer put out, 'coincidence'. Could be, but I really am not sure.

One of my great scientific theories, is that thoughts can be measured in electric impulses. They are concrete rather than abstract. Perhaps this could be the answer.

When I see a dog following a scent, a scent that I can not see or smell, I am impressed. The dog is not impressed, he just does smell. Maybe we too have certain aptitudes that we are not aware of and perhaps just do not use much. Maybe it is not so peculiar at all?


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 03 April 2002 11:28 AM      Profile for Trinitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly clersal.

Maybe it's as natural as the falling reflex, but we've spooked it up because it doesn't fit into the doctrines of mainstream religions that have totally shaped our present day society... most of these religions still maintain that these occurances are all attributable to the "devil" and that people who display any of these abilities are in cahoots with the hoofed one, but I don't think they are listened to by many.

Ironically now it is the "rational, scientific" community (the same ones who were persecuted along with the "witches") who are shutting out the possibility that these abilities exist and have always been there.

What sorts of things have happened to you that you cannot explain? Don't worry about it if you don't feel like it. I just like hearing others experiences to see if they are similar to my own.

Mohammed, your post made my brain hurt. I'm going to get that book you mentioned, then maybe I can bat with your team.


From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 03 April 2002 06:03 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The most common was, is, thinking about telephoning someone and the phone rings and there they are.

Thinking about someone and then have this strong feeling that the person is also thinking about you.

Déjà vu also has happened a number of times. Nothing creepy. This kind of stuff.

I did check out whether the person usually telephoned on this particular day etc. Nope that wasn't the case. Anyhow I really do not think it is that uncommon but we humans love mysteries and make mountains out of molehills.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
hfx_ben
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 603

posted 05 April 2002 12:28 AM      Profile for hfx_ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Add this to the "synchrony / zetigeist" file: Walking down to my local to listen to a tune or two and have a pint (or two) I replayed a bit of this evening's "Ideas" in my head and tried to envision just how big a number the C^2 is in E=MC^2 ... wow, big number!
Anyhow, riding that meme a bit, I came across a way of expressing the interconnectedness of things ... imagining a nuclei breaking down as a point event in a hard ether, I imagined the ripples dissapating.
Point is, if you were quiet enough to hear it, even though you were 300,000 KMs away, you would know it happened in just barely over 1 second.
Now, I suggest, that is interconnectedness!
BTW buddhist epistemology is not only psychological but it's also cosmological ... makes a very good basis for stability.
p.s. the title of this tread is as wrong as it is cleverly funny ... IMHO, very.
While the unity of the three times is meaningful, it doesn't mean being in tune would result in already knowing the title. It means more like realizing it's funny upon reading it. *Look, Ma! No delusions!*
The past is actually and truly past, just as "I" is actually and truly empty. *It's a very full emptiness, doncha know?!*

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: hfx_ben ]


From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 05 April 2002 08:02 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whew, looks good but I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. That's okay as long as you know what you are talking about. Velly interesting.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca