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

[naphand]

By all means read both sides of the argument and draw your own conclusions. I keep an open mind on the matter, but have to admit that I find the arguments proposed by the reductionists to be limited in the extreme, their attitude is generally very dismissive and they REFUSE to accept alternative explanations (as they KNOW they are right). For this reason alone it is worth listening to alternatives.

However, just because some whackos in the "new-age movement" have jumped on the "quantum reality" bandwagon does not invalidate the sound arguments and evidence that has been put forward by many physicists and mathematicians.

These are not "my" ideas - they are ideas that have been developed by leading physicists. The books I recommend are not "whacko" or "pseudoscience" as anyone who reads them will discover. Yes they do deal in a very limited capacity with "mysticism" and the "god question" - they look at the arguments, as many people will want to know if these kinds of questions can, indeed, be answered by science. These books, however, are not about mysticism, nor "how to find your true self", they talk about science, and the evidence of science, although I know you will find that hard to take on board.

Perhaps an example of the limitations of science:

Science has certainly disproved the "bible" version of creation. The Earth was not created in 7 days etc. etc. However, a "creative event" certainly did happen - it's called the Big Bang. While science has learned more and more about this event they are no closer to answering questions like "Why did the Big Bang happen?", "What existed before the Big Bang?" and "How does consciousness arise?". You can say these are the domain of the philosophers, and not the concern of science. I don't disagree, but I disagree strongly with scientists of the the "rationalist" type who claim to be the only arbiters of truth - they are not. They cannot address things such as "meaning", they pretty much refuse to consider "consciousness" as any kind of significant property, and they point blank refuse to accept any study that validates any kind of "paranormal" or "mystical" experience. They are just studying the mechanics of the universe, very succesfully, but have so far failed to address the issue of the origin of life (as we know it, that is, as a conscious experience). They are not in a position to dismiss such studies as (i) they have a closed mind to this kind of study, and a vested interest in maintaining the existing hypotheses (ii) they are not acquainted with the research that has been carried out, and(iii) their methods/work do not allow the inclusion of theories/results of this type. The work of science is far, far from complete, yet they are happy to tell us what cannot exist a priori .

And just because "most" physicists dismiss the ideas, does not make the ideas invalid. "Most" physicists (and most scientists for that matter) work in very restricted areas of their subject. They have no time nor inclination to look at things outside that domain, not only that but "most" physicists are of very average ability and limited in their intellectual reasoning. Before you accuse me of assuming "greater intellectual capacity" than most physicists, or that on the most able physicists can see the "light", my statement does not infer this, it just states that "most" physicists have never really been in a position to consider or study the implications of such theories.

The last thing the rationalists want, is respected scientists supporting some of the ideas put forward by the "new physics". Well, that is happening, and increasingly so, just because this is a minority (which is no surprise considering the lengths that the "majority" will go to to exclude them from "respectable" scientific circles) does not invalidate the arguments. All new ideas start out with minority support!! Your comment is typical of the weak logic used by rationalists.

The particular article that bdk3clash proposes "Quantum Quackery" does not deal with physicists such as Paul Davies, but is quite a superficial dismissal of "new age" thinking of writers such as Deepak Chopra et al. A superficial dismissal is all that is required is these cases, anyway; I don't dispute that. There is a lot quack thinking about. The fact that such articles exist, is evidence of the increasing popularity of "alternative" or non-reductionist physics theories. FACT: physics in it's current state is incapable of studying living organisms due to their inherent complexity, and the fact that living organisms also appear to operate differently from the "sum of their parts"; on this basis alone the "reductionist" theories are extremely limited in their descriptions of living systems, and presently fail to do so with any reliability.

I also note that the Amazon reviews of Carl Sagan's book do not really talk of the issues brought up in this thread. A typical review reads:

"Carl Sagan muses on the current state of scientific thought, which offers him marvelous opportunities to entertain us with his own childhood experiences, the newspaper morgues, UFO stories, and the assorted flotsam and jetsam of pseudoscience. Along the way he debunks alien abduction, faith-healing, and channeling; refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality, and provides a "baloney detection kit" for thinking through political, social, religious, and other issues. "

Perhaps bdk3clash can say exactly where in this thread I have supported the notions of "alien abduction", "UFO's", "faith healing" and "channelling". You know, I don't believe I have, nor do I recall that these subjects being dealt with in the books I recommend (although it is possible they may be mentioned somewhere - I do not have a photographic memory).

By all means read Sagan, he is a grade 1 scientist. His arguments will, no doubt, be good ones. But, regardless of what Sagan says, other scientists of no less ability, are considering the implications of Quantum Physics on our understanding of life and consciousness, and perhaps coming to different conclusions. And what exactly does the phrase "refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality" mean. You are using Sagan as a means to refute spirituality? Yet he denies this implicitly. What is your definition of "spirituality"?

It's very easy to to adopt the view of the "majority". It's much harder to think differently, you have to justify yourself constantly, and always face remarks like "that is not the opinion of the majority" (so f*****g what??! the majority of the US population supported Gore, and look who is in power!) or "there is no evidence" (total BS, this is the fall-back denial response). Alternatives are initially dismissed, they are then ridiculed and the supporters vilified, and finally they are just ignored and left to their own devices, standard practice really.

If you think these ideas are wrong bdk3clash - let's hear your reasoning. So far all you have done is try to dismiss them and refer people to the fixed-agenda organisation Scicop. You must have thoughts and ideas on this, and I am sure we would all like to hear them, but you better have some good arguments.

[naphand]

Also, you (bdk3clash) appear to assume that anyone who supports the ideas of advocates of the "new physics" must, by definition support all "new-age" concepts such as "faith healing" and "UFO abductions". Is that really the limits of your thinking? Is this not just another "you're with us or against us" statement? Looks that way to me.

Could it not be that the implications of Quantum Mechanics, and complex problems with such issues as biodynamics and consciousness, are so profound that it has lead many physicisist and mathematicians to question the reductionist approach. Could that be possible. Is there room in physics to suggest a role for consciousness, without having to buy into the whole "new-age" thing. Of course. But people such as bdk3clash and other supporters of so-called rationalism are so intent on debunking alternative theories that they lump them all in the same basket. Scicop will not budge even slightly on any issue that even hints at any "new-age" concept or role for consciousness in determining physical reality. They talk of "common sense" but then deny that consciousness has any part to play. Could they be any stupider?

The article "Quantum Quackery" from Scicops website you recommend is truly a superficial view of quantum mechanics. Let's look at one or two examples:

Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness.

That depends on what you call "psychic phenomena". Presumably Mr. Randi and his cohorts dismiss the work of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Reach labs to be not "resproducible", despite the high statistical significance and reproduciblity of their results. Perhaps they never bothered to look, or perhaps they consider the studies do not fall into their definition of "psychic". The single biggest effort in this field over the last 50 years, has been the tireless work of the rationalists to ridicule and disbar any scientist who dares to publish research that supports alternatives to their reductionist view. And why do "psychic powers" need to be invoked for a theory of quantum consciousness? They don't, but Scicop would have you believe that this is necessary.

Despite wave-particle duality, the particle picture is maintained in most quantum mechanical applications. Atoms, nuclei, electrons, and quarks are all regarded as particles at some level. At the same time, classical "waves" such as those of light and sound are replaced by localized photons and phonons, respectively, when quantum effects must be considered.

So Scicop are dismissing the wave/particle paradox that presents so many difficulties in understanding Quantum Mechanics? by suggesting that the particle picture is maintained in most applications. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Can they quantify "most" for us? They try to sidestep a particularly thorny problem by saying it can be ignored in "most" cases. Well in most cases (as, indeed they mentions later) as far as non-scientists are concerned, classical physics is all we need. Therefore Quantum Mechanics is not relevant. Is it possible to imagine any more crass and fundamentally dismissive argument than this!! It is a fact, particles/waves is the wrong concept; some other understanding of the nature of matter is required involving non-locality and discrete properties. This is a tough nut to crack. That many calculations can be made just considering particle-like properties is just a reference to simplifying calculations, or that this particular property is prevalent under certain conditions, not that the particle/wave duality is just a mirage we can safely ignore "most" of the time. This is stupid science at its worst.

They also take time to talk about the "collapse of the the wave function". A process that refers to the probability associated with any Quantum Process becoming "fixed" as a single property, on observation/materialisation. The probability function is a concept fundamental to Quantum Mechanics. The problem is, how does a probability (described by the wave function) collapse to a discrete value? The mathematics of this process, and the physics of it, have not yet been evaluated. Scicop talk of it, but do not describe its significance or the problems that remain to be resolved with it. Superficial.

Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon.

Complete nonsense. Mathematical constructs, by definition, must follow logical processes and number theory. They are constructs. Cartoons and the starship enterprise can break the known laws of physics at the whim of the author. Presumably Scicop believe that mathematicians are no more trustworthy in their conclusions that Gene Roddenberry? The fact is that many abstract and bizarre mathematical formulae, derived entirely independently of physics, have found a use (in fact have been necessary) in Quantum Mechanics. The extraordinary success of number theory is describing the properties and geometry of the universe, is itself a subject of interest - because if numbers really are just the "product of human imagination" it must suggest that "human imagination" (or thought) is in some way tied in with the structure of the universe in a conscious and extremely precise way; something Scicop is opposed to and refuses to acknowledge on any level.

Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

Can the team at Scicop think of any other possible scenario for accepted theories of physics. This is nothing more than a statement of the known and obvious. Quantum Mechanics is, of course, derived from scientific observations. The implications and conclusions of Quantum Physics, however, are subject to discussion and opinion. Some (Paul Davies included) would no doubt say that Quantum Mechanics is the science of the "non-material" and is "holistic" by nature. But then again, what else would you expect Scicop to say?

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity.

The Quantum field, by definition, exists beyond the Planck scale. This means a region where time and space NO LONGER EXIST. Superluminal information transfer does not need to be invoked at all, with an understanding of what this means. The quantum field (or more accurately the "unified field") underlies everything, and operates immediately in all parts of the universe, no space/time restrictions apply. It is worth describing another example to theirs for an explaination of nonlocality. In the example Scicop use, they provide an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of non-locality (or "Quantum Leaps") but fail to discuss other observed properties that display this phenomenon. The best and most discussed example is experiments conducted whereby spin-paired electrons (or photons) are separated by a distance over which a time-lag could be accurately measured. The reversal of spin of one of the spin-paired particles results in an instantaneous reversal of its spin-pair partner. There is no time lag. The information is transmitted without delay. This is explainable in two ways: superluminal transfer of information, or non-locality. Both of which Scicop deny. This property is so well observed that modern coding systems are being developed based on this property, that cannot be cracked (no details on this at present... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]). That Scicop attempt to deny this widely observed property in their "overview" shows a fundamental lack of appreciation of the nature of quantum events; the theory itself predicts non-locality and experiments have been conducted which confirm this property.

If you want nonsense and bad science, I recommend Scicop's website.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...I disagree strongly with scientists of the the "rationalist" type who claim to be the only arbiters of truth - they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also disagree with anyone who claimed to be the only aribter of truth. I doubt you would find any scientist, even those who would declare themselves "rationalist," who would make this claim.

As an aside, why do you insist on using the term "rationalist" pejoratively?

[ QUOTE ]
and they point blank refuse to accept any study that validates any kind of "paranormal" or "mystical" experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way you frame this is kind of a lose-lose situation for scientists. If they accept a study that validates "mystical" or "paranormal" activity, then they were wrong to begin with. If they do not accept the study, then they are "closed-minded rationalists."

I would suggest an alternative explanation--that the studies that indicate the existence of paranormal phenomena tend to be severely flawed, inconclusive, or irreproducible.

Wouldn't a study that definitively showed the existence of parnormal activity be so earth-shatteringly important and undeniable that it would be easily reproduced by eager adherents and skeptics alike throughout the world?

[ QUOTE ]
And what exactly does the phrase "refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality" mean. You are using Sagan as a means to refute spirituality? Yet he denies this implicitly. What is your definition of "spirituality"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about this. Are you asking me to justify what someone else wrote on Amazon? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think these ideas are wrong bdk3clash - let's hear your reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will readily admit that quantum physics in any capacity is well outside of my limited sphere of knowledge. I suspect the same is true for you, but for all I know you may have a doctorate in the subject matter.

Either way, for me to "debate" you on quantum physics as it relates to ESP would be an exercise in uselessness.

What I do know is that as science develops, quacks, mystics, and outright frauds try to associate their beliefs with the latest scientific advancements. This latest idea of "quantum mysticism" strikes me as old ideas in new clothes, but perhaps time will prove me wrong.

If history is any indication, I highly doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
So far all you have done is try to dismiss them and refer people to the fixed-agenda organisation Scicop.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've already been through this--if you really think that CSICOP arrives at conclusions a priori, then fine, but in my experience this isn't the case.

(I would like to point out that this line of thinking makes it much easier to reject any argument that disagrees with your conclusions, since they "already made their minds up" anyway.)

[ QUOTE ]
You must have thoughts and ideas on this, and I am sure we would all like to hear them, but you better have some good arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've presented them throughout this thread but, again, I would be out of my element (pun not intended) to discuss quantum physics.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what a fuc*in crazy post. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
makes you think........

[naphand]

I would also disagree with anyone who claimed to be the only arbiter of truth. I doubt you would find any scientist, even those who would declare themselves "rationalist," who would make this claim.

That is precisely the position they take. The standard approach used by these people is to riducule and vilify others involved in the studies of the "paranormal". While laughing at quack theories is tolerable, dismissal of the work of others, prior to any kind of investigation, is the norm by so-called "rationalists". I have seen interviews, and read papers, produced by "authorities" who are dismissing some piece of work citing, for example, some factor that could explain it. Yet this factor is acknowledged and has been "controlled" in the experiment; it is patently obvious the person criticising the work is not familiar with the paper concerned. This is dismissal a priori and is the hallmark of an individual/organisation that is only concerned with their view of events (aka "we are the only ones in a position to know this").

Wouldn't a study that definitively showed the existence of parnormal activity be so earth-shatteringly important and undeniable that it would be easily reproduced by eager adherents and skeptics alike throughout the world?

Perhaps I should have said "appears to validate". There are a lot of borderline studies, which although not commissioned to study any "metaphysical" effect, that turn up odd results that appear to support some part of the, shall we say "new-age" thinkers claims. One such experiment (the details escape me for now) involved the study of rabbit immunoglobulins (taken from rabbits and purified for use in the lab.) exposed to different concentrations of antigens (alien proteins). It was found that progressive dilutions of antigen continued to stimulate the full immune response, the experiment went a stage further and diluted the samples so far as to contain no antigen at all (but these were still dilutions of the original solution).

The experimental team published the results, suggesting that water may have some form of "memory" of molecular properties (it is known that water can form complex structures around certain molecules) that was still capable of causing the immune reaction. This publication went mostly un-noticed until someone pointed out that it supported the notion of "homeopathy", from which point the work was dismissed as nonesense and the work of "quack science". I cannot recall the full details of what happened, but I do know that Randi was involved at some point, and insisted on being present during the repeated experiments (I understand he "entertained" the lab technicians with card tricks while they were working). Repititions of the experiment sometimes worked, and sometimes did not, so it was declared "unreliable" and dismissed - end of discussion. So - there was no possible room for further study then?

Perhaps when I say "validating" it really means "appears to support, in any way, mechanisms put forward by metaphysics". And it is not just the dismissal of potentially interesting areas of research either - it is the vitriolic attacks research teams are subjected to by the likes of Randi, that makes their attitude so reprehensible. I used the term "rationalist" perjoratively, when referring to the likes of Scicop, as they are some of the least "rational" scientists you are likely to meet. They are hypocrites.

And what do you mean by easily reproduced ? Why would an important scientific experiement be "easy" to perform or reproduce? It may a be a highly involved, costly and delicate process that could be carried out by only a few laboratries worldwide - much like a lot of the particle accelerator work. Results could be open to interpretation and need refining. Do you really think that even a minority of scientific experiments produce significant results? and that these cannot be improved upon, or that the work needs developing and funding? Are you aware of how research is funded and produced?

And are you really so naive as to believe that experiments validating "metaphysics" would be accepted? Considering the amounts of money involved for competing research teams in the form of grants and sponsorship? Why don't you look at examples from history, such as Copernicus, for example. And don't try to say it's vastly different today - OK they don't burn you at the stake any more, but you still get "excommunicated" from the scientific "church of reason". THERE IS PLENTY OF RESEARCH that supports alternative hypotheses from well respected scientists. Of course, you never read it do you? Because, if you were truly interested in forming a blanced viewpoint you would at least be familiar with some of it and it is clear from your remarks that you are not.

I agree a lot of experiements are severely flawed, but that goes for all science. Experiments always have to be refined and better-controlled. And yes, there is a lot of "quack science" about, but you seem to group all alternative approaches into one basket called "quack". You are the quack, because you appear to be incapable of determining what constitutes valid science from invalid, you accept the superficial dismissals of Scicop, and fail to even take notice of the highly advanced thinking and studies conducted by well-respected physicists/groups such as Paul Davies and the PEAR team. That is such an easy position for you to adopt is it not: hear no, see, no, speak no.

I never said anything about this. Are you asking me to justify what someone else wrote on Amazon?

You did not SAY it, but you recommended a book as a counter to some of the arguments I was supporting. Yet this book appears to have nothing to do with what I was saying. The reviews of Sagans book do not talk about quantum dynamics, they talk about "UFO's" etc. But of course, in your mind they all belong to the same "group" don't they? This is how you see things is it not? Why do you feel that anyone that supports a more physical "holism" must necessarily also support theories of "alien abduction" or "channelling". Do you actually think this is the case, or are you just trying to use this as a means of ridiculing alternative thinking? If you are, you are following the same game plan as Scicop.

I will readily admit that quantum physics in any capacity is well outside of my limited sphere of knowledge. I suspect the same is true for you, but for all I know you may have a doctorate in the subject matter.

This has to be a joke right? Basically, "I don't understand it and cannot argue my case", therefore I choose to believe that you cannot either. The philosophy of a moron.

And FYI, I do not have a doctorate in "quantum mechanics", my degree is in Biochemistry but I took an active interest in developments while at University and beyond, and was lucky enough to know and discuss some of the work that was taking place at the time. I was invited to apply to study physics (post-grad) in the USA but, decided my maths and mental discipline was not up to it, and went into industry instead.

You need serious qualifications to deal with the complex mathematics and properties of quantum-based systems. However, a reasonably sharp mind and balanced capacity to follow reason are all that is required to achieve a level of understanding sufficient to understand the implications of the research. It's hard, but really not that hard, otherwise authors like Paul Davies would not be able to sell books on the subject that could do it any justice.

to "debate" you on quantum physics as it relates to ESP would be an exercise in uselessness.

Only because you (by your own admission) are incapable of following the arguments; this statement says nothing about the validity of the studies presently being conducted into consciousness-related phenomena. You are clearly ignorant of this work, and prefer to lump it into the same basket of "quack" science that Scicop use. This is a tedious and pointless exercise on your part, and this remark is no more than a further attempt to dismiss the subject as "not worth" study. How typical of your kind.

What I do know is that as science develops, quacks, mystics, and outright frauds try to associate their beliefs with the latest scientific advancements. This latest idea of "quantum mysticism" strikes me as old ideas in new clothes, but perhaps time will prove me wrong.

First part of this statement - very true. They do this in an attempt to justify their own reasoning. Just like Scicop dismiss all evidence in an attemp to justify their own reasoning. But who is talking about "quantum mysticism". Where did that come from? You know, if you want to debate such topics as develoments in quantum physics, you really do need to be able to differentiate between entirely different subjects. I don't give a damn about "quantum mysticism" or any other hyperbole you have extracted from the Scicop website. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT QUANTUM MYSTICISM. Got that? for God's/(insert your personal deity here) sake man (and your own) go away and read some of the work by Paul Davies. These are books on physics, by an internationally recognised physicist, that talk about mathematics, quantum physics and how this relates to human experience. How many times does this have to be repeated, until you finally realise that it is not a simple case of "us" (Scicop and the "church of reason") versus "them" (quacks, nutters, geller-maniacs, holistic physicists, non-reductionists, in fact anyonoe who holds an alternative position). Can you not see that your position defines itself as "we are right and the rest are quacks". And this is what I accuse Scicop of, and you also, because that is your stance. Your mind is closed to the possibiity that you could be wrong, or perhaps more accurately, there may be more than one right answer (based on current physics).

If history is any indication, I highly doubt it.

Are you even acquainted with the history of scientific development? If you were, you would know that science regularly undergoes huge transformations as old theories and thinking get replaced by new and more complete theories (Copernicus, Darwin, Newton, Einstein among the more obvious). Future theories of science will have to take into account consciousness and conscious experience, if only to define the limits of human endeavour and how it relates to study of the universe/physics. Many physicists now believe that physics is on the threshold of a new understanding, similar to that revolution which occurred with Einstein et al. I won't pretend to know what this transformation is likely to be, but I do know that there are inherent problems and limitations with current theories (particularly the search for a way to unify gravity with the other forces, and the means by which physics can continue to create feasible experimental protocols (next-generation particle colliders are seriously expensive, and may not even provide the necessary data).

if you really think that CSICOP arrives at conclusions a priori, then fine, but in my experience this isn't the case.

Does you experience extend to looking at anything that is not Scicop's? Have you even looked at the PEAR website? If all you ever read is "research" supporting your mind-set, your mind-set will never be challenged. What a comfortable existence that is for you. The fact that you proposed the "Quantum Quackery" article as some kind of authoritative dismissal of non-reducionist physics, just demonstrates how superficial your appreciation of studies in this area is. The article itself contains logical inconsistencies. Perhaps you missed my post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...;o=14&vc=1

As you appear not to answered any of the points I raised.

As far as Scicop's conclusions are concerned, they have already stated their intention is to debunk all and any evidence that may support theories of "metaphysics". The arguments they use are superficial, logically inconsistent and they allow bad science to be published on their site if it supports their cause. Their utter failure to counter the research of Michel Gauquelin, except by resorting to underhand trickery (producing "results" then refusing to reveal the sources of their information - just the sort of behaviour one would expect from charlatans and fakers, which kinda makes them hypocites) is testament to their methods and ideology. Scicop are not interested in the truth - just their version of the truth.

Play low-limit poker all your life, and you will learn how to play better than bad players, you will be a mediocrity. If you aspire to play well, you have to play higher limits and expose yourself to risk and humiliation.

The same is true of science, if you wish to remain a mediocrity in its study, then just stick with Scicop (the land of superficial science and fixed opinions). If you want to really develop your understanding, you have to dare to have your viewpoint challenged, and that means looking beyong your present limits.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about this. Are you asking me to justify what someone else wrote on Amazon?

You did not SAY it, but you recommended a book as a counter to some of the arguments I was supporting. Yet this book appears to have nothing to do with what I was saying. The reviews of Sagans book do not talk about quantum dynamics, they talk about "UFO's" etc. But of course, in your mind they all belong to the same "group" don't they? This is how you see things is it not? Why do you feel that anyone that supports a more physical "holism" must necessarily also support theories of "alien abduction" or "channelling". Do you actually think this is the case, or are you just trying to use this as a means of ridiculing alternative thinking? If you are, you are following the same game plan as Scicop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gave a few books to read that seem to propose quantum mechanics as an explanation for ESP and paranormal pheonomenon. Sagan's book provides a good framework for the average person to evaluate claims of the paranormal, ESP, psuedoscience, etc.

I never lumped what you were saying in with UFO abduction and the like. Besides, why are you basing anything on what the reviews in Amazon say?

As a matter of fact, Sagan's book does deal specifically with quantum mechanics, even if the reviews on Amazon do not.

[ QUOTE ]
I will readily admit that quantum physics in any capacity is well outside of my limited sphere of knowledge. I suspect the same is true for you, but for all I know you may have a doctorate in the subject matter.

This has to be a joke right? Basically, "I don't understand it and cannot argue my case", therefore I choose to believe that you cannot either. The philosophy of a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for not making anything personal.

[ QUOTE ]
And FYI, I do not have a doctorate in "quantum mechanics"

[/ QUOTE ]

Shocking.

[ QUOTE ]
...to "debate" you on quantum physics as it relates to ESP would be an exercise in uselessness.

Only because you (by your own admission) are incapable of following the arguments; this statement says nothing about the validity of the studies presently being conducted into consciousness-related phenomena. You are clearly ignorant of this work, and prefer to lump it into the same basket of "quack" science that Scicop use. This is a tedious and pointless exercise on your part, and this remark is no more than a further attempt to dismiss the subject as "not worth" study. How typical of your kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by what I said--though you've extrapolated its meaning to fit your own biases against CSICOP, et. al. Whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
What I do know is that as science develops, quacks, mystics, and outright frauds try to associate their beliefs with the latest scientific advancements. This latest idea of "quantum mysticism" strikes me as old ideas in new clothes, but perhaps time will prove me wrong.

First part of this statement - very true. They do this in an attempt to justify their own reasoning. Just like Scicop dismiss all evidence in an attemp to justify their own reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, enough with the CSICOP bashing. We get it--you don't like them, they have their minds made up, yadda yadda yadda.

[ QUOTE ]
But who is talking about "quantum mysticism". Where did that come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used that term because I thought you were saying that quantum physics is an explantion for ESP. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
You know, if you want to debate such topics as develoments in quantum physics, you really do need to be able to differentiate between entirely different subjects. I don't give a damn about "quantum mysticism" or any other hyperbole you have extracted from the Scicop website. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT QUANTUM MYSTICISM. Got that? for God's/(insert your personal deity here) sake man (and your own) go away and read some of the work by Paul Davies. These are books on physics, by an internationally recognised physicist, that talk about mathematics, quantum physics and how this relates to human experience. How many times does this have to be repeated, until you finally realise that it is not a simple case of "us" (Scicop and the "church of reason") versus "them" (quacks, nutters, geller-maniacs, holistic physicists, non-reductionists, in fact anyonoe who holds an alternative position). Can you not see that your position defines itself as "we are right and the rest are quacks". And this is what I accuse Scicop of, and you also, because that is your stance. Your mind is closed to the possibiity that you could be wrong, or perhaps more accurately, there may be more than one right answer (based on current physics).

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow down. I just got through saying that I am completely out of my element debating you on quantum physics. At this point, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make. Could you summarize your beliefs regarding quantum physics as it relates to ESP to get this back on track?


[ QUOTE ]
If history is any indication, I highly doubt it.

Are you even acquainted with the history of scientific development?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If you were, you would know that science regularly undergoes huge transformations as old theories and thinking get replaced by new and more complete theories (Copernicus, Darwin, Newton, Einstein among the more obvious). Future theories of science will have to take into account consciousness and conscious experience, if only to define the limits of human endeavour and how it relates to study of the universe/physics. Many physicists now believe that physics is on the threshold of a new understanding, similar to that revolution which occurred with Einstein et al. I won't pretend to know what this transformation is likely to be, but I do know that there are inherent problems and limitations with current theories (particularly the search for a way to unify gravity with the other forces, and the means by which physics can continue to create feasible experimental protocols (next-generation particle colliders are seriously expensive, and may not even provide the necessary data).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK.

[ QUOTE ]
if you really think that CSICOP arrives at conclusions a priori, then fine, but in my experience this isn't the case.

Does you experience extend to looking at anything that is not Scicop's? Have you even looked at the PEAR website? If all you ever read is "research" supporting your mind-set, your mind-set will never be challenged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not being challenged right now? :grin:

[ QUOTE ]
What a comfortable existence that is for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't patronize me. Please.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you proposed the "Quantum Quackery" article as some kind of authoritative dismissal of non-reducionist physics, just demonstrates how superficial your appreciation of studies in this area is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't propose it as an authoritative dismissal of non-reductionist physics, I just offered it as an article for someone to read that provided sound (to my admittedly limited understanding) arguments as to why the ideas of
the "quantum mystics" (feel free to use a different term, I'm just going by the one in the article) are, shall we say, less than compelling.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as Scicop's conclusions are concerned, they have already stated their intention is to debunk all and any evidence that may support theories of "metaphysics".

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't want to go over this whole CSICOP thing again and again. I'm not trying to use them as an argument from authority, but their mission statement makes it clear that they don't have their mind made up. I guess you can take each article they publish at face value, but to dismiss them all because of your perceived "agenda" is an ad hoc fallacy, plain and simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Play low-limit poker all your life, and you will learn how to play better than bad players, you will be a mediocrity. If you aspire to play well, you have to play higher limits and expose yourself to risk and humiliation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get plenty of risk and humiliation at the (relatively) small stakes.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to really develop your understanding, you have to dare to have your viewpoint challenged, and that means looking beyong your present limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why have I admitted that I may be wrong throughout this entire thread, while you have insulted me personally on many occasions and never once admitted that you may be engaging in quack thinking?

[angry young man]

In the restaurant you just saw the person out of the corner of your eye, that's where you got that feeling from, your peripheral vision picked up a vague image but you were able to discern it from all the other vague images because it had something to do with you. It provides an evolutionary advantage to be able to notice and be unnerved by people watching you so you do so.

[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....