"Consciousness," the missing 'unified theory' factor?

[swansont]

The above null hypothesis (agreed) was negated by the unexplained simultaneity of my empathetic stomach pain, felt at a distance, and my mental image of him in pain, with his severely bleeding ulcer. The emphasized phrase is how this kind of paranormal experience qualifies as paranormal.

 

It happened exactly as I said. Your disbelief does not negate that. There are many similar examples. Calling them all mere "anecdotes" and throwing them all out is not the kind of science which I respect, which open to evidence yet finely tuned to separate the "wheat from the chaff."

 

You are contending, then, that it was not possible for this to have been a coincidence. Despite the fact that, by your own admission, you have had pains at other times, and your kids have had other accidents and illnesses. There is no way for the two to happen at the same time, except for there being telepathy. What physical mechanism prevents this from happening?

[Ringer]

Do you agree that focus on the subject of paranormal experience means that one need not record every experience one has ever had and is having? This would be not only ridiculous but impossible, as trying to record every detail of ones stream of consciousness would become all one is experiencing.

 

Yes, but that is not what I have been suggesting.

 

Possible, yes. But without a possible remote connection, not confirmed. It would remain just another undiagnosed pain or "bad" feeling. I could have filled a few notebooks with those over the 63 years since I learned to write... a meaningless exercise just to avoid future criticism of "cherry picking.'

 

 

As a parent, a lot of "bad things happened" (the usual accidents and illnesses) to my kids which I did not "pick up on" by remote, as in the case in point. What would be the point of recording, for instance, "one of my sons broke his arm while I was at work, and I didn't feel a thing?" Confirmed incidents were extremely rare. I have no idea why I "picked up on" the ulcer at a distance and not the broken arm or many other such incidents.

 

That's science. If you say you can 'feel' when something bad happens and seek to give evidence you need to record every time something bad happens and every time you have an unexplained 'feeling' and see if the correlation is significant and not chance.

 

As I said, the point of a paranormal journal is to record experiences that appear to be paranormal (obviously), and one doesn't know an experience so qualifies until a correlation appears to "co-relate" one experience to another, at a distance in the case of empathic telepathy.

 

And that journal is, then, not a scientific journal, but a personal journal. You cannot use that to support your cause because it is cherry-picking.

 

 

Not, as above. Science would not be better served if every case where there was no empathy at a distance were recorded... a long, useless journal just to avoid being called a cherry picker.

 

Welcome to the scientific method.

 

More credential waving appeal to authority.

 

[A game of one-ups-man-ship? I'll play. One of us has a 178 WAIS score and one of us probably(?) does not.]

 

Not all scientists are professionals. I am, and have been for well over half a century, an amateur scientist. Don't break your arm patting your own back with self congratulation.

 

I don't think his point was to appeal to authority. You are saying that science is one thing and he is saying it is another. Since his authority is valid it is not a logical fallacy. It would be like him telling you that what you do/did was not counseling because he thinks counseling is should be something it is not.

 

 

 

[edit]

I just remembered something that reminds me of this conversation.

My Organic Chemistry professor was talking about our lab journals and what we needed to write while doing things in the lab. His words went something like:

"Record everything. If you have an unknown record the color, smell, consistency, if it hurts you when you spill it, if it's pretty, if it reminds you of an old fling or your grandma. Not only the things involved in the experiment, I don't care if you pick a wedgie in here. If I see you pick at your arse I better see it in your lab report."

[/edit]

Edited May 10, 2012 by Ringer

[owl]

You are contending, then, that it was not possible for this to have been a coincidence. Despite the fact that, by your own admission, you have had pains at other times, and your kids have had other accidents and illnesses. There is no way for the two to happen at the same time, except for there being telepathy. What physical mechanism prevents this from happening?

I am not saying that that it was impossible for this to be a coincidence. The events, after all, coincided.

What made it a para-normal event was that my unexplained stomach pain and mental image of him in pain coincided with his ulcer pain and that there was no normal explanation of how that happened.

Not that complicated.

 

It is not clear what you mean here:

"What physical mechanism prevents this from happening?"

 

Nobody knows what, if any, "physical mechanism" might convey telepathy in any case.*

 

Maybe a little more context would put the "probability" factor into context.

I was about a week into a planned two week wilderness journey. (My wife knew my plan.) My experience above had a powerful impact, an urgency about it, that made me change plans and immediately head home. I "knew in my gut" literally, (and "saw in my mind's eye") that my son was in pain and that the pain was in his stomach. (This "knowing" is a common though subjective experience among empathic telepathy accounts.)

 

"What are the odds?," as the cliche' goes. 'Astronomical' is a weak answer, but there is no way to give an actual statistical answer that would satisfy science. I "knew." What makes it paranormal is that there was no normal way for me to know what turned out to be true... confirmed knowledge.

 

* We can speculate that consciousness itself can be,potentially , transpersonal, transcending "my consciousness" and "his consciousness" as separate entities or states,... this under very special circumstances which manifest that potential. But, of course they (individual states of awareness) usually... almost always... are separate. So the speculation goes that it requires an urgency of experience in one person's awareness to "collapse the wave of potential" (to borrow a phrase from QM) and connect the two individuals' states of awareness in a way that information is shared at a distance.

This, of course, is not (yet) in the realm of "material science."

 

But my other son's broken arm (at home) was an "urgent" experience on his part too, (and there were many other similar incidents over the years) yet that didn't communicate with me (at work) as the ulcer did. Too many unknown factors, but that doesn't mean that science must "throw out the baby with the bathwater."

 

Paranormal investigation will keep on plugging away at it until science eventually gets some answers about how consciousness operates, in both "normal" and extraordinary circumstances, including, perhaps "transpersonal" states of consciousness. That was my "field of interest" before there was a designated field of "transpersonal psychology."

[swansont]

I am not saying that that it was impossible for this to be a coincidence. The events, after all, coincided.

What made it a para-normal event was that my unexplained stomach pain and mental image of him in pain coincided with his ulcer pain and that there was no normal explanation of how that happened.

Not that complicated.

 

Not complicated. But it's necessary to exclude accidental (i.e. uncaused) coincidences. If you can't you, have no evidence. Those are the rules that everyone doing science play by.

 

It is not clear what you mean here:

"What physical mechanism prevents this from happening?"

 

Nobody knows what, if any, "physical mechanism" might convey telepathy in any case.*

 

No, I'm asking what prevented this from being an accidental coincidence, since you have insisted that it could not be one.

 

"What are the odds?," as the cliche' goes. 'Astronomical' is a weak answer, but there is no way to give an actual statistical answer that would satisfy science.

 

Sure there is. And people have already told you what it is: keep a log of all of the instances of potential events. That would give you the statistics. Which, of course, is why people have told you that this is the proper procedure. It would also confirm that there is no way that you could statistically conclude that this was telepathy, but that's going to hold for any one-off event. It's why we don't think that lottery winners are telepathic, giving them the winning numbers that one special time, even if they might think that's it. (or some other supernatural reason). Scientifically, we put it down to statistics and the reality of lucky coincidences, because that's what it is. There's no need to invoke the extraordinary when the ordinary has it covered.

[owl]

Not complicated. But it's necessary to exclude accidental (i.e. uncaused) coincidences. If you can't you, have no evidence. Those are the rules that everyone doing science play by.[/Quote]

I have never said or implied that any paranormal phenomenon is "uncaused." Conversely, obviously, there are many events which coincide between which there is no causal connection.

Maybe you are blinded to reason in this case by your admitted "contempt" for me personally. The above shows no sign of comprehending what you are replying to. I'll bold it to get your attention focused on what I said:

 

I am not saying that that it was impossible for this to be a coincidence. The events, after all, coincided.

What made it a para-normal event was that my unexplained stomach pain and mental image of him in pain coincided with his ulcer pain and that there was no normal explanation of how that happened.

Not that complicated.

 

No, I'm asking what prevented this from being an accidental coincidence, since you have insisted that it could not be one.

 

Define "accidental coincidence." The events "coincided." My "event" turned out to be verified knowledge of his event, very specifically, out of all possible events, severe stomach pain... with no known means of communication between the two events, making it "paranormal" communication. What about that do you conceive as "accidental?"

None are so deaf as those who will not hear.

 

Sure there is. And people have already told you what it is: keep a log of all of the instances of potential events. That would give you the statistics.

 

Still "ridiculous" as explained in detail above. A log of all experiences would become a log of the mechanics of logging, eventually just trying in vain to keep up with the internal "stream of consciousness." Yet you can't see how "ridiculous" that would be.

But more specifically, it would require a log of all thoughts and feelings about any/all other non-local persons to fulfill your requirement of logging "all of the instances of potential (paranormal) events."

 

Actually, paranormal study focuses on possible paranormal events, and events don't qualify as such until a correlation appears between one set of events and another.

You are not, as you seem to believe, an expert in all things, and certainly not in paranormal studies.

 

Your lottery winners example is so off-the-wall and irrelevant to this discussion as to be unworthy of comment... and I don't have the patience to explain how irrelevant it is, nor would you have the ears to hear it.

[Ringer]

I have never said or implied that any paranormal phenomenon is "uncaused." Conversely, obviously, there are many events which coincide between which there is no causal connection.

Maybe you are blinded to reason in this case by your admitted "contempt" for me personally. The above shows no sign of comprehending what you are replying to. I'll bold it to get your attention focused on what I said:

 

He's not saying paranormal things are uncaused, he is saying that you can't show that his ulcer caused your stomach. Without the causality the incident can be considered uncaused or accidental.

 

 

As to the personal contempt thing I'll quote what I've said about it before:

Do you seriously believe the people on this forum are telling you you're wrong because you're unpopular? Isn't it more likely that people here, who, for the most part, have no connection other than being members, are from various different specialties and fields, and have little to no interaction outside this forum, are telling you you're wrong because you are unpopular? Wouldn't it be more likely if we were just trying to team up on you to be hateful the amount of people posting would increase as time went on? Personally I would assume if the amount of people who posted dwindled down during the discussion before being even close to resolved is because the person arguing refuses to listen and is just being stubborn.

 

 

Define "accidental coincidence." The events "coincided." My "event" turned out to be verified knowledge of his event, very specifically, out of all possible events, severe stomach pain... with no known means of communication between the two events, making it "paranormal" communication. What about that do you conceive as "accidental?"

None are so deaf as those who will not hear.

 

Two events that coincide without relation to each other. I believe he is using accidental as a why to strengthen the idea that the two events have no causal connection and just happen to coincide.

 

Still "ridiculous" as explained in detail above. A log of all experiences would become a log of the mechanics of logging, eventually just trying in vain to keep up with the internal "stream of consciousness." Yet you can't see how "ridiculous" that would be.

But more specifically, it would require a log of all thoughts and feelings about any/all other non-local persons to fulfill your requirement of logging "all of the instances of potential (paranormal) events."

 

Still not what people have been saying as explained in detail above.

 

 

Actually, paranormal study focuses on possible paranormal events, and events don't qualify as such until a correlation appears between one set of events and another.

You are not, as you seem to believe, an expert in all things, and certainly not in paranormal studies.

 

No one is trying to say they are an expert in paranormal studies, but the majority are familiar with what is required for scientific investigation. If I say I have the ability to move objects at a distance and I only record the times when objects move I am not doing science, I am reinforcing a personal belief.

 

Your lottery winners example is so off-the-wall and irrelevant to this discussion as to be unworthy of comment... and I don't have the patience to explain how irrelevant it is, nor would you have the ears to hear it.

 

It isn't off the wall or irrelevant, which reminds me, I would still like to know how your cranial nerve was pinched by the spinal column. There are people who have won the lottery multiple times. Why would they not be considered for paranormal ability?

[owl]

He's not saying paranormal things are uncaused, he is saying that you can't show that his ulcer caused your stomach. Without the causality the incident can be considered uncaused or accidental.[/Quote]

 

Are you now his designated official spokesman? His condition was somehow communicated to me. All the details verify that.

 

As to the personal contempt thing I'll quote what I've said about it before:

 

This kind of personal judgement is not worthy of a science forum.

 

[An aside: Neither is the popularity contest engendered by the merit/demerit system here, where any "idiot" can demerit any "genius" (so to speak) and carries the same weight as an astute scientific criticism. Or, any of my many critics can "demerit" my posts as if it were a real scientific criticism.]

 

Two events that coincide without relation to each other. I believe he is using accidental as a why to strengthen the idea that the two events have no causal connection and just happen to coincide.

 

You "believe," huh? "...as a why to strengthen the idea..."

 

Maybe the discussion would be more direct if you would be patient enough to let him speak for himself.

 

Still not what people have been saying as explained in detail above.

 

If you have been taking a poll of *opinions* against me, please give specifics. (Joke) But at least explain how "what people have been saying" scientifically refutes what I have been posting about this incident.

 

[Hint: "Science must discard all anecdotes" is not a universally accepted principle of science. Science must examine each claim/case/ life-history in thorough detail and have enough evidence to call a case "confirmed."

 

...

If I say I have the ability to move objects at a distance and I only record the times when objects move I am not doing science, I am reinforcing a personal belief.

 

If you say you have the ability to move objects at a distance, you had better be able to demonstrate that claim to the most hostile critics, like "The Amazing Randy." Personal belief counts for nothing here.

[md65536]

[An aside: Neither is the popularity contest engendered by the merit/demerit system here, where any "idiot" can demerit any "genius" (so to speak)

I've just tested this out and he is correct.

Edited May 11, 2012 by md65536

[Ringer]

Are you now his designated official spokesman? His condition was somehow communicated to me. All the details verify that.

 

You keep using that word. . . I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

 

This kind of personal judgement is not worthy of a science forum.

 

What?

 

 

 

 

You "believe," huh? "...as a why to strengthen the idea..."

 

Yes, I made a spelling error. I actually do it fairly often.

 

Maybe the discussion would be more direct if you would be patient enough to let him speak for himself.

 

I might be able to if you actually addressed any points I make. Since that doesn't seem to be the case I will have to piggy-back Swansont and hope his back doesn't give out.

 

 

If you have been taking a poll of *opinions* against me, please give specifics. (Joke) But at least explain how "what people have been saying" scientifically refutes what I have been posting about this incident.

 

Did you even read what that was a response to? No one has said to record every single thought, unless every thought you ever have is a bad feeling. If so that would really throw your telepathy idea out the window.

 

[Hint: "Science must discard all anecdotes" is not a universally accepted principle of science. Science must examine each claim/case/ life-history in thorough detail and have enough evidence to call a case "confirmed."

 

It doesn't discard all anecdotes, sometimes they are used as a starting point, but they are not evidence.

 

 

If you say you have the ability to move objects at a distance, you had better be able to demonstrate that claim to the most hostile critics, like "The Amazing Randy." Personal belief counts for nothing here.

 

*Sigh* . . . Yes, that's the point.

 

 

[swansont]

Are you now his designated official spokesman?

 

Of course he isn't. But Ringer can read what I wrote, comprehend it, observe that you misinterpreted it and point this out.

 

I have never said or implied that any paranormal phenomenon is "uncaused."

 

Non-sequitur, as explained above

 

Conversely, obviously, there are many events which coincide between which there is no causal connection.

Maybe you are blinded to reason in this case by your admitted "contempt" for me personally. The above shows no sign of comprehending what you are replying to.

 

No, not admitted. You accused me of hating you. I suggested a more appropriate word, but it's still your accusation.

 

 

Define "accidental coincidence." The events "coincided." My "event" turned out to be verified knowledge of his event, very specifically, out of all possible events, severe stomach pain... with no known means of communication between the two events, making it "paranormal" communication. What about that do you conceive as "accidental?"

 

An accidental coincidence is a correlation that is not caused. It is up to you to demonstrate that there is an actual cause. Circular reasoning and cherry-picking the data doesn't qualify in science.

 

None are so deaf as those who will not hear.

 

You just broke my irony meter.

 

 

Still "ridiculous" as explained in detail above. A log of all experiences would become a log of the mechanics of logging, eventually just trying in vain to keep up with the internal "stream of consciousness." Yet you can't see how "ridiculous" that would be.

But more specifically, it would require a log of all thoughts and feelings about any/all other non-local persons to fulfill your requirement of logging "all of the instances of potential (paranormal) events."

 

Real science is hard work, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Actually, paranormal study focuses on possible paranormal events, and events don't qualify as such until a correlation appears between one set of events and another.

You are not, as you seem to believe, an expert in all things, and certainly not in paranormal studies.

 

And as long as the investigations are done this way, they will continue to be rejected by actual scientists.

 

Your lottery winners example is so off-the-wall and irrelevant to this discussion as to be unworthy of comment... and I don't have the patience to explain how irrelevant it is, nor would you have the ears to hear it.

 

The owl doth protest too much, methinks.

[owl]

No, not admitted. You accused me of hating you. I suggested a more appropriate word, but it's still your accusation. [/Quote]

 

Regarding your "contempt" for me clouding your ability to listen and comprehend what I'm saying...

 

Here is the recent exchange and the context from another thread:

Me:

"Maybe you are blinded to reason in this case by your admitted "contempt" for me personally. The above shows no sign of comprehending what you are replying to."

You:

"No, not admitted. You accused me of hating you. I suggested a more appropriate word, but it's still your accusation."

 

Context from other thread:

Me (with added emphasis, both quotes):

"Your history of hostility toward me makes it so you can not even comprehend what I am asking." (Ed:... in that thread too.)

You:

"P.S. I believe the word you want here is "contempt""

 

I accused you of having a history of hostility toward me.

You preferred the word "contempt." "Not admitted?"

(One instance of the value of "record keeping", for sure.)

 

An accidental coincidence is a correlation that is not caused. It is up to you to demonstrate that there is an actual cause. Circular reasoning and cherry-picking the data doesn't qualify in science.

 

Since no one knows the "mechanism" for any possible empathy/telepathy communicated at a distance, that fact precludes "pointing to a cause." That is the nature of the animal being studied, called paranormal as specified in this case. So we are left with the details of each circumstance to sort out for possible causal connection.

As already stated, the way an experience ( selected from the set of "all experiences") becomes a candidate for "paranormal" study is that a correlation is demonstrated between two events which happened at a distance precluding "normal communication."

 

Certainly my stomach pain with no known physical cause and his stomach pain with an obvious physical cause were "co-related." Again I refer you to the first emphasized statement above.

 

Out of all the experiences I had during the week on my wilderness trek, there is an extremely high probability that my specific stomach pain was "linked" to his, happening at the same time, and with an accompanying mental image of him in pain. Or we could say that the null hypothesis, that there was no link, just uncaused coincidence, is extremely unlikely.

 

Real science is hard work, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Evidence of endorsing the "protestant ethic" I see.

Maybe I should have been taking notes on everything I experienced, as a "good scientist" would have done, hiking along constantly scribbling in my notebook... and missing most of the experience of nature in the process!

 

Sometimes such extraordinary experience as above just happen. Without the confirmation/verification back home and at the hospital, there would have been nothing paranormal about the whole thing, just a "bad feeling" out there without a cause and certainly no connection with my son.

 

And as long as the investigations are done this way, they will continue to be rejected by actual scientists.

 

This case was evidence of paranormal communication. Here is why, again, and the challenge:

 

My "event" turned out to be verified knowledge of his event, very specifically, out of all possible events, severe stomach pain... with no known means of communication between the two events, making it "paranormal" communication. What about that do you conceive as "accidental?"

Edited May 11, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

Regarding your "contempt" for me clouding your ability to listen and comprehend what I'm saying...

 

Here is the recent exchange and the context from another thread:

Me:

"Maybe you are blinded to reason in this case by your admitted "contempt" for me personally. The above shows no sign of comprehending what you are replying to."

You:

"No, not admitted. You accused me of hating you. I suggested a more appropriate word, but it's still your accusation."

 

Context from other thread:

Me (with added emphasis, both quotes):

"Your history of hostility toward me makes it so you can not even comprehend what I am asking." (Ed:... in that thread too.)

You:

"P.S. I believe the word you want here is "contempt""

 

I accused you of having a history of hostility toward me.

You preferred the word "contempt." "Not admitted?"

(One instance of the value of "record keeping", for sure.)

 

Yes, I misread that. Which led to my suggestion of a substitute word. And I apologize for not reading this tangential … um, material … as carefully as the scientific (or quasi-scientific) material. I seem to have missed your acknowledgement and apology for the mis-read of yours which Ringer just pointed out, as well.

 

I admit it: I do not suffer willful ignorance gladly. You seem to read this as being personal, but it's not. Being told you're mistaken is not a personal attack — it's a comment on a set of statements. Implying stupidity is; note that ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. And for all the bitching you do about people being mean to you, you dish it out rather generously, including the hypocrisy pointed out above. I'm perfectly happy to focus on the discussion, if only you'd drop the sideshow.

 

Since no one knows the "mechanism" for any possible empathy/telepathy communicated at a distance, that fact precludes "pointing to a cause." That is the nature of the animal being studied, called paranormal as specified in this case. So we are left with the details of each circumstance to sort out for possible causal connection.

As already stated, the way an experience ( selected from the set of "all experiences") becomes a candidate for "paranormal" study is that a correlation is demonstrated between two events which happened at a distance precluding "normal communication."

 

And correlation does not mean causation. You have to find a way to exclude the event as being an acausal coincidence. The burden of proof lies with you. Standard scientific practice.

 

Certainly my stomach pain with no known physical cause and his stomach pain with an obvious physical cause were "co-related." Again I refer you to the first emphasized statement above.

 

Out of all the experiences I had during the week on my wilderness trek, there is an extremely high probability that my specific stomach pain was "linked" to his, happening at the same time, and with an accompanying mental image of him in pain. Or we could say that the null hypothesis, that there was no link, just uncaused coincidence, is extremely unlikely.

 

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the probability was high? What objective evidence shows that they were co-related? Correlation does not mean causation. You need more than that.

 

Evidence of endorsing the "protestant ethic" I see.

Maybe I should have been taking notes on everything I experienced, as a "good scientist" would have done, hiking along constantly scribbling in my notebook... and missing most of the experience of nature in the process!

 

I'm sure I've missed out on things, too, spending so much time in the lab. You make choices. But there's no legitimate way to get around not having the required data. If you don't have it, you can't make the case.

 

Sometimes such extraordinary experience as above just happen. Without the confirmation/verification back home and at the hospital, there would have been nothing paranormal about the whole thing, just a "bad feeling" out there without a cause and certainly no connection with my son.

 

This case was evidence of paranormal communication. Here is why, again, and the challenge:

 

Which is indistinguishable from a lottery winner saying the numbers "just came to him/her". Why isn't that proof of precognition?

[owl]

I seem to have missed your acknowledgement and apology for the mis-read of yours which Ringer just pointed out, as well.[/Quote]

Huh?? I have no apology, nor feel that one is appropriate for what I said to Ringer. His conjecture, right or wrong, about what you meant is his opinion. You are obviously capable of speaking for yourself. So, after this post, I agree to leave the personal attack "sideshow" behind and focus on science here. (I'll believe it when I see it for your part, transcending your arrogant condescension and personal contempt for me and all...)

 

I admit it: I do not suffer willful ignorance gladly.

More personal judgment, probably unconscious on your part. "Willful ignorance?" You continue to mistake disagreement with you for ignorance. (As if you were, defacto, always right. That would logically, in your mind , make me wrong.)

 

You seem to read this as being personal, but it's not. Being told you're mistaken is not a personal attack — it's a comment on a set of statements.

 

Again, you assume that you are right, so if you say (I am "told") that I am mistaken, and I don't accept your omniscience on the matter... I must be wrong. Quite arrogant of you, really.

 

And correlation does not mean causation. You have to find a way to exclude the event as being an acausal coincidence. The burden of proof lies with you. Standard scientific practice.

 

You seem to be asking for “proof” that his ulcer caused my empathic perception/response to the very same symptom... very specifically identical, out of all the various experiences I have ever had.

 

There is no “proof," no way to “exclude the possibility” that the events were not causally connected. But you must ignore a very specific simultaneous identity of symptoms, at a distance, to argue that there was no connection between us at all. This is the epitome of being unreasonable in service to a prejudiced skepticism about telepathy in general.

 

How is it that you do not accept the burden of proof that they were not causally connected, given the identity and simultaneity of both sets of symptoms?

 

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the probability was high? What objective evidence shows that they were co-related? Correlation does not mean causation. You need more than that.

 

All of the above answers that in detail. Whether or not you hear it is up to you. Identical symptoms. No history of ulcers on his part or severe stomach pain on my part. Both symptoms simultaneous. His image in my mind was simultaneous with my pain. Turned out to be true/verified information communication.

 

You will not hear or see any of that, but that does not discredit the case as very clear evidence of empathic telepathy at a distance. Your "credentials" as a Phd physicist (a "real scientist"), which you do waive around as part of your argument, don't automatically make your assessment of this paranormal anecdote the last word of truth on the subject.

 

But there's no legitimate way to get around not having the required data. If you don't have it, you can't make the case.

I gave "the data" in detail, yet again above. Your rejection of it from your obviously biased opinion of the whole field of study does not invalidate the evidence. If I were lying about the whole thing, that would be different, but I am not. Since you can not know that for sure, I do understand your skepticism.

 

Which is indistinguishable from a lottery winner saying the numbers "just came to him/her". Why isn't that proof of precognition?

 

"Proof?" We both know that "proof" is an overstatement in science. If I had a dream or a mental image of a bunch of numbers that turned out to be lottery winning numbers, I wouldn't feel the need to call it anything but maybe telepathy with whatever lottery officials established the number, but I would consider it a mysterious "gift" of information from... whatever... some transcendental level of consciousness.

 

I am tired of arguing with you about it.

Edited May 11, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

Holy mother of god, did you really just say you would leave the personal attacks behind and then make an entire post of personal attacks? I . . . I just don't know what to say.

[swansont]

More personal judgment, probably unconscious on your part. "Willful ignorance?" You continue to mistake disagreement with you for ignorance. (As if you were, defacto, always right. That would logically, in your mind , make me wrong.)

 

No, I'm not always right. But on this topic — basic science protocols — I am. And you have gotten similar responses from others.

 

There is no “proof," no way to “exclude the possibility” that the events were not causally connected.

 

Well, then. Case closed.

[owl]

Holy mother of god, did you really just say you would leave the personal attacks behind and then make an entire post of personal attacks? I . . . I just don't know what to say.

Holy crap! "What to say?" "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." (Sam Clemens, I think.) You have again demonstrated your lack of attention to detail and/or lack of reading comprehension.

 

I said: "So, after this post, I agree to leave the personal attack "sideshow" behind and focus on science here."

 

Replying to my:

"There is no “proof," no way to “exclude the possibility” that the events were not causally connected."

 

Well, then. Case closed.

Not actually closed unless you do ignore (which you did) the rest of what I said:

But you must ignore a very specific simultaneous identity of symptoms, at a distance, to argue that there was no connection between us at all. This is the epitome of being unreasonable in service to a prejudiced skepticism about telepathy in general.

 

Identical symptoms. No history of ulcers on his part or severe stomach pain on my part. Both symptoms simultaneous. His image in my mind was simultaneous with my pain. Turned out to be true/verified information communication.

 

You will not hear or see any of that (ed: You didn't), but that does not discredit the case as very clear evidence of empathic telepathy at a distance.

 

Still, of course there can be no absolute proof, totally "excluding the possibility" as per my first reiteration above. A

chance in a "zillion" is still a chance, however improbability.

 

"Real science" must approach the situational evidence without automatic dismissal based on the belief that telepathy is impossible. I think that is the essence of your dismissal of the evidence:

Also, as I said:

If I were lying about the whole thing, that would be different, but I am not. Since you can not know that for sure, I do understand your skepticism.

 

End of story.

Edited May 12, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

Holy crap! "What to say?" "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." (Sam Clemens, I think.) You have again demonstrated your lack of attention to detail and/or lack of reading comprehension.

 

I said: "So, after this post, I agree to leave the personal attack "sideshow" behind and focus on science here."

 

Are you saying that post was just a sideshow for personal attacks at swansont and you haven't been focusing on science? Finally we are starting to agree on things.

[imatfaal]

Holy crap! "What to say?" "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." (Sam Clemens, I think.)

 

It's one of those proverbs that have multiple - mainly erroneous - attributions. It is hard to doubt that all subsequent 'phrasers' were building upon the Biblical Proverb

 

Proverbs 17:28

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

 

When are are going to get back to Consciousness and move away from anecdotage and culpable mis-understanding of the scientific method?

[owl]

When are are going to get back to Consciousness and move away from anecdotage and culpable mis-understanding of the scientific method?

Good question/prompt. It will take a cooperative effort. As I mentioned once before in this forum, as a grad student I once taught an undergraduate class, "Logic and the Scientific Method" ("special studies" by invitation of my academic adviser), and I advocated then as now a broader focus for science as to what constitutes "evidence," as above. Maybe it's not just a misunderstanding but a broader definition of the "scientific method." (Something to consider.)

 

A quick review of where that position has taken this thread recently:

Me:

"What are the odds?," as the cliche' goes. 'Astronomical' is a weak answer, but there is no way to give an actual statistical answer that would satisfy science.

 

Swansont;

Sure there is. And people have already told you what it is: keep a log of all of the instances of potential events. That would give you the statistics.

 

The question for scientific record keeping is, what qualifies as a “potential paranormal event?” Certainly not every thought and feeling one has ever had or is having.* An event becomes “potentially paranormal” if there turns out to be a correlation between one event and another as in my example, i.e. communication, at a distance via no known means. Then the investigation must analyze the details for specificity. I provided very specific details before asking, “What are the odds?”, i.e., the odds of all details being accidental coincidence.

What would Swansont’s required log have contained besides the details of my journal, essentially the same as shared in this thread? (See * above.)

So it seems that Swansont's follow up ignores all of the above, including my answer as follows:

S:

"No, I'm asking what prevented this from being an accidental coincidence, since you have insisted that it could not be one."

 

Me:

Define "accidental coincidence." The events "coincided." My "event" turned out to be verified knowledge of his event, very specifically, out of all possible events, severe stomach pain... with no known means of communication between the two events, making it "paranormal" communication. What about that do you conceive as "accidental?"

 

As I said later:

“His condition was somehow communicated to me. All the details verify that.” “Somehow” means we don’t know how, and that qualifies as paranormal."

 

I disagree that all anecdotes must be discarded as “not evidence.” As I said: “"Science must discard all anecdotes" is not a universally accepted principle of science. Science must examine each claim/case/ life-history in thorough detail and have enough evidence to call a case "confirmed."

 

Regarding the “sideshow” reference; Swansont:

I'm perfectly happy to focus on the discussion, if only you'd drop the sideshow.

 

Ringer said:

Are you saying that post was just a sideshow for personal attacks at swansont and you haven't been focusing on science? Finally we are starting to agree on things.

 

Apparently I am the the one creating the sideshow. It would have nothing to do with all of Swansont’s claims to superiority, being a scientist and all while I am not. (See my correct definition of scientist, "pro" not essential to the definition)*

*Re: his one-ups-man-ship that one of us is a scientist and one is not and my retort about "one of us" probably having a superior IQ. See also his more recent comments about my ignorance (in his opinion.) Whose sideshow is it anyway?

 

Regarding Swansont’s demand for “proof” of a causal connection, I replied:

There is no “proof," no way to “exclude the possibility” that the events were not causally connected. But you must ignore a very specific simultaneous identity of symptoms,* at a distance, to argue that there was no connection between us at all. This is the epitome of being unreasonable in service to a prejudiced skepticism about telepathy in general.

 

*

...Identical symptoms. No history of ulcers on his part or severe stomach pain on my part.

Both symptoms simultaneous. His image in my mind was simultaneous with my pain. Turned out to be true/verified information communication.

 

I also acknowledged: “Still, of course there can be no absolute proof, totally "excluding the possibility" as per my first reiteration above. A chance in a "zillion" is still a chance, however improbable.” (edit)

 

So... all of the above debate is about whether or not consciousness can communicate at a distance without any known means/mechanism. The above argues, "Yes it can, and here is an example of it."

Edited May 16, 2012 by owl

[Ringer]

Good question/prompt. It will take a cooperative effort. As I mentioned once before in this forum, as a grad student I once taught an undergraduate class, "Logic and the Scientific Method" ("special studies" by invitation of my academic adviser), and I advocated then as now a broader focus for science as to what constitutes "evidence," as above. Maybe it's not just a misunderstanding but a broader definition of the "scientific method." (Something to consider.)

 

But it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion if you are using something as evidence that is not considered evidence in a scientific format. Just because you advocate a broader focus doesn't mean we have to follow along. That's a whole different topic, as a whole if we are not focused on that we should focus on what can be accepted as evidence.

 

The question for scientific record keeping is, what qualifies as a “potential paranormal event?” Certainly not every thought and feeling one has ever had or is having.* An event becomes “potentially paranormal” if there turns out to be a correlation between one event and another as in my example, i.e. communication, at a distance via no known means. Then the investigation must analyze the details for specificity. I provided very specific details before asking, “What are the odds?”, i.e., the odds of all details being accidental coincidence.

What would Swansont’s required log have contained besides the details of my journal, essentially the same as shared in this thread?

 

You need to first show that the events aren't random chance before you can say they are possibly paranormal. Like I have stated repeatedly, it's not every single thought or feeling. Bad events in which there was no feeling and events when you had a bad feeling and nothing happened must be taken into consideration before you can start trying to explain the phenomena. Short version, you must show there is a phenomena before investigating that phenomena. Since you don't know the odds of it being an accident you can't logically conclude there was anything happening that wouldn't be normally happening.

 

The log is not every single thought and feeling, only ones that could pertain to being telepathically induced as well as times when there was no instance of telepathy.

 

“His condition was somehow communicated to me. All the details verify that.” “Somehow” means we don’t know how, and that qualifies as paranormal."

 

No, you are begging the question. Nothing you stated qualifies the conclusion, and it assumes the condition was communicated.

 

 

I disagree that all anecdotes must be discarded as “not evidence.” As I said: “"Science must discard all anecdotes" is not a universally accepted principle of science. Science must examine each claim/case/ life-history in thorough detail and have enough evidence to call a case "confirmed."

 

I have said it doesn't discard all anecdotes, but they can not be used for evidence. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, that is how things are.

 

 

Apparently I am the the one creating the sideshow. It would have nothing to do with all of Swansont’s claims to superiority, being a scientist and all while I am not. (See my correct definition of scientist, "pro" not essential to the definition)*

*Re: his one-ups-man-ship that one of us is a scientist and one is not and my retort about "one of us" probably having a superior IQ. See also his more recent comments about my ignorance (in his opinion.) Whose sideshow is it anyway?

 

 

You have thrown around quite a few credentials as well IIRC. More to the point, I don't believe he was saying he is a scientist to be superior, but that he can be more of an authority on how scientific processes are than amateur scientists.

 

 

 

[owl]

My first question in the OP was:

“What scientific evidence is there that consciousness is an active agent rather than just a brain epiphenomenon?"

(Later I explained to a critic that the above is not a false dichotomy and cited Wiki on the difference.)

 

If consciousness is an “active agent” the thread title asks if (implies that) it could possibly be the “force” that unifies the four known forces into a unified field theory... a “theory of everything. (TOE)”

That was an ambitious purpose for a thread, and I acknowledged up front that “hard core” physicists will protest mightily, and of course they have. So I left behind the speculation that consciousness could be the missing link in a TOE.

Even such a well respected quantum physicists as David Bohm was dismissed as having gone off the deep end with his speculation on consciousness as an omnipresent (or at least transpersonal) “implicate order” of “hidden variables,” a transcendental medium connecting individual “minds” at a distance under certain circumstances where a wave of probability ‘collapses’ into a manifest phenomenon.

 

The thread proceeded to look at experimental evidence for consciousness as a force acting at a distance, and there were criticisms of such experiments, including methods of statistical analysis.

 

I offered one such “home grown (my home), Mom and Pop” telepathy experiment with exceptional results including a run of 10 out of 10 “hits” on images from magazines, not your average (classic experiment) “chance” of a hit out of five or so geometric figures ( with20% chance of a hit for any trial.) There was, of course, much criticism of our experimental method, but I invite review.

 

I also offered as “evidence” the “coincidence” of symptoms (and mental image) between my son and myself, but it seems that all such “stories” can be easily dismissed as mere “anecdotes,” even with such clarity of coordination between very specific events as I described in detail.

 

Swansont said in post #7 and often in other words more recently:

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.

 

I have argued that “systematically record(ing) all thoughts of these and other people” is quite an unreasonable (even ridiculous) requirement for an account to qualify as evidence.

 

I explained that, to qualify as a potential paranormal phenomenon, an object of study in that field, two events must demonstrate a correlation as I specified.

It seems quite dogmatic to me to say that no “anecdotes” qualify as “evidence.” (“Case closed.”)

 

I said, early on:

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 focus of scientific investigation in such cases must be “How can such claims be verified?”, not an outright dismissal of all such claims. When a mother “feels and sees” that her child has died in an accident before any normal notification, this is a paranormal event... or she is a liar. One stance is that all such accounts are from liars. This is pseudo-science by flat out denial.

 

I related how my dad often anticipated phone calls from his sister, announced such to the family, and then she would call within a minute or so. This forum dismissed this evidence for telepathy by simple incredulity. Not good science.

 

An incident worth repeating: He announced such an immanent call, but it didn’t come for 10 minutes or more. He asked, “What took you so long?” She laughed, said, “You are good!,” and explained that she had almost picked up the phone but decided to go to the bathroom first and then showered before calling. Dismissing it as incredible does not make it go away. It happened as I said and both my family and hers verify that it did.

 

This forum can dismiss that as “not evidence” but that just perpetuates a false negative... that telepathy does not exist because science can not explain how it works. This is “science” at its closed minded worst. We can’t explain how gravity works either but no one (that I know of) doubts that it does... bodies at a distance mutually attracting each other.

I’ll leave it here for now, inviting any and all comments about any of the above. Maybe we can discover where past attempts to communicate have failed and make progress. (More likely not, given the history of the thread... but it's worth a 'last ditch' effort.)

 

Please keep in mind that consciousness studies are not necessarily in the realm of the physics of "the material world."

Maybe, as I said in my last post, the parameters of "the scientific method" need to expand to accommodate the paranormal nature of the subject matter.

[md65536]

An incident worth repeating: He announced such an immanent call, but it didn't come for 10 minutes or more. He asked, "What took you so long?" She laughed, said, "You are good!," and explained that she had almost picked up the phone but decided to go to the bathroom first and then showered before calling. Dismissing it as incredible does not make it go away. It happened as I said and both my family and hers verify that it did.

So what mechanism are you proposing is behind this?

And what does it have to do with unifying electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces?

 

There are many possible explanations that don't break accepted physical laws:

- It may be coincidence.

- You may be crazy.

- Your perception and memory of the experiments may be flawed or biased, especially given that you see no problem with ignoring any non-supportive data.

- The "psychic" in your story may be somehow mentally "in tune" with the other subject. For example, whether there is a known trigger for calling, or a pattern to the calls, or an ability for the psychic to simulate the mental process of the other subject... these do not require new scientific laws. Even extraordinary mental abilities are not physically impossible, even when the ability is subconscious and the person doesn't know why they have the ability.

 

Given that you've ruled out all possibilities within accepted science, what is your "expanded science" explanation of experiments?

 

 

[owl]

So what mechanism are you proposing is behind this?[/Quote]

 

Please read more carefully with attention to detail. I already said that, like gravity, no one knows how it works, but that is not reason to deny that it happens.

I also again cited Bohm's work speculating that there is an "implicit order" of unknown 'mechanism' which transcends the usual "separateness" of individual consciousness.

 

And what does it have to do with unifying electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces?

 

Yet again: "So I left behind the speculation that consciousness could be the missing link in a TOE."

 

Must I keep repeating to communicate? If consciousness is a transcendental, transpersonal, even omnipresent creative agent/force, it could explain a lot to fill in the gaps between the known forces.

 

There are many possible explanations that don't break accepted physical laws:

- It may be coincidence.

 

Yes, my aunt's intention to call (every one or two weeks) did 'coincide' with my dad's "picking up on" that intention. "What are the odds" that there was no causal connection? Again, there is no way to figure those odds, but you must be in total denial of the possibility of telepathy to believe there was no communication at a distance involved.

 

- You may be crazy.

 

Never certified! The general symptoms of "crazy" are some kind of delusion, a clear disconnect with "consensus reality." Trouble is, there is no consensus on paranormal phenomena, so many believe any such experience is automatically "crazy."

My whole family would need to be in a "crazy" conspiracy (or all 'big fat liars') for that hypothesis to work.

 

-

Your perception and memory of the experiments may be flawed or biased, especially given that you see no problem with ignoring any non-supportive data.

 

Over and over: All normal experience is "non-supportive data." The usual daily normal experiences do not count against the validity of the rare paranormal experience. But a correlation between events, without explanation, is what designates a paranormal event. Is that so difficult to understand? This is not the physics of observable, physical "billiard ball" cause and effect.

 

- The "psychic" in your story may be somehow mentally "in tune" with the other subject. For example, whether there is a known trigger for calling, or a pattern to the calls, or an ability for the psychic to simulate the mental process of the other subject... these do not require new scientific laws. Even extraordinary mental abilities are not physically impossible, even when the ability is subconscious and the person doesn't know why they have the ability.

 

Of course my dad and I, my aunt and my dad, and my son and I were "in tune" with each other. Like, on the same consciousness "channel" in radio wave propagation lingo.

 

There was no prearranged time for the calls. Sometimes it was a week or so, sometimes over two weeks between calls. No "trigger." We don't know "why" we have (had) this ability. But it seems to have been passed on for at least three generations, from my grandfather (no examples given) to my dad to me to one of my sons.

 

Given that you've ruled out all possibilities within accepted science, what is your "expanded science" explanation of experiments?

 

I'll go with David Bohm's work in the field, but that remains "speculation" until some kind of explanation/mechanism emerges. Science as we know it has only disdain for all 'things' which might transcend the known physical world.

 

I "know" things (as given in all examples in this thread) without knowing how I know. The stomach pain and image of my son just "happened" in that case. My dad was adept at creating a "blank screen" in his "mind's eye" when in "trance." My projected images as "sender" then appeared on his "blank screen."

 

I will be keeping my 'finger on the pulse' of studies of consciousness, including paranormal phenomena.

[Ringer]

I have argued that "systematically record(ing) all thoughts of these and other people" is quite an unreasonable (even ridiculous) requirement for an account to qualify as evidence.

 

I explained that, to qualify as a potential paranormal phenomenon, an object of study in that field, two events must demonstrate a correlation as I specified.

It seems quite dogmatic to me to say that no "anecdotes" qualify as "evidence." ("Case closed.")

 

 

I think this pretty much shows you blatantly ignore whatever you feel doesn't fit into your little "people are just out to get me' show. How many times have I said that's not what is required? You have nothing going for you in this entire discussion other than repeating the same thing over and over even if it's already been showed to be crap. Can you not even attempt to answer or respond to my criticisms? If not I guess I'll just have to assume I'm correct and you don't have anything useful to actually bring to the discussion other than what others have already shot down.

 

 

 

 

I "know" things (as given in all examples in this thread) without knowing how I know. The stomach pain and image of my son just "happened" in that case. My dad was adept at creating a "blank screen" in his "mind's eye" when in "trance." My projected images as "sender" then appeared on his "blank screen."

 

Yeah, and him having the pages he needed to know didn't hurt either.

 

[owl]

I think this pretty much shows you blatantly ignore whatever you feel doesn't fit into your little "people are just out to get me' show. How many times have I said that's not what is required? You have nothing going for you in this entire discussion other than repeating the same thing over and over even if it's already been showed to be crap. Can you not even attempt to answer or respond to my criticisms? If not I guess I'll just have to assume I'm correct and you don't have anything useful to actually bring to the discussion other than what others have already shot down. [/Quote]

 

I ignored your post 195 precisely because I had already repeated the same answer over and over, and your opinion does not make my answers "crap" just because they disagree with your steadfast opinion as to what qualifies as evidence or science in general.

I'll address your last criticism in this post and then answer yet again your tirade in post 195.

 

Yeah, and him having the pages he needed to know didn't hurt either.

 

(Me... again...: "There was, of course, much criticism of our experimental method, but I invite review.")

 

You distort the experiment to suit your skepticism. I addressed this already when you brought it up originally.

He did not "have the pages he needed to know." My mother was the "go between" and controller of the experiment, including keeping the magazine pages for each run hidden from him. Your accusation that she could have cheated denies the integrity and honesty of my family and the controls and legitimacy of the experiment.

 

Now to your previous post:

But it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion if you are using something as evidence that is not considered evidence in a scientific format. Just because you advocate a broader focus doesn't mean we have to follow along. That's a whole different topic, as a whole if we are not focused on that we should focus on what can be accepted as evidence.

 

Short version, you must show there is a phenomena before investigating that phenomena

Since you don't know the odds of it being an accident you can't logically conclude there was anything happening that wouldn't be normally happening..

 

You need to first show that the events aren't random chance before you can say they are possibly paranormal.

 

The log is not every single thought and feeling, only ones that could pertain to being telepathically induced as well as times when there was no instance of telepathy.

 

Swansont, post 7; his bold:

...Unless you systematically record all thoughts of these and other people to record the false positives and negatives, such information is scientifically worthless.

 

Me:

...but it seems that all such “stories” can be easily dismissed as mere “anecdotes,” even with such clarity of coordination between very specific events as I described in detail.

 

I explained that, to qualify as a potential paranormal phenomenon, an object of study in that field, two events must demonstrate a correlation as I specified.

...

The focus of scientific investigation in such cases must be “How can such claims be verified?”, not an outright dismissal of all such claims.

 

(Again, in my next post):

“Over and over: All normal experience is "non-supportive data." (Edit: "Non-supportive" does not mean invalidating.) The usual daily normal experiences do not count against the validity of the rare paranormal experience. But a correlation between events, without explanation, is what designates a paranormal event.

Me:

His condition was somehow communicated to me. All the details verify that.” “Somehow” means we don’t know how, and that qualifies as paranormal.

You:

No, you are begging the question. Nothing you stated qualifies the conclusion, and it assumes the condition was communicated.

 

If we had cell phones (not yet invented) and he had called and told me about his condition, there would be no question about it, that he communicated his condition to me. But lack of known means "begs the question" that he communicated with me? I got the information and it turned out to be true and specific information about his condition.

 

I have said it doesn't discard all anecdotes, but they can not be used for evidence. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, that is how things are.

 

Also, from Swansont (again): "The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence."

 

Neither your opinion nor his equates to "how things are." If all details of an anecdote are verified, as above, it is "evidence" for paranormal communication. "Evidence" of course does not equal "proof." Maybe that is the semantic point of disagreement.

 

You have thrown around quite a few credentials as well IIRC.

I was criticized as "culpable" as one who misunderstands the scientific method. My background having taught it at college level is obviously relevant to that criticism. "The scientific method" is not a universal law carved in stone... especially as pertains to scientific investigation of possible paranormal events. And evidence is not proof. There is a huge body of claims of paranormal events. The job of science is to investigate all the "evidence" in detail and sort it out (discarding what can not be verified), not just dismiss all of it on the arbitrary grounds that "anecdotes are not evidence." (IIRC ?)