Chaos Magic

[tsig]

Exactly. There's hardly a shortage of believers in the supernatural, and many of them would be happy to try whatever it is Limbo is suggesting.

And yet, the evidence meter is stuck at zero.

How can this be?

Well what am I supposed to do with all these psychic telescope parts?

 

[Robin]

Well what am I supposed to do with all these psychic telescope parts?

I would remind you that the psychic telescope parts consist of taking drugs, energetic dancing and having lots of sex.

I do think that the answer to your question suggests itself right there, depending upon your preference.

 

[tsig]

I would remind you that the psychic telescope parts consist of taking drugs, energetic dancing and having lots of sex.

I do think that the answer to your question suggests itself right there, depending upon your preference.

I'm a little old for that now but when I tried drugs, dancing and sex the results were chaotic. Of course MMMV*.

my memory may vary

 

[Katopale]

I would remind you that the psychic telescope parts consist of taking drugs, energetic dancing and having lots of sex.

I do think that the answer to your question suggests itself right there, depending upon your preference.

Indeed. My telescope got a lot of action.

 

[Nonpareil]

But that lower belief can make a big difference. Psi effects take place against an unconscious backdrop of belief/disbelief. Thats why one has to believe in it (or at least not disbelieve in it) or it won't happen. And even that is not a guarantee, because many people don't believe in it and that inhibits the strength of psi.

Ah, the sheep-goat effect. Funny how no evidence has ever been produced to verify its existence.

All you need is a group of sheep. Have them perform a rigorous experiment (preferably one whose methodology was established by "goats") and publish their - presumably positive - results. Then have this repeated by other groups of sheep. Then have it repeated - and failed - by groups of goats.

It's not that hard to prove. Why hasn't it been?

Add to that the recent indications that sidereal time can influence it. And magnetic fields. There could be all sorts of things that are making psi very weak these days and in certain areas.

Ah. That's why.

So do you have any actual evidence that this has an effect? Or are you simply assuming psi's existence, then throwing in as many catches as possible to ensure that no one can ever disprove your claim?

 

[AkuManiMani]

...Which they never would have endeavored to accomplish in the first place if they acquiesced to the prevailing beliefs of the time.

I'm confused. There were many people working on the possibility of human powered flight when the Wright Brothers first figured it out. What do you mean "acquiesced to the prevailing beliefs of the time"? We have known for a long time that flight was possible; the Wright Brothers themselves played with flying toys as children. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here because it seems to contradict actual history.

There were many prominent academics and scientists who, in the years leading up to the Wright Brothers breakthrough, confidently declared that "heavier than air flying machines" were impossible. That the idea was starting to gain mainstream traction doesn't change the fact that such a possibility was widely considered science fiction. In any case, I wasn't the one to bring up the example. I was merely responding to a comment made by Katopale a couple pages back.

 

[Robin]

There were many prominent academics and scientists who, in the years leading up to the Wright Brothers breakthrough, confidently declared that "heavier than air flying machines" were impossible.

Well that is not quite true, in fact heavier than air flight had been acheived on a limited basis already.

I don't think anybody said it was impossible, but there was a handful of prominent people - including Kelvin - who predicted that it would never be a practical proposition.

 

[Robin]

I'm a little old for that now but when I tried drugs, dancing and sex the results were chaotic. Of course MMMV*.

my memory may vary

Chaotic and magic as I recall. But I am sure that is not what Limbo is talking about.

 

[AkuManiMani]

So if someone is accused of committing a murder how would you experimentally establish the truth/falsehood of the claim via web discussion? More to the point, how would you experimentally verify the claims I've made?

I'd follow your experimental protocol and see if I got the same results so now all you have to do is post your protocol and we'll all follow it and you can shut all the skeptics up.

Dude, thats even more stupid than asking for an experimental protocol for observing a meteorite fall. The events in question were spontaneous and occurred without my behest or control -- how the hell do you propose one design an experiment to replicate such phenomena? When you have something other than a moronic canned response let me know.

 

[AkuManiMani]

*Phew*

This is a lot to take in. As you took the time to put forward a thoughtful response I'll read it thru and try to give some worthy feedback

Sorry that this is a bit rambling..................


Cognitive styles vary. This is not controversial nor should it seem strange. Some folks tend toward the concrete while others are malleable. Consequently, people express differing opinions. That a scientist in the past might have expressed a strong opinion based on his experiences and biases (many strong opinions prove to be religiously based on further examination and not ‘scientific’) should surprise no one and is, in fact, to be expected. That some of those opinions will prove to be wrong should also be expected.

This is how scientific reasoning works: we assume a framework, we gather data and form hypotheses rejecting those contradicted by the data, we form theories based on previous hypotheses that work, and we create a paradigm that explains the theories that survive these rigorous tests – all within the prevailing framework. The framework within which we judge scientific theories is methodological naturalism. In its simplest form, we posit that there is a set of rules that nature follows and that we can explain all that we are capable of explaining by using this set of rules.

Hypotheses obviously change with time and specifically change when new data contradicts them. Theories are more resistant to change, but do so frequently. Hypotheses live and die with single experiments; theories require more evidence, generally, than a single experiment to overturn. Paradigms resist change even more strongly, requiring considerable evidence that can best be explained only with a change in our basic view of how our theories cohere. The overarching framework for all of scientific reasoning, however, is the most resistant to change. It requires absolutely extraordinary evidence to overturn.

Many current theories and paradigms were unknown until proved; that is the nature of science. Some of these ideas were thought strange or impossible by a few and, at times, by the many. The heliocentric theory shines as the prime example, but there are others, though rare. Generally, and particularly in our current climate, a cauldron of ideas compete with the best prevailing. While somewhat strange, I have found it best to view all ideas as rationalizations (even with all the Freudian baggage that entails). It is just that some rationalizations work and are supported by evidence.

As Haldane liked to remind us, our ignorance probably trumps our knowledge – but, being ignorant, we will never really know. We will surely make new discoveries about the universe as time goes by, probably never reaching the end (I would say, based on our construction, that we definitely will never reach the end since we must begin with assumptions, but I abhor absolute statements). Recent conjectures on the multiverse, string theory and dark energy serve as good examples of ideas that are not yet part of a coherent schema.

I'm reminded of a quote by the 19th century chemist Humphry Davy:

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer."​

I do no expect to convince many [or any, for that matter] of the reality of my own personal accounts. However, a big reason for why I bothered sharing at all was to draw attention to the fact that too many [even among the ranks of self identified skeptics] fall into the trap of mistaking their beliefs for knowledge. As I've mentioned repeatedly, it is not the doubt being expressed regarding claims like mine that disturbs me, but the certainty of falsehood. The truth of the matter is that skepticism involves the ability to entertain possibilities/claims as hypotheticals while suspending judgement as to their veracity.

Many here, based upon what they believe about our current scientific understanding, assume that accounts like mine cannot be true or valid. I've even had more than a few accuse me of trying to "over turn the foundations of science", as if me even mentioning my experiences is some kind of heresy. Quite a few critics here have claimed outright that what I've reported contradicts most or all of our scientific knowledge, yet they've failed to specify exactly how it is in contradiction. They start from a presumption of falsehood and demand proof contrary to their presumption. This sort of behavior is not skepticism, nor is it a display of critical thinking; its simply being critical of claims that run counter to one's own beliefs -- pure n' simple.

Do I have a complete theory to explain, in full detail, experiences like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo, or the ones I've reported? Of course not. However, what I do know is that they require a better theoretical framework than science currently has at it's disposal. I also know that, relative to my own personal experiences, such "extraordinary" claims aren't so "extraordinary" that I must assume them to be false/mistaken from the get-go. There is definitely something interesting going on with regard to these phenomena and it is neither skeptical or scientific to continue to discount them off-hand.

Philosophically, while it is possible that the observable universe (multiverse) is part of a greater whole, with mind (or experience) being more fundamental, we already have a word for that – idealism. Even with an idealist framework, we do not encounter mind independent of body in our regular observations of the world. In Idealism Mind creates matter through the action of thought; there is no additional provision for Mind to interact with what we call our minds (which are dependent on matter) unless we invoke some form of dualism; a discarnate mind interacting/speaking to someone relies on dualism and cannot be explained within a monistic framework.

Magic, by definition, contradicts methodological naturalism since only natural explanations are allowed. If the supernatural exists (an ontological possibility) science, being based in methodological naturalism, cannot account for it nor comment upon it because the supernatural would not follow the rules of the natural world. Anything that does follow the rules of the natural world, whether a part of our current understanding of physics or not, is natural and is amenable to study by methodological naturalism.

I think this touches upon the heart of this issue here. Much of the controversy regarding purported "supernatural" experiences/accounts stems not so much from actual scientific objections, but from metaphysical assumptions. IMO, any apparent physical laws that we observe are no more fundamental that the laws of the road, merely by virtue of the fact that such laws must themselves emerge from some deeper bases. Just about all of the findings at the frontiers of theoretical physics strongly suggest that our directly observable universe and its apparent constants are historical artifacts. What we consider the "natural world" is almost certainly contingent. "Magic" would simply be any mechanism or operation that supervenes upon, or works outside of, what we tentatively consider to be the "natural" laws of physics; in much the same way that messing around with the rules and parameters of a simulated world would be considered "magical" by observers within the frame of the simulation.

To be quite honest, there is nothing to suggest that what precious little we solidly know in science logically precludes the possibility of any "supernatural" phenomena. Skepticism is called for regarding such claims; a default position of dismissal is not.

Meanwhile, we do know certain facts about brain/mind function. We are prone to type 1 errors and particularly to certain kinds of type 1 errors. The classical evolutionary explanation concerns an early hominid and rustling grass – we are prone to view the rustle as due to an agent because it doesn’t hurt much to run away from the wind but hurts considerable not to run away from a crouching lion. We also know that certain people are more prone to type 1 errors, particularly to the kind of type 1 error that posits an agent behind whatever pattern we perceive. We even know how to manipulate people into committing such errors more and less often based in large part on dopamine pathways. Increase dopamine neurotransmitter levels and we tend to posit the presence of an agent; remove the action of dopamine and we are less likely to do so. This is the basis of neuroleptic treatment for delusions (an extreme form of this kind of type 1 error).

The strength of anecdotal evidence depends on the number and strengths of alternative explanations for the data. Recall, first, that evidence is data used for or against a proposition – evidence does not exist as evidence independent of some form of argument. If there are many likely explanations for why we encounter a particular piece of data, the data cannot serve as strong evidence. If there is only one likely explanation for particular data, then that data serves as strong evidence for the argument being made. Converging data points also provide better support. So, for instance, my wife is late for an appointment. She tells me that she went to the store to buy something for dinner tonight. There are a few likely scenarios, but one is most likely based on my knowledge of her and her way of acting in the world – she went to the store. If I see the new bottle of red wine vinegar in the pantry and that only reinforces the idea.

We use anecdotal data as evidence all the time. But no one considers anecdotes as strong evidence, particularly because there are often many different explanations for any anecdote (true, misrepresentation, confirmation bias, pure invention, etc.). Anecdotes cannot, therefore, be used effectively to suggest that our current way of viewing the world needs revision. Stronger evidence is needed.

If one grants that even a few of the innumerable documented "psi" experiences are accurate [such as accounts involving OBEs] they demonstrate that common ways of viewing the world most certainly require some revision. Even disregarding personal accounts like mine, there is considerable experimental evidence that lends added credence:

Even some skeptics, such as Ray Hyman, say that some parapsychological studies may have merit:

"I have argued that the case for the existence of anomalous cognition is still shaky, at best. On the other hand, I want to state that I believe that the SAIC [Science Applications International Corporation] experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research."​

http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/ESP

TBH, I cannot say whether so-called "psi" phenomena are the products of the same underlying mechanism(s) but, for the most part, they all appear to be related to the nature of consciousness itself which, for all intents and purposes, we have only the barest scientific understanding of. What little understanding we do have is fairly superficial [such as knowledge of certain neural correlates] with nothing in the way of understanding the physics of consciousness qua consciousness. As of now, even from the position of an individual who has no first-hand experience of such phenomena, it is premature to disregard seemingly extraordinary accounts of "psi" as impossible or in contradiction with the laws of physics. Quite frankly, we do not know enough concerning the physics of consciousness [or physics in general, for that matter] to make such determinations.

 

[Robin]

Do I have a complete theory to explain, in full detail, experiences like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo, or the ones I've reported? Of course not. However, what I do know is that they require a better theoretical framework than science currently has at it's disposal.

And how exactly do you know that?

 

[Zanders]

I'm reminded of a quote by the 19th century chemist Humphry Davy:

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human minds as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer."​

We didn't see evidence and then turn the evidence down saying it was impossible, there is simply no good evidence presented.

We asked for evidence, we aren't getting any actual evidence. If we find hard evidence, then people will be ignorant for turning it down purely based on what we think science is (whatever that even means).

If one grants that even a few of the innumerable documented "psi" experiences are accurate [such as accounts involving OBEs] they demonstrate that common ways of viewing the world most certainly require some revision. Even disregarding personal accounts like mine, there is considerable experimental evidence that lends added credence:

Anecdotes about OBE's (which you give too much value to) are hardly enough. If you can obtain information you couldn't have known though an OBE, it would be easily testable. We can already put people and such states in a lab, and then we could see if they could report images shown while they were supposedly out of their bodies. See? Easily testable. Don't be ignorant.

Don't tell me there is an evil conspiracy among scientists to undermine the "paranormal".

Here are some interested links on lab induces OBEs. 1 2. And on top of that, somebody could easily use their occult methods to astrally project under lab conditions and then tell the doctors what images they were holding up.

The American government poured tons of money in to such research and came out with very little of value. That is why they discontinues such research. Unless of course, you been mislead by the American government

Why doesn't he use it on us?

I think there was a thread made to try and influence the post count with psychic powers.

Ah, the sheep-goat effect. Funny how no evidence has ever been produced to verify its existence.

All you need is a group of sheep. Have them perform a rigorous experiment (preferably one whose methodology was established by "goats") and publish their - presumably positive - results. Then have this repeated by other groups of sheep. Then have it repeated - and failed - by groups of goats.

It's not that hard to prove. Why hasn't it been?



Ah. That's why.

So do you have any actual evidence that this has an effect? Or are you simply assuming psi's existence, then throwing in as many catches as possible to ensure that no one can ever disprove your claim?

It certainly looks like clutching at straws to me.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well that is not quite true, in fact heavier than air flight had been acheived on a limited basis already.

I don't think anybody said it was impossible, but there was a handful of prominent people - including Kelvin - who predicted that it would never be a practical proposition.

Naturally no-one said it was impossible, because, duh, birds. (Also, bats, insects.)

But many people said that the necessary power-to-weight ratio could not be achieved. They was wrong. But that was something very specific:

Kelvin et al: Heavier-than-air flight is not a practical proposition, because you can't achieve the necessary power-to-weight ratio.
Wilbur & Orville: We've achieved the necessary power-to-weight ratio.
Kelvin et al: So you have. Good work.

 

[tsig]

Naturally no-one said it was impossbile, because, duh, birds. (Also, bats, insects.)

But many people said that the necessary power-to-weight ratio could not be achieved. They was wrong. But that was something very specific:

Kelvin et al: Heavier-than-air flight is not a practical proposition, because you can't achieve the necessary power-to-weight ratio.
Wilbur & Orville: We've achieved the necessary power-to-weight ratio.
Kelvin et al: So you have. Good work.

Yes. When the technology made it possible we went flying. All the negative thoughts in the world couldn't keep the Wrights on the ground.

 

[punshhh]

I would remind you that the psychic telescope parts consist of taking drugs, energetic dancing and having lots of sex.

I do think that the answer to your question suggests itself right there, depending upon your preference.

I recall an occasion about 15 years ago, I was staying in a remote Himalayan village. The villagers had been worrying for some time about the lack of rain and had decided to perform a rain dance, I was invited to attend.
On the day of the dance I awoke excited in anticipation of the event, when I was surprised to discover torrential rain out side.

I asked my host if the dance was still on, he said of course, just because it had started to rain before the dance had begun didn't mean they should not dance.
His attitude was that it was only raining because of the dance even though the dance had not yet taken place.

During the dance in a small secluded square in a medieval village high up in the Himalaya (I was probably the only white man for a hundred miles in any direction). I sat with the whole village and watched as the dance began.

The villagers sat round all unquestioning in any way of what was happening.
There were a few with bells and small drums, playing a regular beat.
There were a few men and women dressed in quite elaborate clothes, they seemed to be elders. They one after the other danced round a small fire in the centre playing a drum with a neck and string like a primitive banjo.

They would dance becoming more and more animated until I expected them to fall over and pass out. It would reach a frenzy upon which they appeared to go into a trance or become possessed in some way. In their hand would be some rice which they would throw onto the drum and the fire. After a minute or so they would collapse into a heap and be helped to move to one side. The next would begin to dance.

This continued for a couple of hours, fortunately the rain had eased off a bit and we didn't all get soaked.

I had had an experience rather like being transported into another age. I was the only one present who might have considered that the dance was not the cause of the rain. To the villagers this was a ritual they had experienced their whole lives, likewise their ancestors for generations before them.

Immersed in this culture I found it hard to hold onto my conviction that rain was due to meteorological conditions.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Dude, thats even more stupid than asking for an experimental protocol for observing a meteorite fall. The events in question were spontaneous and occurred without my behest or control -- how the hell do you propose one design an experiment to replicate such phenomena? When you have something other than a moronic canned response let me know.

A world of magic and wonder that exists beyond everything we know and can verify is a world people would wish to be in. People spend thousands of hours pretending to be in these worlds, writing novels and making movies about them. People spend time contemplating these things because we want them to be true.

And yet, everything we can do that is repeatable and able to yield evidence does not support this world view as a reality. If a person has never seen or experienced these things, logically, they should be incredulous of those who claim otherwise. You yourself are skeptical of some things, you're just drawing a line in the sand at a different place than we are.

If this stuff is real and you're trying to be reasonable about it, you would be completely empathetic towards the people who doubt you, no matter how moronic they come off. You're not looking for anything but a validation of your own special powers and the special world you live in, and you seem to turn into a hostile prick when pressed on coming back to reality. People like you and Limbo are afraid of being wrong because you would have to come to terms with the real world.

Even if these things were true and for some reason only happened at random moments and were unable to be verified with evidence, you guys don't come off as people who are just tragically the target of doubt and belittling skepticism. You come off as arrogant and combative, which betrays the stakes you're defending. You probably have convinced yourself these things are true, but at some level you are just as skeptical as we are, and you hate that part of yourself.

 

[punshhh]

A world of magic and wonder that exists beyond everything we know and can verify is a world people would wish to be in. People spend thousands of hours pretending to be in these worlds, writing novels and making movies about them. People spend time contemplating these things because we want them to be true.

And yet, everything we can do that is repeatable and able to yield evidence does not support this world view as a reality. If a person has never seen or experienced these things, logically, they should be incredulous of those who claim otherwise. You yourself are skeptical of some things, you're just drawing a line in the sand at a different place than we are.

If this stuff is real and you're trying to be reasonable about it, you would be completely empathetic towards the people who doubt you, no matter how moronic they come off. You're not looking for anything but a validation of your own special powers and the special world you live in, and you seem to turn into a hostile prick when pressed on coming back to reality. People like you and Limbo are afraid of being wrong because you would have to come to terms with the real world.

Even if these things were true and for some reason only happened at random moments and were unable to be verified with evidence, you guys don't come off as people who are just tragically the target of doubt and belittling skepticism. You come off as arrogant and combative, which betrays the stakes you're defending. You probably have convinced yourself these things are true, but at some level you are just as skeptical as we are, and you hate that part of yourself.

I am empathic with your predicament halfcentaur.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Which was vehemently rejected for decades.

[citation needed]

Even assuming Boltzmann was bipolar, it still doesn't change the fact that he was very unpopular, faced public ridicule, and was subjected to professional persecution for presenting evidence and voicing views that contradicted widely held dogma. His suicide was in direct response to what was going on in his professional life.

[citation needed]

Try looking it up yourself; a quick Google search on the man should easily provide biographical information if you're honestly interested. Or, better yet, back up your own bald assertions [e.g. "Boltzmann was bipolar"] and maybe I'll consider going thru the extra effort of adding links myself. Until then your hypocrisy is noted.

...Which they never would have endeavored to accomplish in the first place if they acquiesced to the prevailing beliefs of the time.

So?

The key point is that they didn't prove anything by going against whatever the prevailing beliefs might have been.

They proved that their aircraft could fly by flying it.

Again, would any of the critics of heavier-than-air flying machines who, based upon their presumed "knowledge" that they were impossible, have even bothered to make the advance themselves? Don't tell me that you're deliberately dodging yet another point, Pixy

 

[PixyMisa]

Dude, thats even more stupid than asking for an experimental protocol for observing a meteorite fall. The events in question were spontaneous and occurred without my behest or control -- how the hell do you propose one design an experiment to replicate such phenomena?

Lots of spontaneous events have been carefully documented and reliably and repeatably observed - meteors of course being one of them.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Do I have a complete theory to explain, in full detail, experiences like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo, or the ones I've reported? Of course not. However, what I do know is that they require a better theoretical framework than science currently has at it's disposal.

And how exactly do you know that?

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.