|
26 Feb 01 - 09:14 PM (#406861) Subject: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos This continues the earlier thread, which can be found over here. The following is from a Physics newsletter offering new seminal papers on many topics. It is of interest to those following this line of reasoning: Paper: physics/0102078 Title: Fuzzy, Non Commutative SpaceTime: A New Paradigm for a New Century |
|
26 Feb 01 - 11:06 PM (#406940) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: GUEST,0)..(0 Now I am discovered - I can't have any fun ..... except Oh I can buzz Spaw next time I sense him out at night... |
|
26 Feb 01 - 11:21 PM (#406947) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Mark Cohen Creeping back to the original topic (though I'm also fascinated with the metaphysics, and have had some very interesting recent experiences along that line), there is an aspect of the alien abduction stories that I've never seen discussed. A few years ago somebody gave me the book "Abduction" to read. I skimmed it, and it seemed to me that a number of the "abductees" mentioned in passing that they had been sexually abused in their pre-abduction past. Many of the descriptions of the abduction experiences also included "sexual experiments." Now, maybe I didn't read enough of the book, but I was surprised that the author, who as I recall is a psychiatrist, seemed to ignore completely this common thread in the abductees' history. Does anybody have any familiarity with this? Aloha, Mark |
|
26 Feb 01 - 11:30 PM (#406952) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos You could argue that they chose this fanciful plastic overlay to cover memories which were much more ordinary, less glamorous and much more treacherous -- abuse by their own kind. It is not unusual for false overlays to be laid in over painful memories to act as a sort of shield or shock absorber. The interesting thing is that so many of them, from so many different locaations and _presumably_ without cross-distribution of information, came up with common pastterns of story -- the Grays, their demeanour, etc.. Those are the strange part to me. A |
|
27 Feb 01 - 05:00 AM (#407045) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang It is not unusual for false overlays to be laid in over painful memories to act as a sort of shield or shock absorber. writes Amos. This description is popular outside of the community of memory researchers (usually the less well informed people are the more popular this idea is with them). Within that community there's hardly any support for such an idea, at least not if we are speaking about frequencies of occurence beyond very rare cases (and surely not 'not unusual'). Wolfgang |
|
27 Feb 01 - 07:16 AM (#407073) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Grab Amos, it's not at all surprising, bcos there's plenty of cross-distribution of stories. Everyone who's seen "Close Encounters", "Fire in the Sky" or "X-Files" _knows_ what an alien looks like. "Close Encounters" was the original, which AFAIK 'standardised' reports of alien sightings. Cross-reference to the Middle Ages, when everyone _knew_ what a witch, a succubus or a ghoul looked like. Plenty of reports of those, often doing strange stuff with their victims. Wolfgang, you sound like you're an expert (or have an interest) in the field. Is there any concensus on this kind of thing? And how does it relate to the "recovered memory" thing which there was a lot of fuss about a few years back? Grab. |
|
27 Feb 01 - 08:20 AM (#407112) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Grab, I'm doing research on illusions of memory in general and hindsight bias (also called: I knew it all along effect) in particular. The theme you are alluding to has the potential to be very controversial. Yes, it very closely relates to the recovered memory debate. Consensus? You'll never find a complete one whatever field you look at. But in recent years there has been a great progress in understanding and a lot of empirical research triggered by the political debate. In my eyes, from the about a dozen books and (?)200 articles I have read, there is more or less a consensus among scientific researchers that what has been assumed with great personal conviction but no compelling scientific evidence by therapists to be true in the repressed memory debate happens either never (a minority of researchers) or extremely rarely (majority opinion). The still non-consensul debate was between mainly the therapists on the one hand and the scientists on the other. You could read the very blunt Robert A. Baker (Child sexual abuse and false memory syndrome) who puts it like this....far too many CPS workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists et al., in their good-intentioned zeal to help...have, instead, done considerable harm...This must not be allowed to continue. We simply cannot afford or tolerate therapeutic incompetence. You might read the nicer and among peers highly respected Elisabeth Loftus (with Katherine Ketcham, The Myth of Repressed Memory) whose opinion can be summarised as follows (from the book cover). ...there is absolutely no controlled scientific support for the idea that memories of trauma are routinely banished into the unconscious and then reliably recovered later.. Or the extremely good (but restricted in its theme) book by Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom. A Scientific Analysis of Children's Memory, if you want a middle of the road opinion. (on trauma theories, like the one paraphrased by Amos above) ...speculations that have no greater claim to scientific validation than the opposite claim that repression does not exist. Looking back on those years it is depressing that e.g. such a bad and uninformed book like The Courage to Heal (Ellen Bass and Laura Davis) from the women self help scene had such a tremendous influence. Wolfgang |
|
27 Feb 01 - 12:47 PM (#407261) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Little Hawk I suppose the important thing with a healing technique is: does it work? What was the main premise of "The Courage To Heal"? And what sort of results did it produce when applied? Just wondering... - LH |
|
28 Feb 01 - 12:08 AM (#407768) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Mark Cohen Wolfgang, I would imagine you are not getting any substantial funding for your research from the Bar Association! As a pediatrician with a special interest in child development, I find the topic of children's memory quite fascinating. And as a 47-year-old with an "excellent memory" now beginning to notice some faint traces of rust in the associative pathways, I'm fascinated by the whole concept of memory in general. Aloha, Mark |
|
28 Feb 01 - 12:58 AM (#407787) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos Gee, Wolfgang, I am very sorry to flout accredited authority. I can only say what I have (as far as I know) observed in personal experience, but of course that doesn't account for much. :>) However I can add that I have seen succesful application of the theory in application. But that might not count for much, either I guess. But I can't help but wonder where you get off casting aspersions about the "uninformed" while at the same time all your deep studies seem to come down to is controversial chewing up of interpretations versus other interpretations, and, as you say, a nonconsensual debate between the scientists on one hand and the therapists on the other. I doubt either side has taken much time to think about the huge difference in methodology which informs these two camps; one is primarily informed by the will to help, and uses tools in doing so that may come from anywhere in the spectum of human communication. You may or may not have a sense of how wide that spectrum is, and how unscientific some of its most useful and effective elements are. I wouldn't presume to judge. The other is motivated to acheive other standards altogether such as replicability, statistical validity (if that is not an oxymoron), logical preponderance and repeatable evidentiary patterns from tightly controlled circumstances. Given this disparity in tools, purpose, intent, standards of success, and relationship to the human experience into which both sides claim to be looking, I would think twice before I started passing out judgements about who is "uninformed". While I have very high respect for good scientific methodology I have none for meretricious or sanctimonous assertions of superiority where no real-world results are being presented to support the claim. So if you will excuse me, I'll just sashay out of this gilded mockery of a courtroom and go jine up with the therapists. Regards, Amos |
|
28 Feb 01 - 07:25 AM (#407869) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Mark, yes, that's a fascinating object of study and no, I did get no funds for that research except state money. I do not like to be dependent when forming my opinion.
Little Hawk and Amos,
Amos: I can only say what I have (as far as I know) observed in personal experience, but of course that doesn't account for much. :>)
Amos: statistical validity (if that is not an oxymoron)
Amos: where no real-world results are being presented to support the claim Wolfgang
|
|
28 Feb 01 - 11:46 AM (#408004) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg Oh dear, I feel an urge to shoot from the lip. To restrain it or give in? (Give in!) Maybe if I use a lot of smiles you'll see I'm just being light and silly. *G*G* I just love a good pissing contest. Looks about even-up. (Lovely penises, men, lovely!) *G* Imagine the power that would be unleashed in the world if some of you amazingly talented communicators got together though! Just curious, what do you fellas like about what each other posted? And what might be possible of you worked, together, from that? None of my business-- just have always wanted to ask those questions of people caught up in one of these endless debate threads, and someone suggested I see this one, so lucky you! *G* (He also said I should just be myself, so.... *G*G) Oh I'm sorry, was this the curmudgeon thread? *G* (I love you mudgie men!) Scuse me, I'll leave you to it now. ~All-Too-Human (Invited) Visitor *G*G* |
|
28 Feb 01 - 01:36 PM (#408109) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: mousethief Let's all sing!
I think we're not alone now
Humans, behave I think we're not alone now... (C) 2001 Alex Riggle |
|
28 Feb 01 - 01:53 PM (#408125) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg clap clap clap!!!! |
|
28 Feb 01 - 06:38 PM (#408348) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos Pax, Wolfgang. You will perhaps recall that an American humorist named Twain or Clemens once asserted there were three kinds of lies -- lies, damn lies and statistics. Of course numbers do not lie. But numbers do not tell the truth, either. That is the underlying observation I was making when I said -- in a humourous vein -- that statistical validity might be an oxymoron. I promise not toget long winded about what I really think is an important truth -- in order to count things you have to take a couple of big steps away from understanding them. We have done this very successfully and built up some very powerful tools by doing so, but we have paid a big price in other respects. Especially when this successful tool in physics, which enabled us to isolate g and pi and c and lots of wonderful valid measures of mechanism, gets shifted over to the universe of psychology and sociology. I dare say atoms of various sorts don't protest being lumped into a category; but humans may not be as clearly "lumpable" into classes and sets as particles; and trying to so lump them immediately sets of a paradox of observer-influence. Applying physical measuring systems to humans is a disservice of magnitude. Some notice the insult more thanothers. Regards, A
|
|
28 Feb 01 - 11:01 PM (#408524) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Mark Cohen By the way, Wolfgang, my remark about the Bar Association was intended as a joke--referring to how much stock the legal system puts in the detailed "memory" of witnesses--not as a comment on your research ethics. Remember the classic college psychology experiment/demonstration where the professor arranges for a brief but complex little drama to unfold at the front of a lecture hall, and then none of the student "eyewitnesses" can recount exactly what happened? I'm presuming that the ramifications of that scenario are at least marginally related to your "illusions of memory." Also, would you know if there is any new evidence or theory on eidetic memory (commonly misnamed "photographic memory"), especially with regard to auditory memory? I've noticed that if I hear a "cover" of a song I haven't listened to in years, I can still tell that it's not the original, even if it's a very close mimic. That seems related to the person with eidetic visual memory being able to pick out the one item in an array that's been moved. There--I knew I could bring music into this discussion (besides Alex's song, of course)! Aloha, Mark |
|
01 Mar 01 - 08:47 AM (#408720) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Pax is a good sounding word to me, Amos, and I was even considering not to post this link as a comment to your remark whether I recall Twain's assertion.
But then I read this sentence from you: Applying physical measuring systems to humans is a disservice of magnitude. When I came from physics into psychology I started doing research in psychophysics, a subfield of visual perception. Psychophysics is studied since the 1860s when Weber and Fechner looked e.g. for the amount of additional light necessary for that an observer confidently says that one part of the visual field is brighter than the other. They found a beautifully simple law, namely that the amount of additional light was over a wide range of brightnesses directly proportional to the absolute level of light. Yes, and the humans are lumped together in this law for empiry shows that independent of your emotions, upbringing, culture or length of last night sleep this law holds with only the parameter changing from person to person and not the basic function. Then I moved on to attention, measuring reaction times as dependent variable. On that field too, there are many human universals (independent of... see above) like for instance that (and how) the choice reaction time increases with the number of choice alternatives. Then I did research on memory. Way back in the 1890s, Ebbinghaus has shown that under well specified conditions human forgetting follows the same law as radioactive decay. For all humans the basic form of that function (exponential) is identical, the differences are only in the parameter. Lumped together again, for empiry has shown that to be correct. Mind you, I'm not claiming that by these experiments everything about humans is known or knowable, far from that. Many things about love, moral etc. which mean a lot to humans are not known. But I claim that the knowledge on humans gathered this way is sound knowledge and useful knowledge. BTW, a paradox of observer influence plays nearly no role in these areas of psychology and if one thinks it does, there are easy experimental precautions against. Knowledge about visual perception is used e.g. for the choice of gray levels in computers, knowledge from reaction time experiments is used e.g. for the (computer) mouse control, knowledge about memory is used e.g. for advices how to learn best. When you sit at your computer and post, you profit from human engineering, a field which takes part of its input from cognitive psychology. A disservice of magnitude to humans? Wolfgang
|
|
01 Mar 01 - 08:55 AM (#408724) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg Wolfgang, have you by any chance read The Holographic Universe? And... thois phrase of yours jumped out at me: both as a job and from loving to do it... It just made me curious about the "loving to do it" part... can you say more please? It was how you said loving "to DO it," not just loving "IT"... I dunno, I suspect there is something really interesting there. My theory is that there is no substitute for really getting to know another human being, but I also love statistics, for what they can tell us from one view. ~S~ |
|
01 Mar 01 - 09:09 AM (#408730) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Mark, I was sure your remark was a joke, but you couldn't tell that from my response. The classroom experiments you cite belong firmly into the field of 'Illusions of memory'. Eidetic imagery is a rare phenomenon (even more rare in adults than in children), so rare that some researchers have declared it as nonexistent. The consensus at this time seems to be that it is a different kind of memory (I really should read whether there are data on that from modern brain imaging methods in which methods from physics like NMR are used to find which brain parts are involved in a recollection), a relict from our evolutionary past which normally gets lost quickly when growing up. I haven't read about research on the auditory system in that respect (except for the echoic memory, which preserves the acoustic input veridically for a few seconds). There might be a long term equivalent to eidetic memor, but I don't know. What you describe, however seems to me still to be within the normal functioning of memory. Our recollection is much better, if we test recognition than free recall. And our recollection is much better if we test something which was deeply (that is emotionally, semantically) processed. So if you make a recognition test on something which was deeply processed (as a music piece usually is) I'd not be surprised if the performance on that test is good even after years. But that's spoken from the armchair and from results in other fields, I don't know any data on the phenomenon you describe. Wolfgang |
|
01 Mar 01 - 10:15 AM (#408767) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg : ~ ( Gee. I was really hoping you'd answer, Wolfgang. ~S~ |
|
02 Mar 01 - 04:53 AM (#409342) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Wysiwyg, no, I haven't read that book. I don't see more behind my words than what I have said. Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 01 - 10:36 AM (#409521) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg Wolfgang, I guess what I was curious about was why you love to do it... is it the process, pr the results... is it the elegance of fitting things together... that stuff. Probably seems obvious to you because you're insude it-- I'm not, it's so different from anything I have done and loved. See? Never mind... just roll me up, put me in your briefcase, and take me along so I can see! ~S~ |
|
02 Mar 01 - 11:25 AM (#409566) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Wysiwyg, I love thinking, that's one reason, I love solving puzzles, another, seeing that 'an ugly fact slays a beautiful theory' is a moment of deep pleasure, but most of all, it is the the feeling of awe when reading a new explanation which makes previously unrelated facts fit each other. Of course, compared with day to day work, these moments are seldom. Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 01 - 11:48 AM (#409595) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Skeptic Susan, While I haven't read the book, I have read some stuff about Bohm and Pribram. As I understood their reasoning, Bohm started with the fact that if you take a holographic negative and chop it into pieces, you can get (with various degrees of degradation) the whole image back. He argues that holograms are wave interference patterns and this each part contains the whole, and appears to operate at quantum and macro levels. The only way he sees this is as possible is if what we call "reality" is no more than a three dimensional hologram formed by wave interference patterns. Pribram argues from neurophysics, using the fact that even in people who have had parts of the brain removed, memories (or at least parts of them) are recoverable. I believe his opinion is that the mind is a complex of quantum interferences patterns and that make some of what i currently called parascience explainable. After that it gets really weird. And so far it remains highly speculative (or did up to two years ago) Regards John |
|
02 Mar 01 - 07:35 PM (#409905) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos Wolfgang: Looking back, I see I was a bit rude, and I owe you an explanation, if only a short one. I cannot disagree with what you have spent your love doing and enjoying. Nor can I disagree with you love of discovering better explanations which fit more data better and which may even predict unexpected data, as the Periodic Table did when it was first constructed. I am not unfamiliar with psychology. I find the studies of neurological function, and similar physical analyses of human behaviour fascinating. I think, though, that I was using the term "human beings" in perhaps a broader sense than you may be accustomed to because I believe that the Skinnerian principle of limiting the sphere of study to the physically observable is a degradation of the real promise of "psyche+logos". It abandons any recognition of the "psyche" side and limits its "logos" to the physical side. It is my conviction that doing this ignores the actual source of the very best in human beings, which is not their animal construction but the much wider dimensions of their spiritual abilities. I am not convinced yet (although I am still open to ideas) that it will ever be possible to explain in molecular or electronic terms the transition that occurs when material signal becomes perception. I know both subjectively and from lengthy personal study that there are very few people who believe that their perception is just another click in a series of stimuli rolling through a chain of physical connections. The usual escape for this paradox, from a materialist viewpoint, is to assert that the change from transmission to perception can be explained in purely physical terms, but the phenomena is hidden in the complexity of brain and nerve structure that we have not yet plumbed. I believe that a different explanation is in order, one which is not merely quantitative but which accounts for the qualitative lap, the difference in very kind, between electrical transmissions no matter how myriad, and perception. And this does not even begin to raise the issues of how perception becomes understanding, insight, or a feeling for an environment or another person, let alone the occasionally extraordinary leap made by intuitive "awareness". I believe that resolving the mysteries of the human body, CNS and brain in particular are an honorable and worthwhile service. I do apologize for seeming abusive about them. The only abuse I have seen from that general line of research is the semantic one of asserting that the material constructs which you have studied at such length are in fact what a person "is". Such a model, in my opinion, ignores a great deal of information and if the model is communicated from authority actually does do harm. Here is why. The power of suggestion in human interactions is well documented. The placebo effect (as it is called in medical experiments) is dismissed as a way to account for some anomalies in a test of drug effectiveness. The funny thing is that if the placebo effect were to be understood and replicable, it could be the most effective drug on the market. But when the power of suggestion is used in a negative way, it can have a corrosive effect on individual ability, clarity of thought, and understanding. To provide an image of what I mean, consider a thought experiment. Two six-year-old children -- gender irrelevant -- each with the full measure of health, curiousity, imagination, creativity, the peculiar sense of justice and play that children enjoy. Both of them have fathers whom they love and admire and hold in awe to some degree. ONe of them is taught by his/her father, "Science proves that you are just like the animals, except for the number and construction of your brain cells. Humans are just a more advanced kind of animal, is all. All your thought is an electromagnetic array within your brain. The fact that you can dream of far universes or imagine the meadows of Finland in summer while we live in Chicago is a trick your brain is playing on you. You will learn as you grow up not to be fooled by the tricks of your brain. When you reach a certain age, or have a certain kind of accident or illness, your brain switches off, the electrons stop moving, and that is the end of you; nothing but blackness. That's the way you are built." The other father teaches his child, "There are lots of studies about how the brain works and how the body works, but no-one has found an explanation there for how powerful your imagination can seem to be, or how we can understand things or communicate as well as we can. Some people believe you are nothing more than your body. Others believe you are the owner of the body, but are driving it like a vehicle or wearing it like a suit of clothes, and when you throw it away you will be free to get another one. What is important is that you know you have the freedom to examine your own experience and other people's information and decide for yourself what you see or believe in keeping with your own understanding." You can see that one message has many implications of limitation, strong identification of self with matter (meaning subordination to laws of entropy, inertia, and mass -- and no possible actual creativity, since everything is just a series of relayed effects with no real origin point). The other has ramifications of responsibility, promoting curiousity and reflection, encouraging the possibility of discovering a spiritual nature, and the possibility that one might be more than just a piece in the random blender of the physical universe -- that the ability to view and select viewpoints might be more valuable than the electricity and molecules that hang around your location representing you to the universe. I hope this comaprison illustrates my point satisfactorily -- I must return to my duller side (work) for a while longer. Regards,
A |
|
02 Mar 01 - 07:44 PM (#409907) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg Oh GOD I love these guys!!!!!!!!!! Amos, that is the BSET I have ever seen from you, anywhere-- BEST BEST BEST. Just copy and paste BEST all ovver the sky, you know what I eman, wow, tghe BEST, it's all straight now!!!!! YES!!!! Yessness of YES! Skeptic, are you done being bushwackey yet? I wanna talk more on that book. Implicate and explicate orders. Oh lovelies.... And Wolfgang, thank you so MUCH. I love the click when the things all drop into place, the elegance of realities seen clearly and meshings revealed, the missing datum popping into view to reconcile what feels like sense but not for "known" reasons, and the tiny increments of change that can have huge outcomes.... like that? See? You see that way? And just as lovely when the construct beig savored shows a gap, another mystery to contemplate, another set of data to let filter into oneself as it becomes available... I think "wondering" is like setting an intention and opening a catch folder for what one will know as the relevant information comes into one's possession... like saying, "I wonder about THIS, therfore I am on the lookout for the things that go with and may make sense of THIS." You three men (your minds) and a desert island.... hell I'd even cook. I bet the jokes would be HILARIOUS. And the MUSIC!!!!!! ~S~ |
|
02 Mar 01 - 09:18 PM (#409947) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Skeptic Susan, Bushwhaked continues on a slightly less acrimonious note. (well, most of the time). In part we have achieved detente cordiale. The problem with Bohm's work is figuring out a way to prove it. If all of reality is just a wave interference, how could you tell. Its not like you could step outside the universe and look back. Amos, Not wanting to get into the arguement about which point of view may be right, I can understand your point about the spiritual. I think your description of what materialist's believe is somewhat incomplete and less complex than the reality. To both you and Wolfgang I have to ask just how popular Skinnerian theory is these days? I though it was generally discredited as the behavioral model doesn't work to explain things like language acquisition? Regards John |
|
02 Mar 01 - 09:26 PM (#409952) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg John, the implicate and explicate can be observed in operation. I did not mean that I endorse the whole book or, in fact, any part of it, as proved, or correct. I did however find it an interesting way of looking at the world in order to get a fresh look to see what I could see. I liked wondering about it. I don't mean a sort of vague, dizzy wondering... I mean an absorbed, intelligent openness to knowing more... a willingness to leave the questions open until I could see more, see what fit, see how things operate. See? So... which island? *G* None of that Reality TV crap either!!!! ~S~ |
|
02 Mar 01 - 09:57 PM (#409970) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Skeptic Susan, I understand some of the islands near Bora Bora are lovely this time of year. I prefer my steak rare and wine lightly chilled. Will you be adopting the native dress? I'll need to look at the issue in more detail before I can semi-intelligently offer a minimally coherent opinion. Regards John |
|
02 Mar 01 - 10:12 PM (#409979) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Troll If you want music from Skeptic, you'd best bring a CD player and a largish stack of CD's. When he was a little boy his mommy let him go out in the rain and his ears rusted. The only way Skeptic can carry a tune is if it's on paper and in a bucket with a tight-fitting lid. He has excellent TASTE in music but, like so many other things, the making of it is beyond him. So be advised, he TALKS a good game, but when it's time to put the bow to the fiddle-strings, he can't even open the case. troll |
|
02 Mar 01 - 10:25 PM (#409989) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg *G*G* |
|
02 Mar 01 - 10:26 PM (#409991) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Skeptic Troll, Which Susan knew. After all, doesn't having an apprecative audience add to any performance? You're just jealous because she invited me. Regards John
|
|
02 Mar 01 - 10:35 PM (#409996) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg Oh I think Troll knows the way, and that I welcome him too. I'll be Wendy but you all have to waer your Peter Pan costumes, and I get to slip into one from time to time as well. Also I believe my husband will be among the party, and he also is an excellent cook as well as theologian. Once we know who's in we'll start a Bora Bora thread. (I gotta rest up, now, so don't start without me!) Can't wait to see the intellectual heights from there! ~S~ |
|
03 Mar 01 - 10:19 AM (#410204) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: wysiwyg ... and yes, John, I'll slip a muu muu on over my swimsuit and we can all do the hokey pokey in Bora Bora, as we swap fiddle faddle by the CCC, swap fiddle faddle by the CCC. ~S~ |
|
03 Mar 01 - 04:29 PM (#410415) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Little Hawk Wolfgang - The Holographic Universe is a fascinating book. I also recommend that you give it a look. Keep in mind that when I was a kid, and a young adult, I did not believe in anything "non-scientific". I was very rational, you might say, and absolutely did not believe in all kinds of things I take for granted now (spiritual aspects of life). I later ran into various personal experiences that made me aware of some things conventional science has had nothing to say about...which are nonetheless real and vitally important. Since I'm not feeling too verbose right now, I don't feel like explaining them here. Matter of fact, I just don't have the energy to. It's a huge subject. However, the book The Holographic Universe does shed some light on the matter, and helps to make a connection between science and spirit. Both viewpoints (scientific and spiritual) are valid, and they are intimately connected to one another. - LH |
|
03 Mar 01 - 05:26 PM (#410444) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: hesperis If I wasn't allergic to palm trees, I beg to be invited, too! Then I wouldn't be alone..... Not that I'm alone now, with two hamsters and a bf, but I had to say *something* that fits the topic! |
|
03 Mar 01 - 05:34 PM (#410449) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos Well, there is probably no single view that can be attributed to all scientists. And of course, being in a debative (is that a word?) frame of mind I was choosing my rhetoric accordingly; however there are a number of very vociferous proponents of the pure-chemistry-explains-all school of thought, notably the late Francis Crick of DNA Helix fame, who authored a tome called The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul in I think 1994, in which he insisted that the cortex and its correlative parts in the brain must be able to account for everything human including thought, intuition, and so on. To me this is like worshiping a telephone because -- although noone understands how it is possible -- it is capable of an infinite number of conversations about anything! Crick has spent extensive effort on seeking the neurological component of consciousness. Anyway, I am well aware that there are many who have earned the right to be called scientists who are nevertheless still able to accept a borader phenomenological set than their current theory can describe, and have the integrity to acknowledge the delta between the two. Skinnerian theory -- operant conditioning and strict reliance on behavior as data unimpeded by unmeasurable things like thought and feeling, etc. -- has probably waned from its heyday; but its defense against the difficulty of describing language acquisition in terms of stimuli and responses was merely to postulate that it really IS just S=>R links, only a great many more of them than we have imagined hitherto and therefore not clearly explicable until we have mastered the complexity. This is a typical retreat -- the argument of unfathomed complexity -- for some kinds of scientific thought. Evolutionary theoreticians use it to account for some of the anomalies in classic Darwinian theory -- billions of years with very small changes. My own conviction in all this borrows from a number of sources, and pays due respect to those who burrow among the molecules and nerves for the discoveries they make, but also borrows from people like Bergson and Koestler (The Ghost in the Machine). My sense is that there are two interconnected domains, each witht heir own peculiar propertiees and dynamics, one comprising the apparent physical universe of energy in space generating apparent time; and the other comprising knowing, intention, abilities that are beyond easy explanation of the six senses, and qualities like mercy, justice, aesthetic and intuition. The problem -- and the core structure of the human condition -- is that the domains become so tightly enmeshed with each other that the power of the spiritual domain is reduced toward the entropic and constraining limits of the physical side; and the plastic and creative ability of the spiritual side becomes entrained in merely promulgating pictures and values of physical experience as its own unique nature is gradually pressed down by a long series of collisions with distress, compromise, dishonesty, pain and loss while trying to acheive survival through the medium of spacetime. That's the short version,anyway. Regards, A |
|
03 Mar 01 - 07:55 PM (#410499) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Rollo Bu...bugger... for mere illusions of my solipshi... solipi... solipystic mind you are all real smartasses... or ishit... is it the boddle of bourbon thats now nearly empty beside me making me so intelligentual this evening? |
|
03 Mar 01 - 09:00 PM (#410517) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: McGrath of Harlow "The discovery of hundreds of curvy chains of microscopic crystals in a Martian meteorite is "conclusive evidence" of ancient life say an international team of scientists."
The plot thickens.
|
|
03 Mar 01 - 10:49 PM (#410556) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Skeptic Amos, Thanks. I remember reading a reference to an article about a neuro-physicist who had done a study on language acquisition and demonstrated that language required more S=>R links than the brain could hold. (Based on 1980's theories). Sadly the scientists name and that of the journal eludes me. Have you come across anything similar? Regards John |
|
04 Mar 01 - 01:41 AM (#410593) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos John: It sounds familiar but I cannot place the theory or author -- sorry. A |
|
05 Mar 01 - 08:07 AM (#411061) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Thanks, Amos, for your post(s) clarifying several things.
- Skinnerian theory is outdated in my eyes. It still has its place in parts of what is learning, but the enthousiasm with which this model was applied to nearly each topic in psychology is gone since decades. Wolfgang Wolfgang |
|
05 Mar 01 - 06:22 PM (#411535) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Rollo And now to something completely different... but it is fitting perfectly into the topic „we are not (maybe) alone... I just came over an article in a science fiction magazine (The scientific journal in „Perry Rhodan" No. 2062 ) about faster than light propulsions). Says there in the year of 1991 the russian physician Eugen Podkletnov found an effect of gravity manipulation in the finnish town of Tampere. While researching superconductivity in ceramics he let hover a ceramic disc in liquid helium by magnetic force, then let the disc spin by two other electormagnetic producing rotating fields. Incidently he discovered that objects lost 1% to 2% of their weight above the disc! In the year of 1989 the chinese physician Ning Li who teaches at Alabama State University had prognosted such effect in a theory. NASA has founded a projekt to explore this effect, but there are no results yet, the reason the ceramic disk being very difficult to construct. It has to be very sturdy to survive the high forces during rotation. Podkletnov had needed three years to build his. Now, doesn't there ring a bell when you hear about rotating discs and gravity forces??? RIGHT! FLYING SAUCERS!!! The classical UFO is a spinning disc wich's high maneuvrebility can only be reached by a gravitation force propulsion... So maybe there are no LGM sitting in flying saucers, but it might be possible to construct one... The article describes the physical principles behind it but I feel to tired to translate all this into english... but there are named some net sources where you might find out more: PROJEKT NAME: Exploration of Gravity Modification by Josephson Junction Effects in Magnetized High-Tc Superconducting Oxides Project leader: Glen A. Robertson and Ron R. Lichford, NASA Marshall Space Center, Huntsville, Alabama A possibility of gravitional forces shielding by bulk , E. Podklednov and R. nieminen, Physica C 203 (1992) 441 and 442 http://www.inetarena.com/-noetics/pls/papers/pc203.htm weak gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk YBa2Cu307-x superconductor below 70K under e.m. field, E. Podkletnov, version 3, 9/16/1997, LANL database nr. cond-mat/9701074 also under http://www.gravity.org/msu.html also the Delta-G-Project at NASA MSFC under http://home.HiWAAY.net/~preavis/Delta-G/Delta-G.htm
|
|
05 Mar 01 - 06:50 PM (#411550) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Rollo okay.. i made a mistake in one of the adresses above... the first one is: http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/Papers/pc203.htm I am just too lazy about this blue clicky thing. do it yourself.
|
|
05 Mar 01 - 09:53 PM (#411669) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: hesperis Ok, this is funny, and I think, might even be close to on-topic: button
And a blue clicky for Rollo: some page somewhere |
|
14 Mar 01 - 09:57 PM (#417847) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Amos Returning briefly to the dynamics of memory, this may be of interest from the current edition of Nature magazine, which can be found on-line at this site (although it requires a free registration for reading abstracts like this one). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control MICHAEL C. ANDERSON AND COLLIN GREEN Freud proposed that unwanted memories can be forgotten by pushing them into the Regards, A |
|
15 Mar 01 - 07:05 AM (#418041) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang Freud was not always consistent with the words he used for processes at different times in his career. The mechanism described above is usually called suppression and not repression, but like in the article above you may occasionally find suppression also termed repression in a broader sense. That the conscious effort to avoid unpleasant memories (supression) is possible, has never much been disputed. Imagine you have lost a child, every good friend tells you after some weeks you must stop thinking of the child at a daily basis. And you'll be happier in the long run if you avoid thoughts of your loss. But you'll never respond that you did not have a child at all when directly asked. However, if you avoid thoughts of your dead child you'll find it increasingly more difficult to have access to detailed memories. The fine article above is about this memory mechanism. Repression in the narrow sense happens if after a loss of a child you'll deny you ever had a child even at a direct question and you believe what you are saying is true. In Freud's sense this happens completely unconscious and even unavoidable to you. Whether such a process happens is much disputed. The usual pattern for survivors of a catastrophic life event (loss of a child, inmate in a concentration camp,...) is that these persons cannot forget despite all their efforts. Both suppression and repression together are sometimes losely termed repression which is unfortunate since (1) they are probably completely different processes, (2) one of them is undisputed and the other much disputed and (3) lay persons may be misled by the not well considered application of terms. Wolfgang |
|
15 Mar 01 - 09:05 AM (#418098) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Skeptic Amos and Wolfgang, Thanks to both. Am I reading too much into the abstract to think that those who believe in repressed memories will use this a proof of same? Regards John |
|
15 Mar 01 - 12:13 PM (#418223) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Wolfgang They will, John, but they won't be right. Wolfgang |
|
15 Mar 01 - 02:15 PM (#418332) Subject: RE: BS: We May Not Be Alone, part II From: Jim the Bart Wolfgang, Amos et al - I am enjoying the discussion, although I have nothing substantive to add. I was interested in studying psychology at a time when behaviorism was the only game in town - I quickly tired of "Skinner boxes" and the like and decided to adopt a less academic approach to my investigation of what makes us tick. Or at least a less formal one, anyway. I suppose my disenchantment with "flavor of the month" psychology is why I understand Amos's objection to that which Wolfgang is so devoted. I have always been amazed at the "certainty" that researchers often attach to their pet theories. I am gratified to know that Wolfgang is not one of those. Thanks for taking the time to share the information. It is admired and appreciated. Bart |