I prefer to look at it like this: Mankind has accumulated enough knowledge, in a few different fields, to build a computer, interface it to rat brain cells in a petri dish, and program the computer to teach (train) those cells to control a simulated flying machine.
Meanwhile, dowsing is virtually no further along than it was many centuries ago.
You don't have to be an all-out skeptic, but if that situation doesn't create some doubt then there is no point in discussion.
Meanwhile, dowsing is virtually no further along than it was many centuries ago.
You don't have to be an all-out skeptic, but if that situation doesn't create some doubt then there is no point in discussion.
They never heard of a metal detector? Ground penetrating radar is becoming more affordable also. Standard practice these days to X-ray a concerete floor before drilling it. Or perhaps you don't think drilling through the steel reinforcements can be bad luck.
I have no problem believing there are lots of cases where dowsing doesn't work. But to claim the results are due to random chance just doesn't hold up to observed results.
Dowsing is perhaps more understandable than most human tricks (reading? Sorry, but that's pretty hard to believe. selecting one voice out of a noisy room of voices? Don't kid a kidder.)
The ability to find water is an ability that would be selected for over generations. Lots of improbable things happen that way; even life itself. Ritual with a stick is a historical artifact probably arising as an aid to focus attention. I've never seen it done, but would suspect that the operating mechanism is based on careful attention to landscape combined with some experience in _looking_.
All good fortune,
Chris
The ability to find water is an ability that would be selected for over generations. Lots of improbable things happen that way; even life itself. Ritual with a stick is a historical artifact probably arising as an aid to focus attention. I've never seen it done, but would suspect that the operating mechanism is based on careful attention to landscape combined with some experience in _looking_.
All good fortune,
Chris
Ah, the power of confirmation bias. Ignore the contradictory evidence and focus on the supporting evidence.
Not so fast...
Earlier on in the thread I illustrated that conformation bias is capable of taking on a real life, as is rationalism, or objectivity, or group-think, or any other grouping. The meta study on precognitive function illustrated this perfectly.. in a perfected scientific regimen, that all groups of participants agreed upon, and they all found different results with their identical perfected testing. Where proof was conclusive, for each. Yet, all results were/are in conflict.
Whatever you want to believe and project is actually capable of becoming a group think actual thing, in 'this place'. Emergence, through - and of.... time-space. What it (3d time-space), emerges from, is hyper-dimensional and timeless. So, you can have precognition if you want and think so... or not... if you decide that you can't and it is impossible. Both valid. Any color you like. Electron Kinetics, essentially. That's why he named the company after that function.
The question then becomes, what exactly are you... and what exactly IS this place?
The bottom most rung or turtle in the pantheon of science is that --there are no facts, save one, which is there are no facts. This is paradox, this is wave particle, this is quantum --which exists out of time. Thus all things are based on the paradox of quantum function, in emergence as a 3d timespace.
If this give you grief, as you then don't have a leg or even a rock to stand on, well, welcome to the club, welcome to the true state, the true face of reality... as proposed and defined by the cutting edge in all fields of proper science and physics. All the latest discoveries in physics say this exact thing.
Last edited:
Hi Ed,
If you've not already seen it, this is a good presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
What passes for "science" today is completely broken. I recently saw a two-part BBC documentary on Quantum Physics. The first part was entitled "Einstein's Nightmare" and showed how they proved quantum mechanics is correct. Einstein refused to believe it ("God does not play dice with the universe."), but he was wrong. Physicist John Bell created a simple equation to prove whether quantum mechanic is correct or not in the early 1970s. It took another twenty years before they had the technology to run the experiments, but now we know that quantum mechanics is real.
The second part was how all of life (including photosynthesis) is based on quantum physics. There was a segment on "The Quantum Nose" that shows our understanding of how the nose works has been completely wrong for nearly 100 years. But they didn't even mention the guy who figured it out, Luca Turin:
The Secret of Scent: Adventures in Perfume and the Science of Smell: Luca Turin: 9780061133848: Amazon.com: Books
In Turin's book he describes how he had to undergo Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth. Stage One - he was publicly ridiculed in Nature magazine! The editor-in-chief commissioned a paper "proving" Turin wrong and even wrote an introduction dismissing Turin's work, proclaiming how it was his job to expose the "nonsense". ("Good" robot skeptic.)
The hilarious part was that the person who got the credit for Turin's work in the BBC documentary was just a tool of the machine. She created an elaborate experiment and trained fruit flies to be attracted to certain odors so that she could "prove" Turin's work, untainted by "human bias".
Yet stop and think about it for a second to see the irony here. Why would she spend several years an hundreds of thousands of dollars training fruit flies if she herself didn't smell any difference? Obviously she must have smelled the difference herself or she wouldn't have designed the experiment, applied for the grant, runt the experiment, and published the results. Yet it was all a ridiculous waste of time. She had already smelled the difference herself!
To satisfy the "skeptics" she had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of work. Anybody could have smelled the difference, just as she did. Then she gets the credit for Turin's work.
We have the same thing in audio. Anybody who cares can hear the difference between whatever - wires, connectors, PCB materials, amplifiers, CD players, capacitors, et cetera. Yet the "skeptics" demand "scientific proof". Then they ridicule those who can hear the difference - Stage One. Yawn.
KBK, let's put it this way: until you start producing publications with clearly understandable experiments to start giving your words some, even a lick, of substance, I'm going to take you as proselytizing your rather unconventional worldview.
Which is to say, we're at an impasse.
Edit to add: I'm on a UC campus, which means that I can just about get any paper you throw at me.
Which is to say, we're at an impasse.
Edit to add: I'm on a UC campus, which means that I can just about get any paper you throw at me.
Last edited:
Most people who have done so are either dead or in prison.
Think about it.
If you spend your life living in a world of negative proofing, you will only go in circles, like a fenced pet.
Get out there and explore. Turn the chessboard around... take the other side of the table, and start digging. That's how those who have gotten past the fence begin.
Last edited:
Flippancy does not reduce gravitas, but it does deflect it. The verdict comes in understanding (flippancy) the given application.
Last edited:
Without making this all about me, but if reality and making devices/instruments that repeatedly do what you ask them to do is my fence, consider myself pretty content. Nor do I take myself terribly seriously.
Explore? Dig? What do you think some/many of us do? I'm here in lab, on a Saturday night waiting for some processes to finish so I can run another set of experiments tomorrow, listening to Beck be weird on some crappy computer speakers (having finished BCarso's rec). Audiophile approved (tm) crappy computer speakers. Don't care, I'm enjoying it. Hopefully the changes I've made will have a positive effect. (Oh there's your negative/reductionist hypothesis) Have a good night.
Explore? Dig? What do you think some/many of us do? I'm here in lab, on a Saturday night waiting for some processes to finish so I can run another set of experiments tomorrow, listening to Beck be weird on some crappy computer speakers (having finished BCarso's rec). Audiophile approved (tm) crappy computer speakers. Don't care, I'm enjoying it. Hopefully the changes I've made will have a positive effect. (Oh there's your negative/reductionist hypothesis) Have a good night.
Last edited:
Spooky action at a distance, as seen in local space, ie,a quantum 'read' with distance.
Researchers take two big steps toward quantum computing
Quantum process demonstrates superposition of ordered events
There you go. both. Valid. More and more of it is emerging on the world stage. Every day. Proofs are everywhere. All you have to do is look. (quantum puns intended)
Last edited:
According to wiki, there is no evidence to suggest dowsing is any more effective than random guesswork. Which figures, and at some level we must all know that to be true. Same applies in audio, where many implausible myths are believed true despite no hard evidence and contradiction of common sense.
Why then do people seem to want to believe in dowsing? Or equivalently implausible audio myths, even when contradicted by vigorous tests?
You have it backwards. Wiki reports that experiments show no better than chance or are considered flawed. To design an experiment you have to control the variables. What are the variables? What is the mechanism?
Watching a stage magician perform is entetainment rarely baffling. Having a guy tell you to dig here 32' defies logic. Just what value do you place on that for random chance.
Sketching 4 pipes in their correct locations under a concrete slab should be extraordinarily close to impossible.
The folks who have seen the process appear to have a different viewpoint than those who haven't.
So anyone know a well digger? They probably have a strong opinion based on experience.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.