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

[Audie]

We have one person dismissing the statistical findings out of hand and another dismissing statistics itself as pseudoscience forgetting how many studies such as smoking causing cancer was first the domain of statistical research before the mechanism was discovered. In effect we have people rejecting a proven valuable part of mathematics because they don't like the outcome or don't understand the math involved.

In case it is of any value at all, here are 5 statistical findings that were proven true:

1. The association between smoking and lung cancer: In the early 1900s, researchers began to notice a statistical association between smoking and lung cancer. However, it wasn't until the 1950s that scientists began to understand the mechanism behind this association. They discovered that smoking damages the DNA of lung cells, which can lead to cancer. This understanding of the mechanism helped to validate the statistical finding and led to widespread public health campaigns to reduce smoking.
2. The association between statins and reduced risk of heart disease: In the 1980s, researchers began to study the effects of statins on heart disease. They found that statins could lower cholesterol levels and reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. However, it wasn't until the 1990s that scientists began to understand the mechanism behind how statins work. They discovered that statins inhibit the production of cholesterol in the liver. This understanding of the mechanism helped to validate the statistical finding and led to widespread use of statins to prevent heart disease.
3. The association between HPV and cervical cancer: In the 1970s, researchers began to notice a statistical association between the human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer. However, it wasn't until the 1990s that scientists began to understand the mechanism behind this association. They discovered that HPV can infect and transform cervical cells, leading to cancer. This understanding of the mechanism helped to validate the statistical finding and led to the development of the HPV vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer.
4. The association between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance: In the 1950s, researchers began to notice a statistical association between the use of antibiotics and the development of antibiotic resistance. However, it wasn't until the 1970s that scientists began to understand the mechanism behind this association. They discovered that antibiotics can kill susceptible bacteria, but they can also select for resistant bacteria. This understanding of the mechanism helped to validate the statistical finding and led to new guidelines for antibiotic use.
5. The association between childhood lead exposure and cognitive impairment: In the 1970s, researchers began to notice a statistical association between childhood lead exposure and cognitive impairment. However, it wasn't until the 1990s that scientists began to understand the mechanism behind this association. They discovered that lead can damage the developing brain. This understanding of the mechanism helped to validate the statistical finding and led to public health efforts to reduce lead exposure.

You are not making much of a case with
your comparison to robust methodology backed
with huge data bases.

 

[nPeace]

Many years ago, I saw an experiment where they proved that all of our thoughts originate from outside of our bodies.

In other words, nothing we think is from 'us', but rather it is somehow 'beamed' into our brains first, then we 'perceive' that they are our original thoughts.

An analogy would be that we are nothing but a needle following a groove in a record. Everything has been prerecorded. We are like an Avatar in a video game simply following pre-written code. We literally have no free-will whatsoever... it just 'feels' like it.

I have often wondered if that is the case. It is very depressing in some ways, but then again maybe not?

I also tie all of the above to the theory of Pilot Waves...

"To solve these problems, the theory is inherently nonlocal."

Pilot wave theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It fits the 'needle following a groove' theory. Maybe a better way of stating it is that Particles follow the Wave like a boat being guided on an ocean.

The Wave is pre-recorded ahead of time. We, as particles, simply obey the commands of the Wave.

What if we are only now understanding spirit in a "physical" or "material" way.
Ephesians 2:2; 1 Corinthians 2:12

 

[Yokefellow]

What if we are only now understanding spirit in a "physical" or "material" way.

I believe this is a good direction for Christians to meditate on.

I see Spirit as Electromagnetism/Energy mixed with Electronic Communication and Consciousness.

Our Spirit has always existed and will continue to exist. It is the part of us that is indestructible.

Ephesians 2:2;

Ephesians 2:2
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience"

As a Christian who believes in Reincarnation, the phrase 'time past' means 'past life'.

Dead is literal...

Ephesians 2:1
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins"

We had a past life, and we died.

The word 'quickened' means 'to bring back to life what was once physically dead'. Moreover, quickened also means to come back into a new Body...

1 Corinthians 15:35-37
"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain"

1 Corinthians 2:12

1 Corinthians 2:12
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

All Life has a Spirit because it is born with it. There is a 'renewal' however, of said Spirit...

Psalms 51:10
"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

Titus 3:5
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost"

Just my two cents.

 

[McBell]

Why ask us if it lied in that paper? Do you think we have access to top secret information because one of us is a senior official in the CIA will full clearance?

Why is it you refuse to address the question?
Could it be that the answer kinda kills your OP?

Seeing as you stated the OP was the best evidence for it and then find out that the CIA (the source of your best evidence) did not find enough evidence to actually implement it.....

 

[sun rise]

You are not making much of a case with
your comparison to robust methodology backed
with huge data bases.

To state that in more technical terms, you are not satisfied with the confidence interval (p value) of the testing because it is an extraordinary claim with potentially extraordinary implications.

The typical confidence interval which has been challenged is 5% which means that there's a 5% chance of being wrong. As the 2nd paper noted, the confidence interval here is 99% or higher". That is there's a 99% chance the results are valid and a 1% chance they are not.

So this argument on your part is a reasonable one. So if you want the odds of it not being real researched until it's 1 chance in 1000 or 10000 rather than 1 in a hundred given the implications of the findings, it's a reasonable statement.

 

[sun rise]

Why is it you refuse to address the question?
Could it be that the answer kinda kills your OP?

Seeing as you stated the OP was the best evidence for it and then find out that the CIA (the source of your best evidence) did not find enough evidence to actually implement it.....

Read the paper - the section where the CIA discusses its value and limitations.

 

[McBell]

Read the paper - the section where the CIA discusses its value and limitations.

So how long has the CIA been using these techniques?

 

[nPeace]

I believe this is a good direction for Christians to meditate on.

I see Spirit as Electromagnetism/Energy mixed with Electronic Communication and Consciousness.

Our Spirit has always existed and will continue to exist. It is the part of us that is indestructible.



Ephesians 2:2
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience"

As a Christian who believes in Reincarnation, the phrase 'time past' means 'past life'.

Dead is literal...

Ephesians 2:1
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins"

We had a past life, and we died.

The word 'quickened' means 'to bring back to life what was once physically dead'. Moreover, quickened also means to come back into a new Body...

1 Corinthians 15:35-37
"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain"



1 Corinthians 2:12
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

All Life has a Spirit because it is born with it. There is a 'renewal' however, of said Spirit...

Psalms 51:10
"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

Titus 3:5
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost"

Just my two cents.

I have always thought of spirit in a material way, just not something we can see - a form of energy, yes, but nothing we know of.
I remember, years ago, telling someone how we are all connect to this "energy", but there are two different kinds, from two different sources, with two different effects.

For me, science gives more support to the Bible than most people would admit.
However, I can't blame the majority of them, since they don't understand much about the Bible - no fault of their own.
The spirit of pride is "choking" many people, and they do not know how to avoid that air. In fact, they aren't aware of it.

Tell them about spirit, they say you are talking nonsense.
Science gives them the material evidence, they say, "Wonderful!".
We say, "All along we were telling you about this."

 

[Little Dragon]

Your question is hypothetical as the results reported here do not establish anything about non-local consciousness. There is in fact no mention of such a term in the paper.

Sustained!

Paranormal or psychic capabilities, could still hypothetically arise from the organic brain. No need to insert an external source of unknown origin. The human brain is a sophisticated neural network, maybe psychic abilities are just higher order brain functions, emergent properties?

 

[nPeace]

Read the paper - the section where the CIA discusses its value and limitations.

I never really gave much thought to the connection, referencing people to parroting or to parrots, until I actually heard a real live parrot.

 

[Audie]

To state that in more technical terms, you are not satisfied with the confidence interval (p value) of the testing because it is an extraordinary claim with potentially extraordinary implications.

The typical confidence interval which has been challenged is 5% which means that there's a 5% chance of being wrong. As the 2nd paper noted, the confidence interval here is 99% or higher". That is there's a 99% chance the results are valid and a 1% chance they are not.

So this argument on your part is a reasonable one. So if you want the odds of it not being real researched until it's 1 chance in 1000 or 10000 rather than 1 in a hundred given the implications of the findings, it's a reasonable statement.

One chance in x, of it NOT being real
is stated backwards.

All your confidence intervals etc is
raz daz amounting to "mountain from
a (probably illusory) anthill".

 

[sun rise]

It seems that some refuse to engage with the actual science here but instead just repeat their biases and emotional assumptions. And along with that don't exhibit the proper intellectual and scientific humility that the authors of the 2nd paper did.

Thus, the present results compel the authors to voice an updated position statement, that is, 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.

And along with that many refused to answer the question the thread title asked:

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

 

[nPeace]

It seems that some refuse to engage with the actual science here but instead just repeat their biases and emotional assumptions. And along with that don't exhibit the proper intellectual and scientific humility that the authors of the 2nd paper did.

Thus, the present results compel the authors to voice an updated position statement, that is, 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.

And along with that many refused to answer the question the thread title asked:

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

What's new. This is the same RF as a decade ago.

 

[sun rise]

What's new. This is the same RF as a decade ago.

What's different this time is the question I asked in the subject title and the new paper published this year.

 

[nPeace]

What's different this time is the question I asked in the subject title and the new paper published this year.

That makes no difference. This - some refuse to engage with the actual science here but instead just repeat their biases and emotional assumptions... and many refused to answer the question the thread title asked - has not changed, and will always remain the same.
Hasn't it been that way for the time you have been here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

I believe there is something spiritual in the universe, beyond our typical senses. I don't choose to believe that because it's comforting, but because that's where the scientific evidence has pointed me.

But one thing I feel certain about is that there's more for science to discover.

Of course, the universe is like a living organism. It reacts to changes instantly (Spooky Action at a Distance - Wikipedia).
Of course, you have the right to believe in pink fairies, no law against it, irrespective of what science points to.
Here too, you are correct. There is a lot more for science to find.

The article in the OP is in the CIA Reading Room because of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Anyone can put any trash in the CIA Reading Room after paying the necessary fees. An article being there does not mean an involvement of CIA or impart any value to what is written in it.

Search | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

 

[sun rise]

Hasn't it been that way for the time you have been here?

Yes, sadly. I should be resigned to it by now.

Anyone can put any trash in the CIA Reading Room after paying the necessary fees. An article being there does not mean an involvement of CIA or impart any value to what is written in it.

Prove it with reputable cites. Because What is the Electronic Reading Room? | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov) says you are totally wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is the Electronic Reading Room? | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov) says you are totally wrong.

Where exactly?

 

[McBell]

The article in the OP is in the CIA Reading Room because of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Anyone can put any trash in the CIA Reading Room after paying the necessary fees. An article being there does not mean an involvement of CIA or impart any value to what is written in it.

Search | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

The CIA Reading Room is NOT wikipedia.
It is the public release of information under the control/supervision of the CIA.
You request specific information be released, the CIA reviews the information and determines if it can be released.
If they determine it can be released, they release it.
If they determine it can not be released, it is not released and you are informed of the reason(s) why.

You or me or Jesus do not supply information to the CIA Reading Room.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@McBell
We can, nothing bars it. If there is nothing objectionable, they will publish it. The check is for that only. They do not evaluate the information in the article - that is FOIA. That is left to readers.