[naphand]

Subject: Re: Serious question about ESP (I don't mean psychic or anything silly)

Regarding Sagan's book...

OK perhaps you just recommended it, but the implication in your post was that Festus22 would not be able to make his own mind up. He asked for references regarding his experience and any physics books/links that might be relevant, as he liked "a good physics read". You piped in with the usual CSICOP garbage; the "Quantum Quackery" snipes at whackos and "new-age" types, it is far from comprehensive and its logic is weak, the Carl Sagan book appeared (from the reviews I have seen) to be about "pseudoscience" and "UFO's" and a science BS detector kit. Neither appears relevant to Festus22's request nor the references I gave, which are serious and well considered. They are not about mysticism, or self discovery per se , though this is touched upon.

Your references were not relevant to Festus request and from their "this is BS" content, I think it's not unnatural to suppose that you considered the books I recommended, to be books on BS. If not then I apologise, but I see this kind of thing all the time.

Philosophy of a moron....

I stand by what I said, you make a huge assumption with no basis in fact whatsoever. Your remark did more than hint at the possiblity I did not know what I was saying. A moron will suppose that others around him are also morons. You are unlikely a moron, but the philosophy espoused in your remark most certainly belongs to morons, I don't take what you said personally, as I am perfectly happy with my level of understanding and do not feel threatened by such remarks. I will still correct them though.

Doctorate in physics...

Not required to follow logical argument, or understand the implications of quantum theory. Certainly needed to persue top-level physics in a research environment.

Debating ESP and Quantum Mechanics...

Stand by what exactly? A useless debate would be one where one person is not in a position to understand, as the purpose of debate is to clarify and develop understanding (though it rarely gets beyond posturing and arguing these days). Even if you doubt the validity of any claims, that is not sufficient grounds on its own to claim any debate would be useless.

CSICOP's Mission Statement...

Well, I have worked in corporate management and I have written mission statements. Most missions statements are thinly veiled corporate BS dressed up as intent, they have little to do with corporate activity. What, do you suppose, ENRON's Mission Statement looked like? I'm more interested in how an organisation behaves and who it employs; James "the Amazing" Randi. Nuff sed.

Quantum Physics as an explanation for ESP...

I never once claimed that Quantum Physics was an explanation for ESP. What I did say was that a considerable body of research existed in the field of consciousness-based phenomena, that supported to notion that consciousness may display properties of this kind. This was in response to comments by other posters that "not a shred of evidence exists".

I also stated that Quantum Mechanics, and its theoretical basis for non-locality could possibly explain what has been termed "action at a distance". Such behaviours have been observed in quantum mechanics - along with other things like supercooled helium flowing UP walls against the pull of gravity. What I said was QM did not follow what we would call "common-sense" or the same rules as classical (Newtonian) physics. I also stated that quantum effects had been observed in the brain, and that this could prove to be a fascinating area of study. I did mention that matter has been observed displaying apparently "conscious behavior" although this is, of course, open to interpretation.

If ESP is explainable by QM, I figure we are a long way from doing so. QM does, however, provide a framework within which such non-local effects could potentially be accomodated. I don't believe any mechanism has been seriously proposed, or developed, by the researchers I am familiar with. They are still free to debate such issues though, and I see no reason why this should not happen. I don't believe in stifling debate, just because it seems irrational.

The point is...

The points I have made essentially are:

(1) Well-documented evidence exists. Links to PEAR given.

(2) Alternative "non-reductionist" views and theories of physics and biodynamics, are not "quack", do not belong to the "loony-tunes bunch" most people lump them in with, and are increasingly held and promoted by internationally respected figures.

(3) CSICOP have a history of debunking at any price.

(4) Quantum Mechanics frequently goes against "common sense", is open to interpretation in different ways (the debate still goes on), and describes non-local effects that potentially could explain many so-called "paranormal" or "mystical" experience.

(5) It is not beyond human comprehension, nor even the reasoning of physicists, to suggest that consciousness has unusual properties, and that these may be far greater in scope than we realise at present. Such studies should not simply be explained away as "imaginary" or "chance". These are easy ways out of complex and tricky problems that merit serious attention.

The biggest problem in tis field is ignorance. QM is hard enough to understand without CSICOP confusing the issues (like their "most of the time" point made in "Quantum Quackery"). Evidence exists, and in abundance, for a whole panopaly of "mystical experience" from brain research (coherent effects), to statistical evidence, personal testimony, and the work of PEAR and other bodies. Yet the line "not a shred of evidence" persists like some rationalist mantra. Those who claim no evidence exists, are themselves either liars or ignorant, yet their thrust is to maintain that ignorance in the population at large.

Colin Wilson, who was originally commissioned to write a book debunking the "occult" and other related topics, found such an overwhelming body of evidence to support many "mystical" or "occult" claims, that he began to believe that there must be a deliberate policy of keeping the public misinformed. I don't believe he is a conspiracy theorist, he just felt the evidence was there. He wrote his book, simply called "The Occult" which was a best-seller but, it was not the book he had been commissioned to write. I have read his follow up book (wait for the title) "Beyond the Occult". Most of this work involves personal testimony, which lies outside the scope of scientific study, which is why I have not mentioned it until now, but the similarity and universality of such experiences does suggest some kind of underlying mechanism at work. However, the book is very controversial, and I think people need to make their own minds up about it. The main point being, that "mystical experience" not something that happens to a few people who live in caves, but is something that approximately 30% or more of people (including westerners) have to deal with at some time or another.

I think there is enough evidence to justify serious study of this. At least that way some kind of understanding and explanation can be developed. I find work of this kind fascinating, and in many ways the conclusions reached (from such study) may have greater impacts of society than physics. This will never be possible by dismissing such evidence out of hand, ignoring it or ridiculing it.

Low limit poker...

I take your point, and feel your pain....