owl Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? I offered two sources of scientific study of consciousness awhile back in a discussion with the Cap'n. One was Lynne McTaggart's compilation of many different experiments edited into "The Intention Experiment." I cautioned that this body of experiments is not well accepted by "peer review" from, shall I say, hard core material scientists, like the physicists on this forum. Yet I find many of them very well done experiments confirming the effect of "consciousness" as "intention" in a wide variety of situations. I also mentioned "The Journal of Consciousness Studies," which has a mix of contributors including brain phsysicians/ scientists and others more open to the possibility of consciousness as an agent of some kind of force. I will not make an opening essay of this, but I do wonder how "entangled particles" communicate with each other "at a distance" and how the many claims of "healing" by intention at a distance can all be "explained away" by physicists who simply exclude the possibility and will not critique the experiments. I suggest that "The Intention Experiment" be required reading for participation in this thread. (But I know that will not happen. It would simply make a more intelligent conversation of this thread.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'd be glad to read the work. Got a link for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'd be glad to read the work. Got a link for me? I've got a hard copy of it so not familiar with net availability, but here is one link: http://www.firstload.com/?uniq=5324f35a7da50191&log=47382&fn=mctaggart+intention+experiment+pdf Wikipedia has surface coverage, as do other sites. Just search around for the full text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? I offered two sources of scientific study of consciousness awhile back in a discussion with the Cap'n. One was Lynne McTaggart's compilation of many different experiments edited into "The Intention Experiment." I cautioned that this body of experiments is not well accepted by "peer review" from, shall I say, hard core material scientists, like the physicists on this forum. Yet I find many of them very well done experiments confirming the effect of "consciousness" as "intention" in a wide variety of situations. I also mentioned "The Journal of Consciousness Studies," which has a mix of contributors including brain phsysicians/ scientists and others more open to the possibility of consciousness as an agent of some kind of force. I will not make an opening essay of this, but I do wonder how "entangled particles" communicate with each other "at a distance" and how the many claims of "healing" by intention at a distance can all be "explained away" by physicists who simply exclude the possibility and will not critique the experiments. I suggest that "The Intention Experiment" be required reading for participation in this thread. (But I know that will not happen. It would simply make a more intelligent conversation of this thread.) Alright owl so I've spent some time reading about the "Intention Experiment" and Lynne McTaggart's work. It is my opinion that most if this is nonsensical quantum pseudoscience. Most of the things I've found involved the measurement of so called "bio photons", well known quackery. Many biological molecules do emit photons, atoms and molecules that happen to be in a biological organism are often excited thermally or by incoming photons, and said excited states decay with radiative transitions. But there is nothing special about these photons. The fact that anyone claims that biological molecules can be made to emit more photons per second (or more watts which is energy/time, called power) by thought alone is ludicrous and blatantly violates thermodynamic laws. It's beyond bad science really. Claims of healing at a distance are ludicrous as well. Asking the question, "can we heal someone by intention alone from a distance" is even an ill-defined question. There is no conceivable mechanism of how that would occur. How do you quantify peoples "intention"? How do you quantify "healing"? One would think that much more fundamental research should need to be conducted first before such questions could be addressed. Consciousness must be a material thing. There is no evidence otherwise. But why must it be a "force"? Isn't that an awfully anthropocentric assumption that the universe would work in such a human like way? Look out, there is a lot of quantum consciousness pseudoscience out there. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? That's a nice false dichotomy you've got yourself there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 It is my opinion that most if this is nonsensical quantum pseudoscience.[/Quote] As expected. me: I cautioned that this body of experiments is not well accepted by "peer review" from, shall I say, hard core material scientists, like the physicists on this forum. Most of the things I've found involved the measurement of so called "bio photons", well known quackery. This was a relatively small part of the many experiments in the book. Did you bother to read the book or did you just cherry pick the more easily dismissed material? Claims of healing at a distance are ludicrous as well. Asking the question, "can we heal someone by intention alone from a distance" is even an ill-defined question. There is no conceivable mechanism of how that would occur. How do you quantify peoples "intention"? How do you quantify "healing"? Control groups were compared with groups targeted for healing intention. Significant differences were found. Read the book. What "mechanism" do you conceive for how entangled particles "communicate" at a distance?... yet they do. Consciousness must be a material thing. There is no evidence otherwise. But why must it be a "force"? Isn't that an awfully anthropocentric assumption that the universe would work in such a human like way? It "must" huh? There are a lot of recorded instances in which, when a loved one died or had a severe trauma, a relative (spouse, family member, etc.) "knew" at a distance prior to being informed by the usual means. The fact that these depend on personal testimony does not make them false or the testimony lies. Nor does science calling it all ridiculous nonsense make it so. Look out, there is a lot of quantum consciousness pseudoscience out there. Quite true. There is also a lot of completely closed mindedness about the whole subject by hard core materialists like you... who, as I said, "simply exclude the possibility and will not critique the experiments"... or allow that the reams of testimony might be true. That's a nice false dichotomy you've got yourself there. Wiki on epiphenomenon: An epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot affect a primary phenomenon. In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental phenomena are epiphenomena in that they can be caused by physical phenomena, but cannot cause physical phenomena. In strong epiphenomenalism, epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can only be caused by physical phenomena, not by other mental phenomena. In weak epiphenomenalism, epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can be caused by both physical phenomena and other mental phenomena, but mental phenomena cannot be the cause of any physical phenomenon. The physical world operates independently of the mental world in epiphenomenalism; the mental world exists as a derivative parallel world to the physical world, affected by the physical world (and by other epiphenomena in weak epiphenomenalism), but not able to have an effect on the physical world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 There are a lot of recorded instances in which, when a loved one died or had a severe trauma, a relative (spouse, family member, etc.) "knew" at a distance prior to being informed by the usual means. The fact that these depend on personal testimony does not make them false or the testimony lies. Nor does science calling it all ridiculous nonsense make it so. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence. Unless you systematically record all thoughts of these and other people to record the false positives and negatives, such information is scientifically worthless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) As expected. Same to ya. This was a relatively small part of the many experiments in the book. Did you bother to read the book or did you just cherry pick the more easily dismissed material? Nope, I read wikipedia and the good doctor's website. If you want to mail me a copy of the book, or buy me one, my address is... Control groups were compared with groups targeted for healing intention. Significant differences were found. Read the book. How do you know what anyone's intention was? How is it quantified? What "mechanism" do you conceive for how entangled particles "communicate" at a distance?... yet they do. You're understanding of quantum entanglement is fundamentally flawed. Go read a physics book. Mathematical abstraction will be required. If you didn't like Minkowski space and it's lack of ontology...boy will you have fun with Hilbert space. It "must" huh? There are a lot of recorded instances in which, when a loved one died or had a severe trauma, a relative (spouse, family member, etc.) "knew" at a distance prior to being informed by the usual means. The fact that these depend on personal testimony does not make them false or the testimony lies. Nor does science calling it all ridiculous nonsense make it so. *bold mine Again, how is this quantified? Burden of proof is on you. You're making the extraordinary claim. Quite true. There is also a lot of completely closed mindedness about the whole subject by hard core materialists like you... As a scientist I take that as a high honor, the materialist part. How are you not closed minded to my argument? Let's not pull out the "closed minded" card just yet. Save that one for later after you've exhausted your argument tool kit. I am in fact closed minded to science that offers no quantitative evidence. I refuse to even hear it. It is nonsense. Owl, you clearly have no understanding of physics and have a disdain for mainstream science. Why do you keep coming to a science site and trying to explain physics to physics people? What evidence compels you to the conclusion that the intention experiment has any merit at all? You've presented none so far. Edited February 13, 2012 by mississippichem 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon? I offered two sources of scientific study of consciousness awhile back in a discussion with the Cap'n. One was Lynne McTaggart's compilation of many different experiments edited into "The Intention Experiment." I cautioned that this body of experiments is not well accepted by "peer review" from, shall I say, hard core material scientists, like the physicists on this forum. Yet I find many of them very well done experiments confirming the effect of "consciousness" as "intention" in a wide variety of situations. I also mentioned "The Journal of Consciousness Studies," which has a mix of contributors including brain phsysicians/ scientists and others more open to the possibility of consciousness as an agent of some kind of force. I will not make an opening essay of this, but I do wonder how "entangled particles" communicate with each other "at a distance" and how the many claims of "healing" by intention at a distance can all be "explained away" by physicists who simply exclude the possibility and will not critique the experiments. I suggest that "The Intention Experiment" be required reading for participation in this thread. (But I know that will not happen. It would simply make a more intelligent conversation of this thread.) Oh good, a discussion of consciousness.. Much progress is to be expected. Edited February 14, 2012 by DrRocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence. Unless you systematically record all thoughts of these and other people to record the false positives and negatives, such information is scientifically worthless. Have you read The Intention Experiment in preparation for an intelligent critique or are you just popping off with your usual expertise on everything, including consciousness studies? (A rhetorical question.) -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Have you read The Intention Experiment in preparation for an intelligent critique or are you just popping off with your usual expertise on everything, including consciousness studies? (A rhetorical question.) You don't need to be an expert in whatever quackery you're promoting to know that what you described in no way constitutes evidence. That happens to be a fairly basic tenant of science and is not at all restricted to one or another discipline. The only purpose that I could see for reading a book or series of 'studies' that uses anecdotes as evidence is for amusement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Nope, I read wikipedia and the good doctor's website. If you want to mail me a copy of the book, or buy me one, my address is... I think that the link I gave was the whole book free for 10 minutes or so of patience for downloading. I didn't try it, since I already have the book. How do you know what anyone's intention was? How is it quantified? I know because I read the book. The parameters of "intention" were very well defined and controlled. It was "qualified" by past history resumes and recent tests in some cases, not "quantified" as if you could read a force on an ammeter, though immediate results of intention were often well documented as contrasted with control subjects or objects. You're understanding of quantum entanglement is fundamentally flawed. Go read a physics book. Mathematical abstraction will be required. If you didn't like Minkowski space and it's lack of ontology...boy will you have fun with Hilbert space. So this is your "I'm superior" dodge of the question, "How do entangled particles communicate at a distance?" Then you have no need for an intelligent answer. Again, how is this quantified? Burden of proof is on you. You're making the extraordinary claim. Ref to "this"; my: There are a lot of recorded instances in which, when a loved one died or had a severe trauma, a relative (spouse, family member, etc.) "knew" at a distance prior to being informed by the usual means. The fact that these depend on personal testimony does not make them false or the testimony lies. Nor does science calling it all ridiculous nonsense make it so. It is not "quantified" except by the vast number of such accounts over a vast history from many cultures. You can call all of it lies, but that is highly unlikely and merely reflects your absolute materialist bias. To my: There is also a lot of completely closed mindedness about the whole subject by hard core materialists like you... you reply: As a scientist I take that as a high honor, the materialist part. How are you not closed minded to my argument? Let's not pull out the "closed minded" card just yet. Save that one for later after you've exhausted your argument tool kit. I am in fact closed minded to science that offers no quantitative evidence. I refuse to even hear it. It is nonsense. You are "honored" to outright deny the truth of the testimony of multitudes because you simply don't think it is possible? Moreover you, "... refuse to even hear it. It is nonsense." Period. Conclusion without a fair "hearing." Bad science! Extreme bias! Owl, you clearly have no understanding of physics and have a disdain for mainstream science. Why do you keep coming to a science site and trying to explain physics to physics people? I have studied "consciousness" all my life. This is not the physics section. Philosophy is permitted to ask what consciousness is and what merit ther might be in experiments on its effects, both within a "conscious" person (for self healing, for instance) and beyond, as in the disputed volume of experiments. What evidence compels you to the conclusion that the intention experiment has any merit at all? You've presented none so far. I thought most of the volume was a record of such "evidence." Of course, if you haven't read it, you have not even considered the evidence presented. Yet you spout your vile contempt for the whole subject. Oh good, a discussion of consciousness.. Much progress is to be expected. Just as expected. Another arrogant, condescending insult from the rocket doctor. No comment on the substance of the argument, as always. But, of course, studies of consciousness are not real science, like in rocket science. So it is all pseudoscience. Thanks, Doc. Please don't waste your time or mine posting in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Instead of spouting on about how people haven't read this book of yours and therefore have no idea what they're on about, how about you give us a precis on what you believe is the most significant experiments and the 'evidence' that they present, etc? You can't possibly expect people to continue a conversation where your only counter argument is, 'read the book' (that being said, I suppose you did manage to carry on in a similar fashion for over 20 pages in another thread). The onus is on you to back up your claims, not us. I have studied "consciousness" all my life. This is not the physics section. Philosophy is permitted to ask what consciousness is and what merit ther might be in experiments on its effects, both within a "conscious" person (for self healing, for instance) and beyond, as in the disputed volume of experiments. I find this to be intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter what section you try to hide it in, what you are trying to present here are scientific studies on consciousness (your words, not mine). If these are indeed 'scientific studies', then it follows that they must meet the same standard of scientific rigor that every other scientific study is held to. It doesn't matter how many times you bring up the same tired and circular arguments, philosophy really doesn't come into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Have you read The Intention Experiment in preparation for an intelligent critique or are you just popping off with your usual expertise on everything, including consciousness studies? (A rhetorical question.) I did not comment on anything that requires knowledge of consciousness studies. I merely pointed out a shortcoming of "There are a lot of recorded instances". You could have chosen to respond with some science, but you chose an ad hominem instead. An "all hat, no cattle" approach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Oh good, a discussion of consciousness.. Much progress is to be expected. Good luck. Owl started the thread with a false dichotomy and experience tells me that he cares neither for logic nor evidence. This thread will most likely be garbage. A note for the quantum woo people, entanglement doesn't work anything like what they tell you. The entanglement is broken with the measurement of the entangled state. Also, there's no "push this one and the other one moves" in entanglement contrary to what "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" would tell you. No information is transmitted faster than c. If you don't believe me, I'm sure swansont will be happy to pound it into the ground for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 ! Moderator Note owl, ad hominem arguments are not permitted within our rules, please do not partake in such actions.You can review the rules you agreed to follow here.Please do not respond to this modnote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Just as expected. Another arrogant, condescending insult from the rocket doctor. No comment on the substance of the argument, as always. But, of course, studies of consciousness are not real science, like in rocket science. So it is all pseudoscience. Thanks, Doc. Please don't waste your time or mine posting in this thread. If you were serious about consciousness as an area of study you would be studying Cognitive Neuroscience first not Philosophy. Empirical study should always precede Philosophical study in any given subject where possible imo...it's best not to build a house on sand. When I read somewhere, checking out her biography, that McTaggart and her husband consulted a homeopathic practitioner for some problem one of them had, that was her credibility out the window as far I was concerned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) I did read the experimental right-ups that were posted on the intent experiment website - as experimental summaries they wouldn't even pass muster for an school level student's right up. Various experiments themselves lacked proper controls, lacked randomisation, did not comment on consistency of treatment, and were not properly blinded. Very simple experimental techniques that every scientist uses when publishing on non-controversial matters were ignored (or not detailed) - when working on such a controversial and extraordinary subject it behoves the experimenter to be "whiter than white" and leave nothing to chance. mssssppchmst - a practising experimental scientist who lists qm as an interest - gives an opinion after noting that he has read Lynne McTaggert's stuff - and you dismiss it "as expected". that is insulting and uncalled for - the implication is a dogmatic refusal to accept alternative views, whereas the reality is an understanding of science. i have read up about lynne mctaggert since your initial post. As an example her interesting ideas on flu drugs (described here) are dangerous and pernicious lies: In WDDTY's 16-year lifetime alone, we've heard of anumber of microbial bogeymen: two predicted measles epidemics; mad cow disease; SARS; and meningitis C. All were false alarms. In none of these scares did mass- es of people die. However, in the case of measles and meningitis C, the entire population of British children was given ineffective or largely untried vaccines, which caused untold paralysis, damage and death. As a sole voice in the wilderness I don't give a monkeys what the deluded fool chooses to believe - but when she starts publishing garbage as above for the consumption of general public then the scientific community has the responsibility and the duty to call shennanigans. edit - spelling Edited February 14, 2012 by imatfaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Where to begin on specifics? McTaggart estimates that there are about 150 studies showing positive effects (more or less) of distant healing, not including demonstrations of telepathy independent of healing intention. She cites “the most cautious analysis of such results” by Edzard Earnst, “the exacting and skeptical” chair of complimentary medicine at Exeter University in Britain. Among the most “rigorously scientific “ (her words), those with double blind trials, he concluded that of 23 studies, 57% showed a statistically significant positive effect. A couple of brief statements on Edzard Earnst from Wiki: Since his research began on alternative modalities, Ernst has become "the scourge of alternative medicine" for publishing critical research that exposes methods that lack documentation of efficacy.... He has over 700 papers published in scientific journals.[1] He has said that about 5 percent of alternative medicine is backed by evidence,[7] with the remainder being either insufficiently studied or backed by evidence showing lack of efficacy. Seems that even one very rigorously controlled experiment with positive results would negate the null hypothesis, that there are no legitimate positive results. Btw, I had not intended my mention of the vast number of anecdotes for telepathic communication to be considered as experimental evidence, just a lot of testimonial support for the existence of telepathy as experience by a vast number of people, I being one among them. It's difficult to deny all of it without calling all of them liars on the assumption that it is obviously impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) “ Btw, I had not intended my mention of the vast number of anecdotes for telepathic communication to be considered as experimental evidence, just a lot of testimonial support for the existence of telepathy as experience by a vast number of people, I being one among them. It's difficult to deny all of it without calling all of them liars on the assumption that it is obviously impossible. i wouldn't call all of them liars...deluded by misinterpreting odd psychological experiences as psychic. When I used to take a variety of recreational substances, I experienced a lot of different "psychic" phenomena. Drugs taught me, particularly LSD, that our minds are a product of a machine...our brain...nothing more. Edited February 14, 2012 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Oh good, a discussion of consciousness.. Much progress is to be expected. Good luck. Owl started the thread with a false dichotomy and experience tells me that he cares neither for logic nor evidence. This thread will most likely be garbage. You might, just possibly, have detected a wee note of sarcasm in my statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You might, just possibly, have detected a wee note of sarcasm in my statement. Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) i wouldn't call all of them liars...deluded by misinterpreting odd psychological experiences as psychic. When I used to take a variety of recreational substances, I experienced a lot of different "psychic" phenomena. Drugs taught me, particularly LSD, that our minds are a product of a machine...our brain...nothing more. Regarding: ..."deluded by misinterpreting odd psychological experiences as psychic."... Note: The following is not presented as experimental evidence but rather merely experiential testimony in support of telepathy, or consciousness communicating at a distance. Though I am a retired psychologist, I can not speak for the multitudes who have shared anecdotes of personal telepathic experience, i.e., whether or not they are all deluded. I can, however, speak for myself from personal experience. I invite you to critique the following for how I might have been deluded by this "odd psychological experience." I had been camping for a week or so in a wilderness area far from home, way before cell phones... totally out of communication. A burning sensation began in my stomach, though my diet had been the same for a week with no problem. It got worse, very painful, in fact, and an image of my son in distress kept appearing in my visual cortex, not "seeing" him as an external presence. I finally hiked out and drove home to find that he was in the hospital with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer. There had been no previous episodes or indications of a stomach problem. How did I get that information? But, back to experimental evidence, regarding the Edzard Earnst summary of results cited abov... 57% of the most rigorously controlled 27 experiments showing statistically significant positive results... McTaggart footnotes the above as published in "Healing Research," by Benor. I have not yet checked them out, but I intend to do so, and I invite readers to do likewise. Edit; a link with sections on "Landmark Studies," "Recent Studies," and "Meta-analysis." : http://councilforhealing.org/ResearchOnHealing.html Edited February 15, 2012 by owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I had been camping for a week or so in a wilderness area far from home, way before cell phones... totally out of communication. A burning sensation began in my stomach, though my diet had been the same for a week with no problem. It got worse, very painful, in fact, and an image of my son in distress kept appearing in my visual cortex, not "seeing" him as an external presence. I finally hiked out and drove home to find that he was in the hospital with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer. There had been no previous episodes or indications of a stomach problem. How long ago did this happen? How many times have you retold the initial story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 How long ago did this happen? How many times have you retold the initial story? Many years ago. Many times. The facts of the account are simple and unforgettable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now