If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding

[Aupmanyav]

@McBell
We can, nothing bars it. If there is nothing objectionable, they will publish it. The check is for that only. They do not evaluate the information in the article - that is FOIA. That is left to readers.

 

[sun rise]

@McBell
We can, nothing bars it. If there is nothing objectionable, they will publish it. The check is for that only. They do not put a evaluate the information in the article - that is FOIA. That is left to readers.

You refuse to read the link You insist that the link is wrong and you are right without considering the information. You want us to cite chapter and verse which you'll deny is true. I see no value in continuing such an exchange.

 

[Ostronomos]

Of course, the universe is like a living organism. It reacts to changes instantly (Spooky Action at a Distance - Wikipedia).
Of course, you have the right to believe in pink fairies, no law against it, irrespective of what science points to.
Here too, you are correct. There is a lot more for science to find.

The article in the OP is in the CIA Reading Room because of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Anyone can put any trash in the CIA Reading Room after paying the necessary fees. An article being there does not mean an involvement of CIA or impart any value to what is written in it.

Search | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

Why do atheists have the tendency to imagine pink fairies and attribute the idea to others?

 

[McBell]

@McBell
We can, nothing bars it. If there is nothing objectionable, they will publish it. The check is for that only. They do not put a evaluate the information in the article - that is FOIA. That is left to readers.

You really need to read the information provided by the very site you link to:

Records the CIA Provides at No Cost Under FOIA​

• No fees are charged to requesters seeking records about themselves under the FOIA, specifically records indexed to their names. We process such requests under both the FOIA and the Privacy Act to ensure the release of the maximum amount of information.
• Searches of Previously Released Information at This Internet Site: You have immediate and free access to CIA records already declassified in full or in part under the FOIA and the Executive Order (EO) and previously released to the public (use the search above) or visit frequently requested records.
• No charge for requests that can be processed for less than $10.

Otherwise, you may be responsible for fees as detailed below. The FOIA provides for the collection of fees assessed according to the requester type:​

​

• Educational and Scientific: Any accredited U.S. educational or research institution or instructor/researcher of such an institution using the information in a scholarly or analytical work contributing to public knowledge and disseminated to the general public.
• Commercial: Furthers the commercial interests of the requester - for example, book publishers and authors.
• News Media: Representatives of newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and freelancers (if publishing through one of these news organizations) disseminating current events of interest to the general public to enhance its understanding of the operation or activities of the U.S. government.
• All Others: Requests from individuals who do not fit into the previous three categories.

Fees Charged by the CIA for Processing FOIA Requests:​

• Searches: Time expended in looking for and retrieving material, either paper or electronic indices, that may be responsive to the request, including personnel hours (clerical and professional) or computer time.
• Reviews: Professional time spent determining the releasability of a record (blacking out or redaction of text) under legal guidelines, excluding the resolution of legal or policy issues.
• Reproduction: Generating a copy of a requested record in the appropriate medium, for example, paper or computer disk.

Please note that these fees are for obtaining records kept/supervised by the CIA.
It is not a publishing fee like you claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do atheists have the tendency to imagine pink fairies and attribute the idea to others?

Do they? Where? In what way?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please note that these fees are for obtaining records kept/supervised by the CIA.
It is not a publishing fee like you claim.

That is OK, but any INFORMATION in an article published in that site IS NOT AUTHENTICATED by CIA. That is what an 'OPEN' publishing site means.

 

[sun rise]

That is OK, but any INFORMATION in an article published in that site IS NOT AUTHENTICATED by CIA. That is what an 'OPEN' publishing site means.

Wrong. The CIA reviewed the studies both for methodology and analysis They AUTHENTICATED the methodology. This was not an "OPEN" journal but a study that was released to the public.

And you have continued to ignore the follow-up study which reached the same conclusion.

Thus, the present results compel the authors to voice an updated position statement, that is, our skeptically oriented team obtained ample evidence supporting the existence of robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thus, the present results compel the authors to voice an updated position statement, that is, our skeptically oriented team obtained ample evidence supporting the existence of robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi.

Ah, it is something like existence of God. Not disproved, therefore possible. Problem of negating a negative.

 

[McBell]

That is OK, but any INFORMATION in an article published in that site IS NOT AUTHENTICATED by CIA. That is what an 'OPEN' publishing site means.

That depends upon what information is requested.
That site does not deny nor confirm the information they release.
They merely release (or not) the requested information.

Now since the study in question was conducted by the CIA (or under CIA supervision) any conclusions reached in fact be what the CIA concluded about the study.

Now if the study was not done by or supervised by the CIA, you would have a point.
Because the site only releases information the CIA is responsible for.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now since the study in question was conducted by the CIA (or under CIA supervision) any conclusions reached in fact be what the CIA concluded about the study.
Now if the study was not done by or supervised by the CIA, you would have a point.
Because the site only releases information the CIA is responsible for.

The study in question was only about whether it is OK to dump PSI or there is still a chance that it may be true.
CIA was not involved in the research of the article. CIA analysers opined that there is not enough to dump PSI and let the article to be published.
Yes, the study was not ordered or supervised by CIA. It is an independent article.

 

[Audie]

It seems that some refuse to engage with the actual science here but instead just repeat their biases and emotional assumptions. And along with that don't exhibit the proper intellectual and scientific humility that the authors of the 2nd paper did.

Thus, the present results compel the authors to voice an updated position statement, that is, our skeptically oriented team obtained ample evidence supporting the existence of robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi.

And along with that many refused to answer the question the thread title asked:

If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding​

" science proves" again.

And you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Audie]

That makes no difference. This - some refuse to engage with the actual science here but instead just repeat their biases and emotional assumptions... and many refused to answer the question the thread title asked - has not changed, and will always remain the same.
Hasn't it been that way for the time you have been here?

Of all people to complain about
not engaging actual science.
You've shattered the irony meter.

As for answering a ridiculous question-
" science PROVES"- maybe you play games with
ridiculous questions. Apparently the serious minded here don't.

However as a general response, I, and any sensuble
person would be fascinated and excited about a
radical new discovery that significantly alters our
perception of the nature of reality. This has not happened
regarding the topic at hand.

You as I recall are a noahs ark believer despite that
vast evidence- not an anomaly in some stats-shows
there was no flood.

Darn silly and hypocritical post you put up there
Pard.

 

[sun rise]

Some people are either having reading comprehension problems or their confirmation bias is so strong they are not reading what is written. Instead we see logical fallacies such as a straw man. This entire thread is about

robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation

and asks the question

If science proves that non-local consciousness is real how does that change your understanding​

 

[osgart]

I wouldn't suspect that science would ever regard anything other than methodological naturalism, and its physicalist/materialist mindset. So there may never be enough support to ever launch a serious effort on this hypothesis.

If non local consciousness ever became an established theory I would be shocked. It would be a confirmation of things I strongly believe in for total else reasons.

The idea that consciousness is generated by classical physics sounds absurd. Whatever consciousness is, my instinct tells me it exists because of what is involved with quantum mechanics. It seems to be the natural thing to look toward.

 

[sun rise]

I wouldn't suspect that science would ever regard anything other than methodological naturalism, and its physicalist/materialist mindset. So there may never be enough support to ever launch a serious effort on this hypothesis.

If non local consciousness ever became an established theory I would be shocked. It would be a confirmation of things I strongly believe in for total else reasons.

The idea that consciousness is generated by classical physics sounds absurd. Whatever consciousness is, my instinct tells me it exists because of what is involved with quantum mechanics. It seems to be the natural thing to look toward.

"Quantum mind" is an idea that has been put forward to explain consciousness. I would classify it as an interesting but unproven hypothesis at this point.

Quantum nonlocality on the other hand is solid physics. This is pure speculation, but could quantum nonlocality explain the "robust statistical anomalies"? IF it does, then "non-local consciousness" might possibly be caused by quantum nonlocality.

Anyway, I love to speculate about such things.

 

[osgart]

"Quantum mind" is an idea that has been put forward to explain consciousness. I would classify it as an interesting but unproven hypothesis at this point.

Quantum nonlocality on the other hand is solid physics. This is pure speculation, but could quantum nonlocality explain the "robust statistical anomalies"? IF it does, then "non-local consciousness" might possibly be caused by quantum nonlocality.

Anyway, I love to speculate about such things.

Yes, I love the speculation about the topic as well.

The mysterious relationship between entangled particles regardless of distance invokes the idea that a non local medium of reality is at work that nobody really understands. Then the idea that this medium is responsible for life, mind, space, time, matter, and energy comes to my mind.

I'm not sure how science could proceed forward with investigating such phenomena if they do exist.

I came across one scientist who directly studies psi. His name is Dean Radin.

 

[nPeace]

Of all people to complain about
not engaging actual science.
You've shattered the irony meter.

As for answering a ridiculous question-
" science PROVES"- maybe you play games with
ridiculous questions. Apparently the serious minded here don't.

However as a general response, I, and any sensuble
person would be fascinated and excited about a
radical new discovery that significantly alters our
perception of the nature of reality. This has not happened
regarding the topic at hand.

You as I recall are a noahs ark believer despite that
vast evidence- not an anomaly in some stats-shows
there was no flood.

Darn silly and hypocritical post you put up there
Pard.

If you want hypocritical, you need look no further than the above quote.
Everyone knows that when atheists here are faced with data they don't like, they start flapping their arms like crazy, trying to pull every distraction from the book - like you dwelling on the word prove, but making no issue when atheists say "x is proven fact". Or "the "flood" is disproved 10,000 times over, is a fact."

Couldn't want anything more hypothetical than that.
As for silly. I think there can be nothing more silly than being on a thread offering nothing that actually addresses the thread... other than poke at a word.

 

[wellwisher]

The research is being misinterpreted to fit a science philosophy narrative; reality is outside us. But these data can also come from a secondary consciousness, within us. That latter premise is less allowed by the philosophy of science, since it cannot see inside, as easy as outside.

For example, subliminal programming is when data is added to the unconscious mind; planted there, without the ego or conscious mind being fully aware. If it appears later, it may seem to have just been beamed to us, at that time. But it was placed at an earlier time, in a preconscious place, waiting to be triggered.

Witnesses to crimes are often hypnotized to see if there are extra details they saw at a subliminal level, that they are not conscious of. The hope is the unconscious memory will percolate up the hidden data to ego consciousness.

The fact that parts of the brain can pick up more data, much faster than the conscious mind, also implies it can process this data in the background, just as fast; higher dimensional processing. This allows the answer to appear to the ego, before it is conscious of the solution; eureka!

The solution to the answer, then might be projected. But it may be already assembled, at an unconscious level. The inner self may help by giving us clues via projection, since out there is where most people assume it will be; needs to touch the senses or science will reject it.

The brain's operating system offers a lot of logistical support for ego consciousness; behind the scenes. The ego is like the child learning to ride a bike, full of it self, forgetting a parent is helping them balance.

 

[sun rise]

The research is being misinterpreted to fit a science philosophy narrative;

The research is entirely a product of science.

 

[wellwisher]

The research is entirely a product of science.

The philosophy of science, requires any subject to be investigated, to be outside the investigator while observed. We need a third person approach, for a common observation ground for all scientists, for verification. We cannot see the inside of other people to verify what was internally observed by the subject. Science needs data everyone can see and agree. We can only agree on output affects, in the third person, which leaves out internal consciousness data, you cannot see from the outside. We do not get a full picture of consciousness reality based on this philosophy.

If one is dealing with consciousness phenomena in a valid scientific way, you cannot include internal data of others, that you cannot see, verify, and therefore cannot reproduce. One cannot reproduce a dream of another person, like you can their experiments. Therefore, we end up leaving out data by default. In other words, if someone came up with a good experimental design, you can copy that, but if you ask them how they ever thought to do it that way, they can tell you anything and how would know the difference? They can see your design via your paper.

I suppose a group researchers could plant the same subliminal data and suggestions on different subjects and see similar output affects, since we all have human brains and expect similar output results. You can black box that much. But again, there will still be missing data from the inside of each subject, that will not be allowed in any published paper, even if totally objective in terms of the source. Nobody can verify it, even if true, so it is not included and the study is made incomplete, but still valid science.

The idea of nonlocal consciousness assumes we ca observe a secondary source, from the third person since, it is out there, somewhere. If it is over there for me it will also be over there for you. This is allowable in science. However, saying it is part of us, in the first person, is not acceptable. Scientists cannot go there, and if they do, they risk being labeled as a tin foil hat wearing kook. You can discuss patients but your own data is not allowed.

If I said there is a ghost in my house, this is more socially acceptable than me saying my unconscious mind is projecting a ghost into my house. The former sounds like it is subject to third person para-science, while the latter sound like you need to be medicated. There is a taboo due to the collective fear of going insane or being possessed.

If it is a ghost, I can move, and it will stay where it belongs. But if I comes from within me, I can move and it may follow me no matter where I go. This is labele by scary names like demon possession or psychosis. We are taught there is only the outside, even though much of our life is spent judging things by how it makes us feel on the inside.