"String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal"

[The Man]

Don't get the impression that I don't appreciate your input...I do very much. I just can't address it. I would love to hear what Josephson would say to you, that's all.

Ok, impression not taken. If I thought that he might respond, I might be so inclined and if I did not know that others have been equally and probably more eloquently critical of this “model”, then I could be, I also might be so inclined. I might see if perhaps I can find some of those criticisms and perchance his response. Otherwise I’ll just think real hard about what constitutes a physical model and see if I get anything back from him. Unfortunately, “a shared ‘mental bubble’” fits the evidence more as the model for a comic strip then it does for any kind of physical model.

ETA:
Perhaps as an advocate of such a model you might stand a better chance of obtaining some response to answer what others have posed to you. Please feel free to include anything I might say to you in such a query.

 

[Wowbagger]

Before you can explain where paranormal abilities come from, you have to demonstrate that they exist in the first place. It seems the more carefully controlled the experiment is, the less of an effect these "abilities" have. Meanwhile, modern psychology seems to have explanations for the apparent abilities covered fairly well.

And, on top of that, I don't think String Theory has been tested extensively enough to be used as a basis for explaining anything, at all, yet.

 

[Limbo]

Meanwhile, modern psychology seems to have explanations for the apparent abilities covered fairly well.

Including this one?

Understanding the Unconscious Brain: Evidence for Non-Linear Information Processing

Abstract

Neuroimaging techniques have made breakthroughs in the field of conscious emotional processing possible. However, people process most emotional information at an unconscious level and this influences our daily life (Van den Noort, 2003). These unconscious processes still remain a great mystery. What are the limits of unconscious information processing? Neuroimaging- and skin conductance studies will be discussed to answer this question.

[...]

Interestingly, Radin (1997) found that the baseline level of skin conductance preceding highly emotional stimuli was higher than the baseline level preceding calm stimuli. He used a computer to randomly select and present target photos from a pool of digitized photographs. In this experiment, as discussed before, the calm pictures included pastoral scenes and neutral household objects, and the emotional pictures included erotic and violent scenes. In these prestimulus studies, the presentation of emotional and neutral stimuli was randomized with replacement so that each trial was completely independent of the previous ones. Four different experiments were conducted in which 31 participants were involved and 1060 target photos were presented.

The results, as can be seen in Figure 1, showed an expecting orienting response after the target photo was displayed. Moreover, there was a significant prestimulus effect that peaked with a four standard error difference in physiological measures between extreme and calm targets, one second before the target photo was displayed.

[...]

The analysis of the prestimulus phase showed a significant prestimulus effect that was widely distributed over many brain regions, including hippocampus, pallidus, amygdala, and caudate nucleus. Most brain regions did not show striking differences in anticipation before emotional and neutral stimuli. However, larger anticipatory activation preceding emotional stimuli compared to neutral stimuli was found in the right amygdala and in the caudate nucleus. For the male participants, as can be seen in Figure 2, this appeared before the erotic stimuli while for the female both erotic and violent stimuli produced this prestimulus effect (Van den Noort, 2003).

[...]

And, on top of that, I don't think String Theory has been tested extensively enough to be used as a basis for explaining anything, at all, yet.

/shrug

 

[The Man]

Including this one?

Experimentation lets us construct models, make them more accurate or refute them.

/shrug

Do you have any other input then to just post material and “/shrug”?

 

[Dr B]

I am no physicist - but is it not the case that all one is doing here is actually increasing the explanatory gap between the very very very very very small (string threory) and the very very large (consciousness).

The gap is smaller at the level of cellular biophysics and consciousness, and neural system dynamics and consciousness (though of course - gaps still remain). However, by going smaller and smaller and delving into the less provable seems to be going in the wrong direction to me.

In addtion, with ESP, there is the argument about there being an effect to explain in the first place......

 

[fls]

Maybe Josephson is. Maybe he is starting with experimental facts known to him, but not to many others.

It seems doubtful. He references the stuff we've already seen from parapsychologists.

Linda

 

[Soapy Sam]

I can't help feeling there is something profoundly irrational about string theory to start with.
It's pure mathmatical speculation.
True, it seems all particles can be united as vibrations of a single entity- or so we are told , but what is actually happening here (it seems to me) is that very smart people, using human designed mathematics , manage to produce solutions to equations which might have a particular physical explanation, assuming said mathematics actually reflects the nature of reality.
But wait a minute- isn't that what we are trying to prove?
It seems disturbingly circ ular to me.

Is there a single piece of experimental data that supports any of the proliferating number of string theories? Or is the whole thing a classic King's New Clothes scenario?

I heard Bernard Carr argue that the so- called extra spatial dimensions are not infinitesimally small, but may be big enough to provide somewhere for spirits / paranormal phenomena to come from. Then he went all Anthropic- pick your universe of choice and there seems to be a string theory to suit... but wait a minute- does anyone seriously believe there are 10 space dimensions in this universe? Or is that just a convenient mathematical sleight of hand to permit on paper unification of various forces and particles? Does this really sound like the universe we inhabit?
Where's the beef?

Call me sceptical.

 

[jdc324]

Why do Nobel laureates seem to have more than their fair share of nutcases?
Seriously - Josephson, Shockley, Pauling...

It's the Nobel Disease - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=188

 

[Limbo]

Experimentation lets us construct models, make them more accurate or refute them.

Yes. What model does a prestimulus/presentiment effect let us construct, or make more accurate or refute?

 

[Limbo]

It seems doubtful.

Hmm. Well, at least you have doubt. A nice, respectable position for a skeptic to take.

He references the stuff we've already seen from parapsychologists.

Yes. Maybe he has gone over parapsychological research painstakingly and impartially and saw that there was something to it after all. Maybe he has listened to the skeptics and found their arguments spurious.

 

[Limbo]

Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality Brian D. Josephson and Fotini Pallikari-Viras

The perception of reality by biosystems is based on different, and in certain respects more effective principles than those utilised by the more formal procedures of science. As a result, what appears as random pattern to the scientific method can be meaningful pattern to a living organism. The existence of this complementary perception of reality makes possible in principle effective use by organisms of the direct interconnections between spatially separated objects shown to exist in the work of J.S. Bell.

1. INTRODUCTION

Bell(1,2)[4] has given arguments that appear to demonstrate the existence of direct interconnections between spatially separated objects. But at the same time there are arguments(4-6) that appear to show that no real physical manifestations of these interconnections actually exist. The thesis developed in this paper is that it is only from the point of view of quantum mechanics that these connections appear to be unphysical, and that there is a different, complementary point of view, one associated specifically with the activities of living organisms, in terms of which the interconnections may be very concretely real, and capable of being put to practical use.

The logic of the complementary point of view to which reference has just been made is that the activities of living organisms are governed by predominant principles (survival, and optimality of the conditions of life) different to those of the scientist (conformity to certain restrictions that are considered necessary for "good" science). The perceptual processes of organisms (e.g. processes such as vision) perform their functions in general very effectively, but in a way that is hard to delineate in rigorous scientific terms. It will be argued that as a result of this difference the knowledge possessed by biosystems and the knowledge possessed by science are qualitatively different, leading to an ability of life to make use of Bell's non-locality in a way that is not possible in the different situation of a controlled scientific experiment.

The discourse that follows begins (Sec. 2) with a review of Bell's theorem, discussing in particular the antithesis between the way that Bell's argument appears to demonstrate the existence of direct action at a distance, while at the same time quantum calculations lead to the result that any such effects will disappear under statistical averaging. Experiments on certain unusual human abilities(7,8) suggest that the non-local effects do not invariably disappear under averaging, a result that the present paper seeks to explain.

 

[Dr B]

To what extent is this merely trying to explain one mystery with another?

In addition - in relation to my earlier point - why do we need an explanation for an effect, which arguably does not exist?

 

[Limbo]

To what extent is this merely trying to explain one mystery with another?

In addition - in relation to my earlier point - why do we need an explanation for an effect, which arguably does not exist?

What's your explanation for the effect demonstrated by the paper in post #23?

 

[IXP]

What's your explanation for the effect demonstrated by the paper in post #23?

The same explanation for why back-tested stock picking theories can be so accurate, but have no predicitve value.

The way these experiments are done is by matching the known results to patterns that precede them, then claiming that the patterns predict the result. This is fallacious. They are selecting patterns that, more often than chance precede the known result from an infinite possible set of patterns, which you can always do successfully. If the patterns predict the result, you should be able to prove this with a double-blind test. If Radin can predict results that he does not know beforehand from any pattern he sees, I will take notice.

IXP

 

[Limbo]

The same explanation for why back-tested stock picking theories can be so accurate, but have no predicitve value.

The way these experiments are done is by matching the known results to patterns that precede them, then claiming that the patterns predict the result. This is fallacious. They are selecting patterns that, more often than chance precede the known result from an infinite possible set of patterns, which you can always do successfully. If the patterns predict the result, you should be able to prove this with a double-blind test. If Radin can predict results that he does not know beforehand from any pattern he sees, I will take notice.

IXP

Hmm. I have to wonder if you've read the paper.

 

[fuelair]

I was hoping y'all might take a gander at this and see what you think.

String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

ABSTRACT

A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena.

Keywords: ESP, string theory, anthropic principle, thought bubble, universal mind, mental state

* To appear in the Proceedings of the 2nd. European Samueli Symposium, Freiburg, October 2003

1. Introduction

Critics of claims of the paranormal, e.g. Deutsch (2001), have declared extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal phenomena to be ‘nonsense’ . Such absolutist positions give little weight to the experimental evidence (Radin 1997) in support of the reality of such processes, and seem naive given the range of imaginative proposals concerning the nature of reality currently being put forward for serious consideration by conventional physicists. One important advance has been the superseding of the so-called Standard Model as a fundamental theory of nature by string theory (http://superstringtheory.com), where the Standard Model features merely as a subset of the set of permitted possibilities. As Carr (2001, 2003) (whose approach is centred on the alternative Randall-Sundrum picture) has suggested, such a change in perspective opens up new possibilities in science, including the possibility of accommodating paranormal phenomena within physics. In the following a number of concepts are combined, each in essence consistent with accepted ideas, resulting in a qualitative explanation for ESP, with the promise of an eventual clear cut basis for understanding paranormal phenomena in general.

[...]

This has no bearing on any recognized biological process or physics based tested reason for any biological process. I call silliness or fraud.

 

[fls]

Yes. Maybe he has gone over parapsychological research painstakingly and impartially and saw that there was something to it after all. Maybe he has listened to the skeptics and found their arguments spurious.

I think that if you want to believe, the research is sufficient to confirm your belief - it is not necessary to consider yourself wrong (although that point is certainly arguable). The problem for the rest of us is that when we ask you, "how do you know that you are not wrong?", the answer is, "we don't". You may think that this should not be of concern to those who only wish to speculate and explore. However, knowing that you are not wrong is a powerful tool - maybe the most powerful that we have. By not using this tool and not listening to the skeptics, parapsychologists have seriously handicapped their ability to make progress toward confirming paranormal phenomenon. Now, most of us don't get too upset about this, because it doesn't really look like there are any paranormal phenomena to confirm anyway (i.e. we're not missing out on something useful). But on the other hand, it would be kinda cool if there were, so I do have an interest in continuing to criticize their results.

Why isn't it possible that the experiments that puportedly show paranormal phenomena are dismissed because they are easily consistent with chance, bias (which has been demonstrated to be present) and a smattering of fraud, rather than that all the rest of the scientists are meanies?

Linda

 

[fuelair]

Why do Nobel laureates seem to have more than their fair share of nutcases?
Seriously - Josephson, Shockley, Pauling...

Because nobody wants to be the one to fire them.

 

[Limbo]

Hi Linda, thanks for another thoughtful post.

I think that if you want to believe, the research is sufficient to confirm your belief - it is not necessary to consider yourself wrong (although that point is certainly arguable).

Ya.

The problem for the rest of us is that when we ask you, "how do you know that you are not wrong?", the answer is, "we don't".

I think the research shows that there is an 'anomaly'. My personal experiences show me that 'psi' (as loosely conceived of by parapsychologists) seems to fit the 'anomaly' pretty well.

(i.e. we're not missing out on something useful).

It's always about YOU, isn't it sweetheart.

Why isn't it possible that the experiments that purportedly show paranormal phenomena are dismissed because they are easily consistent with chance, bias (which has been demonstrated to be present) and a smattering of fraud, rather than that all the rest of the scientists are meanies?

Anything is possible.

I'm sure there's some truth in what you say, but...it's one-sided.

 

[fls]

I think the research shows that there is an 'anomaly'. My personal experiences show me that 'psi' (as loosely conceived of by parapsychologists) seems to fit the 'anomaly' pretty well.

There are two problems with that. The first is that the possibility that the 'anomaly' consists only of bias has not been ruled-out. The second is that 'psi' is not a coherent idea with a theoretical basis. Psi only fits the 'anomaly' because psi is so vaguely conceived that hardly anything wouldn't fit.

Anything is possible.

Exactly. So methods whereby we can begin to sort out which things we know to be wrong, or to put constraints on which things can be right are extremely valuable.

I'm sure there's some truth in what you say, but...it's one-sided.

Of course it's one-sided. I fall squarely on the side of truth and beauty, which means I am frustrated by methods that assure neither.

Linda