Science Studies Metaphenomena - Religion, God, and Theology

Praxising · 08-10-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Nearly three decades of intense experimentation leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in the PEAR studies are valid ... inconsistencies of these results with established physical and psychological presumptions place extraordinary demands on the development of competent new theoretical models .... since the contemporary scientific approach leaves little room for such subjective correlates in its mechanistic representations of reality, it follows that science as we know it either must exclude itself from study of such phenomena, even when they precipitate objectively observable physical effects, or broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way. http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/theory.html

Religion, God and Theology. Why talk about science studying telekinesis, remote viewing or any other of what I call "metaphenomena", PEARS calls "anomalous cognition," some call "supernatural?" Because we cannot define God. Sometimes an atheists here will make a reference to God and I have to agree, I don't believe in that, either. So, a unique "God" for each person to believe or not believe in? Might as well just give up discussion altogether.

But religions do have one thing in common, a believe in that atheists, as a set, disbelieve in. This is the existence of a non-physical, eternally surviving consciousness. A non-physical self. I have found in general that the atheist/science poster seems to believe that the body, mostly the nervous system - brain - gives rise to the phenomenon of consciousness. Non-atheists tend to believe that souls or self-aware individual consciousnesses are connected to a body in some way, but when that body ceases to function, that consciousness continues to exist, still self-aware, still individual. (This is obviously a generalization of opposing views, your personal mileage may vary.)

So, studies designed to test or observe consciousness operating without reference to the body, say - a person being able to receive information not through his body's organs, or influencing matter using only thought, not his body or his body in contact with any object, are activities that tend to support the existence of a non-physical consciousness that can act on its own. I have to assume some of what will be here has been discussed previously in the forum. But, maybe not everyone here now, or those lurking, have seen it. So...

ITT, starting with remote viewing, I'll put, one at a time, links to the information concerning science and the study of metaphenomena.

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING

Professor Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics
University of California, Davis

Quote:

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.

What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.

Arguing against Professor Utts conclusions:

Ray Hyman
University of Oregon

(NOTE: Apparently, Ray Hyman, himself, took this document offline. This link is to a copy that had been made, so we cannot assume at this time he still agrees with what he said. We also can't assume he doesn't, maybe he just was trying to avoid being associated with this for the rest of his career - who knows?)

Quote:

Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes. ....

I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation. However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model. Statistical effects, by themselves, do not justify claiming that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated--or, for that matter, that an anomaly of any kind has occurred.

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance." Parapsychologists, of course, realize that the truth of this claim does not constitute proof of anomalous cognition. Numerous factors can produce significant statistical results. Operationally, the presence of anomalous cognition is detected by the elimination of all other possibilities. This reliance on a negative definition of its central phenomenon is another liability that parapsychology brings with its attempt to become a recognized science. Essentially, anomalous cognition is claimed to be present whenever statistically significant departures from the null hypothesis are observed under conditions that preclude the operation of all mundane causes of these departures. As Boring once observed, every success in parapsychological research is a failure. By this he meant that when the investigator or the critics succeed in finding a scientifically acceptable explanation for the significant effect the claim for ESP or anomalous cognition has failed.

Having accepted the existence of non-chance effects, the focus now is upon whether these effects have normal causes. Since the beginning of psychical research, each claim that psychic functioning had been demonstrated was countered by critics who suggested other reasons for the observed effects. Typical alternatives that have been suggested to account for the effects have been fraud, statistical errors, and methodological artifacts. In the present discussion I am not considering fraud or statistical errors. This leaves only methodological oversight as the source for a plausible alternative to psychic functioning. Utts has concluded that "arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws are soundly refuted." If she is correct, then I would have to agree with her bottom line "that psychic functioning has been well established."

Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.

The bolding is mine, I am shamelessly pointing out that which supports my own POV, please read his whole report thoroughly.

RESPONSE TO RAY HYMAN'S REPORT
of September 11, 1995
"Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena"

This isn't that long, if you read Hyman, you'll want to go read Utts' response.

I'll also leave this link, it's an old one, I haven't checked the links there lately, but it references a lot of this kind of study. And, it was the site that posted Hyman's refutation when it disappeared, so I like giving them some credit.

I really suggest before commenting, if anyone wishes to, that they at least read through Utts' first paper.

dragonystic · 08-10-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

So, studies designed to test or observe consciousness operating without reference to the body, say - a person being able to receive information not through his body's organs, or influencing matter using only thought, not his body or his body in contact with any object, are activities that tend to support the existence of a non-physical consciousness that can act on its own.

theres nothing incongruent with materialism and the possibility of psychic phenomenon.

Praxising · 08-10-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonystic

theres nothing incongruent with materialism and the possibility of psychic phenomenon.

Could you define, just generally, "materialism" for me, just so I know what you mean by it?

luckyme · 08-10-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxising

So, studies designed to test or observe consciousness operating without reference to the body, say - a person being able to receive information not through his body's organs, or influencing matter using only thought, not his body or his body in contact with any object, are activities that tend to support the existence of a non-physical consciousness that can act on its own.

Just the opposite, it would demonstrate that consciousness is part of the material realm. My magnet doesn't indicate something non-physical going on just because it doesn't reach down and pick up the iron filings.

dragonystic · 08-10-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxising

Could you define, just generally, "materialism" for me, just so I know what you mean by it?

no, i will not. it means exactly what you think it means, and i dont feel like going down another road of boring semantics. look up the word in a dictionary, whatever it says, im happy to use that meaning.

Praxising · 08-10-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonystic

no, i will not. it means exactly what you think it means, and i dont feel like going down another road of boring semantics. look up the word in a dictionary, whatever it says, im happy to use that meaning.

It said this as first definition: a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters

That doesn't seem like what you meant to me. But whatever.

dragonystic · 08-10-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxising

It said this as first definition: a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters

That doesn't seem like what you meant to me. But whatever.

this is why RGT sucks.

carlo · 08-10-2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxising

It said this as first definition: a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters

That doesn't seem like what you meant to me. But whatever.

That can be an offshoot( wealth, etc...) but not necessarily so. Materialism is the perspective in which all of reality(hidden and otherwise) is material or specifically in the exegesis of science that which is ponderable and measurable. This of course mandates no spirituality, no soul and perforce brings forth atheism. Of course there are strong, weak or other types of atheists which is an incongruity to me but none the less considered relevant and real by many on this forum and and the intellectual community in general.

I am always skeptical of science, as presently known, studying meta-phenomena for that would imply that these phenomena are measurable or weigh-able which by their very nature, are not. From my scant knowledge of quantum theory one might say that these people are indeed studying such phenomena (magic in motion

) which are being condensed into a questionable ponderability.

dragonystic · 08-10-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlo

That can be an offshoot( wealth, etc...) but not necessarily so. Materialism is the perspective in which all of reality(hidden and otherwise) is material or specifically in the exegesis of science that which is ponderable and measurable. This of course mandates no spirituality, no soul and perforce brings forth atheism. Of course there are strong, weak or other types of atheists which is an incongruity to me but none the less considered relevant and real by many on this forum and and the intellectual community in general.

I am always skeptical of science, as presently known, studying meta-phenomena for that would imply that these phenomena are measurable or weigh-able which by their very nature, are not. From my scant knowledge of quantum theory one might say that these people are indeed studying such phenomena (magic in motion

) which are being condensed into a questionable ponderability.

no it doesnt.

and he already knew what i meant by materialism. he was just being a passive aggressive ****.

Praxising · 08-10-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonystic

no it doesnt.

and he already knew what i meant by materialism. he was just being a passive aggressive ****.

I actually wasn't, and I don't know. Look what happened, someone else defined it and you disagreed. This is what popped up. I understand why people here are suspicious of one another but I really don't know in your mind what you mean by a word that has a lot of meanings and connotations. Just as no one around here knows just what I mean when I say I am a Christian.

I was posting over at Stox forums on similar topics and a guy who said he was an atheist got all bent out of shape when we assumed he didn't believe in God. Reamed us out for assuming just because the word meant that to us, it didn't to everyone and we should just ask.

I'm not a liar, troll version or otherwise. I didn't want to do the semantic two-step, I wasn't trying to set you up, I don't want to convert anyone, trap anyone or do anything but engage in dialogue.

I don't know what you want.

Praxising · 08-10-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlo

I am always skeptical of science, as presently known, studying meta-phenomena for that would imply that these phenomena are measurable or weigh-able which by their very nature, are not.

Unless they are, but we don't get how to do that very well. I don't think we're all that familiar with their nature. I started with psychism because it's the one least mystical, I think, in people's minds and the one we are probably closest to explaining. Also, both this example and the other one I'll be posting depend on a lot of math and Law of Large Numbers which a bunch of poker players should be able to get a good handle on.

Quote:

From my scant knowledge of quantum theory one might say that these people are indeed studying such phenomena (magic in motion

) which are being condensed into a questionable ponderability.

Or imponderable questionability!

dragonystic · 08-10-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxising

I actually wasn't, and I don't know. Look what happened, someone else defined it and you disagreed. This is what popped up. I understand why people here are suspicious of one another but I really don't know in your mind what you mean by a word that has a lot of meanings and connotations. Just as no one around here knows just what I mean when I say I am a Christian.

I was posting over at Stox forums on similar topics and a guy who said he was an atheist got all bent out of shape when we assumed he didn't believe in God. Reamed us out for assuming just because the word meant that to us, it didn't to everyone and we should just ask.

I'm not a liar, troll version or otherwise. I didn't want to do the semantic two-step, I wasn't trying to set you up, I don't want to convert anyone, trap anyone or do anything but engage in dialogue.

I don't know what you want.

your reading skills are unbelievably bad.

i didnt disagree with his definition of materialism. in fact, that is what i meant by materialism. i only disagreed in what he thought materialism entailed (that being no spirituality for atheists.) but thats irrelevant.

the fact that it was so mindbogglingly obvious what i meant, that someone was able to jump in and provide the correct definition of what i meant, should be proof enough of how purposely obstinate you are being.

in fact...

Quote:

That doesn't seem like what you meant to me.

that is enough to prove it. you knew the correct definition, which is how you knew that was the incorrect definition. seriously, youre just being a huge dbag.

Praxising · 08-10-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonystic

that is enough to prove it. you knew the correct definition, which is how you knew that was the incorrect definition. seriously, youre just being a huge dbag.

"that is enough to prove it???" Because you never heard of something not fitting into context? Another definition was bourgeoisie - also didn't fit. "Everything that's real is made of matter?" That doesn't sound right, I'm sure there must be energy in your lexicon someplace.

Enough. You remind me of a couple I met once who simply did not believe it was possible that I didn't know who Garth Brooks was. Seriously, they thought I was lying to them. This was back when I guess he had his first big hits. Why would I know that? I hate Country Music. Why would I know what you mean?

You said - what was it? "This is why RGT sucks" I'm a d-bag? Heal thyself, kiddo.

I assume you have nothing of substance to offer on the topic - so I'll be moving on.

carlo · 08-10-2009, 10:54 PM

Actually I can see that in materialism that this does not necessarily lead one to atheism. I did say that from materialism atheism is brought forth but for the individual man he can quite well believe in a spiritual reality if he sees that the only way to be 'scientific" would be through the materialist ethos. The paradox presents itself but as in all things of this nature the connection between materialism and spiritual reality is not evident. This is a matter of knowledge and I say this in consideration that if I "judged" a materialist into some type of condemnation then the fault is mine and not his.

Materialism is not some aberrant device thrust upon the world but is actually a time laden necessity for which the individual man can improve and better his thoughtful insight. We all work in our own light and the materialist perception offers aid to the human soul during our times. Each of us has to do his work with his particular belief essentially leading to a compassion for which there is no discriminating between man and man, in which all of us are in some way attempting to achieve.

Is the above vague enough? If not, I can make it more so.

**Jibninjas** · 08-10-2009, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlo

Actually I can see that in materialism that this does not necessarily lead one to atheism. I did say that from materialism atheism is brought forth but for the individual man he can quite well believe in a spiritual reality if he sees that the only way to be 'scientific" would be through the materialist ethos. The paradox presents itself but as in all things of this nature the connection between materialism and spiritual reality is not evident. This is a matter of knowledge and I say this in consideration that if I "judged" a materialist into some type of condemnation then the fault is mine and not his.

Materialism is not some aberrant device thrust upon the world but is actually a time laden necessity for which the individual man can improve and better his thoughtful insight. We all work in our own light and the materialist perception offers aid to the human soul during our times. Each of us has to do his work with his particular belief essentially leading to a compassion for which there is no discriminating between man and man, in which all of us are in some way attempting to achieve.

Is the above vague enough? If not, I can make it more so.

Speaking of vague, in the year or so that I have been posting here I still have never been able to figure out what position you hold, on anything.

You do not seem to be a theist but you also do not seem to be an atheist. If I had to guess I would think that you believed in some sort of cosmic force that is not attached to any religion.

Care to shed some light?