How does a logical, relatively explainable world deal with membrane theory?

[George B]

There are plenty of reasons why people might think they see ghosts, but not actually see them. Sure, trust their testimony, but consider alternative explanations.

It's like with the "orbs". Just because you can't identify something, it does not mean you should leap to the most incredible explanation.

Sleep paralysis is one example. A perfectly normal physiological phenomena (that I and my wife both occasionally suffer from, with giant spiders instead of ghosts). Yet people like to put a ghostly/demonic spin on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

This video sensationalizes it, and only starts going into the actual explanation in the last 20 seconds.

I can't view the video . . . It could be my IPhone . . .

If one considers inter-dimensional interaction as a possibility for some of the experiences what would you assign such as a probability . . .?

[Mick]

I can't view the video . . . It could be my IPhone . . .

If one considers inter-dimensional interaction as a possibility for some of the experiences what would you assign such as a probability . . .?

Well, based on the amount of "other universes" and their essentially infinite variety, then:

Approximately 0.000000[...insert Graham's Number of 0's here...]00000.1%

[George B]

Well, based on the amount of "other universes" and their essentially infinite variety, then:

Approximately 0.000000[...insert Graham's Number of 0's here...]00000.1%

Considering the number of reported paranormal experiences . . . I would say the probability is well above zero . . .lol!!

[Pete Tar]

I have a problem with the definition of mysticism seemingly being used here to mean magical thinking, belief in miracles and all that.

Mysticism to me is simply the feeling of realising the oneness of all matter and grooving on the awesome numinousness of it all, it has nothing to do with belief in anything that transcends the boundaries of the mundane physical world around us, or the weird.

True (my idea of) mysticism is just appreciating the reality of non-duality, understanding the mechanism of appearances of separation within the flux, and seeing beyond that.
It's an actual emotional experiencing of the underlying intertwining cause and effect of physical reality, that science gives only an intellectual apprehension of.
Having the emotional appreciation is purely a personal thing, and possibly a developed skill.

As to quantum, I know nothing, but isnt any mathematical 'proof' purely hypothetical - consistent within itself, but not neccessarily correlated to anything real in our world?

[MikeC]

What flux?

[George B]

I have a problem with the definition of mysticism seemingly being used here to mean magical thinking, belief in miracles and all that.

Mysticism to me is simply the feeling of realising the oneness of all matter and grooving on the awesome numinousness of it all, it has nothing to do with belief in anything that transcends the boundaries of the mundane physical world around us, or the weird.

True (my idea of) mysticism is just appreciating the reality of non-duality, understanding the mechanism of appearances of separation within the flux, and seeing beyond that.
It's an actual emotional experiencing of the underlying intertwining cause and effect of physical reality, that science gives only an intellectual apprehension of.
Having the emotional appreciation is purely a personal thing, and possibly a developed skill.

As to quantum, I know nothing, but isnt any mathematical 'proof' purely hypothetical - consistent within itself, but not neccessarily correlated to anything real in our world?

Not sure I understand your comments completely . . . you seem to be saying mysticism is an emotional experience tied to an understanding of the knowledge of reality . . . and that an intellectual application of mathematics is a hypothetical construct or exercise which may not represent reality . ..

[MikeC]

And in English?????

[Pete Tar]

Not sure I understand your comments completely . . . you seem to be saying mysticism is an emotional experience tied to an understanding of the knowledge of reality . . . and that an intellectual application of mathematics is a hypothetical construct or exercise which may not represent reality . ..

That is correct, and a good summary. Is this unclear, or controversial?

Perhaps the phrase 'sense of the numinous' (as I understand it) more accurately describes what one feels, in a secular sense, when one apprehends raw existence - in a way that mirrors what religously-minded people would call spiritual or mystical, but without the presumption of needing to tell stories or myths about it.
It's more honest because no assumptions are made, beyond the raw phenomological experience of consciousness within matter (ie, what we as humans experience looking out at everything, being able to think about it and all that).
A state of permanent 'unknowing' with no anxiety about the unknowing, perhaps.
A state similar to the example of solipsism as embodied by 'the ruler Of the Universe' in the hitchikers guide...
http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/hitch1.html

Sorry, this is a little abstract. I may have forgotten my original point.

Enlightenment, as I see it, is not the aquirement of mystical (in the 'magical thinking' sense) reality-bending powers, but is simply seeing this moment to moment phenomenological reality without falling prey to any illusions about it, like the illusion of any separate self, which is the 'knowing' of true non-duality. Non-duality seems obvious from what physics tells us about matter, at least in my pop-level understanding of it.

And 'pure' maths, as I understand it, can be perfectly coherent within itself, but have absolutely no relation or application to reality. It can be purely a form of play or invention. As can any system of logic.
I was just wondering if quantum mathematics is perhaps of this sort.

What flux?

Well, everything is an a state of impermanence yes? But we are always at the center of this impermanence, seemingly, because we are a viewpoint around which the impermanent is always flowing?
So; THAT flux. The 'now'.
That 'center' is not an actual seperate entity though. What it is, is elusive (because it's not actually a thing, more of an effect), and the need to define it is what keeps us in a state of anxiety about it.
Being able to see this, and living with it moment to moment, would be, for me, what is meant by 'mystical'.
Mick touched on this somewhere recently, in a post about consciousness. I agree with what he said about it, and if you add my words to that picture, you might get what I mean, if my words are being so poorly used as to lead to confusion.

And in English?????

Well, I thought my grammer wasn't that bad, something I do try to be aware of. But I'm self-taught, so it's entirely possible and probably that clarity is lacking.
Maybe I'm using words with private definitions? It is a hard subject to be clear about, as it's a subjective understanding, but I'm sure words are capable of communicating what I mean, if I had the skill.
Apologies if it was all just so much waffle.

Again, to re-iterate, I think the words 'mystical' and 'spiritual', have been ill-used, to come to have super-natural meanings, when I think those words actually apply to a real experience of REALITY, beyond our ideas about it (which are literally 'super-natural'), and this experience can seem 'mystical' and all that at first because we're so used to living in a dream about the world.
Mundane reality IS mystical and awesome, no miracles beyond the laws of physics required.
Sorry for off-topicness.

My only on-topic idea/question -
does the math (of quantum voodoo) actually have correlation with a real-world starting point? Or ending point? Or is it 'pure' maths only?
Are there different levels (different contexts, some 'real', some hypothetical) of it that we are mixing up and assuming they're the same thing, and then saying this 'proves' whatever magic we happen to want to be true?

It's definitely a modern cliche of naivety and misunderstanding - that quantum mechanics means anything's possible, and science proves it.
Pretty sure that's not actually true, but then again I'll never know because there's no way I could ever comprehend the maths.

[George B]

That is correct, and a good summary. Is this unclear, or controversial?

Perhaps the phrase 'sense of the numinous' (as I understand it) more accurately describes what one feels, in a secular sense, when one apprehends raw existence - in a way that mirrors what religously-minded people would call spiritual or mystical, but without the presumption of needing to tell stories or myths about it.
It's more honest because no assumptions are made, beyond the raw phenomological experience of consciousness within matter (ie, what we as humans experience looking out at everything, being able to think about it and all that).
A state of permanent 'unknowing' with no anxiety about the unknowing, perhaps.
A state similar to the example of solipsism as embodied by 'the ruler Of the Universe' in the hitchikers guide...
http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/hitch1.html

Sorry, this is a little abstract. I may have forgotten my original point.

Enlightenment, as I see it, is not the aquirement of mystical (in the 'magical thinking' sense) reality-bending powers, but is simply seeing this moment to moment phenomenological reality without falling prey to any illusions about it, like the illusion of any separate self, which is the 'knowing' of true non-duality. Non-duality seems obvious from what physics tells us about matter, at least in my pop-level understanding of it.

And 'pure' maths, as I understand it, can be perfectly coherent within itself, but have absolutely no relation or application to reality. It can be purely a form of play or invention. As can any system of logic.
I was just wondering if quantum mathematics is perhaps of this sort.




Well, everything is an a state of impermanence yes? But we are always at the center of this impermanence, seemingly, because we are a viewpoint around which the impermanent is always flowing?
So; THAT flux. The 'now'.
That 'center' is not an actual seperate entity though. What it is, is elusive (because it's not actually a thing, more of an effect), and the need to define it is what keeps us in a state of anxiety about it.
Being able to see this, and living with it moment to moment, would be, for me, what is meant by 'mystical'.
Mick touched on this somewhere recently, in a post about consciousness. I agree with what he said about it, and if you add my words to that picture, you might get what I mean, if my words are being so poorly used as to lead to confusion.



Well, I thought my grammer wasn't that bad, something I do try to be aware of. But I'm self-taught, so it's entirely possible and probably that clarity is lacking.
Maybe I'm using words with private definitions? It is a hard subject to be clear about, as it's a subjective understanding, but I'm sure words are capable of communicating what I mean, if I had the skill.
Apologies if it was all just so much waffle.

Again, to re-iterate, I think the words 'mystical' and 'spiritual', have been ill-used, to come to have super-natural meanings, when I think those words actually apply to a real experience of REALITY, beyond our ideas about it (which are literally 'super-natural'), and this experience can seem 'mystical' and all that at first because we're so used to living in a dream about the world.
Mundane reality IS mystical and awesome, no miracles beyond the laws of physics required.
Sorry for off-topicness.

My only on-topic idea/question -
does the math (of quantum voodoo) actually have correlation with a real-world starting point? Or ending point? Or is it 'pure' maths only?
Are there different levels (different contexts, some 'real', some hypothetical) of it that we are mixing up and assuming they're the same thing, and then saying this 'proves' whatever magic we happen to want to be true?

It's definitely a modern cliche of naivety and misunderstanding - that quantum mechanics means anything's possible, and science proves it.
Pretty sure that's not actually true, but then again I'll never know because there's no way I could ever comprehend the maths.

Mmmmm. . . so many words . . . seems you want to make sure we understand the words mysticism and spiritual are misused by your definition of the terms . . . they are not to be given religious or miraculous connotations but simply experiencing the awe of the unfolding of natural phenomena. . . OK . . . however, Math if followed without error and systematically can and does model reality . . . both known and observed as well as that which cannot be seen or represented by any other way . . . like mult-dimensional shapes and spaces . . .

[Mick]

Mmmmm. . . so many words . . . seems you want to make sure we understand the words mysticism and spiritual are misused by your definition of the terms . . . they are not to be given religious or miraculous connotations but simply experiencing the awe of the unfolding of natural phenomena. . . OK . . . however, Math if followed without error and systematically can and does model reality . . . both known and observed as well as that which cannot be seen or represented by any other way . . . like mult-dimensional shapes and spaces . . .

This reminds me a little of the people who insist that a contrail is a chemtrail, because it contains "chemicals" like carbon dioxide.

I find that instead of discussing the nuances of the meaning of a word, when people clearly have different interpretations (and there are several definitions in the dictionary), it's far better to use different words to describe whatever it is you are trying to describe.

If you can't find other words, then maybe your concept is not very well formed. Maybe spiritualism for you is just "the word I use for the way my brain feels when I think about space-time and quantum mechanics".

[George B]

1) If there is confusion between alleged paranormal events and actual observable events . . . how does this occur with such frequency??

2) Why do people form their conclusions about their observations in ways unacceptable to science?

3) Why is there so much fear and confusion associated with such observations ?

4) If the observations are mental tricks or fantasy what is the reason for their existence?

5) What is the proper way to investigate the existence of such phenomena?

[Mick]

1) If there is confusion between alleged paranormal events and actual observable events . . . how does this occur with such frequency??

2) Why do people form their conclusions about their observations in ways unacceptable to science?

3) Why is there so much fear and confusion associated with such observations ?

4) If the observations are mental tricks or fantasy what is the reason for their existence?

5) What is the proper way to investigate the existence of such phenomena?

Come on George, you can answer all those questions yourself.

[George B]

Come on George, you can answer all those questions yourself.

I don't think so . . . I studied primitive religions (religion in general) and ethnology (cultural anthropology), sociology, industrial psychology along with classical scientific methods (hard science) . . . I have never resolved the above questions . . . primarily because of the lack of predictability and reproducibility of the observable evidence . . . conclusion . . . the events are fantasy (if so why?) or they are by their nature totally random . . .

[Mick]

I don't think so . . . I studied primitive religions (religion in general) and ethnology (cultural anthropology), sociology, industrial psychology along with classical scientific methods (hard science) . . . I have never resolved the above questions . . . primarily because of the lack of predictability and reproducibility of the observable evidence . . . conclusion . . . the events are fantasy (if so why?) or they are by their nature totally random . . .

Basically, you are just saying you don't understand exactly how the brain works. Well neither does science. So you are not going to find an answer to that level.

I think the answer is largely that these things are "mental tricks", however the brain is very complicated, and we don't know exactly how these things arise in the brain.

What have you studied that you feel cannot possibly be explained by some working of the brain?

[George B]

Basically, you are just saying you don't understand exactly how the brain works. Well neither does science. So you are not going to find an answer to that level.

I think the answer is largely that these things are "mental tricks", however the brain is very complicated, and we don't know exactly how these things arise in the brain.

What have you studied that you feel cannot possibly be explained by some working of the brain?

Well that sort of begs the issue . . . cognitive process is the beginning of all science as well as all fantasy . . . LOL !!!

However, there should be systematic ways to record and analyze even fantasy . . . since it is not fashionable to do so from a scientific point of view we will never understand such human behavior . . .

[Mick]

For example? What human behavior is not studied? Specifically.

[George B]

For example? What human behavior is not studied? Specifically.

Almost everything has been studied at some time or at some level . . . what I am suggesting is there is not to my knowledge a generally accepted science that catalogs, analyzes, and scientifically investigates paranormal experiences . . . the reason is . . . as I said above the experiences are not predictable or reproducible thereby frustrating normal scientific analysis . . . this does not IMO invalidate it . .

[Jazzy]

Almost everything has been studied at some time or at some level . . . what I am suggesting is there is not to my knowledge a generally accepted science that catalogs, analyzes, and scientifically investigates paranormal experiences . . . the reason is . . . as I said above the experiences are not predictable or reproducible thereby frustrating normal scientific analysis . . . this does not IMO invalidate it . .

"We're a bundle of incompatible parts, and we make up stories about ourselves to disguise the fact. The mental unity of an individual is a fiction. There is simply, in the human machine, a multitude of loosely-linked behavior systems which take control of the body and participate in a common delusion of being one single self. I explained all this in a doctoral thesis 'On the Quality of Illusion in the Continuity of the Individual Life in the Higher Metazoa, with particular reference to the Species Homo Sapiens'" - H.G.Wells, 1943.

Not much progress in the last 69 years, eh?

Perhaps the way to apparently unreachable parts of our existence is best found by reaching the reachable first.

[MikeC]

Almost everything has been studied at some time or at some level . . . what I am suggesting is there is not to my knowledge a generally accepted science that catalogs, analyzes, and scientifically investigates paranormal experiences . . . the reason is . . . as I said above the experiences are not predictable or reproducible thereby frustrating normal scientific analysis . . . this does not IMO invalidate it . .

does not invalidate what??

Thereh have been attempts to "measure" various aspects of paranormal & AFAIK they have invariably failed to find anythng. This does not mean there is no "paranormal" going on - but it is stil up to people claiming it does exist to provide supporting evidence - that is the burden of proof. (disambiguaiton page - pick whichever you prefer! )

I'm sure we have covered "you can't prove it isn't true" before - it is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance".

[George B]

does not invalidate what??

Thereh have been attempts to "measure" various aspects of paranormal & AFAIK they have invariably failed to find anythng. This does not mean there is no "paranormal" going on - but it is stil up to people claiming it does exist to provide supporting evidence - that is the burden of proof. (disambiguaiton page - pick whichever you prefer! )

I'm sure we have covered "you can't prove it isn't true" before - it is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance".

The fact that people experience unexplained events is not debatable . . . the cause of the experiences is in question . . . I am not trying to prove anything . . . my purpose is to discuss how to deal with this unknown in a quantum world . . .

[George B]

"We're a bundle of incompatible parts, and we make up stories about ourselves to disguise the fact. The mental unity of an individual is a fiction. There is simply, in the human machine, a multitude of loosely-linked behavior systems which take control of the body and participate in a common delusion of being one single self. I explained all this in a doctoral thesis 'On the Quality of Illusion in the Continuity of the Individual Life in the Higher Metazoa, with particular reference to the Species Homo Sapiens'" - H.G.Wells, 1943.

Not much progress in the last 69 years, eh?

Perhaps the way to apparently unreachable parts of our existence is best found by reaching the reachable first.

No kidding . . . LoL!!!

[MikeC]

The fact that people experience unexplained events is not debatable . . . the cause of the experiences is in question . . . I am not trying to prove anything . . . my purpose is to discuss how to deal with this unknown in a quantum world . . .

You have already found the answer to that question - and you yawned at it.

but I'm still curious about wehat it is you think is invalidated - your post does not really answer THAT question........as is becoming usual

[Pete Tar]

Mmmmm. . . so many words . . . seems you want to make sure we understand the words mysticism and spiritual are misused by your definition of the terms . . . they are not to be given religious or miraculous connotations but simply experiencing the awe of the unfolding of natural phenomena. . . OK . . . however, Math if followed without error and systematically can and does model reality . . . both known and observed as well as that which cannot be seen or represented by any other way . . . like mult-dimensional shapes and spaces . . .

Yes, the conversation produced a reaction in me due to those terms, and I tried to make a case for 'reclaiming' them for rationality, to make sure it's understood that those thinking with rational, scientific caution about the universe are not incompatible with the emotional experience often claimed exclusively by the religiously/mystically minded.

This view was particularly influenced by a book I read recently called A Moral Compass, One Man's Search For Meaning by Derek Robertson, which was basically an anthology of general scientific views and also a refutation of the old argument that morality only comes from religion. He made a good case for a sense of the mystical not being only the result of magical thinking either, or that was my interpretation.

I'll try not to cloud the issue with more words.

[George B]

You have already found the answer to that question - and you yawned at it.

but I'm still curious about wehat it is you think is invalidated - your post does not really answer THAT question........as is becoming usual

"The fact that people experience unexplained events is not debatable "

[George B]

Yes, the conversation produced a reaction in me due to those terms, and I tried to make a case for 'reclaiming' them for rationality, to make sure it's understood that those thinking with rational, scientific caution about the universe are not incompatible with the emotional experience often claimed exclusively by the religiously/mystically minded.

This view was particularly influenced by a book I read recently called A Moral Compass, One Man's Search For Meaning by Derek Robertson, which was basically an anthology of general scientific views and also a refutation of the old argument that morality only comes from religion. He made a good case for a sense of the mystical not being only the result of magical thinking either, or that was my interpretation.

I'll try not to cloud the issue with more words.

So what produces the need for morality . . . in a non-religious, non-mystical world??

[Pete Tar]

The fact that people experience unexplained events is not debatable . . . the cause of the experiences is in question . . . I am not trying to prove anything . . . my purpose is to discuss how to deal with this unknown in a quantum world . . .

You might find the writings of Susan Blackmore helpful. She dedicated her life to scientifically examining the paranormal, but gave up after 30 years.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm
Lots of other intersting articles there, and she has a book about her paranormal research work.
It is a shame there is a stigma to seriously studying paranormal things, however if someone came up with a replicable proof for something paranormal I'm sure general science would be interested.

how to deal with this unknown in a quantum world

This reminds me... can someone please explain to me how quantum mechanics is (or is going to be) used in computers? That sounds awesome.
Are there any other real-world applications for quantum theory?

[Pete Tar]

So what produces the need for morality . . . in a non-religious, non-mystical world??

Our evolution as a social animal of course!

[George B]

Our evolution as a social animal of course!

It could be argued that society is more of a result of a need to control than to evolve humans as a social animal . . . morality is a tool to protect those in control and their possessions as well as their genetic survival and success . . .

[Mick]

You might find the writings of Susan Blackmore helpful. She dedicated her life to scientifically examining the paranormal, but gave up after 30 years.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html
Lots of other intersting articles there, and she has a book about her paranormal research work.

Interesting. reminds me Klara McLaren, which also made the transition for believer to skeptic:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridgi...n_two_cultures

Content from external source:

I'm not really sure how to introduce myself, except perhaps with this paraphrase: “I have seen the enemy, and she is me.” I'm an author and healer (or I was, actually) in the metaphysical culture. I wrote about energy and chakras, auras, healing, the different kinds of psychic skills . . . the whole shebang. I've traveled throughout the states doing book tours, seminars, and workshops. I've appeared at all the top New Age venues, such as the Omega Institute, Naropa University, and the Whole Life Expo (which I call the Hell Life Expo, but that’s another story). My books have been translated into five languages, and I've even had a title in the One Spirit Book Club. Understanding the metaphysical/New Age community and culture has been a central focus of my life and my career.I'm not just a member of the New Age community—I've also been a purveyor of the very things the skeptical community is so concerned about. I've been involved in metaphysics and the New Age for over thirty years, I've written four books and recorded five audio learning sets in the genre, and I was considered one of the leaders in the field.
I'm not in the field any longer, but it’s hard to truly disappear when so many of my books and tapes are already out there. It’s also hard to disappear when I don't really know what to say to the people in my culture. The cultural rift is so extreme that anything I say will prove that I have gone to the other side, the wrong side—the side of the enemy. In actual fact, however, I have just seen enough to know that the skeptics and the critical thinkers have some extremely pertinent and meaningful things to say. I've now studied enough skeptical and scientific information about paranormal abilities and events to question many of the precepts upon which my work was based. More important, I've seen enough to understand firsthand the real costs of the New Age.

[George B]

Interesting. reminds me Klara McLaren, which also made the transition for believer to skeptic:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridgi...n_two_cultures

Content from external source:

I'm not really sure how to introduce myself, except perhaps with this paraphrase: “I have seen the enemy, and she is me.” I'm an author and healer (or I was, actually) in the metaphysical culture. I wrote about energy and chakras, auras, healing, the different kinds of psychic skills . . . the whole shebang. I've traveled throughout the states doing book tours, seminars, and workshops. I've appeared at all the top New Age venues, such as the Omega Institute, Naropa University, and the Whole Life Expo (which I call the Hell Life Expo, but that’s another story). My books have been translated into five languages, and I've even had a title in the One Spirit Book Club. Understanding the metaphysical/New Age community and culture has been a central focus of my life and my career.I'm not just a member of the New Age community—I've also been a purveyor of the very things the skeptical community is so concerned about. I've been involved in metaphysics and the New Age for over thirty years, I've written four books and recorded five audio learning sets in the genre, and I was considered one of the leaders in the field.
I'm not in the field any longer, but it’s hard to truly disappear when so many of my books and tapes are already out there. It’s also hard to disappear when I don't really know what to say to the people in my culture. The cultural rift is so extreme that anything I say will prove that I have gone to the other side, the wrong side—the side of the enemy. In actual fact, however, I have just seen enough to know that the skeptics and the critical thinkers have some extremely pertinent and meaningful things to say. I've now studied enough skeptical and scientific information about paranormal abilities and events to question many of the precepts upon which my work was based. More important, I've seen enough to understand firsthand the real costs of the New Age.

So because it is most difficult to study . . . is not predictable and reproducible . . . we should not discuss allege unexplained events in mixed company for fear of losing credibility ?? This is the time we should not fear such questions . . . we now have the equipment and can invent methods to properly investigate like never before . . .

[Pete Tar]

It could be argued that society is more of a result of a need to control than to evolve humans as a social animal . . . morality is a tool to protect those in control and their possessions as well as their genetic survival and success . . .

Yeah, that seems likely, although it supposes 'those who control'.
Is there ever really 'those in control' of society? I understand the feeling that there is, but really, isn't it an organic thing that just kind of grows and organises itself?

Not to underestimate the need of those who end up on top to prolong their stay by various means, but I think that any control they have is highly illusory or impermanent.
Maybe more as a philosophical position than for any rationally developed argument, I'm not good on details.

The forms society can take are quite varied if not infinite, as any good science fiction will explore, like Ursula le Guin, so that a need for a 'control' method imposed as morality or whatever, is not neccesarily the case for all societies.

I see your point, that groups can be controlled quite easily by an invented system of morality, but there is perhaps a difference between an inherent morality common to all humans, and the taboos and customs specific to certain regions or tribes.

[Mick]

So because it is most difficult to study . . . is not predictable and reproducible . . . we should not discuss allege unexplained events in mixed company for fear of losing credibility ?? This is the time we should not fear such questions . . . we now have the equipment and can invent methods to properly investigate like never before . . .

Who said we should not discuss it?

What do you think the institute for noetic research is doing? Are they not investigating?

http://noetic.org/

[Pete Tar]

So because it is most difficult to study . . . is not predictable and reproducible . . . we should not discuss allege unexplained events in mixed company for fear of losing credibility ?? This is the time we should not fear such questions . . . we now have the equipment and can invent methods to properly investigate like never before . . .

Science is susceptible to trends like anything, there probably will come another turning point in that sort of research once someone gets a significant result and opens the door to further replicable exploration.
But if it is consistently shown to have no reward in replicable results, then you coudn't really blame the majority for not bothering.
Until proven otherwise, a lack of results is a sort of proof.

(edit) there will always be someone out there trying though.

The only problem is usually the excitement about the possibilities of the subject can cloud objective analysis. Although probably a lot of scientific discoveries are the result of this sort of obsession, the fact that they can be independently verified is what proves their utility. This is usually where paranormal research falls down, what are 'statistically significant results' to an excited researcher, are not to a dispassionate reviewer.

[MikeC]

Originally Posted by MikeC
...
but I'm still curious about wehat it is you think is invalidated - your post does not really answer THAT question........as is becoming usual

"The fact that people experience unexplained events is not debatable "

So it is not debatable - I have no great problem with that - what is it that is INVALIDATED?

Please try to answer the question that is actually asked!!

[George B]

Yeah, that seems likely, although it supposes 'those who control'.
Is there ever really 'those in control' of society? I understand the feeling that there is, but really, isn't it an organic thing that just kind of grows and organises itself?

Not to underestimate the need of those who end up on top to prolong their stay by various means, but I think that any control they have is highly illusory or impermanent.
Maybe more as a philosophical position than for any rationally developed argument, I'm not good on details.

The forms society can take are quite varied if not infinite, as any good science fiction will explore, like Ursula le Guin, so that a need for a 'control' method imposed as morality or whatever, is not neccesarily the case for all societies.

I see your point, that groups can be controlled quite easily by an invented system of morality, but there is perhaps a difference between an inherent morality common to all humans, and the taboos and customs specific to certain regions or tribes.

All societies . . . except for marauding bans during riots . . . have moral or ethical guidelines . . . why?? . . . It is much more efficient usually to defer to them than to resort to violence every time someone wants someone's spouse, children or possessions . . . even herd animals respond to a hierarchy of order and control . . .

[George B]

Who said we should not discuss it?

What do you think the institute for noetic research is doing? Are they not investigating?

http://noetic.org/

The noetic institute is hardly a respected mainstream scientific institute . . .

[George B]

So it is not debatable - I have no great problem with that - what is it that is INVALIDATED?

Please try to answer the question that is actually asked!!

Content from external source:


Almost everything has been studied at some time or at some level . . . what I am suggesting is there is not to my knowledge a generally accepted science that catalogs, analyzes, and scientifically investigates paranormal experiences . . . the reason is . . . as I said above the experiences are not predictable or reproducible thereby frustrating normal scientific analysis . . . this does not IMO invalidate it . .

It does not invalidate the study of paranormal studies just because their nature frustrates normal scientific analysis

and

just because people experience paranormal/unexplainable events (which is not debatable) which have no scientific explanations . . .

[Mick]

The noetic institute is hardly a respected mainstream scientific institute . . .

But they do research. They publish papers? So why are they not respected?

[MikeC]

Content from external source:


Almost everything has been studied at some time or at some level . . . what I am suggesting is there is not to my knowledge a generally accepted science that catalogs, analyzes, and scientifically investigates paranormal experiences . . . the reason is . . . as I said above the experiences are not predictable or reproducible thereby frustrating normal scientific analysis . . . this does not IMO invalidate it . .

It does not invalidate the study of paranormal studies just because their nature frustrates normal scientific analysis

right - thanks - I agree that study is valid, but I disagree that "their nature frustrates normal scientific analysis" - IMO study does not provide any scientific answers than that is itself a valid result of such study.

and

just because people experience paranormal/unexplainable events (which is not debatable) which have no scientific explanations . . .

Irrelevant IMO

[George B]

But they do research. They publish papers? So why are they not respected?

So you honestly believe they are a mainstream respected scientific institute . . . ? I don't . . . just because they do research and publish . . . the subjects they study and the personalities and concepts they espouse make them suspect to the scientific community at large . . .