Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm sorry, I don't understand the difference in regard to scientific theories.

Well, do you know of any scientific theories that include first-person pronouns?

I understand scientists may use third person language to describe this.

Not "may." Always do. That's what I'm saying here. All scientific theories are in the third person. They are all derived from observations, and as I observe something I am concerned, not with what I am doing, but with what it does. Third person perspective is built into science from the get-go. First-person perspective is excluded. This is in contrast to an immersive knowledge system like art, where everything is done in the first person, interactively. A work of art may be expressed in the third person but it always includes the creative input of the artist, while a scientist tries to achieve a universal statement that will be the same for any observer.

If I understand you, you are saying that any causal explanation is a "mechanism," even self-caused or random.

I am saying that a mechanistic causal statement is of the form, "A caused B to happen." That would exclude "self-caused," but not random.

Incidentally, there are machines that make use of indeterminacy. Most of electronics does.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is what I meant by a spurious reason for rejecting the evidence -- an excuse, really, not an honest reason. Unless one is presenting telepathy is a universal ability like being able to tie your shoes, there is no reason to expect that it should be shown by all random samplings of test subjects, any more than we should expect a random sampling of people off the street all to be able to compose a symphony or run a four-minute mile.

Reproducibility is necessary to avoid artifacts. Here's an example, I have been working part time for 6 months on trying to reduce the level of arsenic in one of our products. The FDA plans to implement a stricter limit in the near future and our product does not always meet this limit. The source of the arsenic is the carbon we use for removal of organic impurities. The carbon is made from coal. Coal often contains arsenic and so the carbon has some too. During the treatment some of the arsenic in the carbon is leached out into our product stream. We use carbons made from coal because in the initial process development they were more effect that carbons made from organic materials like wood or coconuts. After playing with other coal-derived carbons without much success, our assay people finally came up with a method to directly measure the arsenic level in the carbons themselves. All the coal-based carbons had various amounts of arsenic in them, it was going to be possible to find one that was always going to be better. So I figured what the hell, lets us a wood-based carbon, well just use more. We tested the wood based carbon and found very low levels. So we made product using the wood based carbon. We had to use 3X but we got the color out. We then have the product tested for arsenic (a formality right?). Assays come back yesterday. Highest levels we have ever seen, way higher than with the coal-based stuff. WTF?

So what am I going to do? I'm going to run more experiments with the wood-based stuff submit them and hope we get lucky. If we do then I will run more, and it those work too, I will recommend a plant trial (that is, run this full-scale in real for-sale lots). In the memo I will cite only the data that shows it works. If the plant trial doesn't work we will have to throw away $100K worth of product. If it does then this experiment established reproducibility. If the experiment is reproducible then the problem is solved and we don't lose millions of dollars of sales. And I can check this project as competed successfully in my annual performance review.

Without reproducible results, the work I do, and that of all scientists is worthless. This is why it is held as one of the most crucial attributes of the product of scientific work. So if parapsychologists cannot find a way to generate reproducible results, their work is worthless. If scientifically-derived improvements in technology were no better than those that operators or garage-tinkerers come up with then science would have died out as a passing fad a long time ago.

Parapsychology results can be reducible, but not with the same reliability as with technology. Psi isn't technology, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and can't be useful. I don't know if I'm going to get a psychic impression from my Mom indicating how she's doing. But it would be useful if it happens!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, do you know of any scientific theories that include first-person pronouns?

Not "may." Always do. That's what I'm saying here. All scientific theories are in the third person. They are all derived from observations, and as I observe something I am concerned, not with what I am doing, but with what it does. Third person perspective is built into science from the get-go. First-person perspective is excluded. This is in contrast to an immersive knowledge system like art, where everything is done in the first person, interactively. A work of art may be expressed in the third person but it always includes the creative input of the artist, while a scientist tries to achieve a universal statement that will be the same for any observer.

I don't disagree, but mostly what I hear is the need for objectivity; in my experience it's not usually referred to as "3rd person pronouns." That which is verified by multiple observers (not just one, i.e. myself, first person) is usually called objectivity, or verifiability.

I am saying that a mechanistic causal statement is of the form, "A caused B to happen." That would exclude "self-caused," but not random.

Incidentally, there are machines that make use of indeterminacy. Most of electronics does.

In that case, the machines are going beyond the mechanistic. I would think that if an event is indeterminate, no cause is specified or definable. I don't think a scientific theory needs to say "A caused B to happen" (seek a mechanistic explanation). It just needs to have a definition of what's being tested for, and empirical protocols to test for it. That definition may be a hypothesis, a theory, or just a question like "does it work?" So, we differ there.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

An atheist, almost by definition, does not understand God

And the theist making such a statement is hoping that no one notices that they skipped over the hard part of demonstrating that there is anything at all that needs to be understood.

and cannot be regarded as authoritative on the subject.

God as an axiom might be the minimal characterization if God were a proposition, but as he/she/it isn't, it's not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"The biggest problem with a lot of ESP research is it isn't reproducible. That is, one scientist may get results that another scientist can't get by replicating the experiment with different subjects."

This is what I meant by a spurious reason for rejecting the evidence -- an excuse, really, not an honest reason. Unless one is presenting telepathy is a universal ability like being able to tie your shoes, there is no reason to expect that it should be shown by all random samplings of test subjects, any more than we should expect a random sampling of people off the street all to be able to compose a symphony or run a four-minute mile.

A paragon of special pleading if ever there was such a thing.

That's actually quite obvious, and so when I see an objection like this being raised, it tells me that someone is not honestly evaluating the studies.

Noting that the studies are never, ever reproducible is being completely honest.

Why is that? My hypothesis: because the data, if accepted, would seem to require a belief in the supernatural.

"And just for that special flavor, add just a dash of conspiracy theory."

Present a non-supernatural and coherent model of the phenomenon, and this objection disappears.

Uhmmm. You seemed to have skipped the hard part. Show that there actually is a phenomenon that needs a model.

It will then be possible for the scientific community to evaluate the data without bias. But it's the responsibility of parapsychologists to come up with such a model, not that of scientists in other fields, and they haven't. Their bad.

Not really "their bad" because there is nothing there to be explained. Being unable to explain how unicorns fly is not a failure of the believers' skills or focus.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Wikipedia is demonstrably a haven for science dogmatism. I reported above on this. I guess we need to keep this in mind when relying on it. No neutral statements about scientific research into the paranormal are allowed if it conflicts with the opinions of people like The Amazing Randi and the editors of The Scientific Inquirer. Wikipedia is certainly an instance of the dominance of a traditional materialist worldview in our society.

I suspect Vandal is one of the watchdogs on wikipedia to preserve the orthodox view.

Never hurts to couch your lies in weasel words, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is incorrect. A hypothesis is a tentative model, and a model is a belief.



That's a question. Turn it into a statement and you have a hypothesis, and also a belief. However, enough data exist to develop a model of telepathy that goes beyond the above bare-bones version, e.g.:

The phenomenon is describable as an alteration of probability involved in the indeterminate firing of synapses in the brain of the telepath.

Please cite a source that measures these probabilities of indeterminate firing of synapses.

The "sender" impacts the brain of the "receiver" in this way and produces an effect, which can manifest in two ways. One, it increases the chance of the receiver "guessing" what the sender is sending from a fixed set of possibilities, producing a statistically significant but not terribly useful outcome.

Yep. If you run the test 100 times, by golly you get a few trials that turn out to be statistically significant.

Proper double blind with no data peeking? Effect always, always disappears. Always.

And two, it produces an emotional impact on the receiver which corresponds with the emotional state or sensory experiences of the sender, allowing the receiver to know what the sender is feeling with much higher reliability than the cognitive effect on tests such as card-guessing. The same phenomenon may allow for further applications such as psychological healing, since it appears to be a brain-to-brain effect and not something like vision or other passive perception. Finally, the same phenomenon in general (probability alteration) may allow for other effects, on indeterminate processes other than those in the brain.

All probability alterations are not created equal. Why exactly would "probability alterations" in synapse function have any sort of effect on a dice roll or random number generator?

Here we have not merely a bald statement of what is being looked for, but an actual model, which allows predictions to be made and further experimentation to be conducted as guided by those predictions. This sort of thing is what parapsychologists should have been doing once the initial results were in.

They did. There was no there, there. But, some people really, really wanted it to be true because book sales depended on it. So, decades later we keep hearing about these amazing discoveries that are perpetually on the horizon. It's the same story we hear from cold fusion advocates, creationists, and other eternal cranks.

Instead, they published those initial results, met with skepticism, and gave up (or else repeated the same efforts in the hope that stronger evidence would lead to more acceptance).

Whether beliefs are relevant to the research depends on whether they can be stated in operational form, like the above. If they can, they should be, and should be used to make predictions that will guide further testing. Science isn't just empirical. It's an interaction between ideas about what is observed, and observation itself. A "belief" of the religious-belief type, believed just because one wants to, has no place in science, but informed beliefs that are subject to empirical verification most certainly do.

Too bad ESP has failed every empirical verification test.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Parapsychology results can be reducible, but not with the same reliability as with technology. Psi isn't technology, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and can't be useful.

Exactly how useful is something that only sometimes happens and it is impossible to predict when it will?

I don't know if I'm going to get a psychic impression from my Mom indicating how she's doing. But it would be useful if it happens!

And how would you tell the difference between a real Psi event and you just imagining the impression?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Parapsychology results can be reducible, but not with the same reliability as with technology. Psi isn't technology, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and can't be useful. I don't know if I'm going to get a psychic impression from my Mom indicating how she's doing. But it would be useful if it happens!

OK. Can we do a test? I'll
1. Check San Jose's Lat/Lon values so I can point my eyes your way.
2. I'll play some 10 Years After to "get in the mood".
3. I'll send some thoughts towards San Jose on Tuesday.
4. You tell me what I thought

Well I don't claim to be a psychic Rags, but I'll keep this in mind.

This guy is worth listening to; another BANNED prophet speaking truth to power, and he really gets into it. I'm not a big proponent, and not a user, of psycho-active plants, but I like very much what he says about the war on consciousness and why transforming it toward spirit is so significant if we are to save our lives and our Earth.



And since I am so thoroughly attuned to music, I could not help but associate this talk with my favorite electronic ambient work which I have posted on this forum before: Totem by Klaus Schulze. This piece is paramount in its complete combining of the ancient shamanistic consciousness out of which our human society arose, with the more recent and sometimes-continuing psychedelic awakening that seeks to redeem us from the deadening, confining world where dreaming is not allowed, into a vastly more vibrant, richly colorful and alive state of consciousness. So here again is a link to this music which I think accompanies this talk so well.

http://youtu.be/2Rp2G2gAR4c

Graham Hancock on his (and Sheldrake) being BANNED on TED by the scientific materialist mindset orthodoxy, the Vandal mindset that dominates our society, and their thoughtpolicemen such as Vandal, the Skeptical Inquirer and the editors of wikipedia.

http://youtu.be/DoG4XmEZsXc

Graham Hancock is a fiery Boomer, Aug.2, 1950
Rupert Sheldrake is a mellow Silent (or air raid) June 28, 1942 (both from the UK)

Graham in the second half of the talk revs up his prophetic tale. He asks, what is death? Materialist science says we are just meat; there is no life after death, we just rot. But some scientists know that consciousness is the great mystery in science; the brain is more like a TV set receiving a signal than a generator. We are immortal souls incarnated into these physical forms to learn, grow and develop. The materialists have nothing to tell us about this mystery at all; the ancient Egyptians came to the conclusion that we do survive death, and we'll have to answer for what we have done, so we need to make the most of this life. They highly valued dream states, and used the water lily and an acacia plant that contained DMT, the same active ingredient found in Ayahuasca. It's difficult to imagine a more different society from Egypt than the USA today. We hate visionary states, and we insult people by calling them dreamers. We put DMT users in jail, even though it's a natural brain hormone, and even though huge industries are built around substances to alter states of consciousness that don't contradict the normal, approved alert problem-solving state of consciousness, which is good for science, war, commerce and politics. But a society over-based on this model is hollow, is broken in every sense; we urgently need something to replace it. The global pollution resulting from the single-minded pursuit of profit, the horrors of nuclear proliferation, the spectre of hunger, the lungs of our planet being cut down so we can feed cattle so we can all eat hamburgers; only a truly insane global state of consciousness could allow such an abomination to occur. We spend countless billions on hatred, but we can't save the Amazon. When I ask shamans about the sickness of the West, they say it's quite simple. You guys have severed your connection with spirit. Unless you reconnect soon, you will bring the whole house of cards down on you, and us. So they are bringing Ayahuasca to us, and its message of the sacred magical enchanted precious nature of life on Earth and the interdependence of material and spiritual realms. And Ayahuasca is not alone; it's part of a worldwide system of careful alteration of consciousness. What it's all about is to find balance and harmony with the universe, to remain mindful that what we are here on Earth to undertake is a spiritual journey to perfect the soul and reclaim the origins of what made us human. There's a war on consciousness, and we must be allowed our freedom over our own consciousness, for the sake of our continued evolution and destiny.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well I don't claim to be a psychic Rags, but I'll keep this in mind.

Ah, but I was just trying to help. That Snidely Whiplash Vandal's at it again, panning your posts.

Here's the song I went through a bit of trouble to find which does induce mellowness to Rags. [Hey, do myself in 3rd person to make Brian cool.]



I think you remember Snidely Whiplash, right?

Music for ambiance [from new post]. Oh, you bet. Groovy music is called "groovy" 'cause it gets you in the groove.


Hmmm... oddd Right after this post, this came in

Originally Posted by Eric

This guy is worth listening to; another BANNED prophet speaking truth to power, and he really gets into it. I'm not a big proponent, and not a user, of psycho-active plants

I highly recommend them. I'd like to abolish the DEA. They're such a drag. I bet I could grow some mighty fine weed.

I just saw this today, a video with Rupert Sheldrake about his banned TED talk, which became the most discussed talk in TED history. Quoting Rupert Sheldrake: "They also have in the Skeptical Inquirer last year, I subscribe to it because I feel to need to know what they're up to, there was an article by a woman skeptic, advocating skeptics get involved in their campaign to make sure that wikipedia reflects what they see as the true scientific position on things like telepathy and pseudoscience. And they have lots of people, a significant number of dedicated activists working in wikipedia making sure that in every possible way it reflects the materialist and skeptic point of view; and they've learned the rules, they've become expert editors and they've infiltrated wikipedia because, as they argued in the Skeptical Inquirer, this is where most children and students get their information from, and indeed where most people get their information from. So it's very important for them that it reflects the skeptic point of view. So they've had a determined campaign, and I think it's probably a small group of activists, but very proactive, whereas people who work in psychical research or in other branches of more unconventional science haven't been spending their time trying to influence the media; they've been getting on with doing their research.... this kind of scornful, aggressive, dismissive style of polemic was already well in place in the 19th century; nothing much has changed really..."

That's why corrections to dogmatic statements on wikipedia pages are not allowed, obviously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo (remarks about wikipedia @ about 9:50 minutes)

Here is a neat video that explains the best world view as far as we know now; refuting the Vandal and the Bob Butler paradigms. Will they be able to face the falsehood of their worldviews? Will they stay values-locked? Will they continue to be soldiers in the war against consciousness, and officers in the reality police department (along with TED and wikipedia)? Only they can say!



“There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”


― Ronald A. Knox

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

So, decades later we keep hearing about these amazing discoveries that are perpetually on the horizon. It's the same story we hear from cold fusion advocates, creationists, and other eternal cranks.

This is a key observation. The UFO example is most illustrative. UFOs started being seen regularly in the 1940's and have been ever since. In reading I did when I was a kid, already then the record included all sort of evidence including nighttime sightings, daytime sighting, radar detection, etc.. All these things were already being reported in the 1940's.

These sightings are still going on today, seven decades later. Now during this time our observational capacity has grown tremendously, as has our ability to document sightings. Surely if it was possible for the crude radar of the 1940's and 1950's to detect these things (as reports of radar detection implied) todays far more advanced detection measures should have characterized these things by now. That they remain on the frothy edge of detection mean they should not have been detected at all back then. Thus the observations back then prove that what was apparently detected then does not exist. It's like the channels on Mars. Subsequent observation under higher resolution showed that what appeared to exist in 1877 did not, in fact, exist.

There were human sightings in the past that had considerable detail. The corresponding reports today would be clear video and images. The stuff I saw in Eric's links looks just like the photos of for or five decades ago. Believable detailed visual observations are no longer reported because any such report would be naturally be accompanied by the corresponding video showing all those details. The absence of clear-cut video evidence today means that the apparent detailed observations of the past like Schiaparelli's canali were not real.

That is the observations of the past that created the who belief system in UFOs were illusions. Had the Martian canali not been mistakenly observed, the whole Men from Mars mythology would never have arisen and there would be no War of the Worlds novel and cinema. Similarly had the mistaken UFO observations not been made back then, there might have been no UFO mythology.

In other words, the resolution of UFO observation has remained the same despite a vast gain in the precision of the observation apparatus. This doesn't not happen with real things. Something that is detected at low-resolution observations becomes resolved under high-resolution observations.

The same thing has happened to the Bermuda triangle. Once a story of strange disappearances could be told, but in today's world of GPS we know when ships and planes are when accidents happen and there can be no mysterious "limbo of the lost". The exception (Flight 370) proves the case. What made this lost plane story so riveting was that planes simply don't disappear anymore. Flight 370 had turned off the transponder that provides locational data and so was actually hiding when it was lost. Had the plane not been hiding, searchers would have known right away where the plane was when it went down.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Reproducibility is necessary to avoid artifacts.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but all demands for reproducibility have to be realistic in terms of the subject matter. We expect a planetary orbit to remain constant for all observers every time, and that's what "reproducibility" means in that context. But we don't expect all eggs laid by a bird to hatch. That doesn't mean the eggs don't give rise to new birds; it's just the nature of the subject matter that it isn't as perfectly "reproducible" as a planetary orbit.

No. The fallacy of that objection in this context is obvious and it's therefore obviously an excuse, not a reason. But that's fine. As I said, parapsychologists failed in their duty to come up with a good model of what they were studying that avoided the supernatural. Asking psychologists and biologists and physicists to reject one of the primary assumptions that allow science to be done was even more unrealistic than expecting parapsychology experiments (or those of psychology, for that matter) to show the same degree and perfection of reproducibility as an experiment in physics.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Please cite a source that measures these probabilities of indeterminate firing of synapses.

Why?

Proper double blind with no data peeking? Effect always, always disappears. Always.

Please cite a source that references literally every proper double blind ESP test ever conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever.

All probability alterations are not created equal. Why exactly would "probability alterations" in synapse function have any sort of effect on a dice roll or random number generator?

Finally, an intelligent question! Thanks!

The idea here is that probability alteration isn't limited to synapses; it impacts synapses only because their firing is indeterminate. Other indeterminate processes could also be impacted by the same principle.

They did.

No, they didn't.

T
Too bad ESP has failed every empirical verification test.

Please cite a source that shows every empirical verification test of ESP conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever. (Actually if you start that process, you'll find that in many cases it did NOT fail to show up, which is why there is any argument about it at all.)

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

And the theist making such a statement is hoping that no one notices that they skipped over the hard part of demonstrating that there is anything at all that needs to be understood.

What is meant by "God" is certainly something that needs to be understood -- and that you don't.

God is not a proposition. Proof is relevant only for propositions. Proof is not relevant for God.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We expect a planetary orbit to remain constant for all observers every time, and that's what "reproducibility" means in that context.

That is not an example of reproducibility.

But we don't expect all eggs laid by a bird to hatch. That doesn't mean the eggs don't give rise to new birds; it's just the nature of the subject matter that it isn't as perfectly "reproducible" as a planetary orbit.

This is irrelevant.

expecting parapsychology experiments (or those of psychology, for that matter) to show the same degree and perfection of reproducibility as an experiment in physics.

Reproducibility has nothing to do with precision or predictability or the accuracy of a model. Reproducibility is about honesty. A reproducible result is like a faithful partner. If he says he has your back, then he has your back. You can trust him, take him on faith.

To do science you have to trust others. If someone says they have established that X happens 50% of the time when you do Y, you can have faith that if you take the time to do Y you will get an X fairly quickly. Otherwise you would not waste your time.

A scientific result that doesn't work as advertised (i.e. you don't get the results claimed) is no good. You cannot build on that, you are just wasting your time.

A valid result for telepathy would be an experimental protocol that takes the "wiggly nature" of telepathy into account. Presumably the ability must come and go at erratic intervals. Otherwise it would be easy to evaluate experimentally. So a successful protocol would have to take full account of its erratic nature. The psi researcher would have to work at it for a long time to get a protocol that works to demonstrate the reality of this thing (i.e. delivers the goods). The proof comes when others use his protocol and it works as advertised, it is reproducible.

An experiment that is not reproducible means one of two things: (1) the phenomenon does not exist or (2) it does exist; the psi researcher needs to develop a better protocol.

No matter how "wiggly" is the beast you wish to study, if it is real, you can come up with a protocol for studying it that will be reproducible,provided you work long hard enough and are clever enough.

Developing a protocol that works may be really really hard. The problem may eventually defeat the researcher, and it will lie until someone else decides to take a crack at it. If a potentially very interesting phenomenon like telepathy has lain dormant for a long long time, this means either there is nothing there (in which case its not worth studying) or it's really hard, making it a very risky project (unlikely to yield results).

If ESP abilities have been proven as you claim, there is no need to develop an explanation. One can go directly to applications. A number of ESP abilities could be used to obtain an edge in a variety of arenas like financial trading. All you need is a single psi multimillionaire and you would unleash of torrent of interest in scientific study.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That is not an example of reproducibility.

Of course it is. The claim is that an observation of the orbit of, say, Mars will find it in certain positions relative to certain stars at certain times of a roughly four-year period. Every single observation of Mars will confirm this prediction. The experiment of pointing a telescope at Mars at certain times and observing certain things is perfectly repeatable every time.

This is irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant. We must adjust our expectations of repeatability to the subject matter and what can reasonably be expected of it. We expect perfect repeatability when it comes to pointing our telescopes at Mars. We don't with respect to eggs hatching, but we do expect that a certain percentage of them will hatch, so that if one of them doesn't that doesn't cause us to reconsider our theory, but if none of them do, that would.

The subject matter of psi research isn't the kind that would allow a random sampling of people off the street to demonstrate measurable psi abilities in every case. Expecting it to do so is not reasonable.

Reproducibility is about honesty.

Not entirely. No one has suggested, as far as I know, that parapsychologists are dishonest, or that the cold fusion chemists deliberately falsified their data, or anything like that. True, repeating an experiment does correct for such deliberate dishonesty, but it also corrects for honest error and statistical anomaly.

If ESP abilities have been proven as you claim, there is no need to develop an explanation. One can go directly to applications.

Actually, a workable theory would be needed before applications could be developed. But in any case, science is not conducted by automatons, but by human beings with emotional reactions, and it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to have a negative reaction to experimental results that seem to call upon them to believe in fairy tales.

Isaac Asimov once wrote an essay called "My Built-In Doubter." I can't remember the exact chemical examples he cited in the beginning, so I may get this wrong, but here's essentially what he said.

If someone told him that he had a kilo of pure iron oxide, he'd say, "That's nice," and take it at face value without even bothering to check it.

If someone told him that he had a kilo of pure [something] oxide [this is the part I'm fuzzy about] he'd say, "You do? Really? Where?!!" and he'd run very extensive tests before using any of it in an experiment.

If someone told him that he had a kilo of pure americium oxide, he'd say "You're crazy," and not even consider the prospect worth a look.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is not logically sound, and is often an excuse to reject any proof as not sufficiently "extraordinary," but it's the way the mind works. The more serious the change in the body of theory that a result calls for, the more strenuously it will be resisted. When, as in the case of psi, the researchers don't even dare SAY what those changes are, and the default belief is that they are showing the existence of the supernatural, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. If psi could be accounted for as a result of known functions of the brain, the evidence to date would have been more than sufficient for its acceptance. If it had been accounted for as a result of a radical addition to current theory, but without resorting to the supernatural (which I believe to be the case), it would have prompted a lot more funding and effort. The state of affairs as they are is due to the fact that it can't be accounted for in terms of something already established, and it hasn't been accounted for in terms of a radical addition to current theory. As such, it's nothing but a curious anomaly without either application or scientific merit -- and that's the fault of the parapsychologists themselves, who have been too timid about developing coherent theories.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There were human sightings in the past that had considerable detail. The corresponding reports today would be clear video and images. The stuff I saw in Eric's links looks just like the photos of four or five decades ago. Believable detailed visual observations are no longer reported because any such report would be naturally be accompanied by the [FONT=arial]corresponding video showing all those details. The absence of clear-cut video evidence today means that the apparent detailed observations of the [SIZE=2]past like [COLOR=#000000]Schiaparelli's canali were not real.

I would agree, except that I have seen plenty of such clear pictures. They don't seem to be easy to find on you tube though. It's hard to navigate through all the trash there. We also have eyewitness reports, claims of artifacts recovered, and so on. No doubt the issue remains unresolved, and probably will for some time, but this is also because UFOs disrupt the prevailing paradigm about travel through space, in a way that canals or no canals on Mars or the Bermuda triangle might not have done.

Some of these legends are disproven; even many of them. But Big Foot is another one that is still out there despite all this supposed progress in our observation. This Big Foot anomaly though, is also not nearly so disruptive to current paradigms of science as the UFO phenomenon might be. It is subject to many instances of cover up. It not only disrupts the authority of the current paradigm, but could cause public panic and a possible lost war with the aliens if ever allowed to go public.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ah, but I was just trying to help. That Snidely Whiplash Vandal's at it again, panning your posts.

Here's the song I went through a bit of trouble to find which does induce mellowness to Rags. [Hey, do myself in 3rd person to make Brian cool.]



I think you remember Snidely Whiplash, right?

Music for ambiance [from new post]. Oh, you bet. Groovy music is called "groovy" 'cause it gets you in the groove.

I listened to your post. It's safely within the 2T boundary, so safe to listen to, and that group has a song on my Top 400 (I'd Like to Change the World).

Now, will you listen to the piece I posted above your post, which combines the ancient shamanic consciousness with that of today's psychedelic revolution? ("Totem" by Klaus Schulze) This foundational, classic piece of cosmic rock is more mellow than the 10 Years After song, but you need to make due allowance for the fact that what is "mellow ambience" to you is the outer limit of "hard rock" to me, and that what is mellow ambience to me is considerably softer. But this piece revs up as it goes along. It is a trance-inducing dance.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I listened to your post. It's safely within the 2T boundary, so safe to listen to, and that group has a song on my Top 400 (I'd Like to Change the World).

Yup. I also sent you a message while listening to the song , just right now. Let's see how this ESP thing goes. I'm not "blinded by science". Science ain't the right tool for this. Here's what I did.
I set the song "One of These Days" to play, turned S of due West to lock into San Diego. I closed my eyes , concentrated, and sent you a message. I won't say what the message was of course. It's for you to look for. Now of course again, I'm not blinded by science.
You may not have received the message for some reason or other. ESP is just one of those things that "beyond the abilities of mankind's synthetic knowledge." Actually, I think such post modern default dogmatic adherence to the notion that we know all there to know" to be the height of hubris, myself, IMHO. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone through the bother of sending you a message.

Now, will you listen to the piece I posted above your post, which combines the ancient shamanic consciousness with that of today's psychedelic revolution? ("Totem" by Klaus Schulze) This foundational, classic piece of cosmic rock is more mellow than the 10 Years After song, but you need to make due allowance for the fact that what is "mellow ambience" to you is the outer limit of "hard rock" to me, and that what is mellow ambience to me is considerably softer. But this piece revs up as it goes along. It is a trance-inducing dance.

Yes, I did. It's actually not bad. It's better than JB tripe by far.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why?

Because you claimed that ESP alters such things. If you can't even demonstrate an ability to just measure their existence how can you possibly claim that ESP alters them.

Please cite a source that references literally every proper double blind ESP test ever conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Two words: Google Scholar

BTW: I note that you chose to avoid providing evidence for your claims and instead rebutted with a change of subject. Pure red herring.

Finally, an intelligent question! Thanks!

The idea here is that probability alteration isn't limited to synapses;

Translation: idea = imaginary

it impacts synapses only because their firing is indeterminate.

You keep using the word indeterminate. Every time you do, it becomes more and more apparent that you really don't understand what the word means in this context.

Other indeterminate processes could also be impacted by the same principle.

What the hell is an "indeterminate process"?

No, they didn't.

You claim the phenomenon exists. Provide evidence. Provide evidence that properly controlled experiments can conclusively demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon.

Put up, or shut up.

Please cite a source that shows every empirical verification test of ESP conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever. (Actually if you start that process, you'll find that in many cases it did NOT fail to show up, which is why there is any argument about it at all.)

Scientific journals do not waste publishing space for repeatedly negative results. What would the article titles be if they did? "ESP Continues to Not Exist: Part 38"

Every one of your "NOT fails" has been shown to be the result of poor experimental set ups (improper controls) or blatant statistical fraud (data peeking and massive trial repetitions). When replicated with proper experimental and statistical protocols the phenomenon promptly disappears.

Do you honestly think there is a single neuroscientist who would refuse to research something, that if real, would be a paradigm shaking discovery? Your crank-conspiracy gland is pushing too much Oliver Stone juice!