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

[Shadow Wolf]

Sociology / psychology are already borderline fraud
in their own fields.

Now where is your evidence?

 

[exchemist]

Are we going to get into a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "remote" which you distinguish from "non local"?

The authors of the second paper were careful to discuss that there are two different ways of interpreting "scientifically established" The first: "On the one hand, the expression could be interpreted exclusively from a statistical or probabilistic judgment." The paper also referenced Hyman who applied an empirical point-of-view.

The paper also stated: Furthermore, we must also bear in mind that not all phenomena are empirically observable and, consequently, only mathematical representation and statistical judgment would be scientifically available in decision‐making (Escolà‐Gascón, 2022c). Many phenomena have no direct observation in the physical sciences (e.g., the state of temperature and variations over time). In this sense, the fact that a phenomenon is not empirically observable and recordable does not make it a “pseudoscientific concept” (i.e., that it does not have sufficient epistemic foundations, see e.g., Fasce et al., 2021).

And it finally concluded as as I highlighted our skeptically oriented team obtained ample evidence supporting the existence of robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi.

I also remember strongly the uproar over smoking causes cancer with the tobacco companies making the same argument - there was no mechanism demonstrated that upheld the statistical findings.

Observation often precedes theory. Exceptions found to Newton's laws led to Einstein and so forth. Observation led to hypothesis which led to experiment and finally to theory if/when the test results matched the hypothesis. The paper conclusion "hypothesis of psi" should be noted.



Of course that's true. The CIA review of the various research studies was built on skepticism. The various tests both methodological and statistical they applied was to me outstanding. The authors of the second paper were careful to include skeptical viewpoints in evaluating their thoughts.

And you can note my use of the word "if" in the thread title. While it's interesting to me to have a reasoned discussion as we're having, I was really asking how a proof would affect people's understanding ( "of life, the universe and everything")

It's OK to explore hypothetical questions of course. But you seem to be doing a lot more than that, suggesting there is evidence in the cited paper of something you call "non-local consciousness". The authors of the paper make no reference to such a thing.

(Proof is not something you would ever get from science, as Audie points out.)

 

[Jimmy]

Guess I’ll have to move out of town

 

[McBell]

So how long has the CIA been using these techniques?

 

[sun rise]

Skepticism is a stance that avoids jumping to positive or negative conclusion without exhaustive investigation. This one requires that.
The current problem is that such experiments are very low priority in science and hence good control is rarely established. As you may know 30-40% of published biological research fail the replication test, and the situation gets worse when sociological experiments are done. Therefore inferring new physics from sociological experiments meet with deep skepticism as of now. Hopefully it will get better in future.

In general yes. But in this particular case there have been a number of replication experiments as the CIA document reviewed.

 

[sun rise]

It's not a proof. Those don't exist outside if math. Science doesn't do proofs.

You are not using the scientific definition of proof - proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.

 

[sun rise]

People will never quit trying to establish
paranormal as real.
I think it's frivolous, but as long as my tax money
isn't used, and it amuses people I suppose there's
no harm.

Though bogus claims such as "cold fusion"
or anti intelligent garbage like " science" proves
telepathy, don't seem terribly progressive.

You continue to ignore the evidence in favor of your beliefs. This is not unique but it is sad.

 

[sun rise]

Skepticism is a stance that avoids jumping to positive or negative conclusion without exhaustive investigation. This one requires that.
The current problem is that such experiments are very low priority in science and hence good control is rarely established. As you may know 30-40% of published biological research fail the replication test, and the situation gets worse when sociological experiments are done. Therefore inferring new physics from sociological experiments meet with deep skepticism as of now. Hopefully it will get better in future.

It's clear to me that almost if not everyone is ignoring the studies themselves or even reading what I posted from them but just posting opinions. This is, of course, typical, but again it's sad.

 

[Orbit]

It's clear to me that almost if not everyone is ignoring the studies themselves or even reading what I posted from them but just posting opinions. This is, of course, typical, but again it's sad.

I read all of the studies you posted and my reaction was "if it actually worked, they'd be using it". As far as I know, both the U.S. and the Soviets abandoned such efforts after the 1970s. The other thing that I thought was that success rates around 30% didn't seem all that different from chance, and that "statistical significance" isn't the same thing as actual significance or usefulness.

 

[McBell]

I read all of the studies you posted and my reaction was "if it actually worked, they'd be using it".

I wonder if this is why I am being completely ignored in this thread?

 

[Audie]

You continue to ignore the evidence in favor of your beliefs. This is not unique but it is sad.

That's classic projection my dear.
Typical of creationists, and fans of woo woo.

 

[Audie]

I read all of the studies you posted and my reaction was "if it actually worked, they'd be using it". As far as I know, both the U.S. and the Soviets abandoned such efforts after the 1970s. The other thing that I thought was that success rates around 30% didn't seem all that different from chance, and that "statistical significance" isn't the same thing as actual significance or usefulness.

I hear they've shifted to Astral projection

 

[Audie]

You are not using the scientific definition of proof - proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.

You got that from wiki ( next time give your source)

Since you don't get it and keep discrediting yourself
with pre middle school grasp of basic science,
here's a favour, a simple read to get you up to speed.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

 

[Audie]

You are not using the scientific definition of proof - proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.

A standard not, ah, remotely met.

 

[McBell]

You are not using the scientific definition of proof - proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.​

You should quote the whole thing, not just the part you think helps you:

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24] Albert Einstein said:​

​

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe", and in the great majority of cases simply "No". If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe", and if it does not agree it means "No". Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.[25]​

However, in contrast to the ideal of infallible proof, in practice theories may be said to be proved according to some standard of proof used in a given inquiry.[26][27] In this limited sense, proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.[26][27]​

Source

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are not using the scientific definition of proof - proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.

No, science itself proves nothing. That's for math. Science itself lives and survives on being disproven, and it must assume current ideas can be disproven to make room for new evidence and discoveries. Like in medice. I was diagnosed with a stress related stomach ulcer. We'd still be doing that today if science proves things. And then it would look silly. We proved stress causes them, but then comes along a guy who says it's caused a bacteria and proves it by drinking a vial containing the bacteria. Which leaves us with two very conflicting ideas that both have allegedly been proven.

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people acce…

thelogicofscience.com

In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. That position is also incorrect.


The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs. The reasons for that range from the philosophical to the practical....
....
When we say that science can’t prove anything, what we mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true. For example, we are very, very certain that the earth is orbiting the sun (heliocentrism) but we can never actually be 100% sure that it is. In contrast, mathematics can provide proofs. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. The uncertainty only enters when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe, which in many ways, is all that science is.

And, just so you know, the research you've been bringing up is the subject of the book and movie the Men Who Stare at Goats. It also includes pieces of larger plans that included MK-Ultra and other tortures in the name of science.
But the Soviets were also researching the same stuff. Neither side gained an advantage with it.
All the universities participating in thise and similar subjects have closed their departments due to a lack of consistently usable results.
And even Uri Geller and other similar tricksters have fooled scientists and researchers. But it didn't take a James Randi to point out the flaws, it was just time and the brutal treatment of test subjects that happened as the larger part of those research projects.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've come to believe in non-local consciousness, or consciousness that originates outside our physical bodies and outside our brains. To me, this is the most scientifically sound explanation.

The Baha'i Writings confirm this is so.

"Like the animal, man possesses the faculties of the senses, is subject to heat, cold, hunger, thirst, etc.; unlike the animal, man has a rational soul, the human intelligence. This intelligence of man is the intermediary between his body and his spirit." – Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 96.

The soul, like the intellect, is an abstraction. Intelligence does not partake of the quality of space, though it is related to man’s brain. The intellect resides there, but not materially. Search in the brain you will not find the intellect. In the same way though the soul is the resident of the body, it is not to be found in the body. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

You should quote the whole thing, not just the part you think helps you:

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24] Albert Einstein said:​

​

However, in contrast to the ideal of infallible proof, in practice theories may be said to be proved according to some standard of proof used in a given inquiry.[26][27] In this limited sense, proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.[26][27]​

Source

Due diligence / winner frubal

 

[Audie]

The Baha'i Writings confirm this is so.

"Like the animal, man possesses the faculties of the senses, is subject to heat, cold, hunger, thirst, etc.; unlike the animal, man has a rational soul, the human intelligence. This intelligence of man is the intermediary between his body and his spirit." – Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 96.

The soul, like the intellect, is an abstraction. Intelligence does not partake of the quality of space, though it is related to man’s brain. The intellect resides there, but not materially. Search in the brain you will not find the intellect. In the same way though the soul is the resident of the body, it is not to be found in the body. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,

Regards Tony

Two wacky opinions add up to somrthing,
but not much.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Many years ago, I saw an experiment where they proved ...

... but this amazing truth has since been suppressed by a clever cabal associated with the breakfast cereal industry.