Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism

I have been investigating Sheldrake and his "morphic field" theory in more detail. It really is a prime example of the sort of thing this thread was intended to cover.Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the world is indeed filled with telepathic dogs and parrots as you claim. Let us then consider how Sheldrake explains these phenomenon and in particular the terminology and scientific concepts that he uses to do this. All quotes taken from here Theosophy Article unless stated otherwise. So we have a materially undetectable field. A "field of information". This in itself is quite telling. However elsewhere he also defines fields thus: Hmmm. That is rather all-encompassing. By that definition my desk is full of "fields". The "strawberry smell field". The "fan air flow field". The "Straggler shout across the room field". In fact armed with a phone and an internet connection we have the much wider "Straggler telecoms field". But having pointed that out let us continue with Sheldrake's definition. So now we have the terms "matter" and "energy" as well as "fields". In fact we have the statement "matter is energy bound within fields". But how can our fields have physical energy if our fields are immaterial and physically undetectable? The answer lies in Sheldrake’s definition of "energy". So the energy associated with our materially undetectable "field" of information is a form of energy "but not in any "normal" (physical) sense of the term". In fact it is "a subtler form of energy-substance, too ethereal to be detectable by scientific instruments". Oh dear. This is starting to unravel.So we have a materially undetectable "field" associated with a form of non-physical ethereal "energy" that is not "detectable by scientific instruments". And yet these undetectable (supernatural by any other name) phenomenon are able to interact with, and indeed have a profound effect upon, the material world around us. How could this possibly be? So how does Sheldrake ultimately attempt to bind his supernatural notions of the ethereal and immaterial with empirical science? How does he overcome the age old problem of explaining how the immaterial can interact with the material (the mind-body problem by any other name)? How does he seek to justify his outrageous and conflationary abuse of terminology? By combining the scientific and the non-empirical versions of the terminology he is using into one illegitimate and unhappy whole. By invoking notions of cosmological quantum mysticism. Obviously and inevitably.I particularly love the euphemistic (or should that be euphemystic) use of the word "subtle" to avoid the blatantly self contradictory idea of immaterial matter. Hilarious: "a subtler form of energy-substance" "a medium of subtle matter".This is pseudoscience and quantum quackery of the very highest order. The introduction of the supernatural using terminology that window dresses the concepts in highly scientific yet subtly redefined language. Terms used in contexts to intentionally conflate the mystical and non-empirical with the scientific and empirical. Terms that will give scientific credence to the supernatural in the eyes of the layman. A completely unjustifiable conflation between science and the supernatural that is ultimately rooted in bogus notions of quantum mysticism and allusions to cosmology. The demise of "materialism"? Or misinformation, wishful thinking and pseudoscience?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. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The point LindaLou is that even if there is a phenomenon that needs explaining with regard to telepathic dogs, parrots or even humans Sheldrake's answer is in principle no different to "somethingsupernaturaldidit". Even if we accept telepthy as a real phenomenon his answer is truly shameful as a scientific explanation. It is indisputably the very definition of pseudoscience.It is dressed up. It is smarter and more convincing to anyone who does not know what they are talking about. But ultimately his answer to the phenomenon he is trying to explain is no more or less refutable than saying that immaterial goblins are whispering unhearable information into the psychic "ears" of his test subjects.Do you understand that? Can you seperate the phenomenon in question from the proposed supernatural answer to it? It is this seperation of the phenomenon itself (i.e. that which needs to be explained) and the explanation (i.e. the supernatural explanation for the phenomenon in question) that has been the huge stumbling block in communicating with you (and RAZD) in previous threads. It is this seperation that you seem truly incapable of making. Fine. Don't feel you have to reply to every post. Sheldrake turned out to be a prime example of exactly what I was getting at in this thread.I know you essentially think I am an overly confrontational closed minded stick-in-the-mud bigot. And that is fine. But all I ask is that when you do get round to reading his book that you don't get sucked in by the terminology. That you apply your critical thinking skills. That you don't assume that acceptance of the phenomenon in question (telepathy in this case) necessarily supplies any more proof for his ethereal and immaterial proposed explanation than it does for any other possible but irrefutable explanation for for the same phenomenon.

Let's continue to assume that telepathy is real. Let us, for the sake of argument, unquestioningly assume here that there is indeed an evidenced phenomenon that requires explanation.Does Sheldrake's "morphic field" hypothesis provide a scientific explanation for this phenomenon? Or not? The explanation he provides invokes the immaterial, ethereal and empirically undetectable. In short the inherently "unknowable". The supernatural. Given this there can be no further enquiry. We cannot investigate this answer any further. We can achieve no further explanation or understanding regarding this un-investigatable phenomenon. We have met a conceptual dead end. In effect we must just accept that ambiguous and unknowable "morphic fields" exist and that they provide all the explanation we will ever need. We must have "faith".All we can do is keep testing parrots, dogs and whatever else for telepathy and other paranormal behaviour whilst patting ourselves on the back for "explaining" these fascinating phenomenon in terms of undetectable "fields". Essentially explaining these phenomenon in terms of spirituality. Spiritual explanations are highly appealing. To many people finding a phenomenon that seems to require a spiritual, rather than a material explanation, validates a whole set of deeply held and subjectively important beliefs. For that reason alone a spiritual answer is, to many, a reason to cease any further investigation and embrace the unknowable at face value. But does this have any bearing on what is true? Surely human history suggests not? Surely human history suggests the very opposite? Surely human history suggests that where the supernatural is laid to one side and the methods of science allowed to operate unhindered better and more meaningful answers generally follow.In my view people like Sheldrake do a massive disservice both to science and to any notion of genuine spirituality. If there is more to reality than empirical investgation can uncover then falsely conflating the spiritual (or "divine" as LindaLou generally and quaintly calls it) with physical "fields", "forces", "energy" and ill conceived quantum bullshit cheapens any notion of genuine "higher purpose" that might actually exist.On the flip side using the terminology of science to con and deceive those with little or no scientific knowledge into believing that the unknowable, non-empirical and supernatural have been somehow validated as true is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. It is also incredibly dishonest to side-step all of the age old philosophical problems (such as the mind-body problem, something which Sheldrakes collective memory in biological systems assertions obviously falls foul of) simply by yelling "quantum" whenever such problems arise. The fact that these charlatans are making millions of dollars in the process by telling people what they crave to hear in language that implies expertise and knowledge where there is instead misinformation and ignorance only adds salt and indignity to the already gaping woundIf people want to believe in a higher purpose then I wish them well. But if anyone is seeking that higher purpose in quantum mysticism, particularly if they are seeking justification for that higher purpose from quantum quackheads like Sheldrake, then they are fooling themselves and are destined to delusion or disappointment.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Firstly I just wanted you to know that just because I do not always respond to your more technical posts does not mean that I am not taking note of them. Quite the opposite is true. Your explanations are usually thorough enough that there is not always a direct question that I feel I need to ask. Whilst at the same time they are thought provoking enough that I feel the need to go off and look stuff up before trying to get my head round these concepts any further. Message 55 is a case in point. Having done a bit of internet exploration on this subject in the last few days I am increasingly amazed at just how many of the current ideas of new age mysticism at root claim some sort of link to, or basis in, QM.

In recent posts I have discussed the quantum quackery and misleading use of pseudoscientific terminology present in Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic field" theory.However it turns out that as well as such general theoretical quantum quackery Sheldrake is also involved in experiments seeking specifically to demonstrate precognition and other paranormal phenomenon. See Sheldrake's Online Precognition Experiment - Sign Up Here for an example of the sort of experiments he is conducting. As well as the opportunity to register as a participant in this particular precognition example.It seems many of Sheldrake's more controversial experimental conclusions are based on anecdote and methods of informal experimentation of the type linked to. Methods where controls are lax. To say the least.In fairness Sheldrake has also collaborated with others such as Chris French in more controlled studies of the sort of phenomenon in question such as This. However Sheldrake's results have been unable to be replicated in these tightly controlled conditions. However in explanation for these failings Sheldrake responds: The bottom line here is that, for whatever reason, none of Sheldrake's claims have been able to be definitively replicated in highly controlled conditions. Until they are any confidence in the experimental rigor or results in favour of Sheldrake's paranormal conclusions are unjustified.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You said these examples were off-topic. In fact you are still saying they are off-topic. Whilst the examples I have linked to Sheldrake himself describes as "precognition". Do you want me to consider the Jaytee and Nkisi experiments here or not? The phenomenon under consideration is described by Sheldrake himself as "precognition". He attempts to explain such phenomenon in terms of ethereal fields comprising of non-physical energy and immaterial matter. All of which is ultimately justified by invoking a "universal quantum field that forms the substratum of the physical world". If you don't want to take part in this thread LindaLou then don't. But please don't tell me what is on and off topic in a thread that I setup explicitly to look at exacly this sort of quantum mysticism. Me calling him a quack has nothing to do with his paranormal research as such. It is his bogus abuse of scientific terminology to give credence to his spiritual "hypothesis" that I most deeply object to. Sheldrake needs to decide whether he is proposing a spiritual answer or a scientific answer. Because his "morphic fields" claim invokes the entirely supernatural/spiritual/divine and materially unknowable but describes this in terms of "fields", "energy" and "matter". All under the banner of quantum mysticism. This is intellectually dishonest, desperatley (and I believe intentionally) misleading to the public who read his books and consider them scientific in nature and of detriment to both genuine science and genuine notions of spirituality.For Christ's sake LindaLou he is invoking immaterial matter!! Or "subtle matter" as he calls it to avoid the blatant terminological contradiction. Which part of this is not the very definition of pseudoscience? Then the effects are conveniently irrefutable. Nearly as irrefutable as his ethereal field hypothesis. All of which I would say is a reason for at least some cynicism in itself. The truth can always be questioned. Those who claim it cannot are usually hiding something.The morphic fields Sheldrake uses to explain these claimed experimental phenomenon are far more powerful than the physical fields with which he conflates his spiritual notions. Undiminished by distance. Unhindered by time. His fields are all reaching and instantaneous. And yet if we point a camera at a test subject this miraculous phenomenon fades to zero effect. Uncanny. And yet we do know that erections exist LindaLou. In fact I would say that the objective evidence for this particular phenomenon is rock solid. LindaLou agrees completely and in every way with RAZD. Why am I not shocked. No doubt you will be equally shocked to hear that I think RAZD has woefully misrepresented the position held by his opponents regarding even the possibility of any sort of certainty. No doubt you will also be stunned to find out that as a result of this complete misinterpretation he has watched the entire point sail blissfully over his head in his summary. But cest la vie. I have not taken "one negative experiment". I have looked at a lot of this guys work these last couple of days and scanned through a couple of his books. Sheldrake's morphic field theory is spiritualism disguised as science. As discussed in Message 66.His experimental work on chicks was discussed in Message 61 and the conclusion of the independent adjudicator was as follows Then we have the tightly controlled telephone experiment that you are referring to as "one negative experiment". Then we have the example of his online precognition experiment and a range of other similar investigations. These are methodologically flawed by any standard of experiment. I could go on with more detail (and I will if you want me to) but essentially any decent experiment will seek to eliminate false positives. This is why randomised, double blind, large scale etc. etc. etc. are the most reliable tests. In a word "controls". But if you look at Sheldrake's work (e.g. the online experiment I linked to) it is full of opportunity for false positives. He pays lip service to controls and accepts them when he collaborates with others. But then he gets negative results and complains about the controls that are in place during these collaborations. In summary Sheldrake's theories are spiritualism masquerading as science and the results of his paranormal experimental research are methodologically disputable to say the very least. Can you point me in the direction of these independently corroborated and strictly controlled replicated results? Because I have been unable to find them.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well he calls it "Rupert Sheldrake's Email precognitiontest". Why are you so insistent that it be called telepthy? What difference does it really make? Did you read the link Sheldrake's Online Precognition Experiment - Sign Up HereYou cannot blame me for either the fact that Sheldrake describes his own experiments as exploring precognition or for the fact that his morphic field hypothesis is intrinsically shrouded in quantum mysticism and conflationary pseudoscientific terminology. Don't shoot the messenger. Mod raised Sheldrake. I had never heard of him so I looked into him and his claims. These seemed to fit the bill perfectly as examples of exactly the sort of quantum mystical pseudoscience I intended this thread to be about. That is all. I originally had Deeprak Chopra and his quantum healing in mind. Do as you will. But everything I have read suggests that Sheldrake explains paranormal phenomenon in terms of quantum mysticism by means of "morphic fields". Quantum mysticism is what this entire thread is about and this is the context in which any examples are going to be analysed. How is this phenomenon explained? Does the explanation put forward invoke quantum mysticsim at all? Whilst I will gladly point out any experimental methodological flaws that are blatant and glaring even to an amateur idiot like me in any examples you detail, my focus will be upon uncovering any quantum based explanations that Sheldrake or others might be citing for these phenomenon.As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I am quite happy to accept, for the sake of argument, paranormal parrots and telepathic dogs. It is the pseudoscientific quantum explanations for such phenomenon that I am primarily interested in here. After all what else would you expect from an open minded skeptic like me?

Excellent. Telepathic dogs. I love dogs.So how does Sheldrake explain this fascinating phenomenon in terms of morphic fields? Or does he provide some other explanation?

Gosh thanks for continually attempting to redefine my topic in order to evade the entire point of this thread. Namely pseudoscientific quantum explanations for paranormal phenomenon. But having said that lets look at your example in more detail. I will take any genuine evidence seriously.There are numerous flaws with this experiment and all sorts of opportunities for false positives but the most glaring problem is the post-hoc nature of the analysis and associated bias in interpretation. In short the experimenters are looking for correlation post result rather than making predictions of correlation pre-result. I would attempt to overcome this by making the following significant change:Give the dog owner a sealed electronic randomised time generator. When it alarms she and she alone knows. There is no need for the experimenters to have this information. At this point she sets off home. The device logs the time internally but the experimenters do not know when the device went off.The behaviour of the dog is recorded over a period of time. At the end of this period the footage is provided to Sheldrake and his team in 1 hour blocks that are ordered in random sequence. They can apply whatever criteria they want and whatever statistical analysis they want to the bahaviour of the dog alone (although this should still be decided upon and stated before the experiment). But at the end they must provide a list of the 1 hour samples that they think relate to the time that the owner set off home based on the behaviour of the dog only. This list of samples is compared with the log from the randomised time generator by independent adjudicators to see if the times predicted by Sheldrake are more accurate than would be expected by chance alone.Now I don't claim this is perfect but if a wally like me can think off the top of my head of ways to attempt to force prediction of results that avoid post-hoc attempts to find biased correlation then I fail to see why the highly qualified Dr Sheldrake is incapable of such measures.Throw in the need for independenet corroboration of results in repeated experiments and the addition of controls that avoid other external stimuli that might affect the dog's behaviour and then you might have yourself a valid experiment. This thread is specifically about quantum mysticism and how this is used to explain paranormal phenomenon. You can keep attempting to redefine my topic to suit your own needs all you like but that ultimately is what this is about. Sheldrake's morphic field "hypothesis" is prime example of this quantum quackery whether you like it or want to comment on it or not Message 66Er no. I don't know what your personal investment in this Sheldrake guy is but you seem to have taken my attacks on his morphic fields nonsense in this thread as some sort of personal challenge to you. I am not sure why. I would dearly love telepthy to be real. I also suspect that physicists and neuroscientists etc. etc. etc. would leap on the opportunity to investigate something that interesting and unknown if it was genuinely there. I know I would given the chance. But there really is no evidence for the phenomenon in question. No evidence that does not involve incredibly poor experimental design and what seems to be an almost wilful desire to encourage false positives on the part of the experimenter.Throw in Sheldrake's undeniable quantum mysticism and abuse of technical terminology to disguise "the divine" in his explanations for said phenomenon and it is little wonder his conclusions are not taken seriously outside of the paranormal community.

Really? Did you read my post? You are dismissing my suggestion of blinded prediction over biased interpretation as irrelevant! Wow! Just wow. POST HOC
By post-hoc I mean that all of the analysis and interpretation was done in full knowledge of all of the data, for both cause and effect, and with the hypothesis in mind. No blinding of any sort to ensure objectivity. PREDICTION
Prediction rather than interpretation is the superior and most objective measure of verification. In examples such as this telepthic dog experiment where a causal relationship is being claimed we should be able to predict the pattern of cause from the pattern of effect. And vice versa. The researcher should not need details of both the cause and effect sets of data. They should need only one set of data and be able to predict details of the other based on their hypothesis. Predicted results can then be independently compared with actual results negating the opportunity for over zealous interpretation of data either for or against the hypothesis (yes it works against bias in either direction - increased objectivity is the entire point here) BAD SCIENCE
However Sheldrake seems resolutely determined to ignore this basic component of the scientific method in order to instead apply post-hoc interpretation to both sides of the data in order to maximise his chances of finding a correlation. In doing so he maximises the subjective component of his conclusions and greatly enhances the chances of "proving" himself right by virtue of biased interpretation and false positives. This is very bad science indeed.You are aware scientists are supposed to try and falsify their hypotheses yes? That encouraging false positives and interpreting data so as to ensure that it fits your hypothesis is the very antithesis of the scientific method. Yes?Why are you so dismissive of my suggestion? Well exactly! It sounds like Wiseman followed Sheldrake's flawed methods so faithfully that he fell into exactly the same trap of post-hoc interpretation himself. I have no more faith in his results or conclusions than I do Sheldrake's to be honest.Prediction eliminates this "but my interpretation is just as valid as yours is nah nah nah nah" nonsense. That is why we should design experiments with this in mind.

Not at all!!!Actually I think a sort of highly untuned sort of telepthy might well be possible. In principle at least. And therefore as a technological possibility at some point in the future.MRI scans are a blunt tool but if they can be refined and the associated images interpreted then some degree of "reading people's thoughts" (perhaps more accurately strong emotions or other activities that invoke a strong reaction in defined parts of the brain) might be possible. Albeit as rough indicators rather than a refined means of communication. More empath than telepth perhaps.I also understand that it is possible even now to induce experiences and visions of colour etc. in subjects using electrodes attached to certain parts of the brain. But I would have to look this up if challenged as I could be getting carried away with wishful thinking and scifi conflations.In short I see no reason why the electrical activity in the brain cannot in principle be utilised to make real some very limited forms of "telepthay".But I still see no evidence that points towards actual telepathy taking place now. No evidence that is not the result of flawed and biased experiments and a mass of wishful thinking anyway. As much as I would genuinely like to believe otherwise.

Are you denying that the validity of these experiments would be massivley improved by "blinding" and comparison of prediction with result rather than mere interpretation of result?

Analysing your data in such a way as to meet your prediction is not science LindaLou. Pretty graphs do not change this fact. Making a "blind" prediction which can be objectively tested against the unbiased data is the epitome of scientific verification. Why would anyone resist this? Why do you call it "little to do with reality" when this is the entire point of randomised double blind trials?I find your position on this truly astonishing. Maybe your fear is that experiments that are designed to minimise bias and maximise objectivity will contradict what you want to believe? Maybe your view of me and what you think I want or fear tell us more about your own prejudices than mine?I am genuinely all for researching the paranormal but the study you have cited, the other examples of Sheldrake's experimental work discussed in this thread and Sheldrake's irrefutable "somethingsupernaturaldidit" explanations are examples of everything that can be described as "bad science". Nobody who is a geuinely open minded skeptic can fail to see this. However those who have a priori concluded that "there must be something" on the flawed and circular basis of thinking that if enough people believe something it must have an element worthy of belief, will continue to advocate the work of this quantum quack charlatan. Yet again it all comes down to the circular reasoning of considering belief as a basis upon which to justify belief.Some things will never change.

Who said they did? I don't even really know what you mean by this statement. Frankly this statement betrays your deep ignorance.The fact is mathematical models have led to numerous experimentally verified results. In fact modern physics of the sort that the likes of Sheldrake seek to bastardise for their own subjective ends has been led by such theoretical models. Led in a way that was previously unprecedented. How many recent physical discoveries are the result of seeking out those phenomeon predicted by mathematical models? The link between maths and reality is strange but, all the evidence would suggest, "true".I have largely had this same conversation with RAZD previously here Message 64 and here Message 127.The likes of Sheldrake will explain phenomenon in terms of ethereal "fields" and then in a pique of circularity claim that any observation of said phenomenon is evidence of said etheral "field". The flaw in this thinking should be obvious. No predictions of entirely new phenomenon will be made. No meaningful model of said "field" will ever be proposed. Instead said "field" will have whatever irrefutable properties Sheldrake's theories will require it to have.In fact it has already been claimed that Sheldrake's morphic fields are undiminished by space and unhindered by time. As per Message 66. Thus contravening the laws of physics as we understand them currently to be.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Until the interpretation of data is methodologically made independent from knowing the result that one is looking to achieve bias is an indisputable factor in any experiment. This is why randomised double blind trials are so valuable. Why do you deny this fact? An experimental ideal is an experimental ideal for reasons of objectivity not prejudice. We should seek to maximise that objectivity by those methods available whatever the question or experiment at hand. Your ongoing denial of this fact is bewildering.When I was science teacher I would always ask any student from age 11-19 "How can you make this experiment better and more reliable? What is missing? What would you do to make sure that your result is the best and most reliable that can be achieved?"Yet you LindaLou, a teacher so I understand, will not ask this of those whose views you advocate?I remain bewildered by your anti-objectivity stance.