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

[daryn]

man you are something else.. you really think i'm arrogant? OK then, i can't change your opinions..

also i think to say a discussion on ESP qualifies as a physics discussion is laughable.

also my response to festus was not a feeble put down because it was not a put down! serious question for you, are you hypersensitive? it seems like it.

[naphand]

You could certainly change my opinions with reasoned argument, but that is not your preferred means of communication - you seem to either "not understand", "don't get it" or "pity people".

I don't think you're arrogant - it's self-evident from your posts. Just this one comment sums it up:

"why is it that every month or so i have to deal with a new internet loser who obviously must feel challenged by my intellectual prowess to make such a post??

Is this really the only explanation? Could it be that it's something to do with YOU and what you are posting? Could it? Can you really s-t-r-e-t-c-h your mind far enough to consider the possibility that the problem is to do with what YOU are doing? I mean, the whole "hate thread" thing, have you not noticed a trend here?

"also i think to say a discussion on ESP qualifies as a physics discussion is laughable."

Arrogant and ignorant. You claim to be interested in Physics, but have NEVER come across the parallels between quantum theory and consciousness-based phenomena? Maybe you should try reading a few of the publcations on the New Physics before you use such phrases as "laughable" as it is clear to anyone who is familiar with this work, that you are just an ignoramus. The work conducted by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Reasearch Lab. should be a good start and then maybe Google to find out about some of the other publications.

The whole question of what consciousness is (and such things as ESP clearly come under that domain, being as they are, consciousness-based), is a matter of how "consciousness" arises from "inert matter". It is, in fact, a physics question. It is not a point of philosophy. Most attempts to study consciousness-based phenomena have involved either purely statistical tests, or some element of physical manipulation. Any proposed mechanism must have a theoretical basis, and as such a "physical means" for its propogation. The whole issue of what consciousness amounts to, it's properties, scope and mechanism of interaction with the physical environment is being increasingly linked to mathematics (which arises from the brain anyway) and unified field/quantum mechanical theories. Many significant mathematicians have expressed surprise at how some even totally abstract theories seem to have a place in quantum field/superstring theory: there are two possible explanations for this parallel, can you work out what they are, and why they may in fact be the same explanation?

OK, maybe I mis-read your one-liner to Festus, in which case I apologise, but considering the tone of your other posts, I think this assumption is really not that surprising. After all, if you drew 20 red balls in a row from a bag with 30 balls in it, you might anticipate expect the next one to also be red (of, course there is no absolute guarantee of that), or even, indeed, to assume the bag only contains red balls. Or am I being too abstract for you?

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, if you drew 20 red balls in a row from a bag with 30 balls in it, you might anticipate expect the next one to also be red (of, course there is no absolute guarantee of that), or even, indeed, to assume the bag only contains red balls. Or am I being too abstract for you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this assuming no prior knowledge of the make-up of the balls in the bag. Does it have something to do the balls being placed in the bag by a human mbeing capeable of making patterns? Is this an example used to demonstrate some theory, or just an example you made up? Please elaborate.

[PDosterM]

Some things have to be believed to be seen.
- Ralph Hodgson, on ESP

[Festus22]

Lest I be at the center of this firestorm of controversy (well, not really - I just like that line), all I can say is this:

The event I shared had quite a profound impact on me. I can hardly dismiss out-of-hand as coincidence something that was done one way a thousand times and done differently 1 time. And by doing it different that one time probably spared my life or at least avoided a very bad day. Was it "extra-sensory"? I guess that depends on one's definition. I didn't have a vision of an impending horrific collision or one of my deceased relatives didn't suddenly appear and shout "wait!". But something was processed somehow that made me not do what I routinely had always done. And when your own mortality may have been hanging in the balance - yeah, it tends to have an impact.

So my experience was only meant to add to this thread something that went beyond conscious perception and I was interested where something like this may fall in the broad spectrum of the extra-sensory realm.

As for Daryn's comment, I wasn't offended. I'll cut him some slack since there aren't too many of us Physics degree guys around. Though I would be interested on what his views are pertaining to this subject.

Lastly for naphand - do you have any links or recommendations on the subject matter you discussed? I still dig a good physics read every now and then.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
"why is it that every month or so i have to deal with a new internet loser who obviously must feel challenged by my intellectual prowess to make such a post??


[/ QUOTE ]


man alive, ... this is obviously a joke. do you think people this arrogant really exist?


as for the hate thread,.. i started it! as a joke!


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Or am I being too abstract for you?

[/ QUOTE ]


no.




in closing, i guess i will be the more mature person and just say respectfully, if you don't like what i post, please skip over my posts.. and please don't respond.

[naphand]

It was just made up.

I had no reason to suspect a devious plot with my bag of balls, but you have me worried now. Maybe some kind of "examples conspiracy" theory could be proposed to explain this? Alternatively, I may have just been seeing red balls, when they were, in fact, lots of different colours. Did somebody tamper with bag of balls?

Really, it was just a load of balls.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[naphand]

Indeed Festus!

Many people only begin to believe in the unusual when they themselves, have an unusual experience. While it clearly had a big effect on you, there are many possibile explanations. There are also many, many testimonies (by otherwise reliable people, like judges etc. - not just the crackpots) that cannot be easily explained away by "peripheral vision" or suchlike.

I have no doubt that most experiences like this, while unusual, are explainable with a more detailed understanding of brain function. At the very least, the information processing capacity of our minds, and that of the subconscious in general, may be considerably greater than previously supposed. Exactly how far these "abilities" extend and their scope, remains to be discovered, and with further refinement of methods of studying the brain we may discover even stranger properties - the least of which may be the proof of a quantum-mechanical basis to thought.

The fact remains though, that quantum mechanics involves essentially the development of theories of information as well, because matter/the cosmos appears to be able to pass and process information instantaneously (try looking at what they plan to be able to do with quantum computers!). It may be our idea of "information" is wrong. Who knows? I am just not prepared to dismiss ideas because they seem counter-intuitive (sic).

I will try to dig out some references available on the net that are both credible and groundbreaking. But the best information I have seen has been in books and documentaries on TV (which are already out of date), and I tend to dispose of my books once I have read them (to the local library) so cannot give you any kind of list off the top of my head. But I will try.

If you are genuinely interested, you may be surprised just how far thinking along these lines has progressed in scientific circles. The conclusions that some mathematicians and physicists are starting to draw, would cause many rationalists to squirm. You will also discover just how limited "rationalistic thinking" is as far as explaining the nature of the universe goes - where many so-called "rational" arguments are not only the "least-likely" explanation for observed phenomena, but are logically inconsistent within themselves when exposed to recorded quantum phenomena. They simply do not fit the facts. The "laws of physics" as most understand them, break down at the quantum level, which appears either totally chaotic, or follows laws of organisation that have yet to be fully elucidated.

Evidence exists that the brain (or more accurately the "mind") may function on a quantum level (so-called "quantum coherence" models). If this is so, and mechanisms exist or can be developed (by mechanisms I mean thought-process-mechanisms), to tap into the quantum field directly via the mind/brain then what many now consider "paranormal" may in fact be explainable. As to the the validity of such experiences, I cannot say. Many scientists refuse to believe that hypnotism is real, despite decades of research, so there will always be counter-arguments based on denial. Einstein first proposed the "thought experiment", whereby if you could think through an experimental model (of course, assuming that you have a correct grasp of the underlying physical properties of your "mind lab"), the results would have to be correct. This model is now widely used (Stephen Hawking, due to his disability, was forced to adopt this approach almost exclusively, and it enabled him to solve many difficult problems in physics). Einstein's proof for the difference in time (i.e. time travels more slowly) experienced when travelling close to the speed of light, was in a fact a very simple proof that can be explained in 2 minutes using nothing but basic trigonometry or piece of paper and pencil. The mathematics - the "hard proof" - took much, much longer. His genius was not in mathematics (apparently he never committed any formula to memory - and used formulae from books for his calculations) but in being able to understand physical properties and physical interactions in terms of geometry (as did Hawking) and then simply using his imagination to try and mentally picture physical states. Obviously some expertise in mathematics was required as well... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] There were other physicists around working on the same things, and drawing the same conclusions, but it was Einstein's ability to produce incredibly simple and elegant (non-mathematical) proofs for his theories, that enabled him to get the support he needed to persue his ideas.

And this, rather neatly, ties up with the comment posted by PDosterM "some things have to be believed to be seen". The flipside of this argument being "never underestimate the power of denial". Applies to both sides of the argument, equally. The bedrock of the rationlists argument is the "evidence" of physics. The problem with this is, while the evidence may not (yet) exist, the theory on which their arguments are based (quantum physics), has inescapable implications far stranger and wierd than anything they are comfortable discussing.

Man, I'm rambling again. I'll get to work on that list....

[naphand]

OK - well, rather than try to produce an exhaustive list of stuff available on the web, you are probably going to find out just as much by searching the net (I use Google) for key words to do with your interest. You will have to wade through a lot of rubbish, but if you really are interested it does not take that long to find stuff. The publications change very rapidly, so it's impossible to keep any list current.

Two good links to start with are:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/brainde.php

As far as reading around the subject goes, I would recommend 4 books to start with, plus one author. As follows:

"Margins of Reality" - Dunne &amp; Janne (PEAR)

This is from the Princeton team and gives a broad introduction to the theme of consciousness studies. It has plenty of scientific data, and well-worked methoodology/thinking. It's a very dry read though, and I could only manage a chapter at a time without nodding off. But invaluable for a really thorough approach to the scientific study of this area.

"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" - Gary Zukav

Probably the best introduction to the new physics published to date. Very well written and very comprehensive. A word of warning though - I don't recommend you read anything else by Zukav! He seems to be some kind of new-age type thinker, but this does not detract in any way from how good this book really is, it stands on it's own merits. The following review I picked up from Amazon:

"This is *the* definitive book to read for anyone seeking
to understand the basics of quantum physics. Here is your
guide to the particle/wave conundrum. Here is an
explanation of two basic principles in modern physics: 1)
the new logic of the relationship of subject and object
and 2) the random changes which occur to objective
properties. Zukav explains one of the most important
discoveries of science, the Copenhagen Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics. He elaborates upon how and why ideas
about reality, i.e. the experimental situation, differ
from the experience of reality. Instead, probability
replaces the absolutes of past science. The
'communication' of particles over the space-time continuum
suggests a concsiousness to the particles. He discusses
wave-particle duality, Max Planck's constant, Einstein's
theory of the photoelectric effect, Pauli's exclusion
principle, Lorentz transformation, particle physics,
Bell's theorem, and quantum logic, plus much, much more.
Zukav's gift is to distill complex ideas and simplify them
for inquiring minds "who want to know" but are "afraid to
ask" or don't even know where to begin to ask. He connects
metaphysical principles and science. He acknowledges that
the use of words is often inadequate to describe the
mysterious events of quantum physics. There is an unbroken
wholeness to reality which when observed by individuals
renders a loss of recognition to the interconnectedness of
life. Quantum physics proves the interconnectedness of all
reality in ways that only the mystics and spiritual
masters described in the past. In fact, both scientists
and mystics are beginning to use the same word
descriptions ... This is an excellent book for those who
dare to ask "what's new in the world of science?" Zukav
has the ability to simplify complex concepts and link them
to metaphysical principles in a very readable manner."

"The Case for Astrology" - John Anthony West

I only recommend this as an "extra" read, for the detail on the arguments between "rationalists" and "supporters", and particularly the expose of Scicop's methods and debunking agenda. You may not be interested in astrology at all, indeed the subject of much of this book (Michel Gauqelin) was fervently anti-astrology until his research revealed some interesting (although unexpected) results. Gauqelin's early work was strongly anti-astrology, as he found no correspondences in the "predicted" manner. He was widely supported by the scientific community for this, that is until he started to produce some unexpected results that appeared to support astrology, and from that point on he was vilified and ridiculed. His work is a thorn in the side of Scicop, as it has been so difficult to disprove. This book is worth the read just to see how the argument pro/against has been conducted over the last 20 years, I think it really shows how weak the reductionist argument is for examples like this, and how Scicop will stoop to any level to meet their own agenda. The arguments and scientific data put forward by West are compelling, and is a clear and reliable counter to the argument that "no evidence exists". After reading this book you may or may not agree with the conclusions, but you will be left in no doubt as to the difficulty researchers in this field face.

"The Mind of God" - Paul Davies

I quote from another website:

"PAUL DAVIES is an internationally acclaimed physicist,
writer and broadcaster, now based in South Australia.
Professor Davies is the author of some twenty books,
including Other Worlds, God and the New Physics, The Edge
of Infinity, The Mind of God, The Cosmic Blueprint, Are We
Alone? About Time and The Fifth Miracle: The Search for
the Origin of Life.

In recent years he has pursued an antireductionist agenda,
making the case for moving both physics and biology onto
"the synthetic path," recognizing the importance of the
organizational and qualitative features of complex
systems. He advocates a meeting of the minds between
physicists and biologists, noting that complicated
systems, whether biological or cosmological, are more than
just the accretion of their parts but operate with their
own internal laws and logic."

I personally recommend any book by this author, he is very readable and his arguments logically consistent and well-thought. The book above, was the first I read by him, and is still my personal favourite. This is a review of the book from a book site (not amazon):

"The Mind of God begins with physics, looking at different
theories of the creation of the universe, the nature of
physical laws and the possibility of a theory of
everything. This leads on naturally to a discussion of
mathematics and its philosophical foundations, and then on
to computer science, and in particular the nature of
computation and its relationship to physical processes.
Then it's back to mathematics and its relationship with
physics. After this things get more philosophical, with a
look at various arguments for a "God" or at least
something "outside" the universe. The final chapter is a
look at mysticism and contains a suggestion that
non-rational (religious and mystical) approaches to
understanding may be able to go beyond the limits of
physics."

Obviously, each book/link contains further references and so on. Many people may be uncomfortable with the topics covered in these books, but they are by no means the workings of belief-stricken minds, or random association, the conclusions drawn are at least as valid as those persued by the reductionists/rationalists, as will be evident from reading them, and make compelling reading.

Enjoy...

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...the conclusions drawn are at least as valid as those persued by the reductionists/rationalists, as will be evident from reading them, and make compelling reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

While we're recommending reading material, might I suggest Quantum Quackery by Victor J. Stenger, a brief article that provides a good overview of why the ideas Naphand proposes are considered nonsense by most physicists.

Also, for an overview of skeptical thinking and New Age beliefs, I urge everyone to read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.