|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
...parsimony is a desired quality in a theory. Is that wrong In 99% of discussed cases, yes. How the hell do you measure the "simplicity" of a theory? Is General Relativity more simple than Newtonian gravitation? Most would say not, but it damn well is from my perspective. String Theory is far more simple than LQG in 1000 aspects, and LQG is more simple in another 1000 aspects. And in ONE aspect, that of dimensionality of the target space, you first assume that d>4 is more complex than d=4 (why? in differential geometry and algebraic topology, d=4 is nearly always the most complex case, out of all possible d) and that this one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects!!! Starting to feel a little out of your depth for making such proclamations yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Do you at least agree that in subsequent tests Sheldrake should be able to make "blind" predictions about the leaving time of the owner based on the behaviour of the dog alone if his hypothesis is true?
Oh, I agree that a well-formed hypothesis needs to have predictive power. Surely even you can see that this is more objective than simply correlating two sets of data and applying the statistical analysis required to get the desired answer? The idea of a nonquantifiable morphic fields seems to preclude the ability to test for when the telepathic event is supposed to happen. What I mean is that whenever the owner randomly goes home, the model should be able to predict with great accuracy that moment the owner decides to go home through whatever criteria. But the fact the Sheldrake's model for telepathy uses a nonquantifiable explanation means that you likely can't predict that moment. So yes, predictive quality is important. It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Starting to feel a little out of your depth for making such proclamations yet?
No, but I'm starting to learn something new, i.e. in differential geometry and algebraic topology, d=4 is nearly always the most complex case, out of all possible d. My next questions would be why d=4 is the most complex, why is d>4 more complex in that situation and why that one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects. There are other questions, of course, but no need for you to answer any of them including the three I posted. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But the fact that you are now mocking my, what I am assuming is, a naturalistic explanation tells me you won't consider the argument. Woooh, I was not mocking at all. But if you think me question sounded like mocking, then they should tell you something about what we're discussing.
The explanation is rooted in the natural world and therefore falsifiable. Do the experiments and prove me wrong and it wouldn't matter one lick to me. You haven't told me what to look for yet. Are they brainwaves that travel in some sort of field, or, are they brainwaves that stay in the brain? These questions are important, and will also show that when people use the word 'telepathy" they have no clue what the word means or what they are describing. Which again makes me ask, are they witnessed a paranormal phenomenon at all. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Are they brainwaves that travel in some sort of field, or, are they brainwaves that stay in the brain?
I don't know much about brainwaves, but I don't think it really matters if they stop at the skull or are in some sort of field because brainwaves typically originate in the brain. We can use an EEG to measure what we can and when technology catches up, and if it is possible, a portable MRI machine or something similar to scan the brain. So regardless of whether it stays in the head or not, we should be able to measure the EEG or the brain activity that might be associated with it. And just for the hell of it, we'll measure the EEG of and brain scan the owner as well. These questions are important, and will also show that when people use the word 'telepathy" they have no clue what the word means or what they are describing. And for the record, I usually am quite capable of separating what I like to be true from what is scientifically possible. For instance, I would like magic to be true so I can cast fireballs to my heart's content, but I know it's never going to happen. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
My next questions would be... And that is all it takes
why d=4 is the most complex Good question, but not easily answered and would deserve a thread all of its own. Would be fun to look at this though...
why is d>4 more complex in that situation It's not - relativity in 5,6,7,8,9,10 dimensions is not much different to relativity in 4 dimensions. But go less than 4, and you get big changes. LQG is constructed in 4 dimensions, as that is what our Universe looks like. Nothing clever in that. String Theory predicts how many dimensions it needs to work in - that is very clever and completely(ish) new - though that number of dimensions just happens to be large. But we have known for nearly a century that higher dimensions are the key to unification of the forces. So the fact that String Theory predicts higher dimensions is often regarded as a strength, not a weakness.
why that one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects. It doesn't - that's what I'm saying - you can't appeal to just one aspect of a huge body of work, and declare that because that one aspect is "simpler" in some way, that parsimony dictates that that theory is the more likely correct. Need I say OFF-TOPIC ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
That's fine, and it would be an interesting topic to talk about. Like I said, I like learning about new things because while stupid is a condition, ignorance is a choice, and I don't like being ignorant.
I value knowledge. I debate so I can learn more from other people and adjust my knowledge according to what I learn. But I don't like being called ignorant. That's why I stopped arguing with Smooth_Operator - because he decided insulting me was better than debating the points on their merits (although perhaps I might have started it). In my opinion, insulting a person who doesn't have all the knowledge doesn't demean the person who was insulted. But it may cause a lost opportunity for lifting the shroud of ignorance. Anyway, that's a topic for another time. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Izanagi writes: That's why I stopped arguing with Smooth_Operator - because he decided insulting me was better than debating the points on their merits (although perhaps I might have started it). I agree. That is why I left SO's thread as well. I don't argue with rude, obnoxious, abusive people. Not that I can't but it is futile and not worth my time. I have run into a few people on this board, remarkably many who claim to be religious and/or Christians, who do not know how to control there emotions to the point of verbally assaulting people and many times with profanity. It is disturbing actually and I wonder what these people are like in person. Didn't want to diverge this topic but just wanted to give validity to your statement. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I don't know much about brainwaves, but I don't think it really matters if they stop at the skull or are in some sort of field because brainwaves typically originate in the brain. The problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming that brain waves can travel in a "field," when in fact they cannot. Brain waves are simply the firing of neurons, which travel down axons and release chemicals at the synapse. So in no way can these brain waves be doing anything but working in your brain. Here's a good read on telepathy - source - complete with studies on it and the results. Here's an excerpt from it, since Linda Lou feels no one looks into this stuff.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming that brain waves can travel in a "field," when in fact they cannot. Brain waves are simply the firing of neurons, which travel down axons and release chemicals at the synapse. So in no way can these brain waves be doing anything but working in your brain.
I'm not assuming anything so don't put words in my mouth. My contention is that if telepathy were a real process, it would likely involve the brain as part of that process. Since we have methods of looking into the brain and see what's going on, through MRIs, EEGs, and MEGs, then we would be able to see changes that should be taking place during a telepathic event. The actual mechanics of telepathy are unimportant since my idea (and I hesitate to call it a hypothesis) is that since the brain receives the information, it is involved somehow. My only assumption is that the brain is the center for most sensory input - that is the brain interprets most, if not all, inputs we receive. If telepathy is part of this "sixth sense" then the brain should also be involved. Now we know, through the technology of MRIs, many new information on the activity of the brain when we receive sensory input. We can see the changes that are taking place in the brain as different things are happening. We even know more of what is happening in the brain during sex. So if telepathy is involved with the brain somehow, then changes in the brain would be a logical effect since sensory input has shown to effect changes in brain activity. So what we are doing is looking for the effect on the brain of the act of telepathy. Once again, I am not worried about the mechanics. I am not assuming anything regarding the mechanics. The only assumption I am making is that processing sensory information effects measurable changes in the brain. I am looking to see if there is an effect on the brain. If it turns out that there is an effect on the brain, then further studies can be made as to why there are changes, and if telepathy is the cause, how telepathy occurs. If there is no effect (there likely aren't) then telepathy most likely can't be a natural process because I know of no other way by which the brain can process information without effecting changes in the brain. Once again, my only assumption is that the process of telepathy should effect measurable changes in brain activity. No other assumptions are being made. It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott ---------------------------------------- Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy ---------------------------------------- You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4329 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Hi Onifre,
My suggestion: first, define telepathy by means of a force, a particle, a wave, something. Show that something is actually happening, before you make a hypothesis which includes it as the answer. And my suggestion: hypothesise that telepathy exists, and design experiments to detect it. Introduce controls for all other possible natural explanations. I believe Sheldrake did this with his "Dogs that Know" experiments. Their simplicity makes then easy to analyse. Why is it necessary to understand how a force operates, in order to ascertain that the force exists? Don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse? Would you have dismissed electromagnetism as pseudoscientific nonsense a thousand years ago because no one knew what a photon was? Simple:a) Conduct experiments to find out if telepathy exists. It is the transfer of information between organisms, which is not contingent on time or distance, and which cannot be explained by any other known means of communication. b) Once its existence is accepted, conduct experiments to discover how it works. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4329 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Hi again Onifre,
Interesting example from the Skeptic's Dictionary. Let me have a guess what happened here, and correct me if I'm wrong: You previously knew little about past paranormal experiments.You are trying to argue here that things like telepathy and precognition are pseudoscience. You go to a source which you are pretty sure will back you up in this. The source appears to give clear information from failed experiments. You are content with this, use it as your argument, and research no further. Before I talk about this, let's have a look at what a creationist does when they are debating with evolutionists. We know that creationists delude themselves about science and its findings. They previously knew little about the scientific topic in question.They are trying to argue that the topic is nonsense because it contradicts the Bible. They go to a source which they are pretty sure will back them up in this (i.e. AIG). The source appears to give clear information as to why the science is wrong. They are content with this, use it as their argument, and research no further. What is wrong with this?They are only interested in finding information that supports their beliefs and will exclude information that does not. They trust their sources implicitly. It looks to me like your particular source, while possibly telling one version of the truth about these studies (I am not familiar with them but am aware that other sources make different claims about these experiments), is cherry-picking the data. For example, it took less than a minute to Google similar research. I've been looking at a series of ESP tests done at Duke University in the 1930s. Here is a summary of some of them:
REVIEW OF THE PEARCE-PRATT DISTANCE SERIES OF ESP TESTS These tests specifically set out to eliminate the possibility of subtle cues by separating the subject from the person who draws the cards, placing each in different buildings well away from each other. Perhaps you'd like to read the details of the experiment designs and tell me why you think the statistically significant success rate is flawed. Rhine, one of the experiment's designers, ran other ESP experiments at Duke and wrote a book about them. For one experiment, he tested 40 subjects and found one who was a "good scorer." It seems possible that ESP may be an ability which varies from person to person, as other abilities do. (One explanation for why some experiments may average out to chance, if they are not selective of the participants.) This person consistently scored above chance, unless asked not to, in which case he also seemed able to score below chance. In order to eliminate perceived problems with the 25 cards, there were some experiments where a card was drawn, called, checked at once, and immediately returned to the pack and reshuffled. These were successful, at one point resulting in a run of 25 correct calls. Sometimes packs of 50 or more cards were used, and these experiments also were successful. I wonder why the Skeptic's Dictionary omitted this? There are some other possibilities here as well. There may need to be an emotional link between the subjects in order for ESP or telepathy or similar to noticeably occur. This would make sense if this kind of communication confers an evolutionary advantage. It's also possible that cards are simply insignificant and dull. Perhaps the importance of the message being sent is also a factor. I think these things are common sense and should be part of future experiments. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4329 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Do you at least agree that in subsequent tests Sheldrake should be able to make "blind" predictions about the leaving time of the owner based on the behaviour of the dog alone if his hypothesis is true? I don't see any reason why that couldn't be included. I also don't see any reason why its absence should be a problem. The data is clear, a trend which shows on the graphs. Jaytee's time at the window greatly increased when Pam set off home; crucially, it was often when she made the decision to go (or was told to do so). Wiseman's experiments showed the same trend. It's such a simple experiment that there are only a few variables to look at. It's interesting that when Pam didn't come home in the 4-hour period when the videotape was running, or not at all, Jaytee's behaviour reflected the null hypothesis that he would spend the same amount of time at the window, on average, in all time periods. You write a lot of short posts, ignore chunks of things I say, repeat the same things over and over, and in subsequent posts here your comments about Sheldrake and his work have become increasingly absurd and ad hominem, considering the fact that you clearly have little interest in learning about what you're criticising before you let rip. I suppose I should have learned by now after experiencing this in previous threads, but I see no reason to continue this conversation unless you have something new and constructive to add.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4329 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Hi again Modulous,
I take your points about morphic fields, as I have all along really. I think the debates we're seeing here are reflecting the individual attitudes several of us expressed in the pseudoskepticism thread. I agree that there is little evidence for morphic fields, which puts me in the "I don't know" arena. Presumably you are more of the "little evidence means I am doubtful" persuasion. Let's say for the sake of argument that telepathy is real. (The reason why I brought the "Dogs that Know" experiments up was because, as I said earlier, establishing the existence of a phenomenon is a step previous to debating its possible etiology.) There have been discussions here about how it could occur. Most people have mentioned some action of the brain. Maybe some kind of field or fields is/are involved. If gravitational and quantum fields, why not a telepathic field? Or maybe telepathy does have something to do with quantum physics, e.g. entanglement. I'd have to leave it to people more qualified and intelligent than me to work out how to test these ideas. Sheldrake suggests that the brain, instead of being the instigator, may be like an antenna which tunes in to different frequencies. He thinks that individual and collective memories may be stored in morphic fields, which our brains access. Damage the brain and you damage the antenna. He isn't the first or only person to suggest the idea that the brain isn't the repository of consciousness and I find it intriguing. Materialistic reductionists who believe that the physical actions of the brain alone result in consciousness, don't like it for obvious reasons. I am keen to see more evidence for both beliefs because the question of the nature of consciousness IMO is still far from being answered. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In order to eliminate perceived problems with the 25 cards, there were some experiments where a card was drawn, called, checked at once, and immediately returned to the pack and reshuffled. These were successful, at one point resulting in a run of 25 correct calls. Sometimes packs of 50 or more cards were used, and these experiments also were successful. I wonder why the Skeptic's Dictionary omitted this? The Skeptic's Dictionary does note that "Some were so phenomenal (e.g., Adam J. Linzmayer, George Zirkle, Sara Ownbey, and Hubert E. Pearce, Jr.) that skeptics assume there must have been cheating." and I'd suggest that the 25 in a row would be 'phenomenal'. Are you suggesting that the 25 in a row situation occurred during one of the more controlled settings? I'd appreciate a link to that if you have one. If it was during the phase where they accidentally used semi-transparent cards - then that's a little less impressive
There are some other possibilities here as well. There may need to be an emotional link between the subjects in order for ESP or telepathy or similar to noticeably occur. This would make sense if this kind of communication confers an evolutionary advantage. It's also possible that cards are simply insignificant and dull. Perhaps the importance of the message being sent is also a factor. I think these things are common sense and should be part of future experiments. On the one hand you are saying the experiments were a rousing success, demonstrating some kind of ESP. On the other hand you suggest maybe the cards are dull or there wasn't a suitable empathic link.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024