godnotgod
Thou art That
So you accept it because you feel it confirms your pre-conceived beliefs?
The spiritual experience is not a set of beliefs.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you accept it because you feel it confirms your pre-conceived beliefs?
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that. The researcher's credentials are always considered when examining their research, and in this case, Mr. Zylberbaum has sufficient credentials to establish him as a bona fide researcher. Add to this the fact that a pretty renowned Quantum physicist, Amit Goswami, lent HIS credentials and title to the experiments lends even more credibility to the paper, not to mention the actual procedures of the experiment themselves.
from the Wikipedia article you referenced:
The journal was abstracted in Current Contents/Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences and the Science Citation Index Expanded until it was dropped in 2015.[1] After re-evaluation, it is now included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), a new edition of the Web of Science.[2]
The journal is abstracted and indexed in:
This is just a book that mentions of the paper. Where is the repetition of the experiment?
Also just a book that mentions the paper. Where is the actual corroboration you said existed?
This is a pseudo-science publication masquerading as peer-reviewed science. It isn't even listed in the SJR.You might also be interested in this content:
journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/download/154/119
That's just plain silly. You can't just cry conspiracy when science isn't buying whatever pet idea you happen to want to be true. If someone genuinely did these experiments and could reliably reproduce these results, and this had been done repeatedly, as you assert, then it would be absolutely revolutionary. There is no massive, scientific conspiracy to suppress this stuff, and there would be absolutely no reason to whatsoever.Again, the mainstream scientific community generally ignores and/or avoids this type of content as they consider it to be in the realm of pseudoscience, and don't want anything to do with it. They consider association with such content to be putting their careers at risk.
A belief that something was a spiritual experience is a belief. You believe that it was spiritual, but it may not have been. Ergo, you just stated that your prior beliefs influenced your likelihood of accepting this paper as being true.The spiritual experience is not a set of beliefs.
"In 1994, Grinberg came up with an even more compelling way to demonstrate this effect. Most of the experiment was the same–two people meditated together for twenty minutes and then went into separate, shielded rooms. Now, however, he flashed bright lights in one participant’s eyes–causing them to expeience sudden shocks. Each time he ran the experiment, one hundred different flashes of light were given at random. Twenty-five percent of the time when he flashed the light in one person’s eyes, the other person had a very similar brainwave “shock”–at the exact same time. Grinberg’s control subjects did not show any such connections. This was a stunning discovery–and the results were published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays. (9)"
Consciousness, Eternity and Universal Mind
*****
"Grinberg published these results in Physics Essays, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal. And though this evidence was painstakingly collected in more than fifty experiments over a five-year period, he received a great deal of criticism."
http://www.iawaketechnologies.com/connecting-matrix/
However, there is one reference to the experiment by Peter Fenwick, who has apparently replicated the original Jacobo experiments. I do not currently have any link to a peer-reviewed essay of the experiment by Mr. Fenwick. You will need to do some footwork on your own if you want to go fetch it.
Anyone can make a graph of whatever they want. Whether it's actually factual or based on anything real is what really matters. Where is your evidence that these graphs are credible?
Or, mainstream scientists simply don't think that such papers are worthy of serious consideration. The lack of ground-breaking research here is pretty clear. If something truly interesting cropped up, other scientists would rush to the idea, en masse. That they are not taken in by this sort of research is telling.
That’s what I have been trying to tell godnotgod for weeks.A belief that something was a spiritual experience is a belief. You believe that it was spiritual, but it may not have been. Ergo, you just stated that your prior beliefs influenced your likelihood of accepting this paper as being true.
QM is just a more accurate way of measuring all those phenomena, right?Not useful? I guess ALL of solid state physics, including what we know about semi-conductors isn't very useful. I guess what we know about chemical bonding isn't useful. Or about how light interacts with matter, or nuclear physics, or specific heats, etc, etc, etc.
Which is what he has been doing.That's just plain silly. You can't just cry conspiracy when science isn't buying whatever pet idea you happen to want to be true.
Burden of proof is with you. Prove that they were submitted for peer review and have been replicated by other scientists.
The point is that they have utterly failed to come up with anything even remotely close to being ground-breaking in their chase down this rabbit hole. There is no argument that Penrose, in particular, is not a brilliant scientist, but even his brilliant mind has not been able to make much progress into this area of speculation. Until that happens people will remain skeptical of their works.
That you consider it ground-breaking is one thing. What counts is if other scientists consider it the be ground-breaking. You make it sound like some kind of global conspiracy against the poor wretches by an elite who doesn't want their world rocked. That's ridiculous. If other scientist thought there was something to it all they would take this work VERY seriously.But we know better than that, don't we, mouse?
And the results of these experiments have been replicated where?
That doesn't address what I asked.
This is just a book that mentions of the paper. Where is the repetition of the experiment?
Also just a book that mentions the paper. Where is the actual corroboration you said existed?
This is a pseudo-science publication masquerading as peer-reviewed science. It isn't even listed in the SJR.
That's just plain silly. You can't just cry conspiracy when science isn't buying whatever pet idea you happen to want to be true. If someone genuinely did these experiments and could reliably reproduce these results, and this had been done repeatedly, as you assert, then it would be absolutely revolutionary. There is no massive, scientific conspiracy to suppress this stuff, and there would be absolutely no reason to whatsoever.
That you consider it ground-breaking is one thing. What counts is if other scientists consider it the be ground-breaking. You make it sound like some kind of global conspiracy against the poor wretches by an elite who doesn't want their world rocked. That's ridiculous. If other scientist thought there was something to it all they would take this work VERY seriously.
Not really. It means it may have credible articles in it.
In the fact that I can't find a single scrap of evidence of anyone replicating their findings and no citation of the paper from anywhere, and the fact that it was only publishes in a journal known for publishing extremely fringe ideas and having a very little citation or credible standing among physics journals.
You have repeatedly stated that these findings were replicated elsewhere. Where were they replicated and what were their results?
A belief that something was a spiritual experience is a belief. You believe that it was spiritual, but it may not have been. Ergo, you just stated that your prior beliefs influenced your likelihood of accepting this paper as being true.
You've admitted bias.
Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed publication. JGZ submitted his paper to PE for publication, and in doing so, automatically exposes it to peer review. The paper itself is proof, from his POV, since it is the result of SCIENTIFIC investigation and testing in accordance with scientific principles and procedures. So the ball is in YOUR court, not his or mine, in terms of any 'burden of proof'. If you have examined the methodology employed, and find it erroneous or flawed in some way, then you are at liberty to disprove what he considers his proof. But that is not what you are doing; you are attacking the publication he submitted his paper to.
And yet you haven't presented any of their papers or actual work on the subject, despite the fact that you said you would. Where is it?I have now provided the names of 4 researchers who are reported to have replicated and authenticated the experiment.
So, to you, it's enough to simply accept what people tell you provided what they tell you confirms what you already believe? You're not even willing to show any level of skepticism at that point?Personally, I have no need to investigate further, since my spiritual experience is the standard, and not an experiment that is only a shadow of, it being for those who need such things to be convinced. But I think you are taking things much too far, and that is simply because, no matter what evidence is presented, you will demand even more evidence, due to your bias against such content as being authentic in the first place.
So if YOU want validation, be my guest. The ball is in YOUR court, as well as the burden of proof.
So the results of the experiment are irrelevant because you believe what you want to believe anyway?Validation for me is not the experiment, but the spiritual experience itself. The experiment is just an extra.
So you admit that this is all psuedo-scientific nonsense and you're just confirmed your preconceived bias because you desperately feel a need to validate your prior conceptions and what you want to believe?And, BTW, that is how mystics see what is coming about today in science as well; they don't NEED science to validate what they already know to be the case. They already KNOW that consciousness is non-local and universal in nature. Only those who continue to be attached to Identification need proof, which, when presented to them right under their very noses, dismiss it as invalid. "Maybe something is wrong with the experiment", or "the publication it was submitted to is not credible, and full of pseudo-science", etc, and on and on blah blah blah.
You literally wrote just two pages ago that you would provide corroboration if requested, and now you're completely changing your mind the moment someone actually asks and telling us that it's OUR job to do YOUR work supporting your own claim.It's your job to go fetch, if you need stinking badges. I don't need to go any further, so have no interest in pursuing the matter. I provided the information for you to find out more. So avail thyself.
Careful about throwing those stones. You've already admitted to having a bias.I don't care. You can call it what you wish. The reason I provided it to you is so you can have exposure to expanded information from Jacobo himself. Did you bother to read the content, in spite of your obvious bias?
Unfortunately, there is, but it is hard-wired into the mainstream culture, and not in some officially sanctioned or deliberately organized program or agenda. Dismissing and/or ignoring it is just as effective as suppression. Why can't you get that there exists a mentality which has an automatic knee-jerk reaction to such content and others associated with such content....like yours, for example?
I don't have to attack the content of the experiment if the experiment has no valid content. If nobody has actually reviewed this paper or replicated it's results, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume it is true. The exact same thing can be said about any paper of any kind submitted for any purpose - without independent verification, I have no idea if the experiment, methodology or results are valid.Look here, this is not some pet idea I entertain. It's just a tidbit I use to talk to science types, atheists, and intellectuals about something with which they can use to get a handle on about something they otherwise would not accept. But so far, you have not addressed the actual content of the experiment; instead you attack the messenger and HIS messenger.
No, because that's just plain ridiculous. Scientific evidence of actual psychic powers would make millionaires and celebrities of the scientists overnight, would overturn almost everything we know about how our brains work and revolutionise modern physics. Are you seriously suggesting that scientists are so averse to facts that they would rather suppress this?Have you considered that only a handful of researchers would be interested or have the testicular fortitude to pursue replication, the rest not wanting to have anything to do with it? You know, the moment they become involved with any aspect of it in any serious way, they become targets of the other mainstreamers. It's like quicksand to them.
You're fabricating sh*t here.
Unless you're simply dreaming about falling into a mountain lake. Or imagining it. Or are blind and have just fallen into a pool.You accidentally fall into a mountain lake. You immediately KNOW the water to be cold; you don't BELIEVE that something was the experience of coldness.
Post 5349:Stop making things up. I never said that I had prior beliefs that influenced blah blah blah.
If that's what you believe.What I said is that my direct experience of Reality is realization that consciousness is nonlocal, and that the research paper only is an addition to that realization, but is not necessary to that realization. Realization has nothing to do with any set of beliefs about what is; it is simply the realization of what is, without thought, which is the basis of belief.
QM is just a more accurate way of measuring all those phenomena, right?
Let me just ask one question based on all the disinformation and fluff. (or maybe the truth, i dunno)
Say i "prepared" an entangled pair of electrons at my lab and one of them is taken to your lab.
I call you saying my electron i just measured with a up spin. You now have it's entangled partner, and you reply that you are now measuring your electron showing a down spin at your lab across town. (Am i ok so far?)
What will You see happen to your electron if I change the spin of my electron to down while you are simultaneously and continuously watching your electron during the moment i change the spin of my electron?