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

[TransmutingSoul]

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

They add up to the truth of our reality, which is but a mirage, a blink in time.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

They add up to the truth of our reality, which is but a mirage, a blink in time.

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

They add up to the truth of our reality, which is but a mirage, a blink in time.

Regards Tony

"People have a soul. Intelligence links it to the body"

Your " prophret" just uses a lot of empty words to fluff it up
in pronouncing those deepities

Assering that they are "truth" is an unevidenced claim
to wisdom you do not posses.

To underline the truth that it's vacuous opinion,
you first toss in an irrelevant starement of the trivially
obviousl followed by an obdcure metaphor
alluding to something you cannot identify.

Vacuous in this context means zero content.

 

[HonestJoe]

Too many threads are rehashes of what people believe or don't believe in opposition to each other. My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

Well, since the study apparently wasn't enough for the CIA to change it's mind, I don't see why the report about it should convince anyone else.

I'm also curious exactly what you mean by "non-local consciousness". Again, while the CIA report identifies "statistically significant results", it recognises that the cause of those results is unknown. Even if it is the result of some as-yet unknown effect, that isn't necessarily anything to do with consciousness independent of the brain.

But then: Scientific proof convinced me that psychic phenomena is real

And on that he is simply wrong. For a start, the phenomena is always "real" because this is what has been observed and reported. What he is essentially claiming is that his specific explanation for all the different phenomena he mentions is true, and that is an assertion he doesn't (and couldn't) support.

 

[sun rise]

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 agree with usefulness for spying and other purposes is not there.

I don't understand why statistical significance is different from actual significance. What science idea a prior discredits statistics?

 

[sun rise]

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]

Which I wrote in a post and which I agree with. And that was a focus of the second paper I cited.

 

[sun rise]

Well, since the study apparently wasn't enough for the CIA to change it's mind,

Change it's mind? The CIA concluded that the results were from well-constructed studies and statistically true. There was no mind changing outside of determining it was not useful for spying.

I'm also curious exactly what you mean by "non-local consciousness". Again, while the CIA report identifies "statistically significant results", it recognises that the cause of those results is unknown. Even if it is the result of some as-yet unknown effect, that isn't necessarily anything to do with consciousness independent of the brain.

True. The finding has nothing to do with consciousness independent of the brain. Doing further research on what influences the statistical result is to me the next step. And developing a testable theory is yet to be done as you noted.

What interests me is that this is the first time I've seen a high quality scientific effort in this area. This does not mean of course that skeptics turn into believers at all. What is means is simply that one claim has been statistically verified and is therefore an area warranting more research including determining the mechanism of action.

 

[McBell]

Which I wrote in a post and which I agree with. And that was a focus of the second paper I cited.

Nope.
Out of all this:

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]​

You only presented:

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 even left out the BEGINNING of the sentence you did present: "In this limited sense"


Have you ever heard of "Quote Mining"?

 

[McBell]

So how long has the CIA been using these techniques?

 

[Brickjectivity]

My question is whether the CIA report constitutes enough evidence for people to consider changing their minds.

I already consider it to be a possibility but not a certainty.

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

I tend to think of it as an entanglement between atoms which connects them in different times, rather than non-locality. It could be due to some other effect, and I merely think of this as something which would (if true) explain both precognition and the appearance of non-local consciousness.

 

[HonestJoe]

Change it's mind? The CIA concluded that the results were from well-constructed studies and statistically true. There was no mind changing outside of determining it was not useful for spying.

They identified some statically significant results but concluded that there was no clear explanation for those results either way, and so remained sceptical of any specific "paranormal" hypotheses. The fact that the nature of the results weren't deemed of practical use anyway just meant they had no reason to investigate further.

What is means is simply that one claim has been statistically verified and is therefore an area warranting more research including determining the mechanism of action.

Nothing is really stopping anyone doing quality research in this area but it seems a lot of the proponents of the supernatural explanations don't want to do that. The CIA did some because they thought it might be of practical use (regardless of how it worked).

 

[Orbit]

I agree with usefulness for spying and other purposes is not there.

I don't understand why statistical significance is different from actual significance. What science idea a prior discredits statistics?

Hi. The term "statistical significance" is actually a technical term with a very specific definition, which is the determination made by an analyst that the results in the data are not explainable by chance alone. So if within the range of acceptable probability determined by the researcher at the outset (usually p=.05, or an approximate error rate of .05%), the results show a difference from what the outcome would be by chance, we say it's "statistically significant". BUT, that is not the same as saying the difference is meaningful in real life. It's just saying how the math worked out.

Here's an example of how that can happen:

For example, suppose you are evaluating a training program by comparing the test scores of program participants to those who study on their own. Further, we decide that the difference between these two groups must be at least five points to represent a practically meaningful effect size. An effect of 4 points or less is too small to care about.

After performing the study, the analysis finds a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Participants in the study program score an average of 3 points higher on a 100-point test. While these results are statistically significant, the 3-point difference is less than our 5-point threshold. Consequently, our study provides evidence that this effect exists, but it is too small to be meaningful in the real world. The time and money that participants spend on the training program are not worth an average improvement of only 3 points.

So it could be that there was a statistically significant effect in the studies you posted, but the difference between that and chance doesn't rise to the level of the difference being actually meaningful for practical purposes, which is probably why (if I had to guess) these kinds of studies were abandoned.

 

[sun rise]

I tend to think of it as an entanglement between atoms which connects them in different times, rather than non-locality. It could be due to some other effect, and I merely think of this as something which would (if true) explain both precognition and the appearance of non-local consciousness.

It's an idea. We'll see what if anything is the cause.

Nothing is really stopping anyone doing quality research in this area but it seems a lot of the proponents of the supernatural explanations don't want to do that.

Personally I agree with the Dalai Lama when he indicated "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality." But there are many who refuse the findings of science because their beliefs are challenged. Science is THE tool for understanding how the world works. I don't need a belief in magic but prefer to understand what is truly real.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Assering that they are "truth" is an unevidenced claim
to wisdom you do not posses.

You and I possess the capacity to embrace this truth, that we are more than flesh.

It is all up to us, if we want ro search for and use that capacity.

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

You and I possess the capacity to embrace this truth, that we are more than flesh.

It is all up to us, if we want ro search for and use that capacity.

Regards Tony

Well yes. There's bones too.

What is this "more than"?

On point again here, you make claim to
arcane knowledge you do not posses.

But in that you are not so unique.

There's millions of you out there, defrauding
others and / or yourself.

You will excuse me ifn I don't want to join, lead, or
follow.

 

[Audie]

It's an idea. We'll see what if anything is the cause.


Personally I agree with the Dalai Lama when he indicated "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality." But there are many who refuse the findings of science because their beliefs are challenged. Science is THE tool for understanding how the world works. I don't need a belief in magic but prefer to understand what is truly real.

Makes sense. It would be out of character
for any religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You will excuse me ifn I don't want to join, lead, or
follow.

Death is also yours to embrace.

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

Death is also yours to embrace.

Regards Tony

Good example of how your thinking consists
of a collection of deepities.

And pretending to know things
that you cannot possibly know-
a fact you keep sidestepping.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's an idea. We'll see what if anything is the cause.

Yes, and that is all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A bit, or a lot, of "wait and see" beats
jumping onto every bandwagon.

Yes, that is a good point when we are talking about cosmic questions. If it is some other topic such as relationships then I may not have time to wait and see. If its about coworkers then I err on the side of caution. If it is about food then...