The Science of Interconnectedness.
- Thread starter Chief Walkin Eagle
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Loaded premise. Double-blind is designed to remove the subjective. If we've established nothing else in this thread, it's that we don't have an objective handle on studying spirit-action. You're trying to reintroduce "science of spirit" but through the other back door imo ...
...basically supporting my premise that science and spirit present "nonoverlapping magisteria". Just as using science to study spirit fails on the incompatibility of method, so does using spirit to do science, as "unrevealed" by prophetic works that never exceed the sci-tech grammar of their day. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
Whaaaa? Who is presupposing "spirit", in the first place? So, to say that it's non-overlapping, is error. It's a null set. 1+0=1.
Double Blind testing has consistently established the Zero in the equation.
I'm not giving science of spirit any credence. Nor will I grant the conjecture there is some other "something" that can be studied to get "objective handle on studying spirit-action." What woo is this my, forum mate? "Spirit action" assumed or proposed, but no method to study, for now? No incompatibility of methods, surely.
That takes two methods, but even more, takes two things to apply methods to.
Can't do DBT, to rule out Subjective, because the woo to study, is subjective? Then there is no spirit action at all, to study, right? Just wooish conjecture. There's the back door. Am I reading you correctly? Loaded, I am, put you may have missed my point.
It's been established in this thread, there is "spirit action" to study, we just don't know how? Wild thread, indeed. Not established with me, iac.
How could I have been so un-clear? Pah...back door, indeed.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Don't do yourself an injury! I am simply saying that there's been no success in using the methods of science on questions of spirit. I am also giving any science of spirit no credence until it can build some. But as you are not (giving any credence, that is), asking for double-blind studies seems less like a way forward and more like a lawyer's word trap. I do not know how to legitimately study matters of spirit without science, but I'm not saying that there can be none.
What I do notice from what literature there is ... is that spirit-action, assuming it is real, seems to have a wilful element to it that would pre-empt double blind or any such objectivizing measures. Have you read Michael Crichton's autobiographical "Travels"? In it, he describes a spirit-world experience that is at once compelling and hugely frustrating. If there are little imps, lights etc., they seem to make a game out of being inconsistent ... out of dancing around the places where they could be subject to test.
Double-blind is a suitable protocol for testing effects on aware subjects (people) by material causes. But it may be quite unsuitable for a phenomenon that has a CoyoueRavenTrickster element built in up front.
~shrug~ I'm wheeling a bit freely, and my blood sugar is scraping asphalt. Time to nutrify. cn
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Great post. +rep...
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Well I was going to say reality mirrors every individual subjectively, we are subjectively experiencing ourselves/reality, that kinda deal. Because really the only perception you have is your own. If you are happy and humble and comfortable about your world views then you cant be wrong about reality, because reality is only reflecting what you put into it, and those that think theres a magical aspect to existence see that magic when they look up at night or when they do other things,Imo. I knew of this subject but never really put much thought into it till now since finding out theres millions of people not seeing these things that a handful of people can see... I am not interested in fame and fortune though. Might get cancer or corrupt my mind or something because of not earning any of my gluttonous happiness of money and recognition lol. I dont think a video will get that much attention though since theres already a bunch of videos where people see the same thing and they dont get taken seriously, I would just become one of them.
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
A lot of things have to do with magnetism/resonance. The "crazy" unlimited technology device I talk about has to do with magnetism, and can be adjusted so that it defies gravity. That movie I posted called "Astral City" comes from a medium who tells the story of a Spanish spirit. A humble authority figure was explaining a few things to this spirit when he was still confused about this new reality and he mentioned that humanity should be discovering the wonders of magnetism soon. This story takes place around the time Tesla was alive....most everything about that stuff is related to magnetism / resonance. I'm not a huge fan of the idea that people affect things like this. However, it is plain to see when it happens between two people. Now, that's crazy
Is there an article you can link me to about people effecting electricity? First time I have heard of this. My crazy senses are tingling lol
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is a basic divergence with the scientific mindset. A scientist studying material/sensory reality needs to count on reality being invariant, with seemingly noncompliant phenomena like the quantum observer effect occurring in very defined conditions of the very very small and fast.
Without this invariance, this almost complete independence from the observer, no meaningful edifice of science could be built.
So if indeed magical perception is a constant negotiation with/ effect of the observer as well as the observed, i see no hope for there being a science of the spirit, because the two pursuits work from incompatible, contradictory premises.
I am not saying one is right and the other, wrong. Just that each cannot be tested or proven using the tools of the other. Of course, i see science as being spectacularly successful, useful and right within its domain. It provides the gold standard for consequent intellectual inquiry. There are other, nonscientific but still eminently rational avenues of human study, such as philosophy. These however are not limited to the sensory (although they are well-advised to not plainly contradict it) and may be more speculative in their nature, even as they seek to limit subjective premises/processes as far as possible.
At the far pole from objectivity, but still solidly engaging the human mind and heart, is art in all its varied glories and agonies. Art is definitively subjective. But its universal appeal strongly supports its validity as a human endeavor.
Art is also the springboard from the objective through the natural into the transcendent. The great problem I have encountered and witnessed is the impossibility of defining and communicating the building blocks of art using express forms (language). (Just try describing a psychedelic experience. One is reduced to naked evocation.) But art is entirely about humanity, while spirit study ... is not.
So where am I going with this?
(To the fridge. For cold pizza and colder beer.)
I am suggesting that while science carries within it the tools of its own definition. Art does not, and yet people can readily tell good art from bad. Interestingly, some of the most refined art is accessibly only to the most experienced, engaged, trained observers. Like with science, philosophy or any other human study or craft, there is a learning curve. Is there one for spirit as well?
The trouble is that in science and engineering, a syllabus can be framed by which an intelligent but dirt-ignorant beginner can go from zero to full practitioner. In art, inclination/talent needs to be added to the mix. In spirit studues, i can imagine that #### (indefinible) has to be present as well. But perhaps, from the material perspective, #### subjectivizes things irredeemably. How I wish there were a consequent way to navigate these shoals at the edge of the map of human experience!
My basic affinity for beauty and symmetry wants for there to be a way to close the circle, to return to Science from Art via the Transcendent. But I must admit to myself and you that I see no such way, and I express an essential agnosticism: I have the strong suspicion that no such way can exist without doing grievous harm to the things it would marry. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
... spirit-action, assuming it is real, seems to have a willful element to it that would per-empt double blind or any such objectivizing measures.
Of course, Mr. White Bear! Who would see anything weird if one person had not first assumed and conjectured it was possible to have extra-ordinary? Ghosts, spirits, whatever. It is impossible to get to first cause on this.
To assume something is real is worse that fiction. To natter about it for millennia, is good fiction, and profit. To buy the idea, that it is possible, is one thing. Lots of folks like to believe. To conjure an imagination of getting a handle on spirit action is religion, isn't it? I thought that was our common sub-forum agreement.
But, I didn't ask for any proof, iac, remember. In fact I scoff at the very idea. I mentioned that those who call for science to address "this?" have brought forth time and time again, these experiments. Proof for science. Please consider THIS, they beg. The rigors of Method are brought to bear, to reveal the truth for the good of mankind. None can withstand the Method.
And as I say there is only one Reality and our varied Perception, there is only one Method, and our various Understanding.
The Method exists because of spirit action conjecture. That's how I see it. No big deal.
Of course, Mr. White Bear! Who would see anything weird if one person had not first assumed and conjectured it was possible to have extra-ordinary? Ghosts, spirits, whatever. It is impossible to get to first cause on this.
To assume something is real is worse that fiction. To natter about it for millennia, is good fiction, and profit. To buy the idea, that it is possible, is one thing. Lots of folks like to believe. To conjure an imagination of getting a handle on spirit action is religion, isn't it? I thought that was our common sub-forum agreement.
But, I didn't ask for any proof, iac, remember. In fact I scoff at the very idea. I mentioned that those who call for science to address "this?" have brought forth time and time again, these experiments. Proof for science. Please consider THIS, they beg. The rigors of Method are brought to bear, to reveal the truth for the good of mankind. None can withstand the Method.
And as I say there is only one Reality and our varied Perception, there is only one Method, and our various Understanding.
The Method exists because of spirit action conjecture. That's how I see it. No big deal.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"allowing that it might be real" would have been a better phrase. I was trying to say "not reflexively dismissing it", not ... what it sounded like. cn
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...akash [...] to hydrogen...then on to all known variations?
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
I disagree, I think humanity is all about spirituality, even if you dont believe in it. Life is one big learning experience and you take what you've learned with you when you die. There may be certain things that higher beings of consciousness prefer you to learn (or not because of the concept of destiny/partial destiny) but no matter what you learn it isnt wrong or bad. A junky that died from a overdose would think "Wow, that life sure fucking sucked! I'm glad I went through it though, I experienced much conflict that I can only evolve from". If we reincarnate countless times then Hitler could be in 'heaven' because he wasnt bad, he was only experiencing. The collective consciousness of his countless past lives would kick in and he would realize how horrible he was yet he would be humbled by the experience, just like his victims would be humbled by the experience because they can only learn and evolve from it. Just an example, Hitler could be in 'Hell' also.
If we are still talking about everyone experiencing the universe subjectively in a spiritual sense then yes, science would be a useless tool for studying that concept. I think things like telepathy, astral projection, hypnotism, and the possible magic of psychedelics can be studied though. A hypnotist can make someone convinced that someone else has disappeared yet that person will be right in front of them, they somehow see right through the person like he/she isnt there. Telepathy has been found in DNA and people may have mild telepathic powers that they are oblivious to. Im sure you've had experiences where someone said "you read my mind" and you've said the same on occasion, not saying it seriously though. I feel I have a connection with a couple of my family members and my best friend, especially my best friend. Its always me thinking about something and someone else bringing it up right after I think about it, its hardly ever me receiving information. Many people think that lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection instead of the other way around. Most of these astral projectors tell stories of finding things they would of never found or visiting people and later telling them what they were doing and they would be correct. You think Strassmans experiment where two people experience the same DMT trip and communicate with the same angelic being means nothing because it only happened once under scientific observation, but have you not heard many stories of people sharing the exact same hallucination? Even if it is just some fake fantasy world they are in, its still a form of telepathy because they are connected through thought/spirit. These are all just experiences though, and i realize no matter how consistent and similar the story, it is only a story to others that are skeptical.
A spiritual learning curve can be when someone gets rid of their organized religion, which atheists already have done, or at least realize that a lot of organized religion is wrong while still having some faith in it. I guess spiritual learning curves are subjective after that. I didnt know what to do after I found out that christianity was almost completely wrong and ridiculous, I didnt care either, because I didnt care much for christianity when I was a christian up to age 11. I just thought that theres a good chance that theres no god and that view has changed as I matured and became aware of beauty, complexity, contemplation on how the universe began, contemplation on existence in general. All cliche reasons to be a believer, I know. Then Joe Rogan got me interested in so many things like spirituality and science, though more to do with certain scientific experiments (like the observer effect, first heard about that from him) than the scientific method. Then I met my spiritual friend who I thought was crazy for the longest time then he blew my mind wide open. Still think my spiritual journey started with Joe Rogan though, loved his insights.
I dont think someone should stick to just one spiritual path though, they should take what they can from religions with scattered truths and from what spiritual teachers have to say. But just like the spiritual journey of life, the study of spirituality is subjective because there shouldnt be any rules or limitations for something thats free and limitless (eternal life = limitless possibilities)
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Much to debate about the above, but it'll be the usual "how do you know it's that way", so I'll pass.
My complaints about repeatability and portability go to the core of this. I've not encountered any literature about "telepathy being found in DNA" (not a precise phrase; what does it mean?) and would not know how to design the experiment to test this concept, one with real material mundane consequences. The business with the hypnotist - has this been done in front of one of the wardens of scientific method, such as The Amazing Randi? Do not scoff; folks like him are instrumental in separating any actual positives from examples of that other great human talent ... showmanship.
Also, hypnotism deals with that awesome wellspring of chaos, the human unconscious. We barely have a science of the baseline unconscious and would need to develop it more before taking on the added variable of hypnosis ... and then the added one of unnatural doings during it. Some of the things you suggest are not simple.
I do not tend to have moments like that. i have always had a rather literal mind with a built-in metaphor filter. I would not label an experience of coincidence possible telepathy unless startlingly unlikely info was exchanged. That as never happened to me. I thought I had a premonition once: at the edge of sleep, in a different language, I had a voice rise above the internal noise and say "[world celebrity] has died". Next day in the news ... it was not so.
Dude, did I just read you saying "even if it's all a fake, it's still real"? I am unconvinced that what they had was telepathy, either with each other or with an immaterial presence. But if Strassmann has taken this pair to other universities, with other audiences allowed to examine ... that would help. But outside researchers need to have access so that they can test the veracity of the claim. That is fundamental to science: the capacity to survive hostile review. What science strives to do is to reduce story to pattern, and that requires a consistent result.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
"Great sweeping generalizations, particularly those purporting to know the thoughts and feelings of other people, are almost always wrong. It doesn't really matter whether you're a skeptic or a believer, black or white, gay or straight, Eastern or Western: when you catch yourself thinking you know the minds of others — and most especially when you assign them some sort of sub-human, amoral, or thoughtless traits — it's almost certainly you who is in the wrong." - Brian Dunning
"The whole reason researchers exist is to learn new stuff. Nobody funds research that's intended to not learn anything. Every working scientist's career is defined by his new discoveries; there is no work to be done, and no salary to be found, in accepting irrefutable truths and doing nothing. I've never met an archaeologist or anthropologist who wouldn't love to discover evidence of a superior early civilization. The reason we don't think there were any is not that we have an inflated sense of ourselves, it's that there's no evidence or record of it." - Brian Dunning
"The whole reason researchers exist is to learn new stuff. Nobody funds research that's intended to not learn anything. Every working scientist's career is defined by his new discoveries; there is no work to be done, and no salary to be found, in accepting irrefutable truths and doing nothing. I've never met an archaeologist or anthropologist who wouldn't love to discover evidence of a superior early civilization. The reason we don't think there were any is not that we have an inflated sense of ourselves, it's that there's no evidence or record of it." - Brian Dunning
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Dr. Michael Persinger has done extensive research into sharing information between humans, over long distances. It's quite intriguing and very provoking.
If you watch the entire lecture (I know it's long), he gets quite detailed into some of the experiments they performed and the different outcomes.
It's called "No more secrets", and the basic premise is that the earth's magnetic field can act as a form of data storage for memories. He explains it better than I!
[video=youtube_share;9l6VPpDublg]http://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg[/video]
If you watch the entire lecture (I know it's long), he gets quite detailed into some of the experiments they performed and the different outcomes.
It's called "No more secrets", and the basic premise is that the earth's magnetic field can act as a form of data storage for memories. He explains it better than I!
[video=youtube_share;9l6VPpDublg]http://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg[/video]
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Hey, BB! I know you're a skeptic, and I wanted to get your take on the other scientist's apparent failure to reproduce Persinger's results. I'd invest the hour in the video if I was assured I wouldn't be wasting time on woo...
[h=3]Research in neurotheology[/h] Main article: God helmet
During the 1980s he stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He claimed that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room". This research has received wide coverage in the media, with high profile visitors to Persinger's lab Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins reporting positive[SUP][13][/SUP] and negative[SUP][14][/SUP] results respectively.
The only published attempt to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding and argued that there was no physiologically plausible mechanism by which his device could affect the brain.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Persinger responded that the researchers had an incorrect computer setup[SUP][15][/SUP] and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind.[SUP][16][/SUP] Both claims are disputed.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The evidence base on which Persinger's theory rests has been criticised[SUP][6][/SUP] and commercial versions of Persinger's devices sold by his research associate Todd Murphy have proved unable to produce the effects that Murphy claims under experimental conditions.[SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
[h=3]Research in neurotheology[/h] Main article: God helmet
During the 1980s he stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He claimed that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room". This research has received wide coverage in the media, with high profile visitors to Persinger's lab Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins reporting positive[SUP][13][/SUP] and negative[SUP][14][/SUP] results respectively.
The only published attempt to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding and argued that there was no physiologically plausible mechanism by which his device could affect the brain.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Persinger responded that the researchers had an incorrect computer setup[SUP][15][/SUP] and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind.[SUP][16][/SUP] Both claims are disputed.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The evidence base on which Persinger's theory rests has been criticised[SUP][6][/SUP] and commercial versions of Persinger's devices sold by his research associate Todd Murphy have proved unable to produce the effects that Murphy claims under experimental conditions.[SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...hi, Tyler - what normally triggers the religious state? Outside of being able to trigger it mechanically, why are our bodies equipped with the fleshy-tech to have those experiences? What is 'out there' or 'in here' to even need the receptors in the first place? (there's no load on this question, just a real question that I am pondering)
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
...hi, Tyler - what normally triggers the religious state? Outside of being able to trigger it mechanically, why are our bodies equipped with the fleshy-tech to have those experiences? What is 'out there' or 'in here' to even need the receptors in the first place? (there's no load on this question, just a real question that I am pondering)
Hey, Eye! That is a great question. My favorite hypothesis comes from Richard Dawkins: In his book The God Delusion, he speaks about how moths' behavior seems to be suicidal; they circle a flame closer and closer until they eventually fly right into it burning themselves up. Of course, this is not what is actually happening. For millions of years, moths navigated Earth by the moon (the brightest object in the night sky) and when humans started to develop and learned how to make fires at will, moths mistook the fires for moonlight and flew to their death. Their flying into flame is a misfiring for an otherwise fantastic navigation system. This is an analogy of what the religious state is in humans, a misfiring of some otherwise very useful cognitive system...
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response TD!
I'm a skeptic indeed!
Based on the fact that there have been only two attempts at this experiment, one from Persinger and one replication, I'm not sure we can definitively say one way or the other.
I certainly wouldn't say Dr. Persinger falls into the category of 'woo', Laurentian University isn't known for hiring 'quacks'. All I can say is watch the video and decide for yourself. There's a ton of viable information that's presented in a concise, easy to understand, way. Brains are conductive, and we're all stuck sitting in the same powerful, magnetic field. There's enough energy in the earth's magnetic field to store the memories of every human that will ever live....
Should I mention Dr. Persinger won 'Lecturer of the year' in 2007?