Deep Dish Dials For Telephone Telepathy

[Bonhomme]

Maybe you can, but I certainly cannot. Especially since all my life I have dreamt of every death in my family the night before they happened. Do you honestly expect me to go to a lab and prove that I can do this?

That's pretty freaky, if true, D!ck. I really hope you have a lot of "false alarms."

It's a lot like the sort of uneasy feelings I've gotten before being hit with some sort of nasty "fire to put out." But in my case, it's never been so definite. Just a sort of feeling.

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

That's pretty freaky, if true, D!ck. I really hope you have a lot of "false alarms."

I wish it were not true...believe me I do not want this "gift"

I get this tendency from my mom, may she rest in peace. She was a medium and could talk to spirits and see across time. She never made money from her talent, she just gave people advice and helped them get through sh!t.

There are lots of people like us out there, but most of us live in shame of our gifts and fear that people would think we are completely insane. This is why I laugh when I read about these contests that scientists host, where you can win millions of dollars if you can prove you are psychic or have some supernatural ability.

Anyone with legitimate gifts would never participate in such an absurd event. Of course only con-men and desperate folks show up to audition and then scientists use this as "proof" that there are no supernatural abilities.

Anyways we have really strayed off topic here...sorry to hijack this thread

My experience with telephone telepathy comes in dreams. I will dream of someone I haven't spoken to in ages and they will call or email me the next day.

 

[Bonhomme]

The "skeptics" cite large numbers theory and selective attention to try to "prove" such incidences are just coincidence. At best, they show it's possible such occurrences could be due to chance.

The problem with that is the consistency of the pattern in which (and with whom) such occurrences happen. After one becomes aware of such occurrences, it is only natural to look for "near misses" and other such occurrences that one would expect to see with even greater frequency if it were due to chance. I just don't see that expected randomness. It's too bloody consistent.

Speculating about possible mechanisms is what interests me. Might thought involve forces that are operating in dimensions outside our usual 4-dimensional perception of reality in which we have 3 visual dimensions and time that marches steadily on?

 

[Nighthawk]

There are lots of people like us out there, but most of us live in shame of our gifts and fear that people would think we are completely insane. This is why I laugh when I read about these contests that scientists host, where you can win millions of dollars if you can prove you are psychic or have some supernatural ability.

Anyone with legitimate gifts would never participate in such an absurd event.

Why not? How is it absurd? Surely it would end the shame and fear, and you could give the money to charity?

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

I'm not talking about theological arguments about God, or touchy-feely sh!t like why we are here..I am talking about the physical universe we live in, this multi-skinned onion of reality that we are only physically equipped to scrape the surface of.

Aside from the fact that our five senses can only experience a small fraction of the energetic spectrum around us, you totally ignored the fact that our consciousness is manifested in a 4-dimensional world. Science has hypothesized that there are up to 10 dimensions.

the fact that we can only observe a small fraction of the energetic spectrum in no way disables us from gathering lots of info about the universe. You see, theres a little something called technology, you know things like measuring devices that can measure things that our 5 senses cannot. Another cool thing about these devices is that they can convert these measurements into a form that our 5 senses CAN detect, such as images on a computer screen providing the data (computer screens give off white light that our eyes can see. neat huh!)

and about the 10 dimensional thing, yeah, Im already aware of string theory and M-theory, theory of everything etc :yawn:. the fact that we cant measure or detect these other dimensions means nothing. We cant DIRECTLY detect alot of things in our world, but that doesnt stop us from indirectly detecting them by using deduction to deduce what these "hidden things" MUST be. The fact that we have come up with a theory that predicts there are "other dimensions" is proof that we have detected them indirectly by deduction. :yawn:

To assume that we can deduce everything from such a limited perspective is arrogant and foolish. I'm not saying we should stop trying to figure things out, let's just be real and humble about our perspective here. We are far from having the final word!

if we cant even deduce it, then its not under the class of science, and more under philosophy. the existence of god for example. Some things theres just no way to really know about. For those things, science admits it cant understand and doesnt bother to deal with it, but for everything else, it can.

I will agree with you here. Any claim to knowledge deserves a fair share of skepticism. I just find it ironic that people believe that science should be exempt from skepticism itself. The biggest geniuses were those that questioned the status quo to begin with, so why the hypocrisy?

Um, scientific theories are not exempt from skepticism, you can "criticise" a theory all you want, science doesnt mind. Science actually likes that kind of thing, becuase it leads to a better and more realistic theory. But what IS exempt from criticism is the very process science uses to generate these theories. ie criticism the occams razor concept. Im not *****ing becuase you criticising current scientific theories, Im *****ing becuase youre trying to criticism the science concept itself.

Maybe you can, but I certainly cannot. Especially since all my life I have dreamt of every death in my family the night before they happened. Do you honestly expect me to go to a lab and prove that I can do this?

given the evidence at hand, its more likely that your a liar or its all coincidence than you actually having supernatural powers. such a coincidence may seem very unlikely, but having supernatural poswers is a million times even more unlikely. Id choose the unlikely explanation over the super-unlikely explanation, but thats just me, Im a logical thinker.

Molecules were once the smallest particle, then atoms, then electrons, then quarks/leptons.. etc, etc, etc..

Scientists thought they understood gravity and even made a law in it's honor, till a certain Mr. Einstein showed up with his wacky space-time geometry and blew that out of the water.

LOL, LOL, LOL..:crackup:.....

I asked you to provide me an example of an assumption in the logic science is based on that shows how flawed the scientific method is. You have yet to do that!

Instead, youve provided me with theories created by science that have been shown to be incorrect as science has gained more knowledge about the universe. please stop attacking theories that are subject to change as our understanding of the universe is updated, and start attacking the method used to generate these theories. Again, wheres the assumption the scientific method makes that makes it sooo flawed?

Im waiting......

I'm not saying that science is not awesome or useful. My point is that it is not the be-all end-all of explanations for every conceivable phenomena out there. Like us, it has its limitations and is not worthy of worship because it is not infallible or perfect!

the idea behind science IS perfect. the theories they create are subject to change, but this only depends on how much information we have to analyse. The more info we have, the less likely it will be that we will need to find a better theory. science IS perfect okay buddy

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Levity aside, anyone who properly read my earlier posts would see that I was cautioning against making the assumption that the simplest explanation is necessarily correct. That and nothing more regarding Occam's razor.

youre being really vague about your stance on Occam's razor. Your saying your stance is that "the simplest isnt always correct". But this is vague.

I want you to tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The simplest explanation is more likely than a complex explanation".

Youre vague stance doesnt tell me if you agree or disagree with that statement beucase "simplest not always true" is consistent with "simplest being more likely" or "simplest being less likely than complex".

Occams razor specifically says that the simpler one is MORE LIKELY than the complex one. it doesnt says the simplest is always true. thats the difference.

 

[Bonhomme]

I want you to tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The simplest explanation is more likely than a complex explanation".

I think it's all contextual.

Simple in what way? Any explanation depends upon the information one has ... which is sometimes not the necessary information to even make a call ... which is the realm in which I think this discussion lies.

The book of Genesis is a simpler explanation of the origin of the universe than evolution, but does that make it most likely to be correct?

 

[Bonhomme]

It is interesting you mention philosophy, gogl. I don't disagree that this is going into the realm of philosophy. I just don't see philosophy and science as in any way separate. The division is strictly an arbitrary and artificial one imposed by us silly humans.

There's a very good book that deals with the scientific method and its limitations called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig (which actually became quite a bestseller thanks to its exceptional title -- and the fact it lived up to the buzz).

Pirsig points out that the scientific method -- if applied with strict objectivity -- often leads to a proliferation of hypotheses. In other words, takes us away from the "answer" of our inquiry. And that the real key to useful application of the scientific method is a sort of intuition that enables one to choose the best hypothesis, (which is not always the simplest one).

In the book Pirsig quotes Einstein himself, who said: "The supreme task ... is to arrive at those universal laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There no logical path to these laws: only intuition, based on a sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them ..."

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

The logic is pretty simple here Gogl,

Science is a human institution. Humans are flawed. 1 + 1 = 3.

To hold any dogma or world view as perfect seems blindly foolish to me.

Here is an interesting quote I got from a physics forum I frequent:

This is an abstract version of the idea of scientific method.

You percieve (Detection, not understanding). }Experiment
You understand patterns from your perceptions. } Theory

Sentience: The ability to perceive.

You can of course do experiments on your own brain and find it's properties, notice that the same occurs in other people's brains, logically assume that they are sentient aswell and assume you have found the cause of sentience. Though it would be impossible to find out how these properties cause you to be sentient.

Scientific method cannot explain how the properties of sentience cause sentience to occur. This is like asking how the properties of gravity cause gravity to occur etc etc. Except in this situation it is more relevant and cannot be ignored.

Hence a definition for this flaw in scientific method.

You cannot understand perception , you can only understand patterns based on perceptions.

And as sentience is the ability to perceive and not a pattern, it cannot be understood using scientific method.

I believe there may be an error in my judging of sentience as not being a pattern. Though as I am sure you have gatherred, sentience can be seen as a pattern and a perception, due to the fact that the process of perception and therefore being sentient is different from whatever cause of sentience, scientific method may uncover.

Personally, I have seen way too many things with my own eyes that defy logical explanation. This is evidence enough that there is something more to this world than calculated theories. Something beyond our five senses and measuring sticks.

You are right about one thing, I can't prove with concrete evidence that science is inherently flawed. But this is a loophole argument. Can science prove that my abilities are just coincidence? What does one constitute as proof?

What if I told you that my accuracy was 100%? As a logical man, you would first call me a liar. (which would be ironic considering your track record in this thread) But then you might entertain the notion that I am not lying and simply dismiss it as coincidence.

100% is nothing to sneeze at. I never dream of death and find relief in the morning. It ALWAYS ends in someone close to me being gone forever. Every time.

Even if I did show up at a lab, strap electrodes to my head and prove my accuracy, you would probably still blow it off as a fluke of math. Do you fail to see the irony? You are stretching the limits of logic to defend what you believe. At this level, science is no longer an objective study..it is a belief system.

I dont care how smart we get, or how powerful our microscopes and telescopes become.. our observations will always be tainted and influenced by our perspectives and beliefs. We will make more mistakes and learn from them, but to assume we will achieve perfection through material study is pretty short-sighted, in my opinion.

Ultimately, this debate will never be resolved. Like Bonhomme said we go in circles because our heads are just wired differently. At this point I will agree to disagree, because unlike Deep Dish you are just not fun to debate.

You take this argument and yourself way too seriously..it shows in your defensiveness and lack of honesty. I'm sure you will respond with more snide remarks, tons of LOL's and smileys.. but it wont matter. Not only am I done with this debate, but I just put you on Ignore because you are just not worth talking to.

Sorry, but I don't have much tolerance for self-righteous people who are full of sh!t.

You are dismissed.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

I think it's all contextual.

Simple in what way? Any explanation depends upon the information one has ... which is sometimes not the necessary information to even make a call ... which is the realm in which I think this discussion lies.

trying to dodge the question eh? I think "simple" is obvious when 2 theories are put up together side by side. Even if we cant define "how simple" a theory is, we can atleast tell which one is the "simpler" one between the two.
'sides, you clearly seem to have no problem recognizing when a theory is simple or not simple given all the examples you keep pointing out where a theory even you define as "not simple" turned out to be the true explanation.

come on, dont play dumb with me. So go on and answer the question:

Do you agree that the simplest between two fitting theories is more likely? yes or no?

The book of Genesis is a simpler explanation of the origin of the universe than evolution, but does that make it most likely to be correct?

yeah, the book of genesis' explanation is the simpler one, HOWEVER, its not valid since its inconsistent with all evidence science has observed so far. To date, there has been zero evidence of the earth apearing out of nowhere in 7 days, so the theory doesnt even "fit" and isnt even considerable, evolution does fit with current evidence and is a theory that can be plausibly considered. Occams razor is used to select from two plausible theories, the simplest is most likely. If the theory isnt even plausible, its null and is removed from consideration. Occams razor selects between plausible theories, OKAY!

nice try though, but thats the wrong answer

 

[Nighthawk]

I don't think the Bible account is simpler, it adds a super-being to the mix who also needs explaining.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

The logic is pretty simple here Gogl,

Science is a human institution. Humans are flawed. 1 + 1 = 3.

To hold any dogma or world view as perfect seems blindly foolish to me.

now this is just some rediculous logic right hwere, I dont even need to comment. Oh, and the quote you provide is just another "philisophical example science cant touch", might as well have posted a quote talking about how science cant prove the existance of god. It means nothing, science doesnt claim to be able to explain these kinds of things, it even admits it cant explain them and is thus why they dont go under the class of science and more under philosophy.

so when are you going to provide me with a flaw in science, you know, the things science actually claims it can explain. as well as the assumptions that the scientific method itself supposedly makes...Im still waiting.

Personally, I have seen way too many things with my own eyes that defy logical explanation. This is evidence enough that there is something more to this world than calculated theories. Something beyond our five senses and measuring sticks.

your word on what you have seen doesnt carry enough empirical weight. many liars claim they have seen supernatural things, and many people who claim to observ such things have been proven to be liars, mentally ill, or observing coincidences or things that can be explained by non-supernatural means.

your word about experiencing the supernatural is nothing. Its zero weight for a supernatural claiming theory. see if you can come up with something more credible than your word.

You are right about one thing, I can't prove with concrete evidence that science is inherently flawed.

your right about this, good to see you coming around to my side of the argument.

But this is a loophole argument.

can you prove this? how did you come to this conclusion?

Can science prove that my abilities are just coincidence? What does one constitute as proof?

yeah, science can show that its almost certain that what you have experienced is just coincidence rather than actual supernatural.

What if I told you that my accuracy was 100%?

then youre word has even less weight than what it had before you made such a statement.

As a logical man, you would first call me a liar. (which would be ironic considering your track record in this thread) But then you might entertain the notion that I am not lying and simply dismiss it as coincidence.

a coincidence or a lair..... 2 good explanations, either one could be the true one, Im almost certain its one of them.

100% is nothing to sneeze at. I never dream of death and find relief in the morning. It ALWAYS ends in someone close to me being gone forever. Every time.

if this is a statement of what you have actually experienced, the theory that you are a liar seems far more likely to be the true one than the coincidence theory. Either way, the supernatural one is just implausible.

Even if I did show up at a lab, strap electrodes to my head and prove my accuracy, you would probably still blow it off as a fluke of math.

I doubt attatching electrodes to your head would be a good way to prove your actual accuracy.

At this level, science is no longer an objective study..it is a belief system.

You have failed to prove its a belief system, Im still waiting for those assumptions you keed saying science makes.

 

[Super_geek]

Science is a human institution. Humans are flawed. 1 + 1 = 3.

??????

Hi, I dont understand what you are trying to state here. Are you stating that humans make mathematical mistakes often by mistaking 1+1 for 3? Or are you actually claiming 1 + 1 = 3?

If you are actually stating that 1 + 1 = 3, I would like you to write a correct mathematic proof for that statement.

thanks.

 

[Mr. Unique]

D!ck ramsey owned you, GOGL.

Mods we have a winner, close this thread.

 

[Super_geek]

The logic is pretty simple here Gogl,

Science is a human institution. Humans are flawed. 1 + 1 = 3.

To hold any dogma or world view as perfect seems blindly foolish to me.

Hi,

Science is a method that takes empirical evidence and uses logical deduction to reach a justified conclusion. The deduction process is based strongly on logical arguments which are very explicit and concrete. This is one reason science and mathematics are so tightly integrated together.

If science is dogma and human institution, then so must the logic science uses to reach its justified conclusions. Logicism knows that logic isnt a man made thing nor a dogmatic beleif nor is there any flaw in the logical arguments deduction uses.

If you want, I can explain exactly how this logical deduction process works, and prove why its conclusions are justified even though future evidence may be observed that may cause the conclusion to be changed. Id also be happy to explain Occam's razor and the law of large numbers, it seems many people in this thread dont really have a grip on exactly what these concepts actually are.

But I would also like to see you provide me with some math that demonstrates how logical deduction is dogmatic beleif.

Thanks.

 

[Deep Dish]

Somewhere along the way, someone said “paradigm shift” and in the same breath as “dogma.” That’s how discussion always transpire with believers in the paranormal: the scientific establishment is always evil and dogmatic, and there’s the call for the need of a paradigm shift. Cognitive dissonance: rationalizations by the brain to mitigate the conflict between two conflicting truths. May I remind readers what I said in the introduction of my essay: unsinkable ducks.

Just like conspiracy theorists, believers focus on what is not known rather than what is known; believers accept evidence in support of their view and discount evidence which contradicts. As I stated earlier, telepathy is devastated by internal inconsistencies. All the times you called someone and they weren't thinking about you; the times they called you but you weren't thinking of them; the times you thought about them but they never called you; better yet, the times someone told you they were thinking about you and you were surprised. Unsurprisingly, these inconsistencies were ignored. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which, as evidenced by this very thread, supporters forget the “extraordinary” part. Ergo, my explanation of non-telepathy was discounted as only “one possibility” whereas “more plausible” are thought waves. It comes as no shock that both Bonhomme and D!ck Ramsey believe they have “superpowers” (which they “wish” they “didn’t have”). With no credible evidence of telepathy, of course the discussion turns into philosophy.

George Bernard Shaw is often quoted by paranormal believers as stating “all great truths begin as blasphemies” and it needs to be noted that is an incomplete and incorrect quote. In Anajanska (1919), Shaw wrote “All great truths begin as blasphemies, but all blasphemies do not become great truths.” (source). Yet, it’s not true all great truths are derided.

Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness
They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. Yes, well, they laughed at the Marx brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. Wilhelm Reich compared himself to Peer Gynt, the unconventional genius out of step with society, and misunderstood and ridiculed as a herectic until proven right: “Whatever you have done to me or will do to me in the future, whether you glorify me as your saviour or hang me in a mental institution, where you adore me as your savior or hang me as a spy, sooner or later necessity will force you to comprehend that I have discovered the laws of the living”. Reprinted in the January/February 1996 issue of the Journal of Historical Review, the organ of Holocaust denial, is a famous quote from the nineteenth-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which is quoted often by those on the margins: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” But “all truth” does not pass through these stages. Lots of true ideas are accepted without ridicule or opposition, violent or otherwise. Einstein's theory of relativity was largely ignored until 1919, when experimental evidence proved him right. He was not ridiculed, and no one violently oposed his ideas. The Schopenhauer quote is just a rationalization, a fancy way for those who are ridiculed or violently opposed to say, “See, I must be right.” Not so.

History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names. For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose “truths” never pass muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fantastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent. If you want to do science, you have to learn to play the game of science. This involves getting to know the scientists in your field, exchanging data and ideas with colleagues informally, and formally presenting results in conference papers, peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like.

—excerpt from the book Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer, in a chapter entitled “How thinking Goes Wrong.”

Shermer lists eleven problems with pseudoscientific beliefs: (1) Anecdotes do not make a science; (2) Scientific language does not make a science; (3) Bold statements do not make claims true; (4) Heresy does not equal correctness; (5) Burden of proof; (6) Rumors do not equal reality; (7) Unexplained is not inexplicable; (8) Failures are rationalized; (9) After-the-fact reasoning; (10) Coincidence; (11) Representativeness.

I would still like to see an academic refutation of this Scientific American article which most appropriately is entitled “Quantum Quackery”:

In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection.

Thus, for Bonhomme to question:

The existence of some sort of "thought waves" seems more than plausible to me. Even according to our current theories, thought emanates from matter, which consists of countless bits of energy that behave like particles and waves interacting with each other. If thought has its origin in the matter that's present in our brains, why would not that energy emanate in the matter around it?

An irrelevant question until proven otherwise.

 

[Deep Dish]

Oh yeah, and I always love watching this Penn & Teller clip. It's the best.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Bravo Deep Dish!

once again, you have D1ck ramsey and Bonhomme PWNED!!!!!!

you write so eloquently man!

science is truth and is absolute understanding!

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

This message is hidden because God_of_getting_layed is on your ignore list.

What was that? Oh wait, that's right, I no longer have to put up with your hypocrisy and bad spelling. Sweet!

I can explain exactly how this logical deduction process works, and prove why its conclusions are justified even though future evidence may be observed that may cause the conclusion to be changed

Establishing something as a hard fact and then later taking it back after you found more evidence doesn't seem justifiable within any given scope.

If science were criminal law, this would be the equivalent of sentencing someone to death for a homicide and then later being able to examine DNA only to realize the accused was innocent. Ooops! We made a boo-boo!

It is one thing to hypothesize/theorize..this gives us some wiggle room. But to reach definitive conclusions is to limit yourself. I believe that we must constantly keep our minds open if we want to examine all possibilities.

Somewhere along the way, someone said “paradigm shift” and in the same breath as “dogma.” That’s how discussion always transpire with believers in the paranormal: the scientific establishment is always evil and dogmatic

That someone would be me. To clarify though, I dont think science is evil. In fact studying it is a bit of a hobby of mine. But my own personal experiences have made me see that it cannot explain all that there is.

You seem to take a disliking to the word dogma, Websters dictionary defines this as

dog·ma
something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

Sounds like science to me.

I fail to see what's wrong with "paradigm shift" either. The term was coined by the influential scientist Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Wouldnt you agree with Mr. Kuhn's assessment that these shifts are no only inevitable, but also necessary for scientific advancement? How many times in the history of science has it made ground-breaking discoveries that invalidated past theories and forced the community to radically shift their thinking?

History is replete with tales of the lone scientist working in spite of his peers and flying in the face of the doctrines of his or her own field of study. Most of them turned out to be wrong and we do not remember their names.

This argument does nothing to invalidate the idea that a constant challenging of the status quo is necessary in the evolution of any field. I would argue that in fact, the exact opposite is true.

I will agree with you that not all blasphemies are great truths and we need to be as objective as possible on these matters. Of course the very question of objectivity can become hairy as we will soon see.

I would still like to see an academic refutation of this Scientific American article which most appropriately is entitled “Quantum Quackery”:

In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection.

First of all, thank you for posting this. I've been looking for some kind of mathematic research into quantum consciousness and never found anything.

While Stenger's hypothesis is certainly intriguing, I believe that this issue is far from being resolved. If we subscribe to this theory and can safely assume that there is no conscious link between mind and matter, then how would you explain the effects of perception on the whole particle/wave conundrum?

Plank's constant has been tied into research of the photo-electric effect, and seems to suggest that light energy is not a wave frequency as we have thought, but is actually comprised of photon particles.

For the record, to this day the problem remains unresolved. Experiments show that light actually behaves as both photons and frequencies, depending on how we look at it. Recent experiments show that the very act of perception has a direct effect on this behavior.

At this point science has some serious explaining to do. Subatomic particles behave very differently under the act of observation and we have no idea why yet. While this is still not conclusive proof of anything, to me it illustrates a clear link between micro and macro, mind and matter.

Regardless of whether or not it is plausible by current understanding of quantum mechanics, the hard truth is that the external world is bending to our perceptions on a tiny scale. This is not only a monumental discovery, it also shines a light on science's greatest weak point...the fact that it takes perception for granted.

If the basis of science is objective observation, what happens when the objective part of the equation breaks down and we start to interfere with the results?

I posted this earlier, but so far no one has challenged the notion:

This is an abstract version of the idea of scientific method.

You percieve (Detection, not understanding). }Experiment
You understand patterns from your perceptions. } Theory

Sentience: The ability to perceive.

You can of course do experiments on your own brain and find it's properties, notice that the same occurs in other people's brains, logically assume that they are sentient aswell and assume you have found the cause of sentience. Though it would be impossible to find out how these properties cause you to be sentient.

Scientific method cannot explain how the properties of sentience cause sentience to occur. This is like asking how the properties of gravity cause gravity to occur etc etc. Except in this situation it is more relevant and cannot be ignored.

Hence a definition for this flaw in scientific method.

You cannot understand perception , you can only understand patterns based on perceptions.

And as sentience is the ability to perceive and not a pattern, it cannot be understood using scientific method.

I believe there may be an error in my judging of sentience as not being a pattern. Though as I am sure you have gatherred, sentience can be seen as a pattern and a perception, due to the fact that the process of perception and therefore being sentient is different from whatever cause of sentience, scientific method may uncover.

I am curious what you have to say on the issue of sentience and what your take is on particle vs wave behavior.

Oh yeah, and I always love watching this Penn & Teller clip. It's the best.

The whole project works off the assumption that everyone has a price...which is not always the case Mr. Dish. Just because that clown would juggle for a million bucks, doesn't mean that everyone is a performing monkey with a price tag stamped on their forehead.

Money causes more problems than it solves and the charity argument is a cop-out. I've worked for two different charities and I can tell you that the money has a bad habit of ending up in the wrong hands.

 

[Super_geek]

Establishing something as a hard fact and then later taking it back after you found more evidence doesn't seem justifiable within any given scope.

Science doesnt establish it as hard fact, but rather as the best decision on which theory to use to explain the data. There is a difference.

Consider the following example:
Given the DNA evidence, there is a .9999 probability that Claude commited the murder, and a .0001 probability that Claude is innocent.
So given these probabilities, which one do you think Claude is? an innocent man or a murderer? why does murderer sound like the best explanation? why does concluding he is innocent seem stupid?

Id be more than glad to provide all the proofs and logical arguments needed to explain all these whys.

If science were criminal law, this would be the equivalent of sentencing someone to death for a homicide and then later being able to examine DNA only to realize the accused was innocent. Ooops! We made a boo-boo!

The court room is actually a perfect example of why science is justified in making its conclusions. In the court room, we must make a decision on the man's innocence or guilt. We dont want to make the wrong decision, or we'll be letting a killer walk free or we will sentence an innocent man to death. We want to make a decision, and we want it to be the right one.

We want to make the decision that has the highest likelihood of being the actualy true decision given the evidence. Usually, there isnt enough evidence to prove which decision is the true one with probability 1. However, there is enough information to make a decision on which is most likely to be true, and this is what we should choose; this is the best that can be done, and this is exactly what science does.

I think it is obvious why choosing the decision with maximum likelihood is the best decision and why its justified. But if its not obvious, Im prepared to write out a logical deduction proving otherwise.

It is one thing to hypothesize/theorize..this gives us some wiggle room. But to reach definitive conclusions is to limit yourself. I believe that we must constantly keep our minds open if we want to examine all possibilities.

You used a courtroom example which gives no wiggle room; you must make a decision on innocence or guilt, and it better be the right one. To me, it sounds kind of hard to keep an open mind in such a situation.