Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8099 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2014 9:08 AM
194 online now:
Agingone, DWIII, herebedragons, Malcolm, Percy (Admin), purpledawn (AdminPD) (6 members, 188 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Happy Birthday: Bliyaal
Post Volume:
Total: 733,167 Year: 19,008/28,606 Month: 2,279/2,305 Week: 484/671 Day: 27/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112131415
16
Author Topic:   Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 226 of 237 (533810)
11-03-2009 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Straggler
11-02-2009 6:49 PM


Re: Hiding from the evidence
Straggler, if you could manage to rise above ad hom and general raving, I'd be more willing to take the time to reply to your posts.

As for your brilliant analysis of the "obvious" errors in Sheldrake's "Dogs that Know" experiments,

Rather than applying the proposed causal relationship under investigation to take one set of the data (e.g. the behaviour of the dog) and predict the other (i.e. the time the owner set off home) a pile of data was simply collected and then criteria and statistics applied post-hoc to achieve whatever result the researcher in question wanted to claim.

The simplicity of the experiments means that this is not a problem. You look at the amount of time the dog spent at the window during each time block. You look at when Pam began her journey home. There is data from more than 100 experiments, including controls where she came home after the 4-hour videotaped period, or not at all. There are clear correlations and it's hard to see how any degree of wishful thinking or chicanery would skew these results. Your claim above is another ad hoc attempt to explain it all away, and claims about ID are red herrings. Best wishes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2009 6:49 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Straggler, posted 11-04-2009 2:00 PM Kitsune has not yet responded
 Message 230 by petrophysics1, posted 11-07-2009 6:14 PM Kitsune has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9920
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 227 of 237 (534033)
11-04-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Kitsune
11-03-2009 2:33 AM


So Be It
Well I notice that you still won't answer my question regarding whether or not you consider telepthy to be evidenced enough to teach to school science students. Why is that?

The simplicity of the experiments means that this is not a problem.

Bias isn't a problem in experiments? Wow! And yet at the same time you claim it is skeptical bias that results in telepthy experiments giving negative results when conducted by skeptics?

So now you have experimental results for telepthy that only believers can replicate and an explanation for this phenomenon in the form of morphic fields that are empirically undetectable. And this is science?

Your claim above is another ad hoc attempt to explain it all away

OK LindaLou have it your way.

If you want to ignore the fact that Sheldrake is misusing terminology to intentionally make his spiritual ideas sound scientific to the public so be it. If you want to believe that Sheldrake is some sort of visionary who is pioneering a radical new paradigm against a conspiracy of denial on the part of the dogmatic doctrine of empirical-only science then so be it. If you want to believe in telepathy on the basis of some post hoc stats and a dog that sits near a window at certain times of day so be it. If you so desperately need to believe that there is "something more" out there that you are willing to fall for this guy's "science for the people" approach and accept his pseudoscientific morphic fields as even a potential explanation for anything, then............... So be it.

and claims about ID are red herrings.

So you assert. But if you swap the immaterial and empirically unknowable intelligent designer with ethereal and empirically unknowable creative fields of information there really is very little to seperate the two. Expelled: No Telepathy Allowed (Message 216)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Kitsune, posted 11-03-2009 2:33 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6274
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 228 of 237 (534138)
11-05-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
10-14-2009 5:58 PM


Dowsing for bombs

quote:
The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

Still, the Iraqi government has purchased more than 1,500 of the devices, known as the ADE 651, at costs from $16,500 to $60,000 each. Nearly every police checkpoint, and many Iraqi military checkpoints, have one of the devices, which are now normally used in place of physical inspections of vehicles.


This divining rod ADE651 bomb detection unit, works by 'electrostatic magnetic ion attraction' and can detect this from over 3 miles away in a aircraft in flight!

They turned down Randi's $1,000,000 challenge - which is understandable: The Iraqi government has already given them nearly $100,000,000 in business! Why test the product when your customers already believe it works!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2009 5:58 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2009 9:43 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 11-14-2009 8:54 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9920
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 229 of 237 (534144)
11-05-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Modulous
11-05-2009 8:01 AM


Dowsing For Bombs
Mod's Link writes:

The Iraqis, however, believe passionately in them. “Whether it’s magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs,” said Maj. Gen. Jehad al-Jabiri, head of the Ministry of the Interior’s General Directorate for Combating Explosives.Dowsing For Bombs

Well if it genuinely works we need to investigate how it works. But does it genuinely work?

Mod's link also writes:

Dale Murray, head of the National Explosive Engineering Sciences Security Center at Sandia Labs, which does testing for the Department of Defense, said the center had “tested several devices in this category, and none have ever performed better than random chance.”

Mod's link additionally writes:

Proponents of the wand often argue that errors stem from the human operator, who they say must be rested, with a steady pulse and body temperature, before using the device.

Oh. So it seems we have another one of those phenomenon that only works if you believe it works, that cannot be tested by skeptics, that has no scientific theoretical foundation as to how it even could work and that is essentially irrefutable in the eyes of those who believe in it. Sounds familiar.

works by 'electrostatic magnetic ion attraction'

Well obviously. The obligatory pseudoscientific explanation. Millions of dollars spent and people's lives at stake. It is incredible that people can get away with this stuff. Not to mention thoroughly depressing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2009 8:01 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
petrophysics1
Member
Posts: 270
From: Boulder, Wy
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 230 of 237 (534399)
11-07-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Kitsune
11-03-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Hiding from the evidence
Hi LL,

A few things FYI.

A year or so ago some Japanesse doctors did fractal analysis on EEG waveforms of people eating six different fruits. They were able to tell which fruit, after their analysis, a person was eating. What that means is that when you and I eat an orange we create similar brain wave patterns. For telepathy to work this would have to be true, that is we both have similar brain responses to similar stimulation. This test only was done on taste, but it doesn't seem unlikely to me that this would be true for the other senses as well. After all we all evolved together, and I don't see a reason our brains should work differently.(not WHAT we think but HOW we think)

Let's go to basic physics. A change in electrical current flow creates an electromagnetic wave (ask cavediver). When you turn a light on in your house the current goes from 0 to some value and at that moment you are sending out an electromagnetic wave (a radio wave) that you can actually hear as a "click" on a portable radio.

Electromagnetic waves = radio waves =visible light. This is all exactly the same stuff, only the frequency is different. Ask cavediver.

Can people detect electromagnetic radiation/waves.

Yes, of course, they can see.

Can they detect lower frequency, other than visible light, electromagnetic radiation?

Well at the U. of Arizona they did a test with dowsers, to see if they got a "dowsing response" when subjected to low frequency elecromagnetic radiation (very low frequency radio waves). They did unless their head or kidneys were shielded.

So LL when you think, the current flow in your brain changes. That means you are broadcasting "radio waves" or electromagnetic radiation.

I don't know the power of this current change in a person's brain but as an amateur radio operator for the last 47 years I have talked all over the world with as little as .1 watt.

This is a possible explanation for telepathy.

It isn't supernatural, but it also doesn't deny the evidence of people's personal expierence.

P.S. Check with cavediver on the physics, I'm sure there will be no problem. Also sorry ,I don't have the Japan and Arizona references on this computer at work. If you need them I can dig them up.

Edited by petrophysics1, : fix typos

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Kitsune, posted 11-03-2009 2:33 AM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Kitsune, posted 11-08-2009 3:28 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Member
Posts: 270
From: Boulder, Wy
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 231 of 237 (534404)
11-07-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by cavediver
10-23-2009 8:40 PM


Physics check
Hi cavediver,

If you would, please check out my physics on post 230.

It's about a change in current flow creates an electromagnetic wave.

So a change in brain current flow creates an electromagnetic wave as well.

Let me know if you have a problem with this. I'm an expert in petroleum geology not physics. Let me know if I'm wrong here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by cavediver, posted 10-23-2009 8:40 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 232 of 237 (534421)
11-08-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by petrophysics1
11-07-2009 6:14 PM


Re: Hiding from the evidence
Hi Petrophysics,

Interesting post, but I'm wondering what your proposed method of telepathy actually is? I'm up on basic physics like the electromagnetic spectrum but are you saying that this is how telepathy would operate? Some sort of frequency produced by the brain? I'm not aware of anyone who has tested for this, but the problem here is that having read some literature on the subject, it seems that it is a phenomenon which occurs instantaneously regardless of distance, hence the proposals that it has something to do with quantum entanglement. Thanks for your input here; it's nice to encounter some open-mindedness


former username "LindaLou"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by petrophysics1, posted 11-07-2009 6:14 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2009 1:39 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9920
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 233 of 237 (534574)
11-09-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Kitsune
11-08-2009 3:28 AM


Re: Hiding from the evidence
LL to Petrophysics writes:

I'm not aware of anyone who has tested for this, but the problem here is that having read some literature on the subject, it seems that it is a phenomenon which occurs instantaneously regardless of distance, hence the proposals that it has something to do with quantum entanglement.

This has already been mentioned here Sheldrake "Fields", "Energy", "Matter" and Quantum Quackery (Message 66)

Straggler writes:

And if anyone is interested in what Bell's theorem actually says including the (mis)conception of "instantaneous communication" I recommend that they review the following message Message 83 and those up and down thread from this.

LL to Petrophysics writes:

Thanks for your input here; it's nice to encounter some open-mindedness

Didn't some of us propose a naturalistic possibility for some form of telepthy based on brain activity in this thread a while ago? Telepthay (Message 112). How come we weren't embraced into the ranks of the "open minded"?

LL writes:

Maybe the fear is that this kind of telepathy may require an explanation that re-assesses what we know about reality, as I said before. Maybe this suddenly makes the world seem like a frightening place over which we have little control -- certainly not the confident control we thought we did. This is different from machines reading "brain waves" Re: Prediction Vs Post-Hoc Analysis (Message 114)

Confident control of nature? I think not. Where do you get this stuff? Maybe you are not as open minded as you think you are? "I Am Open Minded. You Are Closed Minded" (Message 205)

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Kitsune, posted 11-08-2009 3:28 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 234 of 237 (534951)
11-12-2009 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by onifre
10-23-2009 1:20 PM


prediction
String predicted gravity

Could you be much much more specific about what you mean by this?

I mean sure, in a trivial sense, string theory "predicts" gravity. So do relativity, LQG, gravitons, and the old jesus-holds-the-universe-together chestnut.

But don't we usually mean something more when we talk about prediction in theories? For example, when we say General Relativity predicts black holes, we mean that first there was an analysis of the Einstein math that indicated that extremely compact masses result in singularities with specific qualities. Then, some time afterward, we found evidence in the universe that there were in fact such objects and that they did have those qualities.

Fairly often in this argument we even hear shorthand like "Inflation predicts the CMB." Really, of course, what we mean is something like, Inflation predicts continued evidence of homogenity amongst areas of the universe so distant as to be causally unrelated; and that the CMB was discovered, afterward, to provide this continued evidence.

Whereas gravity alone, isn't a thing that is discovered or proven after any of the string theories. We already have gravity, what string theory and M-theory in particular might better be said to do, is to explain gravity without the various problems like non-renormalizability at very high energy levels, for example.

The reason I'm stressing this is because I recognize the language Izanagi is using and it reflects a real criticism of M-theory and its various predecessors / components. Here it is in a form that is either true, or else ought to be corrected:

Many detractors criticize string theory as it has not provided quantitative experimental predictions. Like any other quantum theory of gravity, it is widely believed that testing the theory directly would require prohibitively expensive feats of engineering. Whether there are stringent indirect tests of the theory is unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

This is a lot more generous than the actual statements of the detractors, in my experience. The general idea being propagated appears to be that, even if string theory were true, we would never know for sure.

Loop Quantum Gravity, by contrast, appears to predict variance of C under certain circumstances. This is something we can produce tests to check for, so it can either be supported or falsified, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity#Problems

What, if anything, could falsify string theory?

Edited by Iblis, : mild ststutter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 10-23-2009 1:20 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by cavediver, posted 11-12-2009 5:28 AM Iblis has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 235 of 237 (534963)
11-12-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Iblis
11-12-2009 12:43 AM


Re: prediction
Could you be much much more specific about what you mean by this?

I doubt it, as it is extremely complicated - but I can

I mean sure, in a trivial sense, string theory "predicts" gravity.

it is far from trivial

I recognize the language Izanagi is using

And Izanagi doesn't have the first clue about what he is talking. He is quoting idiots such as Woit and Smolin who both have immense and unwarranted axes to grind, Woit in particular who is just a postgrad blogger who now has an idiot book.

If you want to know the pros and cons of string theory, or any other aspect of quantum gravity, start a thread and I can discuss it rationally and informatively. Anyone who has a strong "passion" for or against any theory, is the last person you listen to in order to find out more about that theory...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Iblis, posted 11-12-2009 12:43 AM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Iblis, posted 11-13-2009 4:06 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 236 of 237 (535137)
11-13-2009 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by cavediver
11-12-2009 5:28 AM


parapsychology and metaphysics Re: prediction
start a thread and I can discuss it rationally and informatively

Thanks that would be super!
String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?

Just as a side note to anyone who might be reading, virtually everything else is in this thread is at best pseudo-science; that is, it's parapsychology, and psychology is theory of beliefs, not theory of realities. It's metaphysics, and meta = "not the same as". Capiche?

* Much of it is actually "junk science", see the linked thread for more detail on the distinction.

Edited by Iblis, : spelig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by cavediver, posted 11-12-2009 5:28 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9920
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 237 of 237 (535333)
11-14-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Modulous
11-05-2009 8:01 AM


Bomb Dowsing Defiance
This was in todays Guardian newspaper.

Dowsing for Bombs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Modulous, posted 11-05-2009 8:01 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1112131415
16
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014