In Sagan's garage... Where he used to smoke marijuana.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Well,
This is just me thinking aloud..<<<take with a pinch of salt..
If this "trend" were to be true..then..
- if we expect to get nothing, would we get nothing..
- expect to get " Spirit contact/telepathy/ etc" then we get something..
- So the driving force would effect the outcome..
- I don't want to go to the next idea...(we get what we try to find)
..ie we only see the effect not the ...? (I was going to say cause..however it would be lacking)I'll have a laugh here..its almost like zero point energy is acting like modelling clay.. This sounds stupid...Change the line of thought me thinks..
Regards
M. Gregg
Spoonful of salt taken. I was talking about physics. Trying to extrapolate from physics to metaphysics is usually unhelpful, even when done by a physicist. Anyone else trying it is simply wasting their time, yet the liberal arts crowd seem to enjoy talking about things they simply can't understand. See Sokal hoax.M gregg said:
So what evidence is acceptable, from entities that "have no physical form"?
(If they were to exist) even if animals appear to see them..
What evidence is acceptable from a Medium that is giving information..?
(other than tell you about something that is fact that you do not know yourself)
(Or describe a picture in your head that they cannot see).
Is it the evidence or the repeatability thats the problem...If you saw something yourself would you believe what you had seen?
Or would you make up excuses that you were in some way influenced by something ie its not real..
Regards
M.Gregg
Last edited:
I like the code word..its very apt..so we take it that there is nothing to discover.
A bit like quantum physics...lots of evidence that leads nowhere...
The more we know the more don't....Wherever you go, there you are...
The human existance...a flickering candle in the vastness of space..and just as fragile..
Regards
M. Gregg
There are a well established set of protocols for interpreting that which we sense or think or imagine and for sifting between random chance and illusion and coincidence and reliable cause and effect relationships. These protocols require that a hypothesis is formulated to describe a particular facet of reality, that an objective experiment is formulated to test the hypothesis, that the experiment is conducted and the results are analyzed to separate cause and effect from random chance. Most critically, the experiment must be able to be reconstructed by other observers and they must obtain similar results. If these protocols cannot be used to test a particular facet of reality, then we are wise to suspect that this facet is not a part of reality.
Those phenomena which can only be sustained in the absence of attention or critical scrutiny and which collapse or disappear when looked at closely or measured or analyzed or scrutinized are...bunkum!
I like the code word..its very apt..
so we take it that there is nothing to discover.
A bit like quantum physics...lots of evidence that leads nowhere...
Lisa Randall on how some things will be known - YouTube
lisa randall - YouTube
And if the behaviour of the phemonenon is dependent on the interaction of the whatever with the observer, at some level of "reality", how are you going to deal with this?
As a very simple example, that the phemonenon won't play ball if the experimenter passionately disbelieves in it: after all, if such things as psychokinesis really exist then this follows as a simple corollary ...
Frank
To repeat, psychokinesis is the phenomenon of "inanimate reality" apparently responding to a person's conscious, and probably forceful thinking. As if it were animate. Plenty of "scientific" testing of such paranormal possibilities, literature is full of it. So if something weird happens because someone wants it to happen, then it seems reasonable the universe will oblige by stopping the weird thing happening, if the person doesn't want it to be so.
Last time I checked, the universe tended to be fairly balanced in this sort of symmetrical behaviour ...
Frank
The link provided by auplater earlier, "Does Consciousness Collapse the Wave Function" provides a conventional science view of how this sort of thing can happen, and positive experimental results, as well. In simple terms, whether something will be experienced or not is a probability only, not a certainty until observed, and this experiment tested whether human consciousness comes into the equation. It is not an extreme leap to go from this, to the concept of a scientist experiencing positive or negative results, depending upon his state of mind ...
Frank
Frank
It is strange to read as if people newer heard of experiments conducted with random number generators by Institute of Noetic Sciences and other laboratories... So many experiments conducted, so much data analyzed, but people keep saying something like "If it would been shown..."
It had been shown!
Many times!
But since nobody offered any scientific explanation in terms of official models the data as if don't exist.
What a shame!
It had been shown!
Many times!
But since nobody offered any scientific explanation in terms of official models the data as if don't exist.
What a shame!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.