Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 181 of 237 (532547)
10-23-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 7:55 PM


Re: If I'm misinformed, whose fault is that?
...parsimony is a desired quality in a theory. Is that wrong
In 99% of discussed cases, yes. How the hell do you measure the "simplicity" of a theory? Is General Relativity more simple than Newtonian gravitation? Most would say not, but it damn well is from my perspective.
String Theory is far more simple than LQG in 1000 aspects, and LQG is more simple in another 1000 aspects. And in ONE aspect, that of dimensionality of the target space, you first assume that d>4 is more complex than d=4 (why? in differential geometry and algebraic topology, d=4 is nearly always the most complex case, out of all possible d) and that this one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects!!!
Starting to feel a little out of your depth for making such proclamations yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 7:55 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:25 PM cavediver has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 182 of 237 (532548)
10-23-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
10-23-2009 8:09 PM


Re: Prediction Vs Post-Hoc Analysis
Do you at least agree that in subsequent tests Sheldrake should be able to make "blind" predictions about the leaving time of the owner based on the behaviour of the dog alone if his hypothesis is true?
Surely even you can see that this is more objective than simply correlating two sets of data and applying the statistical analysis required to get the desired answer?
Oh, I agree that a well-formed hypothesis needs to have predictive power.
The idea of a nonquantifiable morphic fields seems to preclude the ability to test for when the telepathic event is supposed to happen. What I mean is that whenever the owner randomly goes home, the model should be able to predict with great accuracy that moment the owner decides to go home through whatever criteria.
But the fact the Sheldrake's model for telepathy uses a nonquantifiable explanation means that you likely can't predict that moment.
So yes, predictive quality is important.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2009 8:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2009 4:05 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 183 of 237 (532550)
10-23-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by cavediver
10-23-2009 8:19 PM


Re: If I'm misinformed, whose fault is that?
Starting to feel a little out of your depth for making such proclamations yet?
No, but I'm starting to learn something new, i.e. in differential geometry and algebraic topology, d=4 is nearly always the most complex case, out of all possible d.
My next questions would be why d=4 is the most complex, why is d>4 more complex in that situation and why that one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects.
There are other questions, of course, but no need for you to answer any of them including the three I posted.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by cavediver, posted 10-23-2009 8:19 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by cavediver, posted 10-23-2009 8:40 PM Izanagi has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 184 of 237 (532551)
10-23-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 8:07 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
But the fact that you are now mocking my, what I am assuming is, a naturalistic explanation tells me you won't consider the argument.
Woooh, I was not mocking at all. But if you think me question sounded like mocking, then they should tell you something about what we're discussing.
The explanation is rooted in the natural world and therefore falsifiable. Do the experiments and prove me wrong and it wouldn't matter one lick to me.
You haven't told me what to look for yet.
Are they brainwaves that travel in some sort of field, or, are they brainwaves that stay in the brain?
These questions are important, and will also show that when people use the word 'telepathy" they have no clue what the word means or what they are describing.
Which again makes me ask, are they witnessed a paranormal phenomenon at all.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:07 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:40 PM onifre has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 185 of 237 (532552)
10-23-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by onifre
10-23-2009 8:32 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Are they brainwaves that travel in some sort of field, or, are they brainwaves that stay in the brain?
These questions are important, and will also show that when people use the word 'telepathy" they have no clue what the word means or what they are describing.
I don't know much about brainwaves, but I don't think it really matters if they stop at the skull or are in some sort of field because brainwaves typically originate in the brain. We can use an EEG to measure what we can and when technology catches up, and if it is possible, a portable MRI machine or something similar to scan the brain. So regardless of whether it stays in the head or not, we should be able to measure the EEG or the brain activity that might be associated with it. And just for the hell of it, we'll measure the EEG of and brain scan the owner as well.
And for the record, I usually am quite capable of separating what I like to be true from what is scientifically possible. For instance, I would like magic to be true so I can cast fireballs to my heart's content, but I know it's never going to happen.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 10-23-2009 8:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by onifre, posted 10-24-2009 11:01 AM Izanagi has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 186 of 237 (532553)
10-23-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 8:25 PM


Re: If I'm misinformed, whose fault is that?
My next questions would be...
And that is all it takes
why d=4 is the most complex
Good question, but not easily answered and would deserve a thread all of its own. Would be fun to look at this though...
why is d>4 more complex in that situation
It's not - relativity in 5,6,7,8,9,10 dimensions is not much different to relativity in 4 dimensions. But go less than 4, and you get big changes.
LQG is constructed in 4 dimensions, as that is what our Universe looks like. Nothing clever in that. String Theory predicts how many dimensions it needs to work in - that is very clever and completely(ish) new - though that number of dimensions just happens to be large. But we have known for nearly a century that higher dimensions are the key to unification of the forces. So the fact that String Theory predicts higher dimensions is often regarded as a strength, not a weakness.
why that one aspect trumps all other 2000 aspects.
It doesn't - that's what I'm saying - you can't appeal to just one aspect of a huge body of work, and declare that because that one aspect is "simpler" in some way, that parsimony dictates that that theory is the more likely correct.
Need I say OFF-TOPIC ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:25 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:50 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 231 by petrophysics1, posted 11-07-2009 7:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 187 of 237 (532554)
10-23-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by cavediver
10-23-2009 8:40 PM


Re: If I'm misinformed, whose fault is that?
That's fine, and it would be an interesting topic to talk about. Like I said, I like learning about new things because while stupid is a condition, ignorance is a choice, and I don't like being ignorant.
I value knowledge. I debate so I can learn more from other people and adjust my knowledge according to what I learn. But I don't like being called ignorant. That's why I stopped arguing with Smooth_Operator - because he decided insulting me was better than debating the points on their merits (although perhaps I might have started it).
In my opinion, insulting a person who doesn't have all the knowledge doesn't demean the person who was insulted. But it may cause a lost opportunity for lifting the shroud of ignorance.
Anyway, that's a topic for another time.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by cavediver, posted 10-23-2009 8:40 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2009 8:01 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 188 of 237 (532572)
10-24-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 8:50 PM


Re: If I'm misinformed, whose fault is that?
Izanagi writes:
That's why I stopped arguing with Smooth_Operator - because he decided insulting me was better than debating the points on their merits (although perhaps I might have started it).
I agree. That is why I left SO's thread as well. I don't argue with rude, obnoxious, abusive people. Not that I can't but it is futile and not worth my time. I have run into a few people on this board, remarkably many who claim to be religious and/or Christians, who do not know how to control there emotions to the point of verbally assaulting people and many times with profanity. It is disturbing actually and I wonder what these people are like in person.
Didn't want to diverge this topic but just wanted to give validity to your statement.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:50 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 189 of 237 (532581)
10-24-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Izanagi
10-23-2009 8:40 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
I don't know much about brainwaves, but I don't think it really matters if they stop at the skull or are in some sort of field because brainwaves typically originate in the brain.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming that brain waves can travel in a "field," when in fact they cannot. Brain waves are simply the firing of neurons, which travel down axons and release chemicals at the synapse. So in no way can these brain waves be doing anything but working in your brain.
Here's a good read on telepathy - source - complete with studies on it and the results.
Here's an excerpt from it, since Linda Lou feels no one looks into this stuff.
quote:
Telepathy research in the U.S.A.
In 1885, the American branch of the Society for Psychical Research was established at Harvard University in Boston by Dr. Richard Hodgson (1855-1905), professor of legal studies at Cambridge University, and astronomer Simon Newcomb. But the first American to publish a monograph (Experiments in Psychical Research) on his experiments with card guessing was John Coover.
Coover was Stanford University’s first Fellow in Psychical Research. By 1917, he had done four large studies (trials of 10,000 or more) and reported that he had found nothing to support belief in ESP. The main experiment involved 100 pairs of subjects in 100 trials. Roughly half of these were for telepathy (experimental) and half were for clairvoyance (control). That is, in half the trials a sender looked at the card before trying to send a telepathic communication to a receiver. In the other half, the sender looked at the card after the receiver made his or her guess.
Others examined Coover’s data and found more than Coover did. Dean Radin writes that the receivers’ ability to guess the right cards rated 160 to 1 against chance (1997: 65). F. C. S. Schiller found the data showed odds greater than 50,000 to 1 against chance, but he used only the data from the fourteen highest-scoring subjects. Coover replied that he could find all kinds of interesting antichance events if he were selective in his use of the data (Hansel 1989: 28). In 1939, psychologist Robert Thouless found that if the data were lumped together from the main experiment, there were 44 more hits than expected by chance. Thouless suggested that the data supported some slight psychic effect. He calculated the odds of this happening by chance to be about 200 to 1. Coover attributed the excess hits to recording errors on the part of the experimenter (Hansel 1989: 26). Neither Schiller, Richet, nor Thouless, however, attempted to repeat Coover’s experiment. That would have to wait until J. B. Rhine set up shop at Duke University. Radin says that Coover may have been more pessimistic about his data than others because of disapproving pressure from his peers at Stanford (1997: 65). However, Radin also notes that several studies have shown that a 1% error rate in recording is typical. Thus, Coover’s suspicion might well have been justified.
Richet was particularly vocal in his criticism of Coover’s work. Coover responded by proclaiming that it can’t be denied that fraud is frequent, general, and well known in psychical research. The witnessing of psychic phenomena by astute and eminent men, he said, has had a negative effect on the studies because it has led them to discount contrary interpretations of the same phenomena, ignore the lack of controls during those psychic experiences, and rely on the corroboratory testimony of others to such an extent that it has weakened the rigor with which the researcher should be expected to guard against fraud. Coover noted that in the other sciences the experimenter controls the conditions; but in testing psychical powers, the medium controls the conditions.
While few remember John Coover, everybody knowledgeable of the history of psi research remembers Joseph Banks Rhine (1895-1980). In 1925, Rhine and his wife, Louisa, both with doctorates in biology (plant physiology) from the University of Chicago arrived at Harvard to study psychology, philosophy, and what Rhine would come to call extra-sensory perception. Both heard Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lecture on spiritualism and were impressed not only with his message but his serene demeanor. The possibility that spirits might be communicating with the living, said Rhine, was the most exhilarating thought he’d had in years. The Rhines sat in on a number of sances but were not completely taken in by their experiences. They were quick to claim that famed medium Margery (Mina, wife of Dr. Le Roi Goddard Crandon, a respected surgeon) was guilty of brazen trickery. Yet, when they went to Duke in 1927 to work with William McDougall, their first investigation was of an alleged telepathic horse called Lady Wonder. They declared that they could detect no trickery and that the horse was genuinely telepathic. In a follow-up study, the horse couldn’t perform and the Rhines declared that Lady Wonder had lost her psychic ability. A similarly clever horse had been studied by Oskar Pfungst in 1904 and it was found that the horse was responding to subtle visual cues. Had the Rhines been so inclined, they might have found the same thing with Lady Wonder. It turns out humans are as clever as horses and the phenomenon of unconsciously responding to sensory cues is now known as the clever Hans phenomenon. In any case, the Rhines took over the Duke lab from Dr. McDougall and ran it until Rhine’s retirement in 1966. What did Rhine have after nearly forty years of scientific research on ESP and psychokinesis? He had a lot of data, a number of followers, but there was no Noble Prize on the horizon.
The Lady Wonder fiasco was just one of several blunders made by America’s most preeminent name in parapsychology. His early results were similar to Coover’s. He did a thousand trials of a card guessing experiment without finding any signs of ESP. He and Dr. Karl E. Zener did more experiments with numbers or letters of the alphabet sealed in opaque envelopes with the same non-results. Unlike Coover, however, Rhine did not give up. He and Zener changed the procedure to use what are now known as Zener or ESP cards, which gives the guesser a 1 in 5 chance of guessing a card correctly. They settled on a deck of 25 cards. Rhine believed that when someone was found who could do significantly better that 20% in guessing, that would be evidence for telepathy or clairvoyance. Some were so phenomenal (Adam J. Linzmayer, George Zirkle, Sara Ownbey, Hubert E. Pearce, Jr.), skeptics assume there must have been cheating. Rhine denied it. In any case, he described in detail the protocols and conditions under which his tests were made. Nobody thought Rhine was cheating, but many thought he had been duped by his subjects several times. According to Milbourne Christopher there are at least a dozen ways a subject who wished to cheat under the conditions Rhine described could deceive the investigator (Christopher 1970: 24-25). Rhine did use a magician to observe one of his ESP phenoms, Hubert Pearce. When Wallace Lee (a.k.a. Wallace the Magician) was observing young Pearce, he performed at chance levels. Otherwise his scores were significantly higher.
Rhine was, and most working parapsychologists are, sensitive to the charge of cheating, since their whole enterprise would go down the tubes if the general perception were that dishonesty reigned in the laboratory. When Rhine was informed that his assistant Walter J. Levy Jr. had manipulated machinery and falsified data in an experiment, he confronted his heir apparent who ended up resigning. Levy said he’d been under tremendous pressure to produce positive results. He swore that this was the only time he'd falsified data.*
Rather than admit that when controls are tightened it becomes more difficult to deceive investigators, Rhine and other psi researchers have often concluded that the controls have interfered with the paranormal realm. Some even claim that tight controls make the exercise of psychic power so difficult that it extinguishes it altogether in cases of severe scrutiny, such as when a trained expert in detecting deception is brought in. Experimenter control destroys trust and trust seems necessary for psychic powers to work, according to many psi researchers.
Rhine was undaunted by the criticism. In fact, he claimed in his first book (Extra-Sensory Perception, 1934) that he’d done over 90,000 trials and could justifiably conclude that ESP is an actual and demonstrable occurrence. However, there were attempts to duplicate these trials at Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Colgate, Southern Methodist, and Brown, all without success. Critics could not find evidence in Rhine’s report that he was as systematic and careful as one would expect a scientist to be making such an extraordinary claim. There was no evidence, for example, that Rhine realized how important it was to discuss how the cards were shuffled when doing the tests. He showed no awareness that the 1 in 5 odds that represent pure chance with the Zener deck could change if the cards were not perfect (which they weren’t) and since certain strings of guesses would be ruled out with a universe of only twenty-five entities. For example, no one would guess six or more circles in a row because the deck only contains 5, but in a truly random distribution of circles, 6 or more items of the same kind would be expected to come up occasionally. In fact, given the small size of the deck, the actual odds of guessing any given item might be different from the theoretical odds which are based on the assumption of extremely large numbers of trials where each item always has exactly the same chance of coming up. Even if verbal feedback is not given, which it often was, non-verbal signs might indicate to the subject that a guess was right or wrong and that would affect the next guess.
One indication that Rhine and his colleagues had little understanding of how theoretical statistics should be applied in the real world is revealed by their being puzzled how some subjects would do better than chance when they started off but their successes would taper off the longer they were tested. That is, the longer a successful subject was tested, the more his scores tended toward a chance distribution. Rather than take this as natural regression toward the mean (over time, all subjects should move toward chance if nothing paranormal is happening), Rhine, Radin, and some other parapsychologists explain it away by saying that it is due to the boring nature of the testing. They even have a name for it: the decline effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Izanagi, posted 10-23-2009 8:40 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Izanagi, posted 10-24-2009 8:54 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 192 by Kitsune, posted 10-25-2009 6:20 AM onifre has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 190 of 237 (532612)
10-24-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by onifre
10-24-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming that brain waves can travel in a "field," when in fact they cannot. Brain waves are simply the firing of neurons, which travel down axons and release chemicals at the synapse. So in no way can these brain waves be doing anything but working in your brain.
I'm not assuming anything so don't put words in my mouth.
My contention is that if telepathy were a real process, it would likely involve the brain as part of that process. Since we have methods of looking into the brain and see what's going on, through MRIs, EEGs, and MEGs, then we would be able to see changes that should be taking place during a telepathic event.
The actual mechanics of telepathy are unimportant since my idea (and I hesitate to call it a hypothesis) is that since the brain receives the information, it is involved somehow. My only assumption is that the brain is the center for most sensory input - that is the brain interprets most, if not all, inputs we receive. If telepathy is part of this "sixth sense" then the brain should also be involved.
Now we know, through the technology of MRIs, many new information on the activity of the brain when we receive sensory input. We can see the changes that are taking place in the brain as different things are happening. We even know more of what is happening in the brain during sex. So if telepathy is involved with the brain somehow, then changes in the brain would be a logical effect since sensory input has shown to effect changes in brain activity. So what we are doing is looking for the effect on the brain of the act of telepathy.
Once again, I am not worried about the mechanics. I am not assuming anything regarding the mechanics. The only assumption I am making is that processing sensory information effects measurable changes in the brain. I am looking to see if there is an effect on the brain. If it turns out that there is an effect on the brain, then further studies can be made as to why there are changes, and if telepathy is the cause, how telepathy occurs. If there is no effect (there likely aren't) then telepathy most likely can't be a natural process because I know of no other way by which the brain can process information without effecting changes in the brain.
Once again, my only assumption is that the process of telepathy should effect measurable changes in brain activity. No other assumptions are being made.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by onifre, posted 10-24-2009 11:01 AM onifre has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 191 of 237 (532624)
10-25-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by onifre
10-23-2009 1:57 PM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Hi Onifre,
My suggestion: first, define telepathy by means of a force, a particle, a wave, something. Show that something is actually happening, before you make a hypothesis which includes it as the answer.
And my suggestion: hypothesise that telepathy exists, and design experiments to detect it. Introduce controls for all other possible natural explanations. I believe Sheldrake did this with his "Dogs that Know" experiments. Their simplicity makes then easy to analyse.
Why is it necessary to understand how a force operates, in order to ascertain that the force exists? Don't you think that's putting the cart before the horse? Would you have dismissed electromagnetism as pseudoscientific nonsense a thousand years ago because no one knew what a photon was?
Simple:
a) Conduct experiments to find out if telepathy exists. It is the transfer of information between organisms, which is not contingent on time or distance, and which cannot be explained by any other known means of communication.
b) Once its existence is accepted, conduct experiments to discover how it works.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 10-23-2009 1:57 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Perdition, posted 10-26-2009 5:09 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 192 of 237 (532626)
10-25-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by onifre
10-24-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Dogs that Know experiments
Hi again Onifre,
Interesting example from the Skeptic's Dictionary. Let me have a guess what happened here, and correct me if I'm wrong:
You previously knew little about past paranormal experiments.
You are trying to argue here that things like telepathy and precognition are pseudoscience.
You go to a source which you are pretty sure will back you up in this.
The source appears to give clear information from failed experiments.
You are content with this, use it as your argument, and research no further.
Before I talk about this, let's have a look at what a creationist does when they are debating with evolutionists. We know that creationists delude themselves about science and its findings.
They previously knew little about the scientific topic in question.
They are trying to argue that the topic is nonsense because it contradicts the Bible.
They go to a source which they are pretty sure will back them up in this (i.e. AIG).
The source appears to give clear information as to why the science is wrong.
They are content with this, use it as their argument, and research no further.
What is wrong with this?
They are only interested in finding information that supports their beliefs and will exclude information that does not.
They trust their sources implicitly.
It looks to me like your particular source, while possibly telling one version of the truth about these studies (I am not familiar with them but am aware that other sources make different claims about these experiments), is cherry-picking the data.
For example, it took less than a minute to Google similar research. I've been looking at a series of ESP tests done at Duke University in the 1930s. Here is a summary of some of them:
REVIEW OF THE PEARCE-PRATT DISTANCE SERIES OF ESP TESTS
These tests specifically set out to eliminate the possibility of subtle cues by separating the subject from the person who draws the cards, placing each in different buildings well away from each other. Perhaps you'd like to read the details of the experiment designs and tell me why you think the statistically significant success rate is flawed.
Rhine, one of the experiment's designers, ran other ESP experiments at Duke and wrote a book about them. For one experiment, he tested 40 subjects and found one who was a "good scorer." It seems possible that ESP may be an ability which varies from person to person, as other abilities do. (One explanation for why some experiments may average out to chance, if they are not selective of the participants.) This person consistently scored above chance, unless asked not to, in which case he also seemed able to score below chance. In order to eliminate perceived problems with the 25 cards, there were some experiments where a card was drawn, called, checked at once, and immediately returned to the pack and reshuffled. These were successful, at one point resulting in a run of 25 correct calls. Sometimes packs of 50 or more cards were used, and these experiments also were successful.
I wonder why the Skeptic's Dictionary omitted this?
There are some other possibilities here as well. There may need to be an emotional link between the subjects in order for ESP or telepathy or similar to noticeably occur. This would make sense if this kind of communication confers an evolutionary advantage. It's also possible that cards are simply insignificant and dull. Perhaps the importance of the message being sent is also a factor. I think these things are common sense and should be part of future experiments.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by onifre, posted 10-24-2009 11:01 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2009 10:04 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 199 by onifre, posted 10-25-2009 11:57 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 193 of 237 (532637)
10-25-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
10-23-2009 8:09 PM


Re: Prediction Vs Post-Hoc Analysis
Do you at least agree that in subsequent tests Sheldrake should be able to make "blind" predictions about the leaving time of the owner based on the behaviour of the dog alone if his hypothesis is true?
I don't see any reason why that couldn't be included. I also don't see any reason why its absence should be a problem. The data is clear, a trend which shows on the graphs. Jaytee's time at the window greatly increased when Pam set off home; crucially, it was often when she made the decision to go (or was told to do so). Wiseman's experiments showed the same trend. It's such a simple experiment that there are only a few variables to look at. It's interesting that when Pam didn't come home in the 4-hour period when the videotape was running, or not at all, Jaytee's behaviour reflected the null hypothesis that he would spend the same amount of time at the window, on average, in all time periods.
You write a lot of short posts, ignore chunks of things I say, repeat the same things over and over, and in subsequent posts here your comments about Sheldrake and his work have become increasingly absurd and ad hominem, considering the fact that you clearly have little interest in learning about what you're criticising before you let rip. I suppose I should have learned by now after experiencing this in previous threads, but I see no reason to continue this conversation unless you have something new and constructive to add.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2009 8:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2009 11:53 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 194 of 237 (532641)
10-25-2009 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Modulous
10-23-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Fields
Hi again Modulous,
I take your points about morphic fields, as I have all along really. I think the debates we're seeing here are reflecting the individual attitudes several of us expressed in the pseudoskepticism thread. I agree that there is little evidence for morphic fields, which puts me in the "I don't know" arena. Presumably you are more of the "little evidence means I am doubtful" persuasion.
Let's say for the sake of argument that telepathy is real. (The reason why I brought the "Dogs that Know" experiments up was because, as I said earlier, establishing the existence of a phenomenon is a step previous to debating its possible etiology.) There have been discussions here about how it could occur. Most people have mentioned some action of the brain.
Maybe some kind of field or fields is/are involved. If gravitational and quantum fields, why not a telepathic field? Or maybe telepathy does have something to do with quantum physics, e.g. entanglement. I'd have to leave it to people more qualified and intelligent than me to work out how to test these ideas.
Sheldrake suggests that the brain, instead of being the instigator, may be like an antenna which tunes in to different frequencies. He thinks that individual and collective memories may be stored in morphic fields, which our brains access. Damage the brain and you damage the antenna. He isn't the first or only person to suggest the idea that the brain isn't the repository of consciousness and I find it intriguing. Materialistic reductionists who believe that the physical actions of the brain alone result in consciousness, don't like it for obvious reasons. I am keen to see more evidence for both beliefs because the question of the nature of consciousness IMO is still far from being answered.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 10-23-2009 1:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2009 10:26 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 195 of 237 (532656)
10-25-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Kitsune
10-25-2009 6:20 AM


People that Know experiments
In order to eliminate perceived problems with the 25 cards, there were some experiments where a card was drawn, called, checked at once, and immediately returned to the pack and reshuffled. These were successful, at one point resulting in a run of 25 correct calls. Sometimes packs of 50 or more cards were used, and these experiments also were successful.
I wonder why the Skeptic's Dictionary omitted this?
The Skeptic's Dictionary does note that "Some were so phenomenal (e.g., Adam J. Linzmayer, George Zirkle, Sara Ownbey, and Hubert E. Pearce, Jr.) that skeptics assume there must have been cheating." and I'd suggest that the 25 in a row would be 'phenomenal'. Are you suggesting that the 25 in a row situation occurred during one of the more controlled settings? I'd appreciate a link to that if you have one. If it was during the phase where they accidentally used semi-transparent cards - then that's a little less impressive
There are some other possibilities here as well. There may need to be an emotional link between the subjects in order for ESP or telepathy or similar to noticeably occur. This would make sense if this kind of communication confers an evolutionary advantage. It's also possible that cards are simply insignificant and dull. Perhaps the importance of the message being sent is also a factor. I think these things are common sense and should be part of future experiments.
On the one hand you are saying the experiments were a rousing success, demonstrating some kind of ESP. On the other hand you suggest maybe the cards are dull or there wasn't a suitable empathic link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Kitsune, posted 10-25-2009 6:20 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Kitsune, posted 10-25-2009 11:05 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024