The Science of Interconnectedness.

[cannabineer]

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?

I've seen the video, and the results were remarkable. But I was startled and disappointed to read Tyler's accounts of failure to reproduce his results. I have to be ready to label this "pathological science" if there's no reproducing it. Remember the "cold fusion" debacle? Also accredited scientists ultimately led astray by systematic error in their apparatus. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Persinger is no pseudoscientist. He is not trying to subvert or defy the scientific method, and he is not arrogantly saying his theory is beyond science. I agree that the lecture is provoking and I think Persinger is one to keep an eye on. He is however outside of his field when he talks about quantum mechanics and some say he is taking some liberty with his application of quantum entanglement. I also question his gullibility, he claims Sean Harribance told the US military where to find Saddam as if it is accepted fact. When reading about the experiments with Sean Harribance and Ingo Swann, they sound very much like parlor tricks. Persinger wouldn't be the first scientist to be fooled by accomplished hoaxers, project alpha comes to mind. This is why we need replication.

In any case all we can say at this point is just what BB said, it's intriguing.

 

[eye exaggerate]

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...(that only seems suicidal?)

...thanks for the great reply, Tyler. And, awesome clincher (not of the 'fleshy-tech' variety, that is )

 

[cannabineer]

Persinger is no pseudoscientist. He is not trying to subvert or defy the scientific method, and he is not arrogantly saying his theory is beyond science. I agree that the lecture is provoking and I think Persinger is one to keep an eye on. He is however outside of his field when he talks about quantum mechanics and some say he is taking some liberty with his application of quantum entanglement. I also question his gullibility, he claims Sean Harribance told the US military where to find Saddam as if it is accepted fact. When reading about the experiments with Sean Harribance and Ingo Swann, they sound very much like parlor tricks. Persinger wouldn't be the first scientist to be fooled by accomplished hoaxers, project alpha comes to mind. This is why we need replication.

In any case all we can say at this point is just what BB said, it's intriguing.

Pons and Fleischmann were also "real" scientists. This is neither praising them or disparaging Persinger. But if he cannot describe his method well enough that others can replicate results like his, then there is something amiss there. If he can but won't, that is imo an affront to scientific ethics. If he wants to but isn't succeeding, it is a lacuna in the scientific method. What I described to CWE as the portability of the result applies here. I'd like to see his results, or results that point in the same direction, independently reproduced in another lab from purely written protocols. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Pons and Fleischmann were also "real" scientists. This is neither praising them or disparaging Persinger. But if he cannot describe his method well enough that others can replicate results like his, then there is something amiss there. If he can but won't, that is imo an affront to scientific ethics. If he wants to but isn't succeeding, it is a lacuna in the scientific method. What I described to CWE as the portability of the result applies here. I'd like to see his results, or results that point in the same direction, independently reproduced in another lab from purely written protocols. cn

I was not speaking to the validity of the claims. I was comparing Persinger with Sheldrake. One honors the scientific method, the other scoffs at it. Persinger may well turn out to be a fool, but he is not a pseudoscientist. I do not think these experiments have attempted to be reproduced just yet, as this is a different video from the God helmet. I also don't think anyone is complaining that Persinger is withholding data or resisting peer review. The main criticism seems to be that he is outside of his field when speaking on QM, and works under the assumption that people are psychic going into his experiments. The medical community seems to regard highly his research on anticonvulsants and epilepsy, so he is apparently capable of doing good work. I think the first thing to look at is if Persinger is falling victim to scam, which can easily happen to a scientist.

So when deciding which claims to dedicate time to I say we favor science over pseudoscience, keeping in mind that one mans/teams science has every chance of being flawed. Until reproduction, his findings can not be said to be anything more than intriguing.

And again, Persinger is basically saying "I am convinced this is right, have a look for flaws", where Sheldrake is saying "I know this is right and the flaws are there because science doesn't know how to look".

 

[cannabineer]

I was not speaking to the validity of the claims. I was comparing Persinger with Sheldrake. One honors the scientific method, the other scoffs at it. Persinger may well turn out to be a fool, but he is not a pseudoscientist. I do not think these experiments have attempted to be reproduced just yet, as this is a different video from the God helmet. I also don't think anyone is complaining that Persinger is withholding data or resisting peer review. The main criticism seems to be that he is outside of his field when speaking on QM, and works under the assumption that people are psychic going into his experiments. The medical community seems to regard highly his research on anticonvulsants and epilepsy, so he is apparently capable of doing good work. I think the first thing to look at is if Persinger is falling victim to scam, which can easily happen to a scientist.

So when deciding which claims to dedicate time to I say we favor science over pseudoscience, keeping in mind that one mans/teams science has every chance of being flawed. Until reproduction, his findings can not be said to be anything more than intriguing.

And again, Persinger is basically saying "I am convinced this is right, have a look for flaws", where Sheldrake is saying "I know this is right and the flaws are there because science doesn't know how to look".

It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

 

[Beefbisquit]

It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

Sometimes, even when subjected to scientific scrutiny, somethings are still a mystery.

Maybe Persinger just doesn't have the full explanation and is doing his best to describe his results in a way that is as consistent as possible with the scientific method.

Any explanation we offer is simply speculation at this point. If the double blind testing that he describes in the video actually happened, and there's no parlour tricks involved, these findings could shake the very foundations of the way we perceive memories. It would explain so many cases of seemingly unexplained 'telepathy'. It could also explain why twins can seem to have their own secret language without using words.

This could impact so many fields of science, I wish more professionals took the time to study this subject.

 

[Doer]

It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

Polly Water Doodle all the Day.

 

[Beefbisquit]

If you cannot prove your beliefs to be true beyond reasonable doubt, they are not true... you merely think they are.

Not true. Your argument is; if there's evidence, then it's true, but it's not bi-directional. Just because it's true doesn't mean there's evidence.

If A, then B.
A;
therefore B.
This logically follows.

But;
If A then B,
B;
therefore A.
Doesn't logically follow.

If it's raining it's wet. But if it's wet, it's not necessarily raining.

So; just because something is true, doesn't mean if requires evidence to be true. But if something has (enough) evidence it is necessarily true.

 

[cannabineer]

Sometimes, even when subjected to scientific scrutiny, somethings are still a mystery.

Maybe Persinger just doesn't have the full explanation and is doing his best to describe his results in a way that is as consistent as possible with the scientific method.

Any explanation we offer is simply speculation at this point. If the double blind testing that he describes in the video actually happened, and there's no parlour tricks involved, these findings could shake the very foundations of the way we perceive memories. It would explain so many cases of seemingly unexplained 'telepathy'. It could also explain why twins can seem to have their own secret language without using words.

This could impact so many fields of science, I wish more professionals took the time to study this subject.

That is true. In Pons and Fleischmann's case, the falsity of the result was eventually established. In Persinger's case, we have a result neither confirmed nor falsified.
I don't remember any more, but i hope I raised pathological science as a possibility, not a diagnosis. I agree that further studies along these lines, to either confirm or falsify the effect, and just as importantly to refine and distribute a complete set of instructions/schematics, would be a thing worth funding. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

Ahh I see the distinction and I suspect that sort of thing is what will be found when recreating Persinger's experiments. I suspect this because, as BB said, this discovery would lead to multiple paradigm shifts. Normally when we see results indicating such change, they end up not holding up to scrutiny.

I am surprised that so far I have not seen any of the skeptical para-researchers comment on these claims. This seems like something Richard Wiseman would be very interested in. Seeing as how some skeptics often champion Persinger for his work on the God helmet, it would be interesting to see how they digest these claims.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I don't remember any more, but i hope I raised pathological science as a possibility, not a diagnosis.

I agree, certainly a possibility! I'm bias in this topic, I want Persinger to be correct; so my input should be taken with a grain of salt!