Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

[maatorc]

I'm saying that the functional definition of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" for Challenge purposes is just whatever you can get Randi and company to accept as a fit demonstration.
Let me put it another way for you.
As far as we currently know everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is true as far as we currently know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist". The Challenge is to demonstrate that you can do something that is paranormal, supernatural, or occult as far as we currently know.
Once you have shown that it is not bunk or a trick, then we can worry about what to call this new phenomenon. Maybe we'll call it supernatural, maybe we'll call it something else.


As far as we currently know
That ... "bunk or trick"... characterise psi-esp claims does not and cannot actually tell us anything about the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality.

As to...as far as we currently know...phenomenological science does not currently know anything of psi-esp reality because it has no means of proving or disproving strictly mental, or noumenal, events.

There exists no phenomenological scientific rule, principle, law, proof, or demonstration that psi-esp is true or false; nor can there.

The statement..."As far as we currently know"...cannot be a principle or rule concerning psi-esp because it is a logical non sequitur arising from the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: It cannot be put forward as the foundation premise, arising from..."bunk or trick"..., to determine what is or is not..."bunk or trick".

[Kevin_Lowe]

That ... "bunk or trick"... characterise psi-esp claims does not and cannot actually tell us anything about the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality.

As to...as far as we currently know...phenomenological science does not currently know anything of psi-esp reality because it has no means of proving or disproving strictly mental, or noumenal, events.

Surely if strictly mental or noumenal events do anything, then we can observe them indirectly? By which I mean, if by psi-esp means I can know something I could not otherwise know, then surely I could act on that knowledge?

If there is no way even in theory that a psi-esp event can have any observable effect on the observable world, what good is psi-esp?


There exists no phenomenological scientific rule, principle, law, proof, or demonstration that psi-esp is true or false; nor can there.

That seems like an unusual claim. Most believers in psi-esp think that you can at least in theory use psi-esp for something. If you can use it for something then you can demonstrate it. If you can demonstrate it then you can study it.


The statement..."As far as we currently know"...cannot be a principle or rule concerning psi-esp because it is a logical non sequitur arising from the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: It cannot be put forward as the foundation premise, arising from..."bunk or trick"..., to determine what is or is not..."bunk or trick".

I think your philosophy is a bit confused on this point.

"Noumena" (by which I think you mean mental events) are, as far as science can tell, just a certain kind of "phenomena" (by which I think you mean physical stuff), involving nerves in the brain going about their business.

The idea that noumena exist prior to or apart from brain-phenomena has been advanced occasionally by philosophers and shot down in fairly short order every time as incoherent. I've seen it held as an article of faith by believers in the paranormal, who seem to need to believe it, but it's a view that is not in any way mainstream in academia.

[H3LL]

Just because someone can make up a name for something does not make it so.

If something cannot be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted and cannot be detected with any method currently known and has no known effect in or on the real world.

What is the difference between that and nothing at all?

.

[William Smith]

Just a little heads-up.

Maatorc brings his points up regularly. He refuses to name sources or provide proof for his claims. While I find his ideas basically interesting, their solely theoretical nature seem to make him an educated troll.

To those who think they can prove the paranormal, #143 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2866237#post2866237)

Raymond Edward Powell protocol, #44 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2940040#post2940040)

Flaws In The Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61017)

If you have anything new to add to especially the last thread, feel free to pick up where it has been left off.



Hypothetical, shmypothetical.

[steenkh]

Hi maatorc, you seem never to tire of your strawmen and misrepresentations, do you?

That ... "bunk or trick"... characterise psi-esp claims does not and cannot actually tell us anything about the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality.
Who cares? If the claimants can demonstrate what they claim to do, they get the million. There is nothing in the Challenge about "telling the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality".

As to...as far as we currently know...phenomenological science does not currently know anything of psi-esp reality because it has no means of proving or disproving strictly mental, or noumenal, events.
Perhaps you are right, but how is that related to the Challenge?

There exists no phenomenological scientific rule, principle, law, proof, or demonstration that psi-esp is true or false; nor can there.
OK, if you say so. It has no bearing on the Challenge which is about a demonstration of an ability according to a protocol.

The statement..."As far as we currently know"...cannot be a principle or rule concerning psi-esp because it is a logical non sequitur arising from the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: It cannot be put forward as the foundation premise, arising from..."bunk or trick"..., to determine what is or is not..."bunk or trick".
There are people out there who claim they can read minds with no trouble at all. The MDC is about making such people demonstrate that they can do what they claim. You may believe that they are not performing ESP, but that is irrelevant for the MDC. What is relevant is that mind-reading is currently understood to be paranormal.

[maatorc]

Maatorc brings his points up regularly. He refuses to name sources or provide proof for his claims. While I find his ideas basically interesting, their solely theoretical nature seem to make him an educated troll.

You are probably not intending to be mindlessly insulting like some others here.
However, any male who wants to call me a 'troll' will likewise be named the male equivalent of it's female derivative 'trollop': A 'gigolo'.

As to me repeating my position: So what, everyone here, including you, does it.

[William Smith]

You are probably not intending to be mindlessly insulting like some others here.
However, any male who wants to call me a 'troll' will likewise be named the male equivalent of it's female derivative 'trollop': A 'gigolo'.

As to me repeating my position: So what, everyone here, including you, does it.

I do not at all want to act insulting, hence hinted my interest in your position.

I simply tried to point out my view of your - repeated - behaviour in this particular subforum. And upon review would have to agree with your assessment that almost everyone in here tries to bang their points home, including moi.

Those who achieve it, maatorc, present evidence. They let the others have part in their sources, share their influences, back up their claims. Substantially. Repeatably. Obviously.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.
What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true, and someone so capable, for example in the technique of visual and/or aural projection, is realised visually and aurally by you while you are in a fully awake conscious state, the experience and realization will be true and real to you but you will not be able to prove it happened to anyone else who did not simultaneously realise and experience the presence of the person you saw and the message imparted to you.

Science and the JREF MDC possess no means to simultaneously observe, measure, and record such an event. Phenomenological statistical techniques can at best infer but not prove a psi-esp event did or did not occur.

In short, there is no trial available to material science or the JREF MDC capable of detecting psi-esp.

There is nothing to criticise in the desire of the JREF MDC to seek to understand the psi-esp question. However, the direction it has taken is a logical and operational cul-de-sac.

[ChristineR]

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true, and someone so capable, for example in the technique of visual and/or aural projection, is realised visually and aurally by you while you are in a fully awake conscious state, the experience and realization will be true and real to you but you will not be able to prove it happened to anyone else who did not simultaneously realise and experience the presence of the person you saw and the message imparted to you.

Science and the JREF MDC possess no means to simultaneously observe, measure, and record such an event. Phenomenological statistical techniques can at best infer but not prove a psi-esp event did or did not occur.

In short, there is no trial available to material science or the JREF MDC capable of detecting psi-esp.

There is nothing to criticise in the desire of the JREF MDC to seek to understand the psi-esp question. However, the direction it has taken is a logical and operational cul-de-sac.

Nonsense. All you have to do to win the JREF challenge is transmit information by some previously unknown means. The challenge is not concerned with whether or not psi is present or how it is measured.

If and when someone transmits information by unknown means, the scientists will move and and try and figure out what happened. As we have no idea what psi is or might be I see no reason to assume that there is no way a scientist could build a device to measure it. The first obvious step would be to put someone in an MRI machine while they are sending or receiving images.

[maatorc]

.......If and when someone transmits information by unknown means, the scientists will move and and try and figure out what happened. As we have no idea what psi is or might be I see no reason to assume that there is no way a scientist could build a device to measure it. The first obvious step would be to put someone in an MRI machine while they are sending or receiving images.


Psi-esp is noumenal reality.

Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.

Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

Well, if you really could send someone an image then we could test it perfecty well, and win the million very easily.

You send me images, and I try to guess what you are sending me. If I do significantly better than chance, we win the million. What's the problem?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psi-esp is noumenal reality.
Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.
The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.
..............
1... If you can send thoughts to another person, that is a phenomena. Certainly it is observable and measurable.
2... That is, if I send you a thought of a blue beach ball, you can observe and measure the blue beach ball.

1... A strictly mental event is noumenal by definition.
2... The noumenal observation cannot be phenomenologically proven.

[maatorc]

Well, if you really could send someone an image then we could test it perfecty well, and win the million very easily.
You send me images, and I try to guess what you are sending me. If I do significantly better than chance, we win the million. What's the problem?

The statistical result would be inference but not proof.

[Darat]

maatorc I have yet again had to move your philosophical posts that have nothing to do with the actual Million Dollar Challenge to this thread in the appropriate section. As per your Membership Agreement please ensure you post about the appropriate subject in the appropriate section.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true, and someone so capable, for example in the technique of visual and/or aural projection, is realised visually and aurally by you while you are in a fully awake conscious state, the experience and realization will be true and real to you but you will not be able to prove it happened to anyone else who did not simultaneously realise and experience the presence of the person you saw and the message imparted to you.
Didn't we already go through this? Why can't you just tell me the message and then let me verify it? Are all such messages impossible to put into words?


A strictly mental event is noumenal by definition.
Let me just check the definition of noumenon:

: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses

I swear your statement is an oxymoron. Maybe you could restate your thesis without using big words?


The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.
If this is the case, then no one can measure or detect psi phenomena and therefore there never would have been any stated evidence for its existence.

~~ Paul

[Complexity]

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true...


No. Why would anyone waste their time doing that?

[arthwollipot]

No. Why would anyone waste their time doing that?

For the purposes of reasoned discussion, perhaps?

[JoeEllison]

So, basically, maatorc is saying that ESP is real, and that he's completely making it up, at the exact same time.

[Robin]

1... A strictly mental event is noumenal by definition.
2... The noumenal observation cannot be phenomenologically proven.
Surely the noumen is the thing in itself, not as it is observed. So even if you are talking about some observation that takes place independently of the sensory realm you are not talking about the noumen, you are just positing an alternate phenomenal realm.

[Complexity]

For the purposes of reasoned discussion, perhaps?


I don't think so.

As the basis for a fantasy plot, perhaps, but nothing involving the real.

[arthwollipot]

So no chance of accepting and devloping a hypothetical to see where it goes? Not even to disprove said hypothetical?

[Complexity]

So no chance of accepting and devloping a hypothetical to see where it goes? Not even to disprove said hypothetical?


Sorry, not with much of this crowd.

Too many people engage in this stuff lacking sincerity, capability, or the desire to understand.

[arthwollipot]

So you don't like the crowd. Why chip in at all then?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Surely the noumen is the thing in itself, not as it is observed. So even if you are talking about some observation that takes place independently of the sensory realm you are not talking about the noumen, you are just positing an alternate phenomenal realm.
And then positing that the alternate phenomenal realm can provide inputs to the usual phenomenal realm so that the person receiving the message can remember it and discuss it. Therefore, the usual phenomenal realm is sensing the message, even if indirectly, and the message is not purely noumenal.

~~ Paul

[Complexity]

So you don't like the crowd. Why chip in at all then?


Because I enjoy interacting with many of the people here.

[arthwollipot]

OK, just curious why you'd post in a thread just to trash it. I'll stop bugging you now. :)

[maatorc]

...What do you think about remote viewing and the MDC?

If it is true that 'remote viewing', elsewhere called 'psychic projection', is not but an as yet unexplainable material phenomena, and is in fact a strictly mental extra-phenomenal conscious reality, called by the JREF-MDC ..."...any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.", then any protocol acceptable effect observed in any 'demonstration' would necessarily be at least once-removed from the actual conscious realization of anyone participating in the event itself, if such an event occurs, and thus non-measurable.

Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.

[jimtron]

If it is true that 'remote viewing', elsewhere called 'psychic projection', is not but an as yet unexplainable material phenomena, and is in fact a strictly mental extra-phenomenal conscious reality, called by the JREF-MDC ..."...any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.", then any protocol acceptable effect observed in any 'demonstration' would necessarily be at least once-removed from the actual conscious realization of anyone participating in the event itself, if such an event occurs, and thus non-measurable.

Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.

Hmm, I don't exactly see why this wouldn't be appropriate for the MDC. Maatorc, do you believe in remote viewing? If so, what do you think remote viewers can do exactly? Let me know, and I could suggest how it might be able to be tested.

ETA: ...and is in fact a strictly mental extra-phenomenal conscious reality...

Are you saying remote viewing is something that is only imagined? What is remote viewing? If I write a number on a blackboard, can a remote viewer see it from the next room?

[maatorc]

1... What is remote viewing?
2... If I write a number on a blackboard, can a remote viewer see it from the next room?

1... A straight forward description is seeing with other than normal physical eye-vision without any space-time limitation.

2... Assuming the principle of R-V / P-P is true, Yes.

[jimtron]

2... Assuming the principle of R-V / P-P is true, Yes.

So wouldn't that be a relatively simple matter to test? The remote viewer is in one room, and things are written in the next room. Of course, JREF would have to make sure that there was no cheating. If the remote viewer could consistently identify what was written in the next room, that would mean a success. Simple, no?

What's "p-p" mean (or shouldn't I ask)?

[maatorc]

So wouldn't that be a relatively simple matter to test? The remote viewer is in one room, and things are written in the next room. Of course, JREF would have to make sure that there was no cheating. If the remote viewer could consistently identify what was written in the next room, that would mean a success. Simple, no?
What's "p-p" mean (or shouldn't I ask)?

This does not actually 'test' the process of remote viewing or psychic projection, but could infer it is true and convince many people, on the basis of which the JREF may decide to pay the prize.

[jimtron]

This does not actually 'test' the process of remote viewing or psychic projection, but could infer it is true and convince many people, on the basis of which the JREF may decide to pay the prize.
Well, in a sense you can't absolutely "prove" anything. In any case, I'd be willing to bet that this test would be eligible for the MDC, and by the way, the JREF doesn't have to "decide to pay the prize" exactly--before a challenge begins, JREF and the applicant must both agree on a very clear and distinct delineation between a success and a failure. There is no "judging" involved. IOW, JREF wouldn't have to "infer it is true" or "prove" that remote viewing was the cause of the successful identification of numbers on a board from another room. ETA: They would have to set out rules that couldn't be broken to avoid cheating/tricks/etc. of course.

Maatorc, do you know of anyone that can really remote view?

[steenkh]

If the test was 'passed', how would the MDC 'prove' it was done by remote viewing?
Why would they need that?

[steenkh]

Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.
After all the debates I have seen with you, I realise that this is a huge admission. Kudos!

[Cuddles]

This does not actually 'test' the process of remote viewing or psychic projection, but could infer it is true and convince many people, on the basis of which the JREF may decide to pay the prize.

No, that is not the basis on which the JREF pays the prize. The JREF pays the prize based on what has been agreed before the test. If the protocol says that correctly getting 9 words out of ten written in the next room is a win, then that is what they will pay the prize for. Whether anything can be proven, infered or anything else from the result is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that the applicant does what they have claimed they can do. As you well know, since it has been explained in every single thread I've seen you post in.

[Gr8wight]

If the test was 'passed', how would the MDC 'prove' it was done by remote viewing?

Oh, for the love of all that's small, cute and cuddly! This has been discussed with you over and over again, maatroll. The answer is, under the clearly published terms of the Million Dollar Challenge, the JREF wouldn't care if it was really done by remote viewing, or not. They only care that the test was passed fairly, and following the criteria and controls as set out in the agreement between the JREF and the challenger. But you knew that, because we've told you a hundred times. Go troll somewhere else.

[maatorc]

Oh, for the love of all that's small, cute and cuddly! This has been discussed with you over and over again, maatroll. The answer is, under the clearly published terms of the Million Dollar Challenge, the JREF wouldn't care if it was really done by remote viewing, or not. They only care that the test was passed fairly, and following the criteria and controls as set out in the agreement between the JREF and the challenger. But you knew that, because we've told you a hundred times. Go troll somewhere else.

Then why, you trollop, do the rules say -
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.?

[William Smith]

...
?

For the n-th time, maatorc:
If the applicant performs - twice - along the mutually agreed upon success criteria he wins the JREF Prize.

Your semantic games are irrelevant.

[jimtron]

Maatorc:

There are a great many people claiming paranormal abilities. No one has been able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So we're skeptical. We hear so many excuses here--"Randi doesn't have the money...what does paranormal mean?...how would we know it was really remote viewing...etc."

We're waiting for a fair demonstration. Instead of excuses, I'd like for one of the very many people making claims to show us their talents are real.

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=GzuzKryzt;3368611]For the n-th time, maatorc:
If the applicant performs - twice - along the mutually agreed upon success criteria he wins the JREF Prize....[/QUOTE

I know.

[maatorc]

Maatorc: There are a great many people claiming paranormal abilities. No one has been able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So we're skeptical. We hear so many excuses here--"Randi doesn't have the money...what does paranormal mean?...how would we know it was really remote viewing...etc." We're waiting for a fair demonstration. Instead of excuses, I'd like for one of the very many people making claims to show us their talents are real.

That would be interesting, but is unlikely.

[steenkh]

Then why, you trollop, do the rules say -
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
?
Where do you find the word "proof" in that quote?

[petre]

Why would they need that?

Exactly the point of my post, which was immidiately prior to his and available for several hours. Perhaps it was not clear enough maatorc?

[maatorc]

Exactly the point of my post, which was immediately prior to his and available for several hours. Perhaps it was not clear enough maatorc?

I did say in post 34:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.

[petre]

I did say in post 34:Quote:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.

Yes, yes you did. It would seem you agree JREF test could be successfully passed without firmly establishing a paranormal event. Objection to such imprecision is noted and valid, though dismissed by many in the context of the seeming inability of anyone to actually pass a test.

[maatorc]

Yes, yes you did. It would seem you agree JREF test could be successfully passed without firmly establishing a paranormal event. Objection to such imprecision is noted and valid, though dismissed by many in the context of the seeming inability of anyone to actually pass a test.

My view as to claims is those who cannot do it may claim for the money or esteem, while those who can do it will not.

[IXP]

My view as to claims is those who cannot do it may claim for the money or esteem, while those who can do it will not.
So all persons who have actual paranormal abilities will not apply for the prize. Do you have some evidence for this or are you just pulling it out of your a**?

IXP

[maatorc]

So all persons who have actual paranormal abilities will not apply for the prize. Do you have some evidence for this or are you just pulling it out of your a**? IXP

Does this mean you know someone with actual paranormal abilities, who, contrary to my observation that he will not apply, has actually told you that he will apply for the prize?

Or ...are you just pulling it out of your a**? IXP....

[jimtron]

For the love of Bob, if someone out there has "paranormal" powers, prove it, and shut us pesky skeptics up. Otherwise, one might get the idea that these powers are a sham.

[maatorc]

For the love of Bob, if someone out there has "paranormal" powers, prove it, and shut us pesky skeptics up. Otherwise, one might get the idea that these powers are a sham.

It cannot be phenomenally proved or disproved.
As known, it is not even necessary to win the challenge.
Technically, the challenge should be for demonstration of an event not presently understood or measurable by science.
Most people here already assume the so-called paranormal is a sham.
Hypothetically, why would one actually 'able' to demonstrate the truth of psychic reality be in any way interested in doing what the JREF-MDC cannot prove, disprove, measure, record or observe other than by at the very best once removed effects?

[William Smith]

Perhaps there is one actually "able" to demonstrate a "paranormal" feat and chooses to do strictly privately.

Chances are s/he uses trickery, depends on a special setting and has of course no interest in being exposed. Purely statistical speaking of course.



Since you have dodged the question again maatorc: IXP, maatorc has hinted multiple times that he has seen or knows someone with "powers". He won't provide evidence though.

[maatorc]

1...Perhaps there is one actually "able" to demonstrate a "paranormal" feat and chooses to do strictly privately. Chances are s/he uses trickery, depends on a special setting and has of course no interest in being exposed. Purely statistical speaking of course.
2...Since you have dodged the question again maatorc: IXP, maatorc has hinted multiple times that he has seen or knows someone with "powers". He won't provide evidence though.

1...There is. No special setting is required. Exposure cannot arise because the MDC cannot observe or measure the actual process of the event, and should one actually observe it at its own level one thereby participates in it and its truth lies in this realization.

2...I will not invade the person's privacy nor subject the operation to ridicule here. This should not concern anyone here, though, as no one here believes what I am saying anyway, which does not concern me because I am only letting people here know there is a big wide world of normal reality beyond tunnel-visioned anti-psyhicism.

[jimtron]

1...There is. No special setting is required. Exposure cannot arise because the MDC cannot observe or measure the actual process of the event, and should one actually observe it at its own level one thereby participates in it and its truth lies in this realization.

That makes perfect sense; I understand completely.

[maatorc]

That makes perfect sense; I understand completely.

Is this wittingly or unwittingly seemingly ambivalent?

[William Smith]

...This should not concern anyone here, though, as no one here believes what I am saying anyway, which does not concern me because I am only letting people here know there is a big wide world of normal reality beyond tunnel-visioned anti-psyhicism.

Usually we don't take anyone's word for granted - not just yours. That's when the evidence comes in, which you steadily refuse to provide.



Really, your tactic on a so-called skeptic board is "only letting people know"? Have you counted the people who join your side in the discussion? (Rhetorical question, don't bother.)

It seems to me you thrive on the friction your blunt assertions cause.

[jimtron]

Is this wittingly or unwittingly seemingly ambivalent?
Wittingly.

[steenkh]

Hypothetically, why would one actually 'able' to demonstrate the truth of psychic reality be in any way interested in doing what the JREF-MDC cannot prove, disprove, measure, record or observe other than by at the very best once removed effects?
This is where the sum of 1 million dollar has a role to play. Most "real" psychics have of course abilities that make a million dollars seem like nothing to them, but for some, a million dollars would be a substantial fortune, and actually being able to demonstrate the psychic powers through a simple test would be a good reason to apply.

If somebody offered a prize of million dollars to me if I could demonstrate that I can ride a bike, I would certainly accept the offer.

[steenkh]

1...There is. No special setting is required. Exposure cannot arise because the MDC cannot observe or measure the actual process of the event, and should one actually observe it at its own level one thereby participates in it and its truth lies in this realization.
What utter nonsense! The MDC requires a simple demonstration of the kind that psychics perform daily without getting a million dollars for it.

[jimtron]

Maatorc:

If I understand you correctly, you're saying JREF could not directly observe the paranormal phenomenon directly? And if someone did a remote viewing demonstration like I suggested, reading numbers from the next room--you're saying that demo would not prove paranormal powers, right?

So let me ask you, how do you or anyone know that paranormal abilities exist? If remote viewing is really possible, how would anyone, skeptic or not, know that? Skeptic or not, how can one discriminate between real, true abilities and fake or imagined ones? We all know most of these "paranormal" powers can be faked--for example, magicians can easily do what Uri Geller does with spoons. And we also know a lot about psychology, and that people can imagine things, or hallucinate, or they're delusional.

Tell me one "paranormal" ability you believe in, and how you know it's real.

ETA: Maatorc, here is your definition of remote viewing: 1... A straight forward description is seeing with other than normal physical eye-vision without any space-time limitation.Do you believe this is possible (without using video cameras, or other "tricks")?

ETA2: Maatroc said: This does not actually 'test' the process of remote viewing or psychic projection, but could infer it is true and convince many people, on the basis of which the JREF may decide to pay the prize.

Is RV or PP testable by anyone? If so, how? If not, how do we know that they're abilities that some actually really have?

[maatorc]

Usually we don't take anyone's word for granted - not just yours. That's when the evidence comes in, which you steadily refuse to provide.
Really, your tactic on a so-called skeptic board is "only letting people know"? Have you counted the people who join your side in the discussion? (Rhetorical question, don't bother.)
It seems to me you thrive on the friction your blunt assertions cause.

There is no 'evidence' whatsoever for the reductionist orthodox scientism basis of skeptic anti-psychism.

[maatorc]

What utter nonsense! The MDC requires a simple demonstration of the kind that psychics perform daily without getting a million dollars for it.

Are you sure this is what you meant to say?
You seem to be saying psychic reality is true!

[jimtron]

Maatorc:

Any thoughts on my last post?

Another thought: it's not James Randi, or JREF, or other skeptics here that are making paranormal claims. There are a great many people who are not only claiming paranormal ability, but charging money for it (practitioners of Homeopathy, Reiki, dowsers, psychics, etc.). The MDC is offering a million bucks to simply demonstrate one of these claims under conditions where cheating, etc. can be ruled out.

Again, if a RV test doesn't prove that remote viewing is real, what does? I think you're making the case that there is no evidence that remote viewing is real, no?

[maatorc]

... I think you're making the case that there is no evidence that remote viewing is real, no?

The only possible evidence is the personal participatory experience of a remote viewing or psychic projection event.
It may be possible for protocols to result in the inference, at one or more removes from the actual process itself, of such an event being true.

[jimtron]

The only possible evidence is the personal participatory experience of a remote viewing or psychic projection event.Could you please talk about the specifics of this? Let's stick with RV. Exactly what kind of participatory experience would show evidence that RV is real? And why couldn't the JREF test a participatory experience of RV'ing?

ETA:

Is it not possible to prove RV? If so, then how do you know such a talent exists?

If it is possible to prove RV, how so?

[maatorc]

1...Exactly what kind of participatory experience would show evidence that RV is real?
2...And why couldn't the JREF test a participatory experience of RV'ing?
3...Is it not possible to prove RV? If so, then how do you know such a talent exists?
4...If it is possible to prove RV, how so?

1... If someone projected to you and you realized it the experience is true for you, but you cannot prove it to another who did not participate in it.
2... It could at best infer the event because it would rely on the report of whoever took part in it.
3... It is provable only to those taking part, but not to others, and it is possible to know such events occur only in the manner explained.
4... Not under the MDC protocols, but it may be reasonably inferred second hand by a convincing demonstration.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sooooo

the popularity of the "Are the real psychics hidden from us" thread eventually died and as fate would have it, you've found a new thread to inject your semantic poison and attempt to gain attention, huh Maatorc?

[maatorc]

Sooooothe popularity of the "Are the real psychics hidden from us" thread eventually died and as fate would have it, you've found a new thread to inject your semantic poison and attempt to gain attention, huh Maatorc?

I see: ...you've have again found a new thread to inject your semantic poison and attempt to gain attention...

[steenkh]

Are you sure this is what you meant to say?
You seem to be saying psychic reality is true!
I am saying that psychics perform daily in front of large or small audiences, and their lack of interest in a controlled test implies that psychic reality is based on fraud.

[William Smith]

There is no 'evidence' whatsoever for the reductionist orthodox scientism basis of skeptic anti-psychism.

It has been pointed out to you over and over - and I infer that you are technically quite capable of comprehending - that the MDC works in a different way:

1. An applicant makes a claim.
2. The applicant proposes a test protocol for said claim.
3. The test protocol is mutually agreed upon.
4. The test is done.
5. So far: No applicant did a successful demonstration.

The MDC does not disprove - or collect "'evidence' whatsoever for the reductionist orthodox scientism basis of skeptic anti-psychism". (This argument - or a relative - seems to be brought up almost exclusively by opponents of the MDC.)

The MDC challenges people to prove their claims.

Let's repeat that one:

The MDC challenges people to prove their claims.

[jimtron]

1... If someone projected to you and you realized it the experience is true for you, but you cannot prove it to another who did not participate in it.

So people with RV abilities can't see into distant locations? Are you saying RV is sending messages to people?

[maatorc]

I am saying that psychics perform daily in front of large or small audiences, and their lack of interest in a controlled test implies that psychic reality is based on fraud.

I respect your right to this opinion.

[Gr8wight]

It is an opinion.(is what maatorc's prior post said before he edited it)

To date, there is nothing else.

[maatorc]

...The MDC does not disprove - or collect "'evidence' whatsoever for the reductionist orthodox scientism basis of skeptic anti-psychism". (This argument - or a relative - seems to be brought up almost exclusively by opponents of the MDC.)...

The point I make is that this reductionist view is not general or official science in the sense of exact knowledge.
Anyone who is not reductionist, probably the vast majority of educated people, who cannot all be called delusional, will disagree with the rationale of the MDC without necessarily being against the JREF ideal of informed inquiry.

[William Smith]

Semantic stradlin'.

1. Make a "paranormal" claim.
2. Prove said claim in a controlled test. Repeat it once.
3. If successful, win a million dollars.

It's that simple.

[jimtron]

Maatrorc:

Would you please respond to my post #79?

There are people who claim to have remote viewing abilities. They claim to be able to see things far away, without cameras or telescopes. I say, great, let's test this. You say, no, only someone who receives a message from an RV practitioner can experience this (actually, this could be tested*). I say, no, RV proponents say they can view remote locations, so why can't they view a number in another room?

I'm sure I'll get an intelligent, concise, coherent response, so I'm going to start holding my breath right now...


* someone picks a card, or randomly chooses a number. Tells it to RV guy. RV guy transmits it into the mind of another person. This person says what number or card was transmitted.

[William Smith]

(Remotely sending oxygen to jimtron's system.)

[maatorc]

1. Make a "paranormal" claim.
2. Prove said claim in a controlled test. Repeat it once.
3. If successful, win a million dollars. It's that simple.

It is indeed simple: As follows. -
Reductionist scientism is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist religious cult.
It does not build churches but is nonetheless a faith.
It's ritual is skepticism.
Meetings ironically resemble religious revival gatherings.
The faithful are exhorted to combat anything that smacks of non-reductionism.
It is, also ironically, indistinguishable from another well known cult which violently attacks others, and is violently attacked by skeptics on many threads.
Only by stepping outside this cult mind-set is it possible to objectively observe this failure to see that although the material investigations of true science are absolutely correct they only penetrate the physical and material level of an infinite reality: Something well understood at the highest levels of true science.

[William Smith]

It is indeed simple: As follows. -
Reductionist scientism is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist religious cult.
It does not build churches but is nonetheless a faith.
It's ritual is skepticism.
Meetings ironically resemble religious revival meetings.
The faithful are exhorted to combat anything that smacks of non-reductionism.
It is, ironically, indistinguishable from another well known cult which violently attacks others, and is violently attacked by skeptics on many threads.
Only by stepping outside this cult mind-set is it possible to objectively observe this failure to see that although the material investigations of true science are absolutely correct they only penetrate the physical and material level of an infinite reality: Something well understood at the highest levels of true science.

Wow, you are sounding desperate. It still does not negate the necessity to provide evidence. I note the steps for the MDC again, for your convenience:

1. Make a "paranormal" claim.
2. Prove said claim in a controlled test. Repeat it once.
3. If successful, win a million dollars.



It is that simple.
[/Chandler Bing]

[Gr8wight]

1... If someone projected to you and you realized it the experience is true for you, but you cannot prove it to another who did not participate in it.

If someone projected what to me? What, exactly, would be projected to me by this alleged "psychic projector" that would lead me to believe his or her claim? How would I know that I had received the specific projection said "projector" had projected?

Please, maatorc, explain.

[maatorc]

Wow, you are sounding desperate...

In what manner?
This is not really saying anything.

[RemieV]

I return from TAM 5.5 to discover that absolutely nothing has changed ;)

Ah, it's good to be back.

maatorc, water is water because we call it water. Mammals are mammals because we call them mammals. We could just as easily call them chairs, so long as we stopped calling chairs chairs and called them water. Do you follow?

If the MDC happens to stumble across something paranormal, it will be paranormal because we call it paranormal - which is the term for any phenomenon that exists outside of what is explainable.

This doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. We may just not know what it is yet, or maybe it's because we've been fooled.

But since no remote viewer has ever succeeded, you are attempting to build on a foundation of water. And by water, I do not mean chair or mammal.

[William Smith]

It is indeed simple: As follows. -
Reductionist scientism is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist religious cult.
It does not build churches but is nonetheless a faith.
It's ritual is skepticism.
Meetings ironically resemble religious revival gatherings.
The faithful are exhorted to combat anything that smacks of non-reductionism.
It is, also ironically, indistinguishable from another well known cult which violently attacks others, and is violently attacked by skeptics on many threads.
Only by stepping outside this cult mind-set is it possible to objectively observe this failure to see that although the material investigations of true science are absolutely correct they only penetrate the physical and material level of an infinite reality: Something well understood at the highest levels of true science.

In what manner?
This is not really saying anything.

I'm sure you did understand what I was saying, as I'm sure the others did understand: The cult metaphor you used showed your despair and possibly your need to project. It has been used by other critics as well, usually when they were cornered and ready to bite.

For some reason, you need your belief to be true - voilà your despair.
Should you provide evidence for your case, we'll gladly examine it.

Alas, we've been here a couple of times: You won't provide evidence for your case. You keep bombarding various threads with semantic twists. You disappear after failing to convince anyone.

[maatorc]

...But since no remote viewer has ever succeeded...

How do you know this?

[maatorc]

For some reason, you need your belief to be true -

For some reason you need your reductionist scientism to be true.

[jimtron]

How do you know this?

Maatorc, you ignored my earlier questions. What is remote viewing? Is it seeing something without using your eyes, or is it sending messages to people?

[RemieV]

How do you know this?

We're talking about the Challenge, maatorc. The statement works just as well if you add in 'within the scope of the Challenge' to the end.

[William Smith]

For some reason you need your reductionist scientism to be true.

Good comeback. Not at all desperate.

I've stated often enough that I'd gladly take all evidence into account. I've even done it in the post you quoted.



Since this is the R&P subforum (>90% pointless rants), and especially since your arguments have been reasonably and extensively dealt with, I will leave this discussion. Anyone PM me if necessary.

[maatorc]

Maatorc, you ignored my earlier questions. What is remote viewing? Is it seeing something without using your eyes, or is it sending messages to people?

The notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist scientism.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
Contrary to the mechanical reductionist perspective that mind-consciousness is a brain limited chemical function, psychic consciousness both embraces and transcends limited physical brain-consciousness.

[arthwollipot]

So can you demonstrate this effect?

[maatorc]

... What do you think about remote viewing and the MDC?
Their is a conflict because the notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist thinking.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
In this analogy, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
This is contrary to the belief that mind is a brain chemical function.
It is central to the respective positions of claimants and the MDC.

[steenkh]

A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Interesting analogy. A pity that it is pure imagination with nothing to back it up that this could actually be real.

Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
Contrary to the mechanical reductionist perspective that mind-consciousness is a brain limited chemical function, psychic consciousness both embraces and transcends limited physical brain-consciousness.
Big words. Where are the facts?

[steenkh]

In this analogy, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
This is contrary to the belief that mind is a brain chemical function.
It is central to the respective positions of claimants and the MDC.
What is central to the positions of claimants and the MDC is that the claimants may have all sorts of "analogies" for their claims, but they cannot deliver a simple demonstration.

[Gr8wight]

The notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist scientism.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
Contrary to the mechanical reductionist perspective that mind-consciousness is a brain limited chemical function, psychic consciousness both embraces and transcends limited physical brain-consciousness.

So, in light of that, can you please answer my previous question... If I were the "receiver" in a transmitter-receiver link, how would I know I had successfully received the correct message, as transmitted?

If someone projected what to me? What, exactly, would be projected to me by this alleged "psychic projector" that would lead me to believe his or her claim? How would I know that I had received the specific projection said "projector" had projected?

Please, maatorc, explain.

[maatorc]

What is central to the positions of claimants and the MDC is that the claimants may have all sorts of "analogies" for their claims, but they cannot deliver a simple demonstration.

If you agreed with anything I said it would greatly alarm me.
Carry on!

[maatorc]

So, in light of that, can you please answer my previous question... If I were the "receiver" in a transmitter-receiver link, how would I know I had successfully received the correct message, as transmitted?

The degree of perfection and complete mastery of the technique varies.
Where the sender is fully in control the receiver will usually have a definite visual and or auditory recognition of the sender's personality and/or hear a message clearly recognizable as the voice of the sender.
The variations in this absolute objective clarity are very wide.

[arthwollipot]

So, how can this technique be demonstrated?

[maatorc]

So, how can this technique be demonstrated?

A successful and convincing demonstration could be inferred under agreed protocols in the MDC but would necessarily be at least once removed from the actual realizable process which itself is not phenomenally measurable.

[arthwollipot]

A successful and convincing demonstration could be inferred under agreed protocols in the MDC but would necessarily be at least once removed from the actual realizable process which itself is not phenomenally measurable.Um, what?

[schlitt]

Maatorc's threads remind me of one of my favourite sayings.

"The empty can rattles the most".

[Cold one]

So the question now is - Maatorc why aren't you a millionaire?

[jimtron]

Their is a conflict because the notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist thinking.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
In this analogy, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
This is contrary to the belief that mind is a brain chemical function.
It is central to the respective positions of claimants and the MDC.

OK, get two people who don't believe in "reductionist thinking," two folks who are "attuned" to each other. Neither needs to be a skeptic or affiliated with JREF. Put the two people in separate rooms, or same room with a curtain between them. Someone rolls a pair of dice. Say they come up 12. So the transmitter transmits the number 12 to the other person. The other person writes the number down. I can't speak for JREF, but I'll bet they'd go for something like that.

Sound good, Maatorc?

[maatorc]

So the question now is - Maatorc why aren't you a millionaire?

You are articulating the hang-up of this site!

[Gr8wight]

The degree of perfection and complete mastery of the technique varies.
Where the sender is fully in control the receiver will usually have a definite visual and or auditory recognition of the sender's personality and/or hear a message clearly recognizable as the voice of the sender.
The variations in this absolute objective clarity are very wide.

That sounds very interesting, but it did not answer my question. I might believe I had received a very clear message from the sender (in the sender's own 'voice' even), but how would I know I had actually received the correct message?

[arthwollipot]

You are articulating the hang-up of this site!While it is true that all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer the question.

[steenkh]

If you agreed with anything I said it would greatly alarm me.
Carry on!
Evasion noted.

[William Smith]

If you agreed with anything I said it would greatly alarm me.
Carry on!

Keeping in mind that this forum is a place to discuss "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" and this subforum is dedicated specifically to the MDC:
What is your point in doing what you do, maatorc, if you refuse to provide evidence for your claims? (I assume you understand why most people here insist on more than words.)

[jimtron]

The degree of perfection and complete mastery of the technique varies.
Where the sender is fully in control the receiver will usually have a definite visual and or auditory recognition of the sender's personality and/or hear a message clearly recognizable as the voice of the sender.
The variations in this absolute objective clarity are very wide.

If the sender's message is clearly recognizable, why couldn't that be tested? As I said on the other thread, the sender and receiver don't need to be skeptics, that could be two "non-reductionists" whom are "attuned" to each other. A random word or number is chosen, showed to the sender, then the sender sends it, and the receiver writes down the word or number sent. Is there any reason this couldn't be tested?

[Gr8wight]

While it is true that all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer the question.

Hmmmm, do I detect a trend?

[maatorc]

That sounds very interesting, but it did not answer my question. I might believe I had received a very clear message from the sender (in the sender's own 'voice' even), but how would I know I had actually received the correct message?

What do you mean by 'correct' message?

[maatorc]

If the sender's message is clearly recognizable, why couldn't that be tested? As I said on the other thread, the sender and receiver don't need to be skeptics, that could be two "non-reductionists" whom are "attuned" to each other. A random word or number is chosen, showed to the sender, then the sender sends it, and the receiver writes down the word or number sent. Is there any reason this couldn't be tested?

This is confusing parlor tricks with psychic reality.
The example you give does not test the actual process but might be acceptable to the MDC.

[Gr8wight]

What do you mean by 'correct' message?

Well, what if I very clearly received the message "green" from the sender, but he was really sending "Thursday?"

[maatorc]

While it is true that all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer the question.

If, like the other person, you are asking me a question about my private life, it is none of your business.
I am discussing a principle, not personalities.

[Gr8wight]

This is confusing parlor tricks with psychic reality.
The example you give does not test the actual process but might be acceptable to the MDC.

One cannot test the process unless one is able to determine that there actually is a process. And in order to know there actually is a process, one must demonstrate a result. Lacking a demonstrable result, why should anyone, anywhere, actually believe there is a process?

[maatorc]

Well, what if I very clearly received the message "green" from the sender, but he was really sending "Thursday?"

Can you explain how that would happen?

[Gr8wight]

Can you explain how that would happen?

Sure. The receiver was mistaken.

[maatorc]

One cannot test the process unless one is able to determine that there actually is a process....

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.

[jimtron]

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.


Maatorc: You said: Where the sender is fully in control the receiver will usually have a definite visual and or auditory recognition of the sender's personality and/or hear a message clearly recognizable as the voice of the sender.


This is a process, no? You have made a claim above. This would be easy to check, as I have pointed out--give the sender a word, have the sender send it, and ask the receiver what it is.

The skeptics are not making claims that remote viewing and sending thoughts is real---apparently you are, and a great many others. How do proponents of RV'ing know it's real, if it's so vague, and as you have pointed out, objective. Could it be that they are being fooled, and or fooling themselves?

Tell me, what evidence do you have that RV or sending messages via the mind can really happen?

[maatorc]

Sure. The receiver was mistaken.

So what do you think actually caused this?

[jimtron]

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.
If the phenomenon can't be measured, how do you know it exists? If someone can send a message telepathically, it would be so easy to check, as I've pointed out. Give the sender a word without the receiver knowing, and then ask the receiver what the word is. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

[maatorc]

.....This is a process, no? ...-give the sender a word, have the sender send it, and ask the receiver what it is.....

No, the mechanics of the demonstration are NOT the process.
The process of any psychic event is the actual psychic-mental action of performing it, which mental action is not in itself materially measurable, as distinct from its effects which may be observable and measurable.

[JoeEllison]

More of this nonsense? Really?

Again: if you can't show that it exists, then from a practical standpoint it doesn't exist. If you can show that something exists from a practical standpoint, all the nonsensical objections that maatorc brings up are completely meaningless. His fake objections are just smokescreen for the fact that he knows his beliefs aren't worth half a damn.

[Gr8wight]

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.

Ah... Here we have the delightful woo tactic known as 'quote mining.' Your question has already been answered by my previous post. It was answered by the part you failed to quote. One would determine that there is a process by seeing a demonstrable result. Without a result, any discussion of the existence of a process is moot, and meaningless.

Let me turn this around and ask you this: how would you determine whether or not the "psychic projector" is mistaken in the belief his ability?

[Gr8wight]

So what do you think actually caused this?

Oh, no no no no. I'm not letting you turn this around. I'm asking the questions here. You have. as yet, failed to answer my original question. How would the psychic projector and the receiver determine whether or not the correct message had been received?

[JoeEllison]

Ah... Here we have the delightful woo tactic known as 'quote mining.' Your question has already been answered by my previous post. It was answered by the part you failed to quote. One would determine that there is a process by seeing a demonstrable result. Without a result, any discussion of the existence of a process is moot, and meaningless.

Take it one step further: do we even care about "process" on any level, without a result to start with? If we can show an event, with or without the process, then no one can deny the event. So, it pretty much stands to reason that maatorc's evasions are completely meaningless, because he makes excuses for the lack of "process" while ignoring the total and complete lack of result.

[maatorc]

.....How would the psychic projector and the receiver determine whether or not the correct message had been received?


The real question here is does psychic projection occur?
The living-conscious television transmission-reception analogy applies.
If you experience what you understand as a psychic projection, then deal with the impression you receive.

[maatorc]

Keeping in mind that this forum is a place to discuss "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" and this subforum is dedicated specifically to the MDC:
What is your point in doing what you do, maatorc, if you refuse to provide evidence for your claims? (I assume you understand why most people here insist on more than words.)


That the whole basis of and underlying principle of the JREF-MDC is the false and unprovable reductionist presumption that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function.

[Gr8wight]

The real question here is does psychic projection occur?

Wait, isn't that the question we've been asking from the very beginning?

The living-conscious television transmission-reception analogy applies.
If you experience what you understand as a psychic projection, then deal with the impression you receive.

So...what you're saying is, "believe whatever you want..." Yes? So the answer to your question would be, "if you believe that psychic projection takes place, then it does." Right?

So, if you believe that the sun revolves around the earth, then it does, right? And if you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then it is, right? And if you believe that pure water can cure cancer then it will, right?

Man, it would be nice if the world worked the way you wish it did. Unfortunately, I would have to walk over to the psychic projector, and ask, "so, did you send 'green'?"

[maatorc]

...So...what you're saying is, "believe whatever you want..." Yes? So the answer to your question would be, "if you believe that psychic projection takes place, then it does." Right?...So, if you believe that the sun revolves around the earth, then it does, right? And if you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then it is, right? And if you believe that pure water can cure cancer then it will, right?...Man, it would be nice if the world worked the way you wish it did. Unfortunately, I would have to walk over to the psychic projector, and ask, "so, did you send 'green'?"

No, that is not what I am saying.
It is clear you do not know what I am saying.

[JoeEllison]

N, that is not what I am saying.
It is clear you do not know what I am saying.

It is clear that the flaw lies with you. When one person doesn't know what you are saying, it could go either way. When you say that a whole lot of people misunderstand you, it means that you aren't getting your own point across, or there is a fundamental flaw in your point. As your history on this site makes clear, the fault is in you, not in everyone else.

[William Smith]

Keeping in mind that this forum is a place to discuss "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" and this subforum is dedicated specifically to the MDC:
What is your point in doing what you do, maatorc, if you refuse to provide evidence for your claims? (I assume you understand why most people here insist on more than words.)

That the whole basis of and underlying principle of the JREF-MDC is the false and unprovable reductionist presumption that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function.

Are you assuming we will take your word for it? (Rhetorical question. Duh.)

And to demonstrate your hypothesis, to provide documentation "that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function" you will do what?




(To get this moving I ignored the fact that your hypothesis is irrelevant for the purpose of the MDC. I also ignored its major flaw which is the assumption of a presumption.
Lastly, I would like to remind everybody that you have been asked similar questions before. Apart from simply repeating your hypothesis you responded with either evasion, ignorance or dropping from the discussion completely.)

[maatorc]

Are you assuming we will take your word for it? (Rhetorical question. Duh.)
And to demonstrate your hypothesis, to provide documentation "that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function" you will do what?

(To get this moving I ignored the fact that your hypothesis is irrelevant for the purpose of the MDC. I also ignored its major flaw which is the assumption of a presumption.
Lastly, I would like to remind everybody that you have been asked similar questions before. Apart from simply repeating your hypothesis you responded with either evasion, ignorance or dropping from the discussion completely.)

I am saying it is a JREF hypothesis.
Are you therefore saying mind is not a material brain function?

[William Smith]

I am saying it is a JREF hypothesis.

You have been informed - repeatedly - that the JREF does not say that. You are simply wrong.


Are you therefore saying mind is not a material brain function?

You are evading. Again. You say your point is: That the whole basis of and underlying principle of the JREF-MDC is the false and unprovable reductionist presumption that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function.

Since you have been proven wrong, the discussion should be considered over. What is your point in repeating yourself when you have been proven wrong?

The only thing which could keep this a sensible discussion would be you providing evidence or documentation for this:
...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

You have been asked to - repeatedly - to provide said documentation. You failed to do so on every occasion.

Again: What is your point, maatorc?

[Gr8wight]

No, that is not what I am saying.
It is clear you do not know what I am saying.

I am trying to understand what you are saying. I think it would help if you actually, you know, answered my questions.

[steenkh]

I am saying it is a JREF hypothesis.
Are you therefore saying mind is not a material brain function?
The JREF does not care for the explanations. Just give a demonstration that psi/esp is real. Then we can care about whether or not it is a material function of the brain.

[maatorc]

......Again: What is your point, maatorc?

I need to get something straight with you.
Although the JREF says: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event", are you in fact saying, notwithstanding comments by Messrs Randi and Shermer, who effectively are the JREF, that psychic events are fraud and cheating, etc., that the JREF accepts that consciousness is not nothing more than brain chemistry, in contradiction to the reductionist position?
It cannot simultaneously be 'fraud and cheating' and 'reductionist'.

[William Smith]

I need to get something straight with you.
Although the JREF says: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event", are you in fact saying, notwithstanding comments by Messrs Randi and Shermer, who effectively are the JREF, that psychic events are fraud and cheating, etc., that the JREF accepts that consciousness is not nothing more than brain chemistry, in contradiction to the reductionist position?
It cannot simultaneously be 'fraud and cheating' and 'reductionist'.

You are evading. Again. What I could be saying would be irrelevant in this regard. We know the JREF's position concerning the MDC. This is relevant.

You said:
...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

[maatorc]

1...You are evading. Again....
2...Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

1...No, you are evading. The terminology of the MDC is a word-game: Reductionism cannot determine the possibility of that which, by definition of its very nature and character, it denies.

2...It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.

[William Smith]

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

...
2...It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.

It's a very simple question, maatorc: Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post...
It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.
It's a very simple question, maatorc: Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

The process of demonstrating this is deemed to be impossible and characterized as fraud and deception by the JREF.

[jimtron]

Maatorc: any thoughts on post #48?

[William Smith]

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

...
2...It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.

It's a very simple question, maatorc: Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

The process of demonstrating this is deemed to be impossible and characterized as fraud and deception by the JREF.

You are evading. Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes? This being:
...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

[maatorc]

You are evading. Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes? This being:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post ...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are. Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission....

Exactly what form would this have to take?

[maatorc]

OK, get two people who don't believe in "reductionist thinking," two folks who are "attuned" to each other. Neither needs to be a skeptic or affiliated with JREF. Put the two people in separate rooms, or same room with a curtain between them. Someone rolls a pair of dice. Say they come up 12. So the transmitter transmits the number 12 to the other person. The other person writes the number down. I can't speak for JREF, but I'll bet they'd go for something like that. Sound good, Maatorc?

If the JREF is willing to pay on what the 'other person' writes down, that is on something once removed from the actual transmission procedure, I see no problem.
What the 'other person' writes down does not actually prove or demonstrate a transmission, but if it is acceptable under the rules, so be it.

[arthwollipot]

No, the mechanics of the demonstration are NOT the process.
The process of any psychic event is the actual psychic-mental action of performing it, which mental action is not in itself materially measurable, as distinct from its effects which may be observable and measurable.So although we might be able to measure a demonstration, that would have no relation to whether the psychic projection actually took place?

Say I gave the projector the word "green".
The projector sends the word "green" to the receiver.
The receiver says "I received 'Thursday'".

This does not demonstrate whether psychic projection took place or not, because it is only an effect - a mechanic of the demonstration. Okay, so...

Say I gave the projector the word "green".
The projector sends the word "green" to the receiver.
The receiver says "I received 'green'".

This still does not demonstrate that the psychic projection actually took place, because it is still only an effect - a mechanic of the demonstration.

If I understand you correctly (and I'm quite sure I don't), you're saying that psychic projection can take place even though it cannot be demonstrated. As other posters have said - if it can't be demonstrated, how can we be sure that it takes place? It sounds to me like you're just making up excuses not to apply for the MDC.

I'm having some trouble following what you're trying to say, maatorc, so please tell me if this assessment is correct, and if not, where I have gone wrong.

[William Smith]

Exactly what form would this have to take?

You made the statement.
You decide about the form, maatorc.

I propose a verifiable documentation, e.g. a published written piece would do.

[Gr8wight]

If the JREF is willing to pay on what the 'other person' writes down, that is on something once removed from the actual transmission procedure, I see no problem.
What the 'other person' writes down does not actually prove or demonstrate a transmission, but if it is acceptable under the rules, so be it.

You have said yourself that it is impossible to prove a transmission. What we are looking for is evidence of the result of a transmission. A successful result of the transmission would be the receiver being in possession of information he previously did not have. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[jimtron]

Maatorc: What the 'other person' writes down does not actually prove or demonstrate a transmission...

So how do you know that this is real? What makes you convinced that phenomena like this are real? Do you see what we're getting at?

1: a claim is made that RV (or some other paranormal ability) is possible
2: we're skeptical, so we ask for evidence, and propose a test
3: we're told that the test we propose wouldn't actually demonstrate the paranormal ability, but we're not given a better alternative
4: we remain skeptical, and wonder, if there's no way to demonstrate the paranormal ability, how anyone knows it really exists

However, I am still very interested in observing this test where two people attuned to each other can communicate a word or other information. Can you do this, or do you know someone who can do this? Regardless of whether you think this would prove a paranormal ability, it would nonetheless be impressive.

[maatorc]

.....So how do you know that this is real? What makes you convinced that phenomena like this are real? Do you see what we're getting at?......

There is one only way one can know it is real, and I have spelled it out many times.

[jimtron]

There is one only way one can know it is real, and I have spelled it out many times.

I must have missed it--would you mind concisely stating here what the one way is? Or tell me the numbers of the posts where you mentioned this, or at least the threads?

I would love to hear a concise, clear, specific explanation of the one way you can know if it's real.

[ben m]

Alexander Graham Bell: I can communicate via this arrangement of wires and magnets, I call it the "telephone".
Maatorc: You cannot prove that it works.
Bell: Sure I can. Make up a random sentence, I'll speak it into this end of the box, and my assistant Watson will receive it in the next building.
Maatorc: No. You don't understand at all.
arthwollipot: I'm skeptical, but let's see. Say, "Come here, Watson, I want you."
Bell (into box): "Come here, Watson, I want you".
(enter Watson)
Watson: I heard you say, "Come here, Watson, I want you", clear as a bell.
Maatorc: You can't prove that you did.
Bell: What? He just did; if he didn't hear it, he wouldn't have known what I said.
Maatorc: But you can't prove how he heard it; you have only shown a phenomenon.
arthwollipot (to Bell): I'd like to buy stock in your phenomenon, sir.
Maatorc: You're still not getting it. You are unable to show that this box does what you claim it does.
Bell (into box): Operator? Connect me to Bellevue, please.

[maatorc]

Alexander Graham Bell: I can communicate via this arrangement of wires and magnets, I call it the "telephone".
Maatorc: You cannot prove that it works.
Bell: Sure I can. Make up a random sentence, I'll speak it into this end of the box, and my assistant Watson will receive it in the next building.
Maatorc: No. You don't understand at all.
arthwollipot: I'm skeptical, but let's see. Say, "Come here, Watson, I want you."
Bell (into box): "Come here, Watson, I want you".
(enter Watson)
Watson: I heard you say, "Come here, Watson, I want you", clear as a bell.
Maatorc: You can't prove that you did.
Bell: What? He just did; if he didn't hear it, he wouldn't have known what I said.
Maatorc: But you can't prove how he heard it; you have only shown a phenomenon.
arthwollipot (to Bell): I'd like to buy stock in your phenomenon, sir.
Maatorc: You're still not getting it. You are unable to show that this box does what you claim it does.
Bell (into box): Operator? Connect me to Bellevue, please.

You're still not getting it.

[maatorc]

1...If I understand you correctly......you're saying that psychic projection can take place even though it cannot be demonstrated...
2...if it can't be demonstrated,...
3...how can we be sure that it takes place?...
4...It sounds to me like you're just making up excuses not to apply for the MDC.


1... You are nearly there. In itself psychic projection is a strictly mental event.
2... It cannot in itself, as a strictly mental event, just like an ordinary thought, be materially-physically measured.
3... The one only way to be sure it takes place is to be a participant in the actual mental process of the event.
4... The standard hang-up of this site: The inability to distinguish principles from personalities.

[jimtron]

Maatorc:

Would you mind responding to post #149?

[arthwollipot]

1... You are nearly there. In itself psychic projection is a strictly mental event.
2... It cannot in itself, as a strictly mental event, just like an ordinary thought, be materially-physically measured.
3... The one only way to be sure it takes place is to be a participant in the actual mental process of the event.
4... The standard hang-up of this site: The inability to distinguish principles from personalities.So why won't you accept it when Watson says "I heard you say 'come here Watson, I want you'"? Can the recipient of the mental event ever report to others that they have been the recipient? Why or why not?

[AkuManiMani]

I can think of nothing more inexplicable than existence itself.

The search for "God"

The search for "Truth"

The search for a theory of "everything"

They are all a search for the fundament -- an ultimate root of all things. This is as logically possible as catching the horizon.

There is no real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". What we call the "natural" is the tentative knowns of the greater unknowns of the "supernatural".

[AkuManiMani]

1... You are nearly there. In itself psychic projection is a strictly mental event.

Which means...?

2... It cannot in itself, as a strictly mental event, just like an ordinary thought, be materially-physically measured.

Thats not necessarily true. Mental and "physical" events are both part of reality and, therefore, have a common 'cause or overlap. If this were not true there would be no way for our intentions to move our bodies. The real question is whether or not the events you describe have an objective reality beyond misperception and -- if so -- do we currently have the technological means of measuring it. If we do not it is still, in principle, possible to measure it -- tho such measurement may be beyond our current skills.

If something cannot be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted and cannot be detected with any method currently known and has no known effect in or on the real world.

What is the difference between that and nothing at all?

.


Interestingly enough, that argument is identical the the arguments of the logical positivist movement that disputed and defamed the existence of atoms. Their campaign against the theory of atoms was so brutal and vociferous that it quite likely contributed to driving Ludwig Boltzmann to suicide.

Total reliance on crude rule-of-thumb epistemology is a scientific handicap, imo.

[maatorc]

Maatorc: Would you mind responding to post #149?

See answer 3 in post 152.

[maatorc]

......There is no real distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". What we call the "natural" is the tentative knowns of the greater unknowns of the "supernatural".

Agree, and go further: There is nothing super beyond the natural.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
You are nearly there. In itself psychic projection is a strictly mental event.
Which means...? ......

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

[Gr8wight]

Note that maatorc is studiously ignoring my questions. He cannot honestly and safely answer those without jeopardizing his entire argument, so he flat out ignores them.

[steenkh]

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.
I am sure you will give us the evidence for this. Otherwise we might easily think you just made it up!

[JoeEllison]

Note that maatorc is studiously ignoring my questions. He cannot honestly and safely answer those without jeopardizing his entire argument, so he flat out ignores them.

Trust me, we've seen it before. There is simply no greater intellectual coward on this site than maatorc. He avoids pretty much every attempt to get a simple, clear answer out of him. It is obvious at this point that any useful answer from him would in some way topple the entire house of cards than makes up his belief system.

You will note, surely, how often he replaces the word "evidence" with "proof"... because he knows that while he can hide behind the "no one can prove anything 100%" idea, he CANNOT hide from the fact that there must be evidence in order to convince people.

Here's the simple truth: if you lock me in a closed room, you lock a claimed "remote viewer" in a closed room 1000 miles away, you remove all known forms of cheating, and he can reproduce the randoms words and images I jot down on a piece of paper, then that is absolutely solid evidence of remote viewing. It isn't proof of what the process is, but it is evidence that some sort of process exists.

And, of course, it would win the remote viewer $1,000,000 dollars... bhut that's just a tiny, insignificant point.

[steenkh]

Maatorc also hides behind the false logic that because we cannot observe psi/esp directly then we cannot tell if it exists or not (but somehow he can!). We also cannot observe the decay of radioactive molecules directly, but by observing the decay products, we can nevertheless confidently say that radioactive decay is real.

[William Smith]

Note that maatorc is studiously ignoring my question. He cannot honestly and safely answer it without jeopardizing his entire worldview, so he flat out ignores it.

[Darat]

maatroc has been suspended for ignoring the warning regarding his/her derails of MDC threads however to other participants in this thread: remember your Membership Agreement. Especially Rule 12 - "Attack the argument, not the arguer." .

[AkuManiMani]

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

I am sure you will give us the evidence for this. Otherwise we might easily think you just made it up!

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.


Edit:
Also, it seems rather ridiculous to ask for evidence on a web forum where any "evidence" presented is categorically anecdotal. Even if they do cite what could be considered a credible source one is still left with taking anothers word on a subject. In short, you can't prove an empirical phenomenon on a web forum -- if one could there would be no need for experiment.

[JoeEllison]

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.


Edit:
Also, it seems rather ridiculous to ask for evidence on a web forum where any "evidence" presented is categorically anecdotal. Even if they do cite what could be considered a credible source one is still left with taking anothers word on a subject. In short, you can prove an empirical phenomenon on a web forum -- if one could there would be no need for experiment.

I don't see where the problem lies. Clearly, people present evidence every day in the form of research papers and such. They don't have to conduct the experiment in front of each person individually. They can present charts, graphs, and photographs. They can also cite other references, and make all of their research available if necessary.

Somehow, science has managed to muddle along successfully for many decades by the standards we're holding maatorc to... so where is the real problem?

[AkuManiMani]

I don't see where the problem lies. Clearly, people present evidence every day in the form of research papers and such. They don't have to conduct the experiment in front of each person individually. They can present charts, graphs, and photographs. They can also cite other references, and make all of their research available if necessary.

Citing/linking a study on a web forum may technically count as evidence, but if maatorc did decide to cite studies which appeared to support his assertion they could easily, and I would bet inevitably, have their validity disputed.

Somehow, science has managed to muddle along successfully for many decades by the standards we're holding maatorc to... so where is the real problem?

The fact that he just got suspended by one of the moderators, ironically, for "derailing" his own thread and the ad hominen attacks made against him.

[JoeEllison]

Citing/linking a study on a web forum may technically count as evidence, but if maatorc did decide to cite studies which appeared to support his assertion they could easily, and I would bet inevitably, have their validity disputed.So what? There's no problem with that either. That's how science moves forward, after all. You obviously don't mind using the products of science, since we're discussing this on the Internet by way of computers. So, since science is a proven method of exploring the world, and the evidence of the effectiveness of science is all around us, what is your problem with it?



The fact that he just got suspended by one of the moderators, ironically, for "derailing" his own thread and the ad hominen attacks made against him.That's not a problem with science, or even with this website.

Look, if you value fantasy over reality, more power to you. You just can't expect to be taken seriously by rational adults.

[AkuManiMani]

Citing/linking a study on a web forum may technically count as evidence, but if maatorc did decide to cite studies which appeared to support his assertion they could easily, and I would bet inevitably, have their validity disputed.

So what? There's no problem with that either. That's how science moves forward, after all. You obviously don't mind using the products of science, since we're discussing this on the Internet by way of computers. So, since science is a proven method of exploring the world, and the evidence of the effectiveness of science is all around us, what is your problem with it?

Science does not move forward by armchair discussions on a web forum. The point of my statement is that, unless one is dealing with mathematical/logical proofs, a web forum discussion cannot establish the truth of a claim. It is purely anecdotal and the discussion, depending on the patience of the persons involved, will continue ad infinitum (or ad nauseum) without any establishment of truth beyond the fact that proponents on either side are willing to argue their points based subjective measures of whose references are more valid. While there is nothing wrong with such a discussion it will not establish "proof" for either party. My willingness to use the products of science is a complete red herring in this discussion.



Somehow, science has managed to muddle along successfully for many decades by the standards we're holding maatorc to... so where is the real problem?

The fact that he just got suspended by one of the moderators, ironically, for "derailing" his own thread and the ad hominen attacks made against him.

JoeEllison's response:

That's not a problem with science, or even with this website.

My point being that that standards you are holding maatarc to (demanding anecdotal/text evidence) are not those of science and that the problem is, infact, behavior of individuals on this web forum.

Look, if you value fantasy over reality, more power to you. You just can't expect to be taken seriously by rational adults.

[I'm assuming that you're using "you" in the more general sense of the word and not specifically referring to me.]

I wouldn't necessarily consider many of the responders to this thread "rational adults" after watching them gang up on and attack the integrity of someone for not immediately addressing a challenge to provide "evidence" and then suspending said individual's ability to respond. You are right; the problem here is not one of science. The problem concerns the integrity and maturity of participants in this web forum.

I suggest that you provide a clear and concise definition of what you will accept as evidence from maatarc -- that is assuming he should be capable of responding anytime soon.

[Gr8wight]

maatroc has been suspended for ignoring the warning regarding his/her derails of MDC threads however to other participants in this thread: remember your Membership Agreement. Especially Rule 12 - "Attack the argument, not the arguer." .

Damn. And here we were thinking he was avoiding us. Delusions of grandeur?

[arthwollipot]

My point being that that standards you are holding maatarc to (demanding anecdotal/text evidence) are not those of science and that the problem is, infact, behavior of individuals on this web forum.Heck, I'd be happy if maatorc provided any kind of evidence whatsoever for his assertions.

[William Smith]

...
My point being that that standards you are holding maatarc to (demanding anecdotal/text evidence) are not those of science and that the problem is, infact, behavior of individuals on this web forum.
...

Viewed in front of maatorc's posting history, how would you suggest to ask maatorc for documentation, AkuManiMani?

And how do you rate his ability to answer a simple question? (Keeping in mind that this is a forum for critical thinking.)

[steenkh]

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.

Maatorc is presenting his conjectures as facts, not as made up. And in what sense do you deem his conjecture plausible? For something to be plausible, it should be based on some kind of evidence, even if erroneous, and it should not contradict established facts. Did you actually read what he claimed:
[QUOTE=maatorc]That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.
"Universal energy embracing", my foot! This concept is in itself implausible and contradicts everythying we know about physics! He also claims that consciousness is not a function of material brain chemistry, which certainly contradicts known physics, but could of course be plausible, if there was anything that suggested that it is so. Unfortunately for his conjecture, the slightest alteration of brain chemistry changes consciousness, and there is not the slightest evidence of consciousness existing without material brain chemistry.

[AkuManiMani]

Viewed in front of maatorc's posting history, how would you suggest to ask maatorc for documentation, AkuManiMani?

I would personally ask him to provide links to studies supporting his postulations.

And how do you rate his ability to answer a simple question? (Keeping in mind that this is a forum for critical thinking.)

Seeing as how he just got suspended on what I would view as questionable grounds I would rate the question of his ability to answer anything as nil.

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.

Maatorc is presenting his conjectures as facts, not as made up. And in what sense do you deem his conjecture plausible? For something to be plausible, it should be based on some kind of evidence, even if erroneous, and it should not contradict established facts. Did you actually read what he claimed:

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

"Universal energy embracing", my foot! This concept is in itself implausible and contradicts everythying we know about physics! He also claims that consciousness is not a function of material brain chemistry, which certainly contradicts known physics, but could of course be plausible, if there was anything that suggested that it is so. Unfortunately for his conjecture, the slightest alteration of brain chemistry changes consciousness, and there is not the slightest evidence of consciousness existing without material brain chemistry.

Considering that "consciousness" itself is poorly defined, and even the full implications of our current (and incomplete) theoretical models of of physics and neurobiology aren't fully articulated its more that a little premature to say that his view of consciousness as a vague "Universal energy embracing phenomenon" is a contradiction of anything :p

This discussion has devolved into nothing more than one person (maatorc) using vague "woo-woo" terminology in a community with a predisposition to have a negative emotional reaction to anything that triggers their "woo-woo" detection algorithms.

In short, I don't think any of you in this discussion knows wtf you're even talking about yet you're willing to throw hissy-fits and sling mud at each other. Chill out, grow up, and articulate yourselves like adults FFS.

[Ron_Tomkins]

maatroc has been suspended for ignoring the warning regarding his/her derails of MDC threads however to other participants in this thread: remember your Membership Agreement. Especially Rule 12 - "Attack the argument, not the arguer." .


Well, now that was unexpected (ironic tone).


I predict he will reincarnate under a different Nickname.

That is if he's not already here.... among us.....

[Ron_Tomkins]

I would personally ask him to provide links to studies supporting his postulations.

You haven't been paying much attention to the threads, have you?


Seeing as how he just got suspended on what I would view as questionable grounds I would rate the question of his ability to answer anything as nil.

Hmmm...

You haven't been paying much attention to the threads, have you?


Considering that "consciousness" itself is poorly defined, and even the full implications of our current (and incomplete) theoretical models of of physics and neurobiology aren't fully articulated its more that a little premature to say that his view of consciousness as a vague "Universal energy embracing phenomenon" is a contradiction of anything :p

Ok.....

We're talking about evidence of a phenomena, though. That's what we're stressing here: The controlled test of an unexplained phenomena. Wether we fully grasp the concept of consciouness or not.


This discussion has devolved into nothing more than one person (maatorc) using vague "woo-woo" terminology in a community with a predisposition to have a negative emotional reaction to anything that triggers their "woo-woo" detection algorithms.

Well.... go figure! This is a James Randi forum for skeptical people. Who would have thought people have a problem with vague irrational claims with no base and no evidence of any kind other than the person's personal experience?? Frankly, I'm shocked that things turned out that way. Very shocked.


In short, I don't think any of you in this discussion knows wtf you're even talking about yet you're willing to throw hissy-fits and sling mud at each other. Chill out, grow up, and articulate yourselves like adults FFS.

I think some people in this discussion do know "wtf" they're talking about. I think a lot of people here have a lot of experience and an amazing sense of articulation of their ideas and a willingness to open up and exchange their thoughts in a rational mature and civilized way..... but lets just say I respect your opinion.

[AkuManiMani]

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

Well, hopefully, maatorc is reading our responses in his absence and will grace us with links to studies supporting his assertions (what ever they happen to be) as soon as his suspension expires. And hopefully, the rest of us can suspend our knee-jerk aversion to "woo-woo" terminology long enough to not participate in character assassination and get to the core of what maatorc is trying to say.

[JoeEllison]

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

Well, hopefully, maatorc is reading our responses in his absence and will grace us with links to studies supporting his assertions (what ever they happen to be) as soon as his suspension expires. And hopefully, the rest of us can suspend our knee-jerk aversion to "woo-woo" terminology long enough to not participate in character assassination and get to the core of what maatorc is trying to say.
You're new, so you get a pass. :)

Mostly, what maatorc has tended to present is unfounded assertions, and when pressed he makes vague claims about "inner schools" of people with psychic powers, that convene with world leaders and the United Nations. :rolleyes:

[AkuManiMani]

You're new, so you get a pass. :)

Oki :D

Mostly, what maatorc has tended to present is unfounded assertions, and when pressed he makes vague claims about "inner schools" of people with psychic powers, that convene with world leaders and the United Nations. :rolleyes:

LOL!

But seriously... If thats the case then its only a matter of time before our world is revolutionized by this secret elite :eek:

[William Smith]

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

Specifically which responder has resorted to "suspension"? In all seriousness: Do you understand how a moderated forum works? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744)


Well, hopefully, maatorc is reading our responses in his absence and will grace us with links to studies supporting his assertions (what ever they happen to be) as soon as his suspension expires. And hopefully, the rest of us can suspend our knee-jerk aversion to "woo-woo" terminology long enough to not participate in character assassination and get to the core of what maatorc is trying to say.

What ever they happen to be? Seriously: Do you read the posts, AkuManiMani? Maatorc said:

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

And in the merged part from another thread:

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
...

Nice hypotheses. Or just opinions?

Find out after these messages.

[steenkh]

Seeing as how he just got suspended on what I would view as questionable grounds I would rate the question of his ability to answer anything as nil.
He was only suspended for 24 hours, so he should have plenty of opportunity to come back. But I agree that his offence was not of a kind that I would give a suspension.

Considering that "consciousness" itself is poorly defined, and even the full implications of our current (and incomplete) theoretical models of of physics and neurobiology aren't fully articulated its more that a little premature to say that his view of consciousness as a vague "Universal energy embracing phenomenon" is a contradiction of anything :p
How complete does physics theory have to be in order to rule out the existence of universally energy embracing phenomena? As far as I know, physics theories are quite complete when we talk about the energy range of biological systems. It is in the very lowest and very highest energy ranges that surprises might be hidden.

This discussion has devolved into nothing more than one person (maatorc) using vague "woo-woo" terminology in a community with a predisposition to have a negative emotional reaction to anything that triggers their "woo-woo" detection algorithms.
Maatorc has a history here. You might not be aware of it, but we have heard him say exactly the same nonsense over and over again. It is not a question of reacting to vague woo-woo terminology, but rather of seeing the same person bringing up the same flawed arguments again and again: psi/esp is noumenal and cannot be tested; the MDC can never achieve its goals; there is an inner school of psychics whose rules (which are not public but also not secret) prevent real psychics from applying to tests that would show psi/esp to be real, and so on.

[Darat]

maatorc - I have just deleted a post by maatorc and again suspended him/her (this time for 3 days) for immediately breaching his/her Membership Agreement after his/her 24 hours suspension was lifted.

Note: Discussion and comments regarding moderation of this Forum are not appropriate for this section of the Forum.

[Gr8wight]

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

Well, hopefully, maatorc is reading our responses in his absence and will grace us with links to studies supporting his assertions (what ever they happen to be) as soon as his suspension expires. And hopefully, the rest of us can suspend our knee-jerk aversion to "woo-woo" terminology long enough to not participate in character assassination and get to the core of what maatorc is trying to say.

Being new to this forum, what you are missing is the context. It isn't maatorc's meaningless pseudo-philosophical psycho-babble that "enrages" his responders. It's the fact that his fallacious reasoning has been pointed out to him literally dozens of times, yet he continues to hijack other people's threads in order to re-assert his empty rhetoric over and over again. He "enrages" us because, quite frankly, that is his exact aim. He is a troll.

We are weak for repeatedly rising to his bait.

[AkuManiMani]

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.

Nice hypotheses. Or just opinions?

Find out after these messages.

Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.

[steenkh]

Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.
The effects that you are talking about are very transitory and much more short-lived than biological time frames. How come that quantum physicists never bring these assertions, but every other kind of scientist seem willing to entertain this concept?

[William Smith]

Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.

Hence we have asked him to provide something verifiable which led him to make said assertions.

Steenkh's right. The concept is often abused by people who have not yet understood its complexity and limitation.



AkuManiMani, specifically which responder has resorted to "suspension" to counter maatorc's claims?

[nathan]

Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.

The quantum mechanical 'action at a distance' behaviour does not allow one to pass information. I.e., separating two entangled particles and measuring one of them allows you to predict something about the other. It does not allow you to pass information to who ever has that second particle.

[AkuManiMani]

Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.

The effects that you are talking about are very transitory and much more short-lived than biological time frames. How come that quantum physicists never bring these assertions, but every other kind of scientist seem willing to entertain this concept?

Biological entities are based upon chemical processes and these processes are based on the rules of quantum mechanics. It stands to reason that many of the "bizarre" effects of quantum mechanics are utilized by (or even integral to) organisms. Right now quantum physics, and its full implications, are not completely understood -- especially when it comes to the realm of biological processes.

Right now quantum physicists are studying quantum phenomenon in hopes of developing quantum computers. In the process some have found that entanglement phenomenon can occur under conditions that were assumed would cause decoherence and eliminate its affects.

[I suggest you look up "macroscopic entanglement" on google if you get the chance]

And there are quantum physicists (and scientists of other fields) who not only consider quantum effects in biology (and the macroscopic scale) possible but are seriously investigating it:

Quantum information processing is at the crossroads of physics, mathematics and computer science. It is concerned with that we can and cannot do with quantum information that goes beyond the abilities of classical information processing devices. Communication complexity is an area of classical computer science that aims at quantifying the amount of communication necessary to solve distributed computational problems. Quantum communication complexity uses quantum mechanics to reduce the amount of communication that would be classically required. Pseudo-telepathy is a surprising application of quantum information processing to communication complexity. Thanks to entanglement, perhaps the most nonclassical manifestation of quantum mechanics, two or more quantum players can accomplish a distributed task with no need for communication whatsoever, which would be an impossible feat for classical players. After a detailed overview of the principle and purpose of pseudo-telepathy, we present a survey of recent and no-so-recent work on the subject. In particular, we describe and analyse all the pseudo-telepathy games currently known to the authors.

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aquant-ph%2F0407221



Here are a few more links I could dig up:

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-quantum-secrets.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&DbFrom=pubmed&Cmd=Link&LinkName=pubmed_pubmed&LinkReadableName=Related%20Articles&IdsFromResult=12753935&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

Why is it that scientists outside of a particular field are more likely to propose new theories about it? Good question. I'm sure the the reasons are many and complex but I think a major one is a problem of imagination. Many scientists are just technicians with only a superficial grasp of philosophy/epistemology and often have a very hard time seeing beyond confines of their narrow fields of study to consider a bigger picture. The ones that can often keep their "radical" ideas to themselves for fear of ruining their careers/reputations. Einstein once commented on this subject in a reply letter to a colleague:



[...]

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."

[...]


IMO, the same is as true today as it was back then.

[AkuManiMani]

Sorry -- double post >_<

[nathan]

Biological entities are based upon chemical processes and these processes are based on the rules of quantum mechanics. It stands to reason that many of the "bizarre" effects of quantum mechanics are utilized by (or even integral to) organisms. Right now quantum physics, and its full implications, are not completely understood -- especially when it comes to the realm of biological processes.
Sure, quantum effects may well be significant at the atomic level of biological processes. but what's your point?

[AkuManiMani]

Sure, quantum effects may well be significant at the atomic level of biological processes. but what's your point?

Its in the rest of the post that you apparently just skimmed over.

[JoeEllison]

Its in the rest of the post that you apparently just skimmed over.
No... I don't think so. :)

[AkuManiMani]

No... I don't think so. :)

What don't you think so?

[nathan]

double

[nathan]

double

[nathan]

Its in the rest of the post that you apparently just skimmed over.

ok, so you're postulating a hypothesis about an unproven phenomena. Sounds like a cart/horse situation.

[AkuManiMani]

Biological entities are based upon chemical processes and these processes are based on the rules of quantum mechanics. It stands to reason that many of the "bizarre" effects of quantum mechanics are utilized by (or even integral to) organisms. Right now quantum physics, and its full implications, are not completely understood -- especially when it comes to the realm of biological processes.

Sure, quantum effects may well be significant at the atomic level of biological processes. but what's your point?


Its in the rest of the post that you apparently just skimmed over.

ok, so you're postulating a hypothesis about an unproven phenomena. Sounds like a cart/horse situation.

......

Judging from that exchange, either you're deliberately playing coy or you genuinely have a reading comprehension problem. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you honestly didn't understand what I typed in post #189. Here I will summarize my main points and what they were in response to.

Point [1]

In direct response to:



Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.

The effects that you are talking about are very transitory and much more short-lived than biological time frames.[1] How come that quantum physicists never bring these assertions, but every other kind of scientist seem willing to entertain this concept?


[1]In post #189 I supported my assertion that macroscopic quantum effects do, in fact, occur and therefore can be manifest at the scale of macroscopic biological processes.



Points [2-3]

In direct response to:


Non-local causation, according to quantum mechanics, is a very real phenomenon so it is possible -- atleast in principle -- for biological entities to exploit said phenomenon. The real question is do these effects actually occur in biological systems. Its an open question so maatorc's assertions (the intelligible ones anyway) aren't completely implausible, imo.

The effects that you are talking about are very transitory and much more short-lived than biological time frames. How come that quantum physicists never bring these assertions, but every other kind of scientist seem willing to entertain this concept?[2-3]


[2]In my supporting links [again, see post #189] I demonstrated that there are quantum physicists that "bring these assertions".

[3]I then continued by explaining one of the many possible reasons why scientists in other fields seem more likely to propose more radical theories.

My central point was not to present a hypothesis. I was stating that certain "paranormal" hypotheses do not violate known laws of physics and, therefore, should not be dismissed on the grounds that they do.

[William Smith]

AkuManiMani, specifically which responder has resorted to "suspension" to counter maatorc's claims?

[AkuManiMani]

AkuManiMani, specifically which responder has resorted to "suspension" to counter maatorc's claims?


I wouldn't necessarily consider many of the responders to this thread "rational adults" after watching them gang up on and attack the integrity of someone for not immediately addressing a challenge to provide "evidence" and then suspending said individual's ability to respond. You are right; the problem here is not one of science. The problem concerns the integrity and maturity of participants in this web forum.

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

And from the split thread:

Unfortunately [maatorc] has been suspended so he cannot provide anything, atm. Apparently this was necessary because he derailed his own thread and people had to attack his character :confused:

As you can see I never claimed that maactorc was suspended to counter his claims. I stated that he was the victim of ad hominem and subsequent suspension due, at least partially, to said attacks on his character. As to which responder suspended him I can only point out that it could only be the one participant in this thread that has powers to do so. Seeing as how they expressly forbade discussion on this topic I will not name them, for fear of incurring their wrath.

Edit: Or perhaps you we're already aware of this and made your query in a deliberate attempt to cause me to suffer the same fate as the afore-mentioned person? If so, kudos to you for your clever move :P

[billydkid]

If the claimants can demonstrate what they claim to do, they get the million. That is the central point that critics of the challenge prefer to avoid. It is irrelevant whether or not a claim can be said to be "supernatural" or "paranormal". The crux of the challenge is this - a challenger claims to be able to do something that our understanding of the world says can not be done. If he can do it, he wins. Clearly terms like paranormal and supernatural are nonsense terms. If something happens it is by definition natural and normal.

[William Smith]

And from the split thread:



As you can see I never claimed that maactorc was suspended to counter his claims. I stated that he was the victim of ad hominem and subsequent suspension due, at least partially, to said attacks on his character. As to which responder suspended him I can only point out that it could only be the one participant in this thread that has powers to do so. Seeing as how they expressly forbade discussion on this topic I will not name them, for fear of incurring their wrath.

Edit: Or perhaps you we're already aware of this and made your query in a deliberate attempt to cause me to suffer the same fate as the afore-mentioned person? If so, kudos to you for your clever move :P

You can comment on maatorc's suspension here. (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

Also, I read this statement differently than you explained it: "I wouldn't necessarily consider many of the responders to this thread "rational adults" after watching them gang up on and attack the integrity of someone for not immediately addressing a challenge to provide "evidence" and then suspending said individual's ability to respond."

I suggest to voice criticism in a less blunt way. A fruitful discussion profits from its participants being precise.

[AkuManiMani]

I suggest to voice criticism in a less blunt way. A fruitful discussion profits from its participants being precise.

Touché :p

[jimtron]

That is the central point that critics of the challenge prefer to avoid. It is irrelevant whether or not a claim can be said to be "supernatural" or "paranormal". The crux of the challenge is this - a challenger claims to be able to do something that our understanding of the world says can not be done. If he can do it, he wins. Clearly terms like paranormal and supernatural are nonsense terms. If something happens it is by definition natural and normal.

Yes; don't worry about the definitions. We hear people who say they can bend spoons with their mind, or cure sick people with water that remembers. So JREF says, OK, demonstrate this under test conditions, and if successful, you get a million dollars. Simple, no?

It's not JREF and skeptics who are going around claiming that dowsing and talking to the dead and homeopathy are real. The people making those claims can call what they do science or paranormal or whatever. It doesn't matter.

[steenkh]

Biological entities are based upon chemical processes and these processes are based on the rules of quantum mechanics. It stands to reason that many of the "bizarre" effects of quantum mechanics are utilized by (or even integral to) organisms. Right now quantum physics, and its full implications, are not completely understood -- especially when it comes to the realm of biological processes.
I agree. Since quantum physics is the only kind of physics dealing with atomic scales, it is only right that it is integrated in the study biological molecules.

Right now quantum physicists are studying quantum phenomenon in hopes of developing quantum computers. In the process some have found that entanglement phenomenon can occur under conditions that were assumed would cause decoherence and eliminate its affects.
It has also been found that entanglement is extremely difficult to achieve. The application of entanglement to explain a phenomenon that nobody can prove even to exist (but which maatorc and his kind claim is happening on a regular basis) is rather far-fetched in this light.

[I suggest you look up "macroscopic entanglement" on google if you get the chance]
Besides, for entanglement to work as a communication system, the entanglement has to happen prior to the separation of the communicating parties, and that is clearly not the case in psi/esp.

And there are quantum physicists (and scientists of other fields) who not only consider quantum effects in biology (and the macroscopic scale) possible but are seriously investigating it:
I thank you for your links which I find interesting for other reasons, but they are just describing the chemical reactions in the biology in quantum terms. They are not supporting the idea that animals and humans are communicating through special quantum effects.

Why is it that scientists outside of a particular field are more likely to propose new theories about it? Good question. I'm sure the the reasons are many and complex but I think a major one is a problem of imagination.
Well, what I have seen so far has not been new theories that have been proposed, but the inappropriate application of old quantum theories to explain doubtful phenomena. Take Nobel-prize winning kook Brian Josephson, who seems to take it as more or less given that psychics are for real and entanglement is the explanation. Now, if he had actually shown that he knows something about quantum physics, it would have been another matter.

[nathan]

My central point was not to present a hypothesis. I was stating that certain "paranormal" hypotheses do not violate known laws of physics and, therefore, should not be dismissed on the grounds that they do.

Can you give an example of such a hypothesis?

[nathan]

Besides, for entanglement to work as a communication system, the entanglement has to happen prior to the separation of the communicating parties, and that is clearly not the case in psi/esp.

... and there's the small matter that even then it can't be used for communication without introducing some other signal. I.e. we can use entanglement to encrypt a (mundanely sent) message, but we can't use entanglement to send the message itself.

[AkuManiMani]

Well, what I have seen so far has not been new theories that have been proposed, but the inappropriate application of old quantum theories to explain doubtful phenomena. Take Nobel-prize winning kook Brian Josephson, who seems to take it as more or less given that psychics are for real and entanglement is the explanation. Now, if he had actually shown that he knows something about quantum physics, it would have been another matter.

I agree with you that the way some people construe quantum mechanics as proof of any unsubstantiated claim is inappropriate. However, I do believe that many "psi" claims are not, as far as we know, physically impossible, considering how our understanding of the "law of physics" is incomplete and what we do know of them does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the phenomenon (or atleast effects closely resembling). Given this, a truly skeptical stance does not a priori assume that the phenomenon is real or not. Either stance favoring a "pro" or "con" view, at this point, is more a matter of opinion than established fact.

Oh, and I decided to look up this "Nobel-prize winning kook" you mentioned, since until now I was unfamiliar with him.

The introduction to his web page states:

Welcome to the home page of Professor Brian Josephson, director of the Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, a project concerned primarily with the attempt to understand, from the viewpoint of the theoretical physicist, what may loosely be characterized as intelligent processes in nature, associated with brain function or with some other natural process.

Seems benign enough to me.

According to Wikipedia:

Josephson is one of the more well-known scientists who believe that parapsychological phenomena may be real, and is also interested in the possibility that Eastern mysticism may have relevance to scientific understanding. He has said that one of his guiding principles has been 'Take nobody's word for it' (nullius in verba), saying that "if scientists as a whole denounce an idea, this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd; rather, one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny."

Okay, so Dr. Josephson is of the opinion that "psi" phenomenon may be real and that the best explanation for these phenomenon would be within the realm of quantum mechanics. Being that this is not considered the mainstream opinion Dr. Josephson could well be considered eccentric but to question his mental health because of his professional opinion is more than a little extreme. If anything, his "nullius in verba" stance is the very essence of skeptical thought.

Now, if he were one of the many snake oil salesmen using the terminology of quantum mechanics to sell some miracle cure, or something, I would have to agree with you that hes either a "kook" or a fraudster. Being as how that is not the case I am forced to disagree with you.


My central point was not to present a hypothesis. I was stating that certain "paranormal" hypotheses do not violate known laws of physics and, therefore, should not be dismissed on the grounds that they do.

Can you give an example of such a hypothesis?

That some instances of purported "anomalous cognition" are not statistical anomalies or fraud but are what they appear to be: "anomalous cognition". Under this view they are worthy of further investigation and explanation.

... and there's the small matter that even then [entanglement] can't be used for communication without introducing some other signal. I.e. we can use entanglement to encrypt a (mundanely sent) message, but we can't use entanglement to send the message itself.

I suggest that you read the paper I linked on "Quantum Pseudo Telepathy"[pst#189 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3408184&postcount=189)]. The much of paper itself contains some pretty dense mathematics and, would probably only be intelligible to a trained physicists or mathematician, but the Abstract is pretty understandable. IMO, such a model would provide a good theoretical framework for explaining apparent "telepathic" cognition.

[nathan]

That some instances of purported "anomalous cognition" are not statistical anomalies or fraud but are what they appear to be: "anomalous cognition".

What do you mean by anomalous cognition? could you give an example please?

[nathan]

. The much of paper itself contains some pretty dense mathematics and, would probably only be intelligible to a trained physicists or mathematician, but the Abstract is pretty understandable. IMO, such a model would provide a good theoretical framework for explaining apparent "telepathic" cognition.
I couldn't see such a paper in the links you posted. There were papers about various biological processes (such as photosynthesis), a wikipedia article about quantum biology and a set of papers from pubmed, not one of which had the word 'pseudo' in the title. Can you provide a more specific reference?

ETA:oh, I 've found it. it was something you *quoted* in 189, not something you added in 189.

[nathan]

Ok, I have now read the quantum pseudo telepathy paper up to section 5. I stand by my assertion of post 207. None of the cases cited violate that principle -- and the authors explicitly call out one game that would violate it and point out that it is not winnable.

[AkuManiMani]

Ok, I have now read the quantum pseudo telepathy paper up to section 5. I stand by my assertion of post 207. None of the cases cited violate that principle -- and the authors explicitly call out one game that would violate it and point out that it is not winnable.

What some see as an either-or-debate I see as a gradual convergence of apprently opposing sides. I would wager that when the actual explainations for alot of the apparent "psi" phenomenon becomes known many will see the entire debate was nonsensical to begin with.

Okay, I shall attempt to initiate an example of the that type of game. If done right -- everybody wins (technically "unwinnable" in the sense of having a definitive conclusion or victor).

[Disclaimer: about a year or so ago me and a friend engaged in a similar game that escalated over the course several months. Some really weird conceptual woo-ju insued....]

Here goes....


is what--

You-see?

just what--

Ought-be?

.........

May-be?

i see...

What-might?

could be...

.........

*cackles madly*

[steenkh]

I agree with you that the way some people construe quantum mechanics as proof of any unsubstantiated claim is inappropriate. However, I do believe that many "psi" claims are not, as far as we know, physically impossible, considering how our understanding of the "law of physics" is incomplete and what we do know of them does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the phenomenon (or atleast effects closely resembling).
As it has been pointed out, quantum physics does not open up a possibility for communication: entanglement has to happen prior to the communication, and this is not a faster than light communication, but it needs a carrier. None of the papers you linked to suggested otherwise.

Seems benign enough to me.
Well, not to me. And you will see him quoted by woo-woos everywhere because there is really no aspect of woo-wooism that he does not embrace.

Okay, so Dr. Josephson is of the opinion that "psi" phenomenon may be real and that the best explanation for these phenomenon would be within the realm of quantum mechanics. Being that this is not considered the mainstream opinion Dr. Josephson could well be considered eccentric but to question his mental health because of his professional opinion is more than a little extreme. If anything, his "nullius in verba" stance is the very essence of skeptical thought.
You call it "eccentric" and I call it "kook". I did not intend to imply actual mental health problem (although it certainly is kind of mental problem). He does not live up to his own "nullius in verba" because he does not put the radical concepts under detailed scrutiny.

I suggest that you read the paper I linked on "Quantum Pseudo Telepathy"[pst#189 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3408184&postcount=189)].
It does not support the concepts that you think. The "pseudo" part refers to the fact that "Bob and Alice" have agreed to fool the researchers by exchanging information (entangle themselves) before the telepathy test, thus making it impossible to the researcher to distinguish from "true" telepathy.

[nathan]

What some see as an either-or-debate I see as a gradual convergence of apprently opposing sides. I would wager that when the actual explainations for alot of the apparent "psi" phenomenon becomes known many will see the entire debate was nonsensical to begin with.

Again, cart before horse. *what* apparent psi pheonomena? You've not advanced anything beyond 'anomalous cognition', which is too vague for me to understand what you mean.

[steenkh]

Thank you, Nathan. I wanted to point this out, but I forgot it. It is important that all these quantum mechanic conjectures are put forward to explain something that parapsychologists have not been able find for all the past 150 years that parapsychology has existed as a discipline. This devastating lack of success is the reason why parapsychologists are leaving the study, and the drying up of funding.

[AkuManiMani]

You call it "eccentric" and I call it "kook". I did not intend to imply actual mental health problem (although it certainly is kind of mental problem).

You are too bound-- :(

conceptually :confused:

follow my thought and-- :boggled:

insight :eek:

you'll-see ;)

.............

According to the dictionary eccentric means "something that is unusual, peculiar, or odd."

The definition of kook is "an insane person".

Being unusual is not a mental health problem (unless you believe anyone you consider odd requires treatment -- which would, itself, indicate some psychological malady on your part).

He does not live up to his own "nullius in verba" because he does not put the radical concepts under detailed scrutiny.

Detailed scrutiny you say? Do you mean something like researching radical claims? Oh no, thats only something "kooks" do :rolleyes:

[The paper] does not support the concepts that you think. The "pseudo" part refers to the fact that "Bob and Alice" have agreed to fool the researchers by exchanging information (entangle themselves) before the telepathy test, thus making it impossible to the researcher to distinguish from "true" telepathy.

You're missing the point. When I said "apparent psi" I was referring to phenomenon that only appear to be "telepathic" -- hence the "pseudo". Also, you confuse the "exchange of information" with entanglement. The paper is discussing applications of game theory with quantum mechanical affects and how said effects can produce apparent "telepathy".

I will clarify with some excerpts from the paper (http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aquant-ph%2F0407221):


Quantum communication complexity uses quantum mechanics to reduce the amount of communication that would be classically required. Pseudo-telepathy is a surprising application of quantum information processing to communication complexity. Thanks to entanglement, perhaps the most nonclassical manifestation of quantum mechanics, two or more quantum players can accomplish a distributed task with no need for communication whatsoever, which would be an impossible feat for classical players.

[...]

But there are other similar games that are equally impossible
for classical players, yet they can be won systematically, without any communication, provided Alice and Bob share prior entanglement. This is the phenomenon we call “pseudo-telepathy” because it would appear as magical as “true” telepathy to a classical physicist, yet it has a perfectly scientific explanation: quantum mechanics.

[...]

At the outset of the game, Alice and Bob are allowed to discuss strategy and exchange any amount of classical information, including the value of random variables. This is carried out in secret of Xavier and Yolande. If Alice and Bob are quantum players, they are also allowed to share unlimited amounts of entanglement.

The exchange of "classical information" refers to synchronizing their play strategy prior to the test -- the entanglement mentioned in the paper means a literal quantum entanglement and is not a metaphor. The premise of the paper is that by a combination of "shared strategy" (which can also refer to similar modes of cognition) and literal quantum entanglement individuals can behave in such a synchronistic manner that it is indistinguishable from an actual transference of information during the test. In other words, individuals who share cognitive patterns (shared "stratagem" via sufficient prior interaction that would facilitate this) and are quantum entangled will be able to exhibit behavior that seems to be "telepathic" to observers.

What would be considered "paranormal" "of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena."] without a quantum mechanical explanation becomes mundane once it gains said explanation. The entire purpose of "paranormal" research is not to establish the reality of the "paranormal" but to investigate anomalies without explanation and give them scientific explanations -- hence, the anomalies lose their status of being "paranormal".

Now to address the "cart-horse" concern:

It is important that all these quantum mechanic conjectures are put forward to explain something that parapsychologists have not been able find for all the past 150 years that parapsychology has existed as a discipline. This devastating lack of success is the reason why parapsychologists are leaving the study, and the drying up of funding.

The devastating affect that pursuing such studies has on careers is responsible for there being relatively few researchers. Despite this, I would say its inaccurate to claim that parapsychologists have been unable to find anything. There are plenty of persistent anomalies that have not been adequately explained.

From SkepticWiki (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page):

The Best Evidence

Radin believes some compelling positive results have been achieved in a variety of parapsychological fields. Some experiments have tested the ability to use ESP to get above-average scores when guessing targets such as cards, pictures, or videos. There have also been many ganzfeld experiments testing the ability to influence random number generators. Many of these experiments have allegedly had positive results, with subjects scoring significantly above chance. Other studies have returned results which are not significantly above chance, which is usually defined as a 95% confidence interval. However, when results of positive, negative, and inconclusive studies are combined in meta-analyses, they tend to return highly significant results in favor of the existence of ESP. Although statistical significance is high, the results do not seem impressive to many, because the effect size is often only a few percentage points above chance. For instance, where in a four choice task chance = 25%, an alleged psychic may score between 33% and 37%.

Proponents claim that controlled parapsychological laboratory research, often using meta-analyses of many experiments performed by different researchers, has yielded the following:

* Clairvoyance and telepathy experiments: several categories of experiments ranging from ESP card tests, to dream and ganzfeld telepathy studies, to remote viewing and PEAR precognitive remote perception studies, all normalized for chance hit rate of 50%, the categories range from about 54% to 67% hit rate, averaging about 60%.

* Dice throwing: 51.2% hit rate (chance rate: 50%) over 148 experiments from 1935 to 1987, involving thousands of participants and millions of throws.
* Random Number Generator (RNG) studies: 51% hit rate (chance rate: 50%) over 832 studies from 1959 to 1987 (1989 analysis).

* The on-going PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) program, started at Princeton University in 1979, analyzed millions of random bits. They found a small deviation from the 50% chance expectation, of the order of 0.01%. While this effect is tiny, it is statistically significant: with 7 standard deviations, the probability that the origin of the effect is a statistical oddity (odds against chance) is around 10 − 12.

* Distant mental influence on human electrodermal activity: 53% (chance rate: 50%), over 400 sessions as of 1997.

* Feeling of being stared at: 63% (chance rate: 50%) over studies from 1913 to 1996.

* Some experiments have tested the ability to foretell future events, both consciously, and unconsciously by using electrodes to measure galvanic skin responses to future stimuli, and have obtained positive results.

The odds against chance alone accounting for many of these statistical outcomes are extremely high, often ranging from one in thousands to one in trillions, i.e. statistically large effects.

[...]

Even some skeptics, such as Ray Hyman, say that some parapsychological studies may have merit:

"I have argued that the case for the existence of anomalous cognition is still shaky, at best. On the other hand, I want to state that I believe that the SAIC [Science Applications International Corporation] experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research."

I would say that such results are more than enough of an empirical "cart" to justify finding a good explanatory "horse".

......

is what--

You-see?

just what--

Ought-be?

.........

May-be?

i see...

What-might?

could be...

......


S'all I'm sayin' -- is all. >_>

[nathan]

deleted

[lauras]

I am totally open minded and believe in alot of things. I have also seen things that are extremly hard to explain scientifically so i do believe in the supernatural.
To say that something doesnt exist because you cant see it is maddness can you see air no but its still there. Can you see gravity no but its still there, yes these things have been proven scientifically but im sure in the future so will the supernatural.
There are to many occurances for it to be all made up sure there are people out there that make stuff up for attention but they just ruin it for the people that have really seen something or really can do things.

[Almo]

There are to many occurances for it to be all made up sure there are people out there that make stuff up for attention but they just ruin it for the people that have really seen something or really can do things.

That's like saying, "Everyone buys Windows, so it must be good!" :confused:

[lauras]

no its not its the truth look back through history and you will find storys of the supernatural way way back even before books and writting were invented. every culture and every race has its own storys of the supernatural and the unexplained how can all these storys be made up you tell me????

[Hokulele]

no its not its the truth look back through history and you will find storys of the supernatural way way back even before books and writting were invented. every culture and every race has its own storys of the supernatural and the unexplained how can all these storys be made up you tell me????


Because fiction is entertaining, and people love to be entertained.

[lauras]

Sorry but it cant all be fiction as i said before i have seen and felt things that are completely unexplainable myself so if it is all fiction then i made these things up in my head :confused:
Every work of fiction has a grain of truth in it.
If people would allow themselves to think outside the box a bit more and stop conforming to the norm they would see that there is a whole other world out there that is waiting to be discovered all you have to do is take your blinkers off and really open your mind to new and exciting possibilities.
This is just what i think and i am not trying to offend any one so sorry if i have but think about it.

[Hokulele]

No.

[lauras]

No.

:jaw-dropp what kind of an answer is that i was really enjoying this wee debate but you have just put the stoppers on that come on keep it going i was having fun lol.
prove to me that the supernatural is all fake like i said i am open minded and do not disagree with any ones point of view as long as its a valid one.

[AkuManiMani]

no its not its the truth look back through history and you will find storys of the supernatural way way back even before books and writting were invented. every ure and every race has its own storys of the supernatural and the unexplained how can all these storys be made up you tell me????

For the most part, people on these forums demand higher standards than that to accept the reality of something. Sometimes billions of people can believe something that isn't necessarily true and, for this reason skeptics will not simply accept a claim on those grounds.

If thats the only level of argment you've come equiped with to these forums I'm afraid the folks here will brutally pick you apart, and the dicussion will not be pleasant. :(

[Hokulele]

:jaw-dropp what kind of an answer is that i was really enjoying this wee debate but you have just put the stoppers on that come on keep it going i was having fun lol.
prove to me that the supernatural is all fake like i said i am open minded and do not disagree with any ones point of view as long as its a valid one.


Again, no. The burden of proof runs the other way. My terse response to your previous post was mostly based on this sentence.

If people would allow themselves to think outside the box a bit more and stop conforming to the norm they would see that there is a whole other world out there that is waiting to be discovered all you have to do is take your blinkers off and really open your mind to new and exciting possibilities.


This type of cliched stereotyping of people who disagree with you isn't a good way to promote debate or discussion. As AkuManiMani stated, this particular discussion board is a fairly tough crowd and will not be impressed by vague accusations of being "blinkered".

I would recommend you read through some of these threads completely and get a better feel for what type of arguments are more likely to be pursuasive. Most people here are willing to change their minds on many topics (there is even a whole thread where people have listed what they admit they used to be wrong about), but on the whole, I need to see a lot more evidence than just your feelings on a topic.

[lauras]

i am sorry i seem to have offended you in some way and yes i agree with you my ideas may be under developed and lack proper proof and substinance but i was just trying to put my point of view across.
And i fully understand about mass hysteria like with the salem witch hunts and so on and so forth. But not everything that happens can be placed in this box to do with the supernatural.
I am here to find out what other people think and have informative debates about it and if you feel i will be picked apart well that is fine but as long as it is constructive and not just people say things for the sake of it im fine
Again i appolpgise for offending you.

[Faithkills]

Sorry but it cant all be fiction as i said before i have seen and felt things that are completely unexplainable myself so if it is all fiction then i made these things up in my head :confused:
Every work of fiction has a grain of truth in it.
If people would allow themselves to think outside the box a bit more and stop conforming to the norm they would see that there is a whole other world out there that is waiting to be discovered all you have to do is take your blinkers off and really open your mind to new and exciting possibilities.
This is just what i think and i am not trying to offend any one so sorry if i have but think about it.

No one is offended, just disappointed. Unfortunately muddled thinking like yours is the norm.

If it were not fiction then surely someone would have demonstrated it by now, hmm?

People make up stories. Many of them lie about it and claim the stories are true, and/or try to profit from it. Hence religion.

It's not a mystery.

[steenkh]

I am totally open minded and believe in alot of things. I have also seen things that are extremly hard to explain scientifically so i do believe in the supernatural.
At any magic show, you can experience things that are hard for scientists to explain if they are not acquainted with the trick.

What are the possibilities that some of the phenomena that you have experienced have been brought by through tricks and deception? (Hint: Do you know "cold reading"?)

[lauras]

Ok i am quite opened to the possibility that some of the stuff i have experianced could have been brought about by trickery but some of it is that strange and unexplainable that there is just no way i can see someone tricking me.
I strongly believe that some of these occurances were of the supernatural kind.
I mean i could go into detail but i find that a pointless avenue to take as it is only my word i have no photographic evidence or any thing like that.
But as i have said before i am open minded and yes someone may have fooled me but i just feel there is something more out there that is just out of reach but wauting to be found

[maatorc]

I am sure you will give us the evidence for this. Otherwise we might easily think you just made it up!

Can you give any evidence that mind is but a physical brain function, otherwise I think you just made it up.

[Olowkow]

prove to me that the supernatural is all fake like i said i am open minded and do not disagree with any ones point of view as long as its a valid one.

Perhaps you should read some of the threads concerning the supernatural that have already been posted. Folks here have been down that road many many times, and they get a little frustrated when a newcomer begins all over again. Also go to the stopsylviabrowne website, and browse.

Also, read the Million Dollar Challenge applications. This will give you a clue as to the type of individuals that are believers in this stuff. Remember, it is not up to unbelievers in the paranormal to prove anything. It is the job of the believers to prove their claims. It has just never happened,...yet.

Stick around, and please don't be offended. Rest assured, you cannot offend anyone here. :) Welcome!

[AkuManiMani]

Can you give any evidence that mind is but a physical brain function, otherwise I think you just made it up.

I think that statement really oversimplifies the issue. For example, a large body of water is made up of water molecules but you cannot describe its behavior and properties merely in terms of molecular interaction -- one would need, among other things, knowledge of fluid dynamics.

Considering that the processes we call the mind (what ever its nature) affects the brain's chemical and cellular make-up as well as arises from it, its safe to say that to two are atleast strongly correlated. The base entity (the brain) is defined by cellular structure and biochemical processes while the emergent entity (the "mind") operates in terms the the rules of its own nature that are not strictly defined by the chemical processes that generate it. The mind, in my view, is physically based but is not matter -- just as Windows Vista is not silicon. The only real difference between the mind and synthetic software is that we have a rigorous understanding of the latter and not the former.

So what is the nature of the mind and what are its properties? Thats an open question that we are still figuring out. Its one that is being pursued by many fields of investigation -- from psychology to sociology to neuroscience to physics and everything in between.

One promising avenue of inquiry, imo, is holonomic brain theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory).

The concept of Engrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_%28neuropsychology%29) [a term first coined by an evolutionary biologist and later borrowed by cult leader L. Ron Hubbard] or "mnemic traces" refers to a hypothetical unit of memory in the brain that is related to the holonomic brain theory in that they are holographically stored by the brain and are not strictly local to one particular area of it. Cue in Richard Dawkin's [another evolutionary biologist :D] adaptation of this concept and you get memes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) units of cultural information. From this we get the concept of Memeplexes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex) -- yet another non-local unit of information that is based on physical processes.

I've been discussing the issue of human cognition with a friend of mine and he stated his view that all our minds operate in what he called "conceptual space". Within this hypothetical space mental processes [and entities like engrams, memes, and memeplexes] of individuals and groups would play out and evolve. I'm of the view that if one were to rigorously model mental processes you would not necessarily get a picture of the brain but some virtual entity within and informational matrix that could be described as "conceptual space" emerging from the collective cellular processes of the brain/nervous-system :boggled:

......

Like I said...Your statement is a gross simplification of the issue.

[William Smith]

Can you give any evidence that mind is but a physical brain function, otherwise I think you just made it up.

Steenkh can certainly speak for himself, but I'd like to say that you - again - failed to answer a simple question/meet a simple demand for evidence.

@maatorc & lauras: The need to present the evidence is on the one who makes the statement; comparable to the modern systems of justice, e.g. in Germany.

[arthwollipot]

lauras, the fact that you can't explain something doesn't necessarily mean that it's supernatural.

Even if you were to present a detailed explanation of one of the phenomena that you consider to be supernatural, we skeptics still probably couldn't explain it. Oh, we could give you any number of possible explanations, but without having been there, seen or experienced the phenomenon, and done a detailed investigation of the circumstances around it, we cannot be sure exactly what caused it or what its explanation might be.

But we have confidence that anything you experienced was a natural occurence. Why? Because everything that was purported to be supernatural and has been investigated has been found to be natural. There has not been a single event, in the history of mankind, which was purported to be supernatural and on close and detailed examination has turned out to be so.

No rational skeptic can ever absolutely rule out the possibility of a supernatural phenomenon. We can only say that purportedly supernatural phenomena, when properly investigated, turn out to be only natural phenomena after all.

Trickery is sometimes involved, it is true. But not always. Sometimes it is simply the misinterpretation of signals that don't initially appear to make sense. In other words, you may not have been deliberately misled, you may have made an honest mistake.

In fact, believing in the existence of supernatural phenomena actually makes one more likely to believe that new phenomena are also supernatural. Think about it. You already accept the supernatural. You see something strange, that you cannot immediately account for. You have the option of saying "well, this is supernatural!"

We as skeptics do not allow ourselves that option. We know from experience that everything that was purported to be supernatural and has been investigated has been found to be natural.

And therefore we have confidence that anything that you experienced, whether you can explain it or not, was in all probability not supernatural.

[AkuManiMani]

lauras, the fact that you can't explain something doesn't necessarily mean that it's supernatural.

Correction:

Anything for which there is no scientific explanation is, in fact, "paranormal".

[nathan]

Anything for which there is no scientific explanation is, in fact, "paranormal".

Um, no. For instance, I don't think there's a well understood reason for why the universe is predominantly full of matter. But it's not paranormal that it is.

[nathan]

From SkepticWiki (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page):


Can you show how these findings would not at odds with the known laws of physics? (Since that's your claim)

[lupus_in_fabula]

Can you give any evidence that mind is but a physical brain function, otherwise I think you just made it up.

think that statement really oversimplifies the issue. For example, a large body of water is made up of water molecules but you cannot describe its behavior and properties merely in terms of molecular interaction -- one would need, among other things, knowledge of fluid dynamics.

The question is: do we actually need to consider the mind as something other than a linguistic abstraction?

[nathan]

Can you give any evidence that mind is but a physical brain function, otherwise I think you just made it up.
Up to your usual behaviour of shifting the burden of proof?

[arthwollipot]

Correction:

Anything for which there is no scientific explanation is, in fact, "paranormal".Um, no. For instance, I don't think there's a well understood reason for why the universe is predominantly full of matter. But it's not paranormal that it is.There's a (very big) difference between not yet scientifically explained and in principle scientifically unexplainable.

The "paranormal" or "supernatural" is in principle scientifically unexplainable. That's what the words mean. Outside normal. Above natural. There are plenty of phenomena which are quite definitely normal and natural, and yet have no scientific explanation at this time. Gravity is the most obvious example. We know it exists, we have extremely accurate quantative descriptions of its effects, but we don't yet know precisely what it is. That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that gravity is supernatural.

Defining "paranormal" as "not scientifically explained" is a temporally parochial statement. It ignores the fact that science is continually progressing and discovering new things. A thousand years ago, lightning was not scientifically explained. That doesn't mean it was paranormal. To be "paranormal" or "supernatural", a phenomenon has to be in principle scientifically unexplainable. That's what these words mean.

[AkuManiMani]

Anything for which there is no scientific explanation is, in fact, "paranormal".

Um, no. For instance, I don't think there's a well understood reason for why the universe is predominantly full of matter. But it's not paranormal that it is.

Tom-ay-toe

or

Tom-ah-toe

----

"Anomaly"

or

"Paranormal"

A more nuanced defining of "paranormal" would be a phenomenon for which no known physical law could provide for or is a direct contradiction of conventional scientific assumption.

This definition would cover spooks, ghouls, Yoo-Fohs, and general "woo-woo" goins on w/o stepping on the toes of minor observational anomalies.

That bettah? :p

Can you show how these findings would not [be] at odds with the known laws of physics? (Since that's your claim)


I've already provided evidence that such anomalous observations may be well within the bounds of scientific explanation in post 189 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3408184&postcount=189) and clarified this in post 216 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3413352&postcount=216)

Being as how I am not a trained quantum physicist (and neither are you, I would assume) it would be impossible and fruitless for me to attempt to show it explicitly via mathematical proof of my own. I have demonstrated implicitly that the anomalous findings are very likely to lie within the bounds of quantum phenomenon.

Edit: Btw, are you arguing that the findings ARE paranormal? Because if you are this would be a rather ironic turn of events lol

[AkuManiMani]

deleted double post

[nathan]

Being as how I am not a trained quantum physicist (and neither are you, I would assume) it would be impossible and fruitless for me to attempt to show it explicitly via mathematical proof of my own. I have demonstrated implicitly that the anomalous findings are very likely to lie within the bounds of quantum phenomenon.

No, you have not shown that. You have shown that certain theoretical phenomena (which are quite constrained) are explainable by quantum mechanics. (and as I already pointed out, the main paper you are relying on explicitly discounts a game that is, AFAICT, equivalent to what is commonly understood by 'remote viewing'). All the games it talks about are about Alice and Bob being able to cooperate without communicating after a certain point.

You have not shown that the 'anomalous findings' you cite are explainable by quantum mechanics. I think the experiments you cite fall into two categories:

a) influence of some remote system (I.e. skewing random numbers). The quantum paper you cite does not talk about this at all

b) a remote interaction between two people (the 'being stared at' experiment). However, IIUC the starer is not cooperating with the staree and the quantum paper requires the two parties to (1) cooperate and (2) previously have shared entangled state.

And, as you have called my bona fides into question, I'll cite them here. I have a PhD in physics, which included taking postgraduate units in quantum mechanics. However, that was a while ago, and I do not use that in my everyday life. So, although I make no pretension at being able to think up various quantum behaviour, I think I am versed in following it. And I am not so presumptuous to think I understand quantum mechanics.

[nathan]

Edit: Btw, are you arguing that the findings ARE paranormal? Because if you are this would be a rather ironic turn of events lol

What are you asking here, whether I think that the papers you cite are showing paranormal behaviour, or that the behaviour they purport to show would be paranormal?

[Darat]

Regarding the idea that somehow "quantum stuff" can explain the reason or provide a mechanism as to why people apparently think in the first place that there is "psi" or the "supernatural" falls down at the first hurdle.

The reason people have for believing in psi and so on is not because some experiments in physics have shown at some incredibly small scale that there is something weird going on but because of very large scale effects in the real world. E.g. huge amounts of information being communicated (i.e. all forms of telepathy), telekineses (people being able to levitate large objects, bend objects) and so on.

As usual with matters regarding "psi" things are topsy-turvy and as always it boils down to the fact that all the theories/hypothesis are trying to explain something which has never been demonstrated to exist in the first place!

Invoke "quantum" theories once you have an effect/affect at the scales quantum theories deal with to explain, not beforehand.

[AkuManiMani]

No, you have not shown that. You have shown that certain theoretical phenomena (which are quite constrained) are explainable by quantum mechanics. (and as I already pointed out, the main paper you are relying on explicitly discounts a game that is, AFAICT, equivalent to what is commonly understood by 'remote viewing'). All the games it talks about are about Alice and Bob being able to cooperate without communicating after a certain point.

You have not shown that the 'anomalous findings' you cite are explainable by quantum mechanics. I think the experiments you cite fall into two categories:

a) influence of some remote system (I.e. skewing random numbers). The quantum paper you cite does not talk about this at all

b) a remote interaction between two people (the 'being stared at' experiment). However, IIUC the starer is not cooperating with the staree and the quantum paper requires the two parties to (1) cooperate and (2) previously have shared entangled state.

Yes, I have "shown that" and I will demonstrate, step-by-step, how I did so.

Regarding the idea that somehow "quantum stuff" can explain the reason or provide a mechanism as to why people apparently think in the first place that there is "psi" or the "supernatural" falls down at the first hurdle.

The reason people have for believing in psi and so on is not because some experiments in physics have shown at some incredibly small scale that there is something weird going on but because of very large scale effects in the real world. E.g. huge amounts of information being communicated (i.e. all forms of telepathy), telekineses (people being able to levitate large objects, bend objects) and so on.

As usual with matters regarding "psi" things are topsy-turvy and as always it boils down to the fact that all the theories/hypothesis are trying to explain something which has never been demonstrated to exist in the first place!

Invoke "quantum" theories once you have an effect/affect at the scales quantum theories deal with to explain, not beforehand.

Indeed...

Excerpt from SkepticWiki:

The odds against chance alone accounting for many of these statistical outcomes are extremely high, often ranging from one in thousands to one in trillions, i.e. statistically large effects.

It is clear that the results of these experiments are not mere flukes -- but arise from a process that is systemic and consistent. Statistical outcomes of the magnitude range of "1-in-trillions" needs some serious explaining.

The sources that I linked (especially the one concerning game theory and quantum effects) did not explicitly address the anomalies above but, one is left to induce from the findings that the same principles that they are based upon extend to subject matter not strictly covered within them.

The pseudo-telepathy paper explicitly was detailing "quantum information complexity effects" in specific sets of games but in this detailing they establish a more general principle: Macroscopic entities (such as game players) can be directly influenced to exhibit quantum level properties to synchronize behavior at a distance.

The quantum biology papers detailed examples of microscopic (e.g. photosynthesis) and macroscopic (e.g magnetoreception in multicellular organisms) quantum dynamics within living organisms establishing a more general principle: Biological entities utilize quantum effects at every level of their organization.

Now that we've established those given generalities thru extrapolative reasoning skills now lets utilize [I]critical [deductive] thinking, in light of these givens.

Recap the anomalous results:

The odds against chance alone accounting for many of these statistical outcomes are extremely high, often ranging from one in thousands to one in trillions, i.e. statistically large effects.

We have three main categories of hypotheses we can choose from:

1) Human error (which would include deliberate fraud)

2) Statistical fluke

3) Systemic phenomenon (i.e. Quantum Effects)


-Lets start with swinging our critical blade at hypothesis #1: Human error

Its been reasonably established that given the rigor, replication, and consistency of methodology over the span of decades human error is extremely unlikely to have been the cause of these statistically significant results. Due to the improbability of this hypothesis, we can reasonably rule it out.

-Hypothesis #2: Statistical Fluke

Due to the amount of consistent replication over the span of almost a century all chance effects have been pushed into the realm of 1-in-thousands to 1-in-trillions. Pharmaceutical products are admitted for public consumption on the basis of statistically significant effects that don't even approach these orders of magnitude that only span (at most) a hand full of studies over a course of time no where near a century. We can safely say that by probability, and precedent, this hypothesis can be ruled out.

-Hypothesis #3: Systemic Phenomenon

Being as how the other 2 hypotheses (chance and error) have be ruled out we can only assume that these results arise from a real systemic phenomenon that involves distant causation. The only theoretical framework we have for such causation are quantum mechanical effects. Being as how the given generalities of the above studies extend to our macroscopic/organic test subjects one can assume, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that quantum phenomenon are highly likely to be that systemic explanation.


From SkepticWiki:

Can you show how these findings would not [be] at odds with the known laws of physics? (Since that's your claim)

...are you arguing that the findings ARE paranormal? Because if you are this would be a rather ironic turn of events lol

What are you asking here, whether I think that the papers you cite are showing paranormal behaviour, or that the behaviour they purport to show would be paranormal?

Being that you wanted me to demonstrate that the results of the study where within the realm of known physics it somewhat implies that you have reason to believe that they are, infact, not mere anomalies but are "paranormal".

[maatorc]

Up to your usual behaviour of shifting the burden of proof?

No: The underlying assumption of the MDC is that mind is a physical brain function. Evidence is two-way street, and in this case the claim is implicit in the challenge, otherwise it is nothing but a word-game.

[AkuManiMani]

No: The underlying assumption of the MDC is that mind is a physical brain function. Evidence is two-way street, and in this case the claim is implicit in the challenge, otherwise it is nothing but a word-game.

Whats wrong w/ word games? I like word games :)

phys·i·cal /ˈfɪzɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fiz-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.
2. of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3. noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter.
4. pertaining to the physical sciences, esp. physics.
5. carnal; sexual: a physical attraction.
6. tending to touch, hug, pat, etc.; physically demonstrative: a physical person.
7. requiring, characterized by, or liking rough physical contact or strenuous physical activity: Football is a physical sport.

If one goes with definition 3 then the mind/brain duality are not "physical" since they are peculiar to living matter.

So now what?

[maatorc]

Whats wrong w/ word games? I like word games :)

Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com
phys·i·cal /ˈfɪzɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fiz-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective ......
3. noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter. ......

If one goes with definition 3 then the mind/brain duality are not "physical" since they are peculiar to living matter. So now what?

Are you saying mind is not a physical brain function?