TED - and Censorship

[Open_Minded]

Hello Mr. Spinkles - In my response I neglected one thing you said:

Stepping outside of biology, the software in a computer may be the underlying cause of the emergent behavior of a computer, which in turn, modifies its own underlying software.

You really don't want to make that analogy. I am a software writer - and I'm strongly suggesting that this analogy can get you into a lot of trouble. Just as it would get a creationist into a lot of trouble by suggesting that since there is a software writer for computer "intelligence" than there is an "intelligent creator".

I could go into all sorts of detailed and professional explanations of why the software in a computer " modifies its own underlying software" - but the discussion would be long, boring and can be summed up as follows. No software in a computer would "modify" anything else in a computer unless it was programmed to do so.

My clients think I build the most intuitive databases they've ever owned (and yes they do say that to me). Those databases are intuitive because of my programming, nothing else. Anything a computer program does can be traced back to the way it was written in the first place, from the most simplistic program to the most complex program - at the end of the line is the programmer.

(And no - we are not God - even though some of us think we are or some of our end-users think we are).

 

[George-ananda]

No the whole point is science does not say that everything is "fixed". There most definitely could have been different set of laws at the beginning point of the big bang. Science never said that there couldn't have been. The fact that he is saying science generalizes this stuff like this ticks me off.

I notice your response has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. You're now on some Big Bang discussion I wasn't even talking about.

People who don't understand science.....

I hope his parents didn't waste too much money on his Cambridge PhD in science when he could have just asked one of the many 'Skeptics' on RF about science (sorry Warren, the devil made me say that).

 

[Warren Clark]

I notice your response has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. You're now on some Big Bang discussion I wasn't even talking about.



I hope his parents didn't waste too much money on his Cambridge PhD in science when he could have just asked one of the many 'Skeptics' on RF about science (sorry Warren, the devil made me say that).

When someone starts telling false information about a field he supposedly studies for a living I become concerned with correcting the information. That means putting the misinformation to a halt. Even if that means "banning" from TED. I wouldn't ban the professor but I would not let the video air as an educational reference.

 

[George-ananda]

When someone starts telling false information about a field he supposedly studies for a living I become concerned with correcting the information.

I must question whether you fully understood what Dr. Sheldrake was actually saying before labeling it 'false information'. He doesn't strike me as the type of intellect that you should dismiss with prejudice.

I know Dr. Sheldrake defends his positions; and I really doubt he takes positions that can be called 'false information' without considerable debate. And I bet after the debate there will still be disagreements.

Let him speak!

 

[George-ananda]

He wasn't banned. And it took me about 5 seconds after watching his lecture video (kindly provided by TED) to recognize that Sheldrake was being highly and unfairly misleading about the status of science.

Mr. Sprinkles.....I see that scraps Dr. Sheldrake along with every other scientist I've ever brought up in our multiple discussions in the past.

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview that you think should be permitted to present his positions through the TED organization?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So this is one bone of contention. Certainly we would like to hear the much learned Mr. Sheldrake present an overview of his work.

If there are contentious issues I'm also sure the articulate Mr. Sheldrake would (and has already) given his side of the controversial issues.

You missed the point. The question we need to focus on right now is not "Do the fundamental constants of physics change over time?"

The relevant question is, "Is Sheldrake's portrayal of the status of scientific opinion accurate-- that is, is it really an unquestionable 'dogma' among scientists that the fundamental constants of physics are truly constant, except for a few brave crusaders (like Sheldrake) who dare to question a mean-spirited and closed-minded academia?"

The former question is an 'issue'. The latter question is not. I am a physicist. It's an indisputable fact that physicists do not rule out variable constants as 'dogma'. They are open to the idea. I'm open to it. My colleagues are open to it. Many physicists are testing the possibility, right now. Many physicists would be very excited if the constants were changing. Here's an article from the American Physical Society about one study which found evidence suggesting the constants may have changed over time: Physics - A Constant that Isn

Again, maybe the constants have changed over time, maybe they haven't. That's not important right now.

But what physicists believe, and what possibilities they are open to, and what they are testing right now--these are indisputable facts. It's not an opinion, and it's not even controversial: physicists are open to the possibility the constants change, and they are working on it right now. Sheldrake has blatantly misrepresented these facts. That's a no-no! *wags finger*

Sheldrake's tactic here is on par with creationists who say things like, "Evolutionists have no explanation for how the eye could have evolved." Someone who says that is disqualified from further debate: they are misrepresenting their opponents, and are therefore not engaging in a good-faith debate. It is an indisputable fact that evolutionists have an explanation. At a minimum, that must be acknowledged. We can then have a debate about the merit of the evolutionists' explanation.

Tangentially, why would Sheldrake bother to exaggerate the closed-mindedness of physicists? The reason he does it, I suspect, is the same reason we ought to not let him get away with it. I suspect Sheldrake does it because he wants to create the impression of his opponents as being almost unbelievably closed-minded. (Imagine physicists who can't even entertain the possibility that the physical constants might change! What would such physicists, if they existed, do with themselves all day long?) This (false) impression of the scientific community at large serves to make Sheldrake, by comparison, seem like a pioneer who dares to ask the big questions. If he can create this impression when it comes to the big questions of physics, then he can shoehorn it into his PSI research, and use it as an excuse to head off any doubts his listeners might have about the fact that the scientific community doesn't take his PSI research seriously. Of course scientists don't take Sheldrake's PSI theories seriously--those closed-minded scientists can't tolerate questioning of anything!

As in religion, in pseudoscience the skepticism of others itself is transformed into a kind of confirmation of the belief.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview that you think should be permitted to present his positions through the TED organization?

Let's first focus on a much, much easier question that two reasonable people (such as ourselves) ought to be able to agree on. Sheldrake said it is unquestionable "dogma" that the fundamental constants of physics do not change. This has nothing to do with atheism, materialism, physicalism, etc. It's very simple: constants change, or constants don't change. Even a materialist like myself ought to be able to get together with a mystic (like yourself) and do measurements, and accumulate evidence one way or another on this issue.

Now let's ask the easy question:

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the constancy of the fundamental constants that I think should be permitted to do a TED talk?

My answer: yes. Plenty. Any.

What does this tell you about the accuracy with which Sheldrake represented the mindset of physicists? Would you say he gave an accurate, or an inaccurate impression of the willingness of physicists to entertain different possibilities on this question? Let's establish this before we move on to areas where we will probably disagree.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And many other scientists would look at the very same facts and draw different conclusions. If this were not so, than we wouldn't have scientists debating what consciousness is. We wouldn't have the "hard problem" to contend with.

Okay, but you cited this as an example of a study on one "side" of a debate about whether consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, or not. You seemed to be suggesting (incorrectly) that the results of the study--that meditative practices can alter brain circuitry--was inconsistent in principle with the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. There may be studies whose results are inconsistent with that hypothesis, but as I explained, the particular one you cited is not an example. Will you concede this?

Mr. Spinkles - you seem to think mainstream science has disproven PSI. I'm here to tell you, they have not. If they had disproven PSI, people like myself (and there are millions and millions and millions of us from all the worlds cultures) wouldn't dismiss the scientific "explanation" for our experiences.

I'm not saying that science has disproved every conceivable form that 'PSI' could take. I am saying that every 'failed' PSI experiment has indeed disproved the particular form of the PSI hypothesis that was being tested in that experiment. That is true almost by definition. If you want to bend scientific standards of evidence to accommodate the superstitions of millions and millions and millions of people, that's up to you. I think you underestimate the power of superstition.

Do you acknowledge what I said about the scientific method, that the goal of an experiment is to disprove (not prove) a hypothesis? And furthermore, that by design, any outcome of an experiment--including the absence of any discernible effect--counts as evidence, for or against? I put a lot of thought into what I wrote.

Many times, in this conversation, I've stated that there was a time when I tried to accept the "explanation" of science. But - I just couldn't do it. The explanation fell flat in the face of my real life experiences. It came to a point where I logically decided it was healthier for me to accept my experiences for what they were than write them off as "tricks of the brain" or "coincidence".

Just one example of why I don't accept mainstream science's "explanation" follows:
...
There is no way I could have known those details by coincidence, luck, or mind tricks. There just isn't.

The experience you have described is very interesting, IMO from a psychological rather than parapsychological perspective. But whether you believe in PSI or not, your conclusion cannot be reached from the information you have given. The only way you could rule out coincidence, luck, or mind tricks, would be by keeping careful written records. Instead you are relying on subjective, error-prone memory, when it should be quite straightforward to test the validity of your visions.

In this case, the particular phenomenon you have described is called remote viewing. It can be and has been tested in many people for many years--by the military, scientists, psychologists, magicians and skeptics, etc. Most scientists attribute this kind of thing to (unintentionally) remembering the 'hits', and forgetting the 'misses'. It is impossible to rule out this possibility based on your memory alone, without keeping a record. So, to disprove the skeptics, I suggest the following method:

(1) When you get a vision, take out a piece of paper and at the top of the paper write "VISION". Write down the target (THIS house, not just any house you might visit today) and write down the details of the vision as an itemized list. The more specific, the better. Anyone could guess from the photo the house may have had only one child's bedroom, and many houses have reading lamps and rocking chairs and colored walls. If you know the house is in suburbs near schools, your intuition is probably accurate that there will be neighbors' children playing nearby. Many houses for sale probably have empty rooms with neatly rolled up sleeping bags--the owners probably sold or moved their furniture, and hadn't yet been able to sell the house. But 'a neatly rolled-up sleeping bag on the far wall of the main living area with brown carpet, next to a reading lamp with a child's rocking chair in the corner, and no other furniture'--that would be specific.

(2) On a second piece of paper, write at the top "KNOWNS". Write down some things you know about the target, apart from your vision. E.g. you know what the outside of the house looks like, you know your realtor thinks you may want to purchase it, you know it is in the suburbs near schools.

(3) Once you have written these things down, you can't change it. This prevents you from unintentionally biasing the results, by improving the accuracy of your visions after you get more information about the target.

(4) Furthermore, once you have seen a target, you cannot go back and write down any visions you remember having about it. If you didn't write it down beforehand, it doesn't count. This prevents you from retroactively including the 'hits' while ignoring the 'misses' after you have seen a target.

(5) If there are times when you DON'T have a vision about a target, you should get two pieces of paper anyway. On the top of one, write "KNOWNS" as before, and on the top of the other paper instead of writing "VISION" you should write "GUESSES". If you are capable of guessing details about the target, without having any visions, write them down. Even if you have "partial visions" which interfere with your guessing, you should commit to categorizing your predictions as completely visions, or completely guesses. Overall, if visions are genuine a pattern should still emerge distinguishing the two data sets. If you are incapable of guessing without having visions, you might ask a skeptical friend to write down his/her guesses (and knowns). Try to use the same level of detail that are in your visions. For example, don't guess "this room is precisely 9 x 11 feet" unless your visions also provide that level of detail.

(6) When you visit a target, go through your list (either "VISION" or "GUESSES"). For every item on the list (not some of them--every one!) mark it as either a hit or a miss. Do not count near-misses as hits, count them as misses. For example, if you said the living room carpet was an unusual zebra print, but actually it's white while the guest bedroom carpet is zebra print, that is a "miss". This prevents you from (unintentionally) introducing subjective bias in your favor, and yet it does not prevent a genuine signal from coming through: just as a more accurate rifle hits the bull's eye more often while also having more near-misses, genuine visions should still score more "hits" even if you are obliged to count many "near-misses" as misses.
​

If you follow these instructions, then over time, a record should build up. At this point the pattern (or lack thereof) might already be obvious. Sometimes, a prediction seems extraordinary to you until later, when you read it back to yourself. Gee, is it really remarkable that my vision correctly predicted kids playing in the neighbor's yard? Especially since I knew this was a house in the suburbs, near schools? Would I expect kids to be playing in any yard other than the neighbor's? After all, the only other yard to play in is the house I am visiting--but it is for sale, and it has been scheduled for a visit by me and the realtor during which the owners are supposed to be away. Wouldn't it be remarkable if there weren't any kids playing in any of the neighbors' yards, in this situation? Isn't it possible that my brain intuitively expected this, based on the information it had, even if I didn't consciously work out the logic justifying this expectation?

But if the pattern (or lack thereof) is not obvious by now, you can calculate the results explicitly and unambiguously as follows.

For each target, whether it was a "VISION" or "GUESSING", take the number of hits divided by the total number of predictions as your accuracy score. Then take the average of all the accuracy scores in a category (VISIONS or GUESSING) as your overall accuracy in that category. Take the uncertainty in that average as plus-or-minus the standard deviation of the average. Is the VISIONS number larger than the GUESSING number beyond the uncertainty range? This would be a start.

Various additional measures could be used. It would be interesting, for example, if in addition to recording the visions yourself, half the time you speak aloud your predictions and have someone else write them down for you. Then, without looking at what was written down, you go look at the target and judge, from your own memory, how accurate or inaccurate you think your vision was (a scale of 1 to 10, say). Then we compare your perception of vision accuracy based on memory, to the actual vision accuracy. It would be interesting to see if, over many trials, your perception of vision accuracy based on memory was biased in a particular direction. If your visions don't seem to "work" when you record them, even though you remember them working when you didn't record them, this kind of bias in memories could explain why.

Anyway, those are just suggestions, since you repeatedly brought it up and asked for my suggestions. Now you have described something specific enough to test, in principle.

Anyway here's some more info. on remote viewing which, I think, is quite fair: [youtube]40QVp8_P0LY[/youtube]
Michael Shermer Remote Viewing Experiment Part 1 - YouTube

 

[George-ananda]

Dear Mr. Sprinkles,

I of course read your last two posts regarding my post copied below. I think you completely missed my points and question intentionally.

Now lets look at how you responded to my first sentence.

Mr. Sprinkles.....I see that scraps Dr. Sheldrake along with every other scientist I've ever brought up in our multiple discussions in the past.

My point was that over my last many months of debating with you and other 'skeptical' minded people I've discussed many scientists with strong academic and professional qualifications that presented work that fundamentally challenges the atheistic/materialist/physicalist worldview. I've been through esp, remote viewing, ghosts, psi-effect on random systems, veridical near-death experiences, mediumship, miracles, reincarnational memories, and more.

My clear observation is that if the work fundamentally challenges the atheistic/materialist/physicalist worldview the scientist (for a different reason each time) becomes an 'epic fail'. Do you see where I might smell a rat and point that out for open-minded readers.

Now your last two posts were primarily about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on constants in physics. You're a physicist so I'm in no position to debate you about constants (which is totally tangential to my post which was about the psychology of skeptics). However, although constants in physics is some tiny percent of what Dr. Sheldrake is about, I'm sure he could clarify his position to you and give you a worthy debate on any bone of contention between you two.

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview that you think should be permitted to present his positions through the TED organization?

This unanswered question above you apparently wanted to change and then proceeded to answer the changed question (which again was more about constants in physics). I think you saw, but didn't like that I was getting at the psychology of 'skeptics' (not physics).

I still wait for an answer to the above.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1. I am quite well aware that they are talking about an entanglement that lasts for an incredibly short time.
2. If you think that - as the study of entanglement in living systems progresses, that some scientist somewhere will not seek to break or push the limits we now assign to entanglement within living systems, then you are deluding yourself. Humanity is in the infancy stages of understanding entanglement within living systems and if science itself is any teacher, those limits will be broken as further research happens.
3. I've been watching the thread you mentioned, my position is still as stated above.

Responding to your point #2: yes in the future maybe scientists will push the limits and invent the technology which would be required to "entangle" macroscopic objects in a significant way. That is entirely different from what you were (are?) suggesting, which was that scientists are probably going to find entanglement already exists in a significant way everywhere in Nature, from proteins to entire mouse to entire human brains. That is simply ridiculous, it's like saying if we discover that cells reproduce by division then surely someday scientists will push the limits and discover that entire humans reproduce by division too (without the aid of technology). It's no different from saying that there must be hydrogen bonds everywhere connecting everything in a significant way, perhaps entire mouse brains transmit thoughts using hydrogen bonds. It's no different from saying that since Newton discovered all massive bodies attract (through gravity), one day scientists will discover that humans actually attract their mates using gravitational forces. 500 years later and that possibility seems less likely than ever. Why? Because the more we discover about gravity the more we confirm it is extremely weak at the level of two humans weighing 100-150 lbs., the gravitational forces exerted on such a scale cannot possibly have a significant effect on their lives (any hypothetical minuscule effect would be completely swamped by much more powerful forces anyway).

When you study science you find that it closes just as many doors as it opens: it tells you not just what is possible, but also what is impossible (or very unlikely). Both forms of information are educational. A person who understands biology knows why a single cell can easily reproduce by division, but an entire human is extremely unlikely to do so, and almost certainly never does so in nature. (Of course, perhaps a human could do it with the aid of technology, that's irrelevant.) A person who understands gravity knows why it can exert a major influence in the motions of planets, but the gravitational attraction between two humans is extremely unlikely to have any significant effect on their interactions. Similarly, a person who understands physics knows why biological molecules can easily use entanglement or hydrogen bonds to interact with each other, but it is extremely unlikely two entire brains could interact this way, and almost certainly they never do in nature.

Mr. Spinkles - do you not see the dynamic here. You and I each see what we see in this situation. There is bias here. When I read it it, I see what I see. When you read it you see what you see. I can admit I have a bias (which comes from my own life experiences). How is it that you can not see the different way we each perceive the situation and see relativity? How can you see my bias, but you can't see your own????

Like anyone, I undoubtedly suffer from biases. I find the best way to deal with bias is to examine it on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I am merely pointing out it is inaccurate for you to summarize the off-air correspondence as Wiseman "backing out". On closer inspection, I do not find that my objection is just me seeing what I want to see. I find it is me seeing what is written in the emails in plain English, and you distorting it. It seems to me if you are concerned about bias you should own up to the clarification, instead of dodging it.

Let's make this clear - it can not be proven to your satisfaction, anymore than it can be dis-proven to my satisfaction. And that is the crux of the issue. There are scientists who feel that science has failed to disprove PSI. Their response is to do the kind of work Sheldrake is doing. They have the right to do that. You may not agree with their line of research - that is your right as well. But - until mainstream scientists can adequately make the case for "brain tricks", "coincidence", etc... then the discussion will continue and it SHOULD continue.

Okay I'll stop trying to prevent you from discussing it.

And ... here's the thing ... the more people like myself - just everyday lay people perceive bias within the mainstream scientific community against this phenomena the more likely we are to dismiss what science has to say about it. We know our own experiences ...

Well, you say you know your own experiences. But your report lacks any indication that you bothered to write down your predictions beforehand, and record information about the hits and misses in a reliable and systematic way. Your perception of your own experience appears to completely rely on your own eyewitness testimony, which psychologists have shown can sometimes be surprisingly unreliable in all sorts of interesting ways. In other words, you didn't do the things that would be necessary to truly know your own experiences and distinguish that knowledge from what you think you know.

You really don't want to make that analogy. I am a software writer - and I'm strongly suggesting that this analogy can get you into a lot of trouble. Just as it would get a creationist into a lot of trouble by suggesting that since there is a software writer for computer "intelligence" than there is an "intelligent creator".

I could go into all sorts of detailed and professional explanations of why the software in a computer " modifies its own underlying software" - but the discussion would be long, boring and can be summed up as follows. No software in a computer would "modify" anything else in a computer unless it was programmed to do so.

I certainly don't want to step on your toes as an expert in software engineering, but I fail to grasp the problem with the analogy. First, supposing the brain can't modify itself unless it is strictly programmed to do so (as in a computer), why would I be worried about saying this? Genetic evolution, the environment of the womb, etc. have designed and programmed our brains and, being the atheistic materialist (physicalist) that I am, I would not fall out of my chair if every human decision could ultimately be traced back to that programming. Second, isn't it possible even in computers to program using probabilities? A chess-playing AI could have code reading something like, "If A, then do B with 90% probability, or C with 10% probability", can it not? Strictly speaking, the programmer could not say she programmed the decision B or C in any instance, just tendencies.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now your last two posts were primarily about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on constants in physics. You're a physicist so I'm in no position to debate you about constants (which is totally tangential to my post which was about the psychology of skeptics). However, although constants in physics is some tiny percent of what Dr. Sheldrake is about, I'm sure he could clarify his position to you and give you a worthy debate on any bone of contention between you two.

No, it wasn't about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on constants in physics. It was about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on the attitude of physicists towards the constants in physics. That distinction was the whole point of my post #86. You didn't read it, did you?

This unanswered question above you apparently wanted to change and then proceeded to answer the changed question (which again was more about constants in physics). I think you saw, but didn't like that I was getting at the psychology of 'skeptics' (not physics).

I still wait for an answer to the above.

I don't mean to dodge your question. I intend to answer it. However, I feel it's quite important to first establish why I have a problem with Sheldrake. It's not what he's saying, it's how he's saying it. Good scientists may disagree with their opponents but they do not misrepresent them.

 

[George-ananda]

No, it wasn't about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on constants in physics. It was about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on the attitude of physicists towards the constants in physics. That distinction was the whole point of my post #86. You didn't read it, did you?

I did read post #86 and understood it fine. I was quite clear that as you put it 'it wasn't about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on constants in physics. It was about attacking Dr. Sheldrake's statements on the attitude of physicists towards the constants in physics.

I don't mean to dodge your question. I intend to answer it.

I will wait patiently then (Must be a tougher than normal question)

However, I feel it's quite important to first establish why I have a problem with Sheldrake.

Now that you haven't dodged (specifically on the 'constants' controversy)

 

[Warren Clark]

I must question whether you fully understood what Dr. Sheldrake was actually saying before labeling it 'false information'. He doesn't strike me as the type of intellect that you should dismiss with prejudice.

I know Dr. Sheldrake defends his positions; and I really doubt he takes positions that can be called 'false information' without considerable debate. And I bet after the debate there will still be disagreements.

Let him speak!

I would be happy to. Give him my number. I'd be happy to bring it to his attention. I would like to hear more than 15 minutes of his explanation for misrepresenting science.

 

[Open_Minded]

[FONT=&quot]

Responding to your point #2: yes in the future maybe scientists will push the limits and invent the technology which would be required to "entangle" macroscopic objects in a significant way. That is entirely different from what you were (are?) suggesting, which was that scientists are probably going to find entanglement already exists in a significant way everywhere in Nature, from proteins to entire mouse to entire human brains. That is simply ridiculous, ....

When you study science you find that it closes just as many doors as it opens: it tells you not just what is possible, but also what is impossible (or very unlikely)...... Similarly, a person who understands physics knows why biological molecules can easily use entanglement or hydrogen bonds to interact with each other, but it is extremely unlikely two entire brains could interact this way, and almost certainly they never do in nature.

Well - I'm not a scientist. But ... I do read ... and here are statements by some other scientists.

Olivier Costa de Beauregard[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Today’s physics allows for the existence of so-called ‘paranormal’ phenomena … The whole concept of ‘non-locality’ in contemporary physics requires this possibility”

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Henry Margenau[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

“strangely, it does not seem possible to find the scientific laws or principles violated by the existence of [psi phenomena]. We can find contradictions between [their occurrence] and our culturally accepted view of reality – but not – as many of us have believed – between [their occurrence] and the scientific laws that have been so laboriously developed.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here is a Wikipedia except on Quantum Mind[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, while quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, but that quantum theory provides the missing aspects. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Niels Bohr. Whereas Bohr wrote in generalities on this matter, Eugene Wigner assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. However, other physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The article goes onto list descriptions of main quantum mind approaches by:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]David Bohm[/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff[/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman[/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]Henry Stapp[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So ... your professional point of view may be ... "biological molecules can easily use entanglement or hydrogen bonds to interact with each other, but it is extremely unlikely two entire brains could interact this way, and almost certainly they never do in nature." But, your point of view is not shared by all scientists. It may be shared by the majority of today's scientists, but it is not shared by all scientists.

[/FONT]

I'm not saying that science has disproved every conceivable form that 'PSI' could take. I am saying that every 'failed' PSI experiment has indeed disproved the particular form of the PSI hypothesis that was being tested in that experiment. That is true almost by definition. If you want to bend scientific standards of evidence to accommodate the superstitions of millions and millions and millions of people, that's up to you. I think you underestimate the power of superstition.

Do you acknowledge what I said about the scientific method, that the goal of an experiment is to disprove (not prove) a hypothesis? And furthermore, that by design, any outcome of an experiment--including the absence of any discernible effect--counts as evidence, for or against? I put a lot of thought into what I wrote.

I don't disagree with your statements about the scientific process and standards. I never have. My point, all along, has been that there is bias within the mainstream scientific community against PSI research. You say that failed PSI experiments give scientists the right to have this bias. And yet Prof. Richard Wiseman said

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do... Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions.

Other scientists say the evidence provided is sufficient proof and the debate will continue. Your position that the evidence is not there to support PSI is an opinion and not a fact. It is an opinion not shared by other scientists.

 

[Open_Minded]

[FONT=&quot]On closer inspection, I do not find that my objection is just me seeing what I want to see. I find it is me seeing what is written in the emails in plain English, and you distorting it. It seems to me if you are concerned about bias you should own up to the clarification, instead of dodging it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's odd how bias' work ... they're sort of like brain tricks. Two people can look at the very same words on paper and see very different things. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

I certainly don't want to step on your toes as an expert in software engineering, but I fail to grasp the problem with the analogy. First, supposing the brain can't modify itself unless it is strictly programmed to do so (as in a computer), why would I be worried about saying this? Genetic evolution, the environment of the womb, etc. have designed and programmed our brains and, being the atheistic materialist (physicalist) that I am, I would not fall out of my chair if every human decision could ultimately be traced back to that programming. Second, isn't it possible even in computers to program using probabilities? A chess-playing AI could have code reading something like, "If A, then do B with 90% probability, or C with 10% probability", can it not? Strictly speaking, the programmer could not say she programmed the decision B or C in any instance, just tendencies.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your not stepping on my toes Mr. Spinkles. Feel free to use the analogy - I'm actually smiling as I write this.

I was just giving you some friendly advice - take it into consideration should you ever find yourself in a long discussion about turing machines and human consciousness.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the end of the day a conscious being writes programming script. And yes it is possible to program using probabilities, but a conscious being chooses and manages and can change the probabilities. When a computers output leads back to programming - it is leading back to a conscious being. Even mistaken output leads back to a conscious being - just watch me in action when I get a call from one of my client's that a program I built is doing something it shouldn't do. I'm either "god" in their eyes - or the "devil" himself. The computer is a machine, it outputs what it is programmed to output. The only other variable is input from users (again conscious beings). My job - as a programmer - is to anticipate user actions (either input - or desired output). If I anticipate user actions well, I'm "god" if I don't, I'm the "devil". But the script I write dances the way it dances because of consciousness. Nothing less.

______________________________________________________________________________
Edit Note: There is one other variable - but again it leads back to consciousness. Programmers have to keep in mind the environment their script will be executing in. Just ask anyone who writes php, javascript, jQuery, etc... how they like Internet Explorer. You'll get a whole other conversation about the "devil". And the fact that folks like me think IE is horrid leads directly back to the conscious beings who wrote that piece of ..... (well you get the drift)[/FONT]

 

[Open_Minded]

The experience you have described is very interesting, IMO from a psychological rather than parapsychological perspective

I'm sure it is ...:biglaugh:

Mr. Spinkles - I read the rest of your response and viewed the YouTube. I'm aware of what remote viewing is. I wasn't at the time I had my experience, my experience caused me to search and I found the studies you referred to.

In this case, the particular phenomenon you have described is called remote viewing. It can be and has been tested in many people for many years--by the military, scientists, psychologists, magicians and skeptics, etc. Most scientists attribute this kind of thing to (unintentionally) remembering the 'hits', and forgetting the 'misses'. It is impossible to rule out this possibility based on your memory alone, without keeping a record. So, to disprove the skeptics, I suggest the following method: ...

What you seem to be missing here is the following:

1. As I've stated many times - in regards to premonitions - there was a time when I accepted the mainstream scientific explanation for my experiences. Even to the point of suppressing them. During this period I avidly journaled about my life in general and my premonitions in particular. I was trying to figure out those experiences. Journaling helped me do so. Specifically it helped me to stop denying and suppressing them. Specifically it helped me determine the difference between a worrisome thought and a feeling of foreboding (and there is a difference)
2. I am not trying to prove anything to you about citing my experiences - other than show you the lay person's perspective. Why we don't just simply accept what mainstream science has to say on the subject at face value.
3. Your response shows your mindset (just as my response shows my mindset). I've admitted time and again - I am biased towards PSI BECAUSE of my life experiences. BECAUSE science's explanation has fallen flat - in regards to my real life experiences. Do you not see that when you immediately go into analysis mode about my experiences (instead of discussing the dynamic of lay people dismissing science BECAUSE it does NOT respond to their experience) you are showing a mindset that says, "what you are describing can't be 'true' and I need to prove it".

For the record - I'm completely ok with you viewing my experience the way you do. I got use to folks not being able to fathom these types of experiences as 'true' a long time ago and I'm not offended. Having said that - I am going to point out the obvious.

The only way you could rule out coincidence, luck, or mind tricks, would be by keeping careful written records. Instead you are relying on subjective, error-prone memory, when it should be quite straightforward to test the validity of your visions.

Within the context of the situation I described that is just simply not true. We get to use good old common sense as well.

Let's grant a few things:

1. The realtor showed me many pictures that morning - I'm not sure specifically of the number - but let's say a dozen. On one of those pictures I received spontaneous "visions". As already stated these visions were quite detailed. Specifically - the rolled up sleeping bag, neatly bound against the far wall of the living room and next to it a reading lamp, and the small child's rocking chair in the living room corner stood out. The small child's rocking chair really stood out, it was painted for a little girl. I wondered about it being in the corner of the room. I wondered why is there an adult sleeping bag, but no sleeping bag for a child. And there was an emotional response to the chair being in the corner of the room, rather than over by the sleeping bag. I got other visions - of other rooms, paint colors and lighting fixtures. I "saw" the outside of the house from above, and children playing in the back neighbor's yard.
2. Then the realtor took me to 4-5 houses that day. Let's say 5 - just to push the odds against me.
3. When the realtor drove up to the house we ended up buying the visions came back. Again - about the sleeping bag and the rocking chair.
4. When we entered the door of the house we bought - the first things I noticed in the front room were the sleeping bag, the lamp and the child's chair. All placed where they had been in my "vision".

Now common sense tells me the following. Even if I'd gotten the visions from a photo of a different house than the sleeping bag, lamp and rocking chair were found in, it doesn't matter. Because to know (in advance) that I was going to be walking into ANY unfamiliar home that day and see those items, plus paint colors on the walls and a particular ugly bathroom fixture is astounding if one has a materialistic view of consciousness. The probability of that happening with a materialistic view of consciousness is zero.It isn't a lucky guess to see something that specific. I wasn't having "visions" with every picture she showed me - in three days of meeting with her. I only had visions on one picture, on one day, the same day we walked into one of 4-5 homes and saw what I had seen in my head only hours before.

And the emotional response I had to the child's rocking chair ... When I had the vision I wondered why is there no child's sleeping bag? Why is there only one adult sleeping bag - where is the child's sleeping bag? I found out during the process of purchasing our home, that mom and dad were getting divorce. Dad was living in the empty house. I have no idea why the only child thing he had in the house was that rocking chair - but it still makes me sad to this day - and we're 25 years out from purchasing our home. The little girl is a grown woman and I see her now and again around town. I tell myself she still got to use the rocking chair - even after the divorce.

The thing is Mr. Spinkles - you don't have to believe me. I'm ok with that. (Although I am going to point out one thing - one does not become a computer programmer unless one is capable of analytical and critical thought processes. I have left-brain capabilities and use them in other areas of my life.)

What I'm trying to convey here is simple. You can write off what I'm telling you as lies or some kind really weird materialistic brain trick (although I have no idea how that would happen) or luck - even though the chances of me getting a coinciding vision and confirming it later in the day over the kinds of details I mentioned are zero. That is your choice. My point is science is ill-advised to continue to write off such spontaneous human experiences. It does not get us any closer to understanding human consciousness to ignore, downplay, or actively dispute what lay people are insisting upon. This type of phenomena is real and the current scientific explanation is not an explanation at all.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So ... your professional point of view may be ... "biological molecules can easily use entanglement or hydrogen bonds to interact with each other, but it is extremely unlikely two entire brains could interact this way, and almost certainly they never do in nature." But, your point of view is not shared by all scientists. It may be shared by the majority of today's scientists, but it is not shared by all scientists.

Clarification accepted, I stand corrected. It bears repeating that over 1,000 PhDs in physics are handed out each year in the U.S., enough to find support for almost any belief, no matter how implausible.

I don't disagree with your statements about the scientific process and standards. I never have. My point, all along, has been that there is bias within the mainstream scientific community against PSI research. You say that failed PSI experiments give scientists the right to have this bias. And yet Prof. Richard Wiseman said ...

I already responded to your out-of-context, cherry-picked Wiseman quote in post #51. No need to repeat myself since you haven't responded to the "filedrawer effect" etc.

Your position that the evidence is not there to support PSI is an opinion and not a fact. It is an opinion not shared by other scientists.

For the record, that "the evidence is not there to support PSI" is an opinion shared by about 98% of scientists. That matches what I would estimate based on my experience with hundreds of fellow scientists. So let's not kid ourselves.

Secondly, I was talking about a particular argument you made about PSI. Namely, the quantum mechanical entanglement of large objects, such as human brains, occurring in a natural environment without the aid of technology. None of your quotes address that argument or my criticism of it. Ergo, they are irrelevant to the part of my post you were quoting/responding to. I suspect that while the number of good physicists who believe in PSI is small, the number who would agree with that particular argument is still smaller. So I stand by what I said: "[A] person who understands physics knows ... it is extremely unlikely two entire brains could interact this way." Again that's a statement about quantum entanglement, not PSI in all its conceivable forms.

Finally, my notion of what separates "fact" from "opinion" is based on the strength of the evidence, not on the number of supporters vs. dissenters. In my opinion, what I said about the implausibility of two entire brains being entangled is a fact. Just to be clear.

At the end of the day a conscious being writes programming script.

Right. But your argument was (or at least was implied), that given a brain, the fact that it makes conscious decisions which can alter brain circuitry is inconsistent with consciousness being an emergent property of brain circuitry. The logic was: given 'X', it cannot produce an emergent phenomenon which then comes back and modifies 'X'. Although I don't disagree with what you have said about computers and programs, it seems to me they are indeed one counter-example to that logic. The fact that they are created by conscious beings is as irrelevant to that logic as the fact that they are created by bipeds.

If you want to acknowledge the faultiness of that logic and move on to a different argument, namely about how human brains were created in the first place, well then that's a different argument. Obviously I would not claim brains and computers are analogous in the way they come into existence to begin with. I would say that's where they differ (one is created by Darwinian evolution, the other by conscious design).

Do you not see that when you immediately go into analysis mode about my experiences (instead of discussing the dynamic of lay people dismissing science BECAUSE it does NOT respond to their experience) you are showing a mindset that says, "what you are describing can't be 'true' and I need to prove it".

What kind of shell game is this? You asked me, repeatedly, to come up with a scientific protocol to test the PSI hypothesis in relation to your personal experiences. I'm just responding to your request. Furthermore, there's nothing about the protocol I proposed which is biased against your experiences being 'true'.

What I'm trying to convey here is simple. You can write off what I'm telling you as lies or some kind really weird materialistic brain trick (although I have no idea how that would happen) or luck - even though the chances of me getting a coinciding vision and confirming it later in the day over the kinds of details I mentioned are zero. That is your choice.

That's not an accurate description of my view. We would have to establish the accuracy of the details you have recalled from memory before worrying about their probability.

My point is science is ill-advised to continue to write off such spontaneous human experiences. It does not get us any closer to understanding human consciousness to ignore, downplay, or actively dispute what lay people are insisting upon. This type of phenomena is real and the current scientific explanation is not an explanation at all.

The phenomenon of some people having paranormal experiences is real. No one disputes that. But your description of 'the current scientific explanation' is a mere caricature. I find that the actual scientific explanation does indeed get us much closer to understanding human consciousness. It has nothing to do with 'writing off' the seemingly inexplicable experiences some people have. What do you think psychologists do all day? They investigate those kinds of experiences. Just because they don't accept your explanation of those experiences, doesn't mean they write them off.

Consider this: we have testimony from survivors of the Holocaust that the Nazis made soap from human corpses on an industrial scale. Survivors have even presented cakes of soap that they kept to prove their stories. So why don't Holocaust scholars accept this firsthand testimony as fact? Are they writing off survivors, or downplaying or dismissing their experiences, or calling them liars? You be the judge, and consider whether the scientific explanation says anything worth knowing about human psychology: The Soap Myth

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview that you think should be permitted to present his positions through the TED organization?

Sure. Roger Penrose for example. I'm fine with people challenging my worldview, I would just not be fine with people peddling pseudoscience on TED talks, if I was responsible for TED talks.

Also, Francis Collins is a scientist and his work, including his scientific work, challenges the atheist worldview, according to him. He has given TED talks and I would be fine if he gave one about that. Not sure if he counts, though, since unavoidably his talk wouldn't be just "science" it would really be a mix of science and philosophy. Rick Warren gave a TED talk challenging the atheist worldview, and I have no problem with that, but then again he's not a scientist.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure. Roger Penrose for example. I'm fine with people challenging my worldview, I would just not be fine with people peddling pseudoscience on TED talks, if I was responsible for TED talks.

Here's what I found in Wikipedia on the Penrose bio:

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,and refers to himself as an atheist

Also, Francis Collins is a scientist and his work, including his scientific work, challenges the atheist worldview, according to him. He has given TED talks and I would be fine if he gave one about that. Not sure if he counts, though, since unavoidably his talk wouldn't be just "science" it would really be a mix of science and philosophy. Rick Warren gave a TED talk challenging the atheist worldview, and I have no problem with that, but then again he's not a scientist.

Perhaps those two you say, but not wearing scientist hats for those presentations.

I still see your answer as 'No' to my original question if you read my question slowly and deliberately as I wrote it.

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview that you think should be permitted to present his positions through the TED organization?

Key points here being I said 'scientist whose work' not 'scientist whose personal beliefs'.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here's what I found in Wikipedia on the Penrose bio:

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,and refers to himself as an atheist

I suspected he was an atheist but I didn't think he was a materialist/physicalist. I was going to ask you, 'Does Penrose count?' but I deleted that because I double-checked his book 'The Road to Reality' (I read it some time ago, it's on my bookshelf). Penrose spends some time describing his conception of reality consisting of three different 'worlds': the mathematical, physical, and mental. To me, that's a fundamental challenge to materialism/physicalism but perhaps I've misunderstood him. I don't particularly care either way, I'm just trying to answer your question.

The point is: challenging my worldview = okay. Peddling pseudoscience = not okay. If everyone advocating your particular worldview is peddling pseudoscience, I'm sorry I can't help you. That should be a red flag regarding your worldview.

I still see your answer as 'No' to my original question if you read my question slowly and deliberately as I wrote it.

Is there ANY scientist whose work fundamentally challenges the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview that you think should be permitted to present his positions through the TED organization?

Key points here being I said 'scientist whose work' not 'scientist whose personal beliefs'.

Yep the answer might be 'no' to your question, for the reasons stated above. I would have to judge it on a case-by-case basis of course and I am not familiar with every scientist in the world. If you have a particular scientist in mind, name him/her and we can discuss why I would/would not support TED giving them a talk.