BS: Matter and Spirit

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:27 AM

Now that I check, Hawthorne was the name of the factory where the experiments were carried out, not the researcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:19 AM

Wolfgang, there is also another name for the effect of any intervention having an effect merely because of it being an intervention. I think it is the Hawthorne Effect, named after the researcher in a group of experiments which showed that workplace productivity increased whenever a new factor was studied, and was ascribed to the fact the workers felt singled out and made to feel important by the study.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 07:11 AM

any wonderful results are attributed to the "placebo effect" (Amos)

That's simply not true. If in a test of any healing method (alternative or not) the group that gets nothing (or the opposite of the treatment) but is led to believe it gets the treatment performs as good as the group getting the treatment but both perform better than people getting nothing (and knowing about it) then the effect is called placebo effect. Any wonderful cure doing better in the treatment group would not be attributed to the placebo effect.

And that is just a term, as Clint says, far from any explanation yet. But it is a term very useful in grouping things together that display similar characteristics, namely that the result seems to depend only on the patient believing the action has been done and not on doing the action as such. What is dismissive about using the Latin term for 'I shall please' to group these things together I am not able to understand.

The term placebo effect is extremely helpful when talking about studies in psychology or medicine. A recent survey about the effectiveness of psychological interventions of all kinds has listed the effect sizes of the intervention. The effect sizes ranged roughly from -.2 to +1.3 standard deviations with a maximum at about .6 standard deviations. It is then very useful to break up these studies into studies using a no-treatment control and those using a placebo control. The effect sizes were .3 on the average with a placebo control, smaller than with a no treatment control but still significant. If anyone at a congress tells she has found an effect size of her intervention of .8, the first question (if she hasn't told) is what was her control group (placebo, wait list, no treatment?).

Any person with a bit of responsibility would like to know whether a treatment works even if the patients are told they are not treated, when the effect is larger than placebo alone. As a doctor I'd like to know whether a medication I give has been shown not to work better than a placebo control, especially if that is a medication with side effects. If it doesn't work better than a placebo control but has side effects I'd choose something harmless and cheap instead for that has the same potential effect.

Behind the classification 'placebo effect' are lots of potential really causative agents. People are doing a lot of work to find them out. That's very useful in order to know when this effect may be useful. Contrary to popular belief, the placebo effect is very close to nil with life threatening illnesses when there are objective indicators of the state of health. Don't expect any help from placebo effects when you have an appendicitis.

It has a much larger effect when the state of health has a strong subjective component, e.g. chronic pain. If it helps in these situations it is preferable to a long-time use of pain killers. A good doctor would give a patient in this situation first pain killers and then say that it would be good to reduce the dosis for the sake of the liver and to learn to cope a bit with the pain. And then he'd reduce the dose to ever smaller levels up to nil, if the patient reports she can cope now.

The placebo effect is not only found to be restricted to health. For instance, take an additive for petrol to make it last longer or a very cost consuming apparatus to reduce the lime in the water coming to your house. How do you get a placebo effect here? Easyly, by using a subjective outcome measurement. You ask the person if the water now tastes better or if she feels she lasts longer with on tank filling. With such a dependent variable, you will have a positive effect of the intervention. But wouldn't you like to know before whether the costly action works better than a placebo control?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 05:02 AM

Placebo research

Placebos are funny things. Once you convince everyone that something is a placebo, it no longer works as one...

Thats why I am conflicted on what to do about a lot of alternative therapies that don't seem to work better than placebo, and hence to my mind actually are placeboes. One part of me thinks that we should find out the truth about everything, so that everyone knows what they are getting and can make informed choices about treatments. But to do that we might be destroying something very valuable - the placebo effect they produce. And then again, it doesnt matter how much science proves something producing a response at placebo level, people will continue to go on believing the theory behind their particular therapy, because it is that theory and belief structure that makes the placebo effect effective. So maybe the main work of science should be to work out what is and isnt placebo just for curiositys sake and for those of us who like our medicine evidence based, and also to check for harmful effects of these therapies.

I sometimes wish I wasnt so rational about these things, I would then have a lot more things that might improve my health. I just can't bring myself to suspend my critical side tho, and "just believe" in something that probably isn't true in order to get the benefits.

Theres something rather quantum about it isn't there?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 03:15 AM

The amazing thing, Clint, IMHO, is that so any wonderful results are attributed to the "placebo effect" that on the whole it is almost miraculous. But usually this effect gets dismissed as though it were some kind of cheap trick (because it is a loose cannon, so to speak) and rarely does anyone dare to suggest the exploration of why it works.

It's funny we should have such a dismissive turn of phrase for something more powerful than most drugs!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 02:05 AM

'If something would work consistently (or well above chance) not knowing why it works wouldn't be a good reason not to use it. Though to know why something works is always better, for it gives us more control about the situation.'

Well, I thought that's what I said. What I meant to say, anyhow.

"...and was finally cured of it --instantly-- by a chicken-sacrifice ceremony (my emphasis). That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking leading to a feeling of validity. The correct word would be after (in the eyes of a scientist) because we can never be sure (from one case alone) that the cure was in any way responsible for the healing. The doctor you cite tries his best to give an explanation in terms of placebo effect (and he does it well)."

The writer, and the doctor are the ones who said the man in the anecdote was cured. The doctor said essentially that the cure was due to the placebo effect and, as I said, I agree with him, and with you thus far.

What I want to know is why the doctor, with all his knowledge, was not able to help this man, and the 'superstitious savage' could.

I'm not pushing for chicken-blood cures or psychic surgery, I'm pushing for what works. "Placebo effect" is a name, not an explanation. It's like the line that sopoforics put you to sleep because they contain a "dormative quality."

My-daughter-the-pharmacist had some literature on Rogaine; it seems Rogaine (at that time) appeared to be restoring hair better than anything but the placebo in the tests. The placebo was second best. I think anything that can make a sugar pill (or whatever) grow hair on the head of someone with male-pattern baldness is rather amazing. I talked to my doctor about it, and he just dismissed it, as though "placebo effect" may exist but it doesn't count.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 11:21 PM

For me, Bill there are very telling earmarks of actual clarity of spiritual experinece. The big strange risk in this territory, not suffered by those investigating physics, is the ever-present plasticity of the mind in the hands of the owner. It has been demonstrated over and over again that under duress a being can drum up a convincing replica of any incident, real or imagined, can generate three-D visio of things that never happened and swear they were genuine experiences. But usually when they do this they tend to be dramatic and assertive, so that sort of flavor can be a clue.

How do you tell the difference? You weigh what you are given against a general background of lessons learned, similar tales from others, what is consistent (claiming sky-high awareness while being unable to do anything effective is not consistent, for example) and you look for answers which account for phenomena without interjecting arbitraries, calling into play things that don't need to be brought in to play, authoritarian solutions, and similar arbitraries. You examine the intentions behind the communication. You test whether what is claimed is "bizarre" or generally acknowledged in the range of non-physical experiences. You use any sense you may have developed to detect authenticity and genuineness of anecdote.

ANd somewhere int here, too, you "know". I know that is risky, because of our high respect for empirical logic-based, data-based conclusions, but somewhere i there, the knowing of the Knower has to come in to play. It does anyway, of course, but is usually painted out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 10:35 PM

For sure, Bill. Understood. I am always a bit bemused when people want proof of what is essentially unprovable. :-) Well, gotta get some sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 10:14 PM

I suppose that might be the case Amos..but we (you, I, and others) regularly 'doubt' various reports of " first hand elevated spiritual experience" from others, whether they be religious visions, seances, OoB, etc...

If 'attained clarity' is valid for one, why not for all?...even the nuttier ones we both would roll our eyes about?..

LH can, and does, speak for himself (and eloquently) and of course, will not likely be swayed by my kibitzing over form of expression. I just know that I react both emotionally and logically to most statements made in the 'this is how it is' mode.

I suppose I am sorta suggesting that, if one cares how others hear and absorb one's message, it 'might' be easier without quite so absolute a tone to it....but on the other hand, many DO respond to confidence and unwavering sincerity.

(Little Hawk..I'm not preaching here...just musing. And you may be quite right that we are all playing our roles correctly right now...I know *I* am enjoying the comparison of views...I sure am getting an education on some other ways of thinking, as well as clarifying my own)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 08:59 PM

I'd like to add, Bill, that there is perhaps a difference between the kind of attained clarity of viewpoint that LH seems to speak from, and the usual collection and comparison of data as mental representations of states of being or not being in the universe. I would offer that perhaps the reason LH says it IS that way is because he isn't drawing on data but on a kind of first hand elevated spiritual experience (and by elevated I mean more intense than the usual spirit+body run of experience). It is not uncommon for people who get close to or reach clinical death to report themselves coming back to the body with a completely renewed sense of vigor and appreciation of the pleasantness of living life on this plane, when it is done with appreciation; a new lease on life in every sense.

This is not just new "data", it is a shift in viewpoint. Ther emight be a big difference.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 08:48 PM

Martin Gibson does a FINE job of being Martin Gibson... I have seldom encountered such a combination of Martin Gibson-like traits in one individual. He is about as Martingibsonesque as I can imagine. I think he should have a place in the Martin Gibson hall of fame...in fact, I think he should STAY in the Martin Gibson hall of fame.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 07:14 PM

Well, there are a lot of roles to play in this drama of Life, Bill. I think you and Wolfgang and I are all playing our roles to perfection at this point. So is Amos. It's really a lot of fun when you look at it that way. Consider Martin Gibson. Now there is a role with some meat in it! Not everybody would want that role, but Martin does it with real panache, don't you think? And I've noticed that lately he is doing a somewhat different take on it. That's always an option. When you get fed up with an old role you take on a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 06:30 PM

...*nod*...and if a few words were changed, I could accept the description as a personal world-view. It is one thing to explain "this how I see, feel & express it"....it is quite another to be included and told definitively "this is how it is for you, too, if you'd wake up and pay attention"...*wry grin*...

Like I said before, 'taint fair that if I'm right, I don't get to say "I told you so"....mebbe that's why I work so hard at saying it now...

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 06:13 PM

Bill:

I think LH is describing as best he can what he sees extremely clearly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:29 PM

Yeah. I am serious, Bill. I really have no way of explaining it that would satisfy you, and I used to be just like you at one time. You would have to BE me as I am now to know why it is that I say these things with such assurance.

My statements are metaphorical poetry, but they are also absolutely serious when it comes to this general subject. Every perceivable phenomenon in the Universe is a metaphor. The whole process of Life as we know it is a metaphor.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:23 PM

" It's true that a higher power works through us and that we are an extension of that higher power,..."...............

" But they do not really die. They just leave the body behind."

I never cease to marvel, Little Hawk, at the certainty with which you throw those statements out in post after post. I argue and discuss, trying to hedge my bets and leave room for possibilites, but you simply state that "this is how it works".

How did you BECOME so sure? Is this revelation? Did you figure it out?   What are the premises on which you base so many matter-of-fact statements about the universe and our place in it? I can see how a vivid experience with an 'alien ship' might give you confidence in THAT area, but the entire universe and its relation to conciousness??

Some would consider your statements metaphorical poetry, but you seem to be quite serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 01:47 PM

Grab, re: your first point about it being easy to test me for "crystals". It's not quite as easy as you think, but if someone wanted to set it up, I guess it would be possible. Where it becomes complicated is that in order for the Genesa crystal to have a demonstrable physical effect on me (such as making me dizzy, making me vomit, and/or making me feel like I'm going to pass out, the Genesa crystal needs to be at least 24 inches or larger. (And the effect is not always instantaneous.) So there would be some expense involved. The other problem is that the Genesa crystal would have an effective radius of a mile or more, so the experiment would have to be an either/or set-up... either there is a Genesa crystal behind the blind, or there isn't, rather than which blind is the Genesa crystal behind.

Do that yourself for a confidence test, and then move on to James Randi, or the New York Times, or anyone who'll listen. The Center for Complementary Medicine might be worth contacting. If you can do this 100% every time, you're news!

Here's the part that I think you are having difficulty understanding. I don't want to be news. At least not for that reason. I don't want to be famous or notorious for reasons having to do with the way I experience my spirituality. If I become famous for anything, I would rather it be for my writing or my art. It's not important to me to have my way of experiencing spirit "proved" to anyone. I'm only trying to accomodate the people in this thread because they have asked me to. If I am going to do anything like that, I would only want to do it if I could do it quietly and without a lot of attendant publicity. Spirit is an area of my reality that I believe should be treated with respect and not turned into a spectacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 01:29 PM

sorry, I thought I was merely repeating a previous point. You should not take the weight/length (or whatever you measure) of the individual plant as the datum to start with but the average value of the plants in each condition. That means one experimental run only gives you these two data to start with.

Ok. This I knew. I guess I didn't understand the point you were making that I responded to in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 01:25 PM

Carol,

sorry, I thought I was merely repeating a previous point. You should not take the weight/length (or whatever you measure) of the individual plant as the datum to start with but the average value of the plants in each condition. That means one experimental run only gives you these two data to start with.

Amos,

you're right with your point (3). But please tell me what the opposite to 'right field' would be. Wrong field? Little Hawk might not agree.

Clint,

If something would work consistently (or well above chance) not knowing why it works wouldn't be a good reason not to use it. Though to know why something works is always better, for it gives us more control about the situation.
The problem scientists have with many alternative healing methods is not that they do work but we don't know why (that would be great adn a good start for research), but that they do not seem to work better than any placebo cure (and sometimes even worse).

Your example shows beautifully why alternative cures are believed to be valid: and was finally cured of it --instantly-- by a chicken-sacrifice ceremony (my emphasis). That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking leading to a feeling of validity. The correct word would be after (in the eyes of a scientist) because we can never be sure (from one case alone) that the cure was in any way responsible for the healing. The doctor you cite tries his best to give an explanation in terms of placebo effect (and he does it well).

I think that evidence based medicine is working with the placebo effect as well, up to 90% of all times. That's why I seldom go to a doctor when I think a tea and a bit of bedrest will do enough for me (and cost less), but in the 10% or more cases I go to a doctor doing evidence based medicine.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 12:47 PM

there's nothing wrong in principle with doing many tests at different times. It has the advantage of less effort and the disadvantage of less power (for the error variance term is bound to be inflated this way), but that problem could be overcome by increasing the sample size. Maybe I was wrong (it couldn't be told from your description) but I had the impression that you did not know what the correct sampling for the statistical analysis was.

I don't know what the correct sampling is for the statistical analysis. Would you care to help me out with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 12:43 PM

I think maybe he means it isn't his mind/ego/personality. Most people think they are their mind, coupled with their body. Some just think they are their body. It's true that a higher power works through us and that we are an extension of that higher power, but we have a mortal mind that imagines it's the boss. It isn't. It can pretend to be, though, and usually does just that. Its knowledge and its grasp are very limited, though quite complex. It could not even function were it not supported at all times by the divine mind which is coursing through it and giving it power, form, and function.

That is why God is spoken of as the Father or the Mother in various religious traditions. Divine mind is the origin of the mortal mind and being. It is beyond time or space, but creates both of them. It creates every atom and waveform. Its purpose can be speculated about, but is unknowable from the perspective of limitation. We are all accustomed with limitation and work within it in order to perceive things as "separate". Things appear separate to us, but are all existing as One Unity. The One Unity manifests as trillions of apparently separate things, energies, events...from atoms to galaxies...casting itself upon a created field of space and time, like a movie on a screen.

The Earth Scientist is like a busy little semi-intelligent worm in a garden in a tiny subplot of that movie, climbing slowly up a blade of grass, and describing everything he sees around him with all the detailed observation and measurement he can muster and all the tools at his command. This worm thinks he is alone, but he is not. He has no idea that there might be a gardener who created the garden he inhabits...or an even larger World within which the gardener is as relatively limited as the worm. This little worm may be able to mightily impress other worms in his garden, and not surprisingly, because he knows a bit more about the blades of grass than they do, and he is familiar with professional jargon which leaves them feeling at a bit of a loss.

Very impressive. Like Owl in the Winnie-the-Pooh books, the scientist worm knows big words.

One day he will realize that he has become more than a worm, and the big words will be seen as a child's game. For many, this does not happen until they die. But they do not really die. They just leave the body behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 08:51 AM

That's nice Dewey.

But it MIGHT be you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Dewey
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 05:27 AM

"Matter and Spirit"

But the question may be wrong, as well as the concept. I put my faith in the infinite devine intelligents of God. I am, (as well is every esle on this message board) A complete idiot. Sorry folks if this offends but that's just the way it is.

Try listening to the universal mind and a loving god for answers, not to your science books and your preconcieved notions, you'll learn little more than what you do now. You'll be amazed by the results when you trust in the infinite. (The infinite mind of God works through you, it is NOT you becoming part of the God-head, That is not my opinion on the matter but my EXPERIENCE in the revelations I received.


The mysteries of the Universe we recieve belong to GOD, The Apostle Paul understood this (1 Corinthians 13:1-2) Sorry, if the Bible offends the educated gathered here, but please remember like most spiritual books it too was written from the creative consciousness) Also, one does not have to be educated to contact the higher-consciousness, sometimes the individual that know the least about the subject discovers the most!!! I learned about God and knowledge beyond my grasp) not through my own doing, but through my own faith in a loving God. Heck, sometimes I din't even know the meanings of words I had written and had to look them up in the dictionary to discovery what the infinite mind had said. but one thing that I always did do was LISTEN and humbly, From there I recognized that the inifinite had my best interest and development at heart, not only for me, but for mankind as well.

The mysteries of the Universe (if they come at all) come THROUGH YOU, NOT BY YOU. It is not a me-centered world, it is a God centered world and he know all (Mysteries, your personality, intelligents (or lack of it) etc.

He knows also about nature, as he created it. We are complete peons yet he loves us enough to occassionally give us a peep at the insight we seek, the Creative Consciousness (infinite mind) is perfect because it CREATES. If any of you discover it for yourself you'll know just exactly what I am talking about. If you don't you'll either laugh, or foolishly think you can discover God's secret or mysteries on your own. Or worst yet, actually think you can become God.

There is one thing I am certain of: There is a God, it isn't me, and it isn't you either.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 02:32 AM

"...seeing the aura in five minutes makes use of well known properties of our visual system..." I know what you mean. You can see that kind of aura around anything, so some of your subjects should see a screen-shaped aura, shouldn't they?

I'm expressing myself poorly in these posts. I have always assumed that the aura, if it exists, is not an optical phenomenon, but is seen in the mind's eye, perhaps "a mixture of feeling the body heat radiation (most times higher than the surrounding air) and perhaps some imagination in his pupils." or perhaps something else. The question to me is, can the aura-seer do anything useful with his/her aura-sight, whatever the explanation of it is?

If so, let him alone. If therapeutic touch only works without a screen, then don't use a screen. Don't say a man cannot light a match because he believes in phlogiston. It will be more useful in the long run for people to know about oxidation, but in the short run he doesn't need to change what he's doing in order to build a fire

I read of a man who had a terrible constant headache for days, and was finally cured of it --instantly-- by a chicken-sacrifice ceremony performed by a tribal healer of some kind. He said he told his doctor about it and the doctor wasn't surprised. The doctor said that sometimes pain can feed on itself and keep going through a kind of neurological feedback loop, and anything that breaks the cycle (like the shock of the bloody chicken-killing) will stop the pain. I think the doctor is right; I went through something like that once myself (no chicken, though). So:the doctor knew all about the condition, and why it happened, but he couldn't cure the victim. It took a superstitious medicine man to do that.

Art critics often know a good deal about color theory and the principles of composition, but few of them can do an outstanding painting.

My old Psych prof told me that Rorshach tests are not scientific at all. When I asked why bother with them he said "Because some people can use them." It took me a while to see he was saying it's an art, or a talent; you can't formulate the rules for it but some people can do it.

Maybe all I've been trying to say is that knowledge/science/intellect -only goes so far. There are other things as valid.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 02:12 PM

Bill:

I really resonate to your concerns.

I would only add that I see a distinction to be made between "bad science" and "bad ways of knowing" -- they are certainly intersecting sets, but perhaps not identical. Science suffers when it is fo4rced to know answers on the basis solely of authority, for example, and so do individuals. Science does well when it uses good, repatable empirical trials to ascertain duplicatable results on which to base its logic.

Engineering is another way of knowing that uses approximations, comparison of orders of magnititude, extrapolations from known data, and even hunches based on insight about past experience to come up with solutions that work.

Some aspects of life need rigorously scientific approaches to knowing.

Others need the flexibility and speed of workable solutions arrived at through faster but less formalized methods.

Some areas of discovery have to start with anecdotal information, and sort it out as best as can be done. Other fields -- highly rigorous scientific ones -- consider anecdotal data to be a form of poison because it can be treacherous, including the wild uncertainties of witness reliability and the mysterious, plastic, human mind.

I am convinced that in matters of "reality beyond matter, energy, space, time" measurements, we are going to have to start with what we can get, tolerate some of the ambiguity and collect more data. Jumping to hard conclusions, well, we can leave that up to the Baptists or the Dianeticists or the Christian Scientists, all of who are sure they know the answers but do not necessarily have a handle on global variables.

There is an awful lot to be said in this area, possiobly more than fits compfortably on a thread.

But there's a few thoughts to chew on.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 01:51 PM

I share your concerns, Bill, and always have. That's why I place great emphasis on both a scientific approach and my own personal powers of observation. I don't expect science to answer all my questions, but I certainly expect it to shed much light on areas that would otherwise remain dark and murky.

Science has not helped me much with regard to UFO's, but seeing one has been quite instructive. If our science community were more advanced (or more open and candid with the public) or if I had more of it available at my own disposal then I'm sure it could be of tremendous assistance in revealing more information to me about that UFO or others.

Most of the misery in the World at present is caused by the ceaseless search for more $$$$profit at the expense of life itself. The phonies in the various esoteric fields are deluding people for that purpose, and so are the arms manufacturers and the major industries in the mainstream which do not deal in esoteric matters at all, but deal in guns and butter.

Everyone in the World could have a good material life if not for that. Everyone. And no wars either.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 01:34 PM

"Why is it so important to you?"

funny you should ask, Little Hawk...I was just pondering how to explain my tenacity on the subject.

Indeed, some items and situation are trivial and unimportant when looked at in isolation. It really doesn't affect me a lot if some lady in Oshkosh is sure she communes with her granmother's ghost, or if Ellenpoly really DID decide she was channeling William Shatner, or if Two Bears really heals folks, or just convinces them they feel better.....but....(you knew there was a 'but')...

These beliefs, (and I mean the whole spectrum of meta-scientific beliefs, from ghosts to OoB experiences to influencing plants growth to "manifesting the Universal Spirit") represents an 'attitude' that pervades much of human society. When we see something we don't believe in we call it "silly superstition" or "mass hypnosis"...whatever. But if we DO believe it it, we call it "revealed truth" or "extra-sensory perception"...or...whatever.

It is, sadly, easy to point out the problems that arise from mistaken superstitions or gullible belief in charlatans who are reading palms or tea leaves. They extract money, and worse, from people who just don't understand how easy it is to fake phenomena. Currently, horrible carnage is being inflicted by people who are convinced that violence in the name of some 'religious principle' is condoned by some 'spititual entity'.

   The point is, that people's behavior can be seriously altered and affected by what they believe...(how many gamblers really believe in 'luck' rather than simple mathematical odds, and lose their house?)

Now, (trying to shorten this, knowing that you can see my general point), it is my contention that much of the misery in the world is exacerbated, if not caused directly, by confusion, superstition, flawed belief systems, bad 'science', ignorance and general careless thinking. As long as there is no coherent effort to clarify, educate, explicate, elucidate, de-mystify, organize and otherwise 'clean up' the thinking habits of human, we are little better than our ancestors peering fearfully out of caves at the shadows and lightning--except that WE have bigger clubs and better communication in order to deal with the 'evils spirits' we see in those we don't like!

In short...I see any belief that MAY be false, and which is accepted, rather than just investigated, as part of an extremely complex sociological tendency towards simplistic answers and gullibility, rather than the hard job of asking IF that can really be true. This in no way diminishes personal experiences that are intense and clear, it merely alters how one presents the experience for discussion. "I had the most vivid dream last night...I wonder what subconcious feelings I was bringing up" rather than "my Mother came to me and told me to quit eating meat".....it's an attitude that could actually help get some answers, rather than the current stubborn "I saw what I saw, therefore it MUST be real"...

IF it turns out that some astounding things are really true, great! But you know that all the astounding things people believe in this world cannot simultaneously be true..(some directly contradict others!) And much of the world's ills are related to contradictory beliefs.

So, if I seem to be picking on one point, I assure you, it is not personal, but only my attempt to suggest that there are ways to approach experience and debate that can be productive rather than devisive.


"Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it."
               Alfred North Whitehead

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 10:14 AM

1. why have you addressed your last post to me only and not also to Carol??
2: Why do you never in all these discussions bring up this point about controlled experiments when a believer tells about a purportedly successfuil experiment or proposes how such an experiment could be done?
3: Why do you remember this point always exactly in that moment when a skeptic starts criticising an experiment or questions the interpretation?


1. Consider her appended! Seriously, you are the resident senior authority on scientific discipline in these halls, Wolfgang! That's why.

2. Hmmm.... careless of me, you are right. I suppose because I know I can count on you and Bill D to play right field, so I focus on playing center field.

3. I am not sure your stement is true, so no "Why" can be provided.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 09:18 AM

Grab - simple enough for a 9 year old to do...?

(Reference to the 9 year old Emily Rosa's experiment on Therapeutic Touch. Not the best controlled experiment in the world, but getting published in JAMA is not bad for a 9 year old! ;-) )

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Grab
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 09:05 AM

Carol, you say you can "feel" a crystal being there? That surely is incredibly easy to prove.

You go out the room by one door. Moderator places a dozen cups on a table and puts a crystal under one (chosen by a random-number generator or dice throw to avoid the human tendency to pick certain places more often). If there's a "range" issue, maybe use separate tables, some distance apart, so you can resolve which cup it is. Moderator leaves the room by another door (to avoid any change of giving the game away by glancing at the cup or talking to you). You come back in and immediately identify cup containing crystal. Video the whole thing so there's no doubt you're picking the right cup straight away. Rinse and repeat as many times as you like, making sure that all cups are picked up and put down each time so that there's no cues from only one having moved.

Do that yourself for a confidence test, and then move on to James Randi, or the New York Times, or anyone who'll listen. The Center for Complementary Medicine might be worth contacting. If you can do this 100% every time, you're news!

On a similar theme, LH: If there are people who can do the telepathy thing, why are they averse to demonstrations? Unless it's a "religious secret", I don't get it. Contrary to what you say, the majority of people *are* prepared to believe anything, but *only* if you show them it's true. If all you offer is words, they will indeed laugh in your face and stick to the status quo. If you back up your words with evidence though, people *will* believe you.

Re James Randi's condition, Carol, what's your beef with it? "Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose." If you took part in the Pepsi Challenge, I think you'll find that Pepsi have similar rights to record how many people preferred which cola. If he's set up the test and staked his own money on it, why should he not have rights to the evidence? If he didn't have rights to the evidence, how on earth could he present a press release on it? "I've done some tests, but I don't have rights to release the evidence, so you'll just have to trust me"?!?! I think not! :-)

Yes, he's certainly an egotistic little git, out for self-promotion. I don't see how he can use the evidence to "make a circus of your life" though. You get it right a dozen times, he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 08:50 AM

Amos,

why have you addressed your last post to me only and not also to Carol?? Or: Why do you never in all these discussions bring up this point about controlled experiments when a believer tells about a purportedly successfuil experiment or proposes how such an experiment could be done? Why do you remember this point always exactly in that moment when a skeptic starts criticising an experiment or questions the interpretation?

Carol,

there's nothing wrong in principle with doing many tests at different times. It has the advantage of less effort and the disadvantage of less power (for the error variance term is bound to be inflated this way), but that problem could be overcome by increasing the sample size. Maybe I was wrong (it couldn't be told from your description) but I had the impression that you did not know what the correct sampling for the statistical analysis was.

Clint,

all claims of seeing auras I know of describe the aura as surrounding the body that is to be a bit wider than the body. So if you place a person behind a screen (window frame/open door) blocking vision in such a way that the person is just a tiny bit ot ouf the line of vision then the aura should extend to the line of vision and should be visible under these conditions. That's the idea of a screen experiment. Of course, no aura is detectable in such a condition.

I'm sure that Two Bears's teaching seeing the aura in five minutes makes use of well known properties of our visual system: (1) the eyes are never motionless but are even moving a bit when we fixate some stimulus (2) the firing of the neurons will decrease when they are stimulated with the same stimulus over an extended time (30 seconds suffice under good viewing conditions to demonstrate that effect in a lecture hall).

These two properties in combination lead inevitably to seeing a lighter surround when we fixate any dark object(living matter or not) in front of a bright background for a short time (1 min should be enough under most viewing conditions) without consciously moving our eyes from the target and vice versa for a bright object in front of a dark background. It's simple and everybody of my students sees it when I make that demonstration. The 'aura' even can be coloured and these colours change over time (different relaxation times for the three colour systems).

As for feeling my guess is that Two Bears uses a mixture of feeling the body heat radiation (most times higher than the surrounding air) and perhaps some imagination in his pupils. The only thing I am not sure about is whether he knows how he does it and is a trickster conning some people or whether he truly believes himself.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 12:08 PM

I really can't help it if there are things out there you can't test, Bill. :-) Remember, I am not asking you or Wolfgang to PROVE that your view of Life or of the World is correct...I accept that your view is quite correct and useful as far as it goes, it just doesn't necessarily go far enough to cover EVERYTHING I'm interested in. You guys, though, appear to be asking others to PROVE that their view is correct.

Why? Why is it so important to you? Is everything provable? I think not.

Some things exist...and yet are not provable under material laboratory conditions. That may change, given certain scientific advances...or it may not...but there will always be real things happening in life that nobody can prove in the way that someone else wants it proven.

I understand your eagerness to confirm whether or not a given UFO sighting, for instance, really WAS an extraterrestrial craft...or a weather balloon...or a hallucination...or whatever...I understand perfectly. Everyone would like to prove something like that if they could.

Now what would you do if you were a professional military officer, you investigated such an incident, you found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that it WAS an intelligently piloted alien craft of some kind, this was confirmed by your superior officers...and you were then told in no uncertain terms to (1) tell the press it was a "weather balloon", (2) publicly deny having found anything unusual and contradict your earlier public statements on the matter, (3) keep your mouth shut about it after that, (4) that this was necessary in order to prevent public panic and protect national security, (5) that your career and your family's well-being would be in great jeopardy if you ever admitted publicly to your actual knowledge about the event.

What would you do, Bill? You would have your proof, personally speaking, but what good would it do you? I think you would become a rather troubled man, Bill, possibly quite a bitter man. You would realize that truth is less important to certain people than maintaining their present power-based agenda.

Such things have happened. (I use the example of the UFO because it serves to demonstrate something. Certain truths are considered unspeakable by certain people, because they threaten some established hierarchical order. As for auras, nobody will threaten you if you talk about auras...they'll just make fun of you. Auras are not considered a threat to national security.)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 11:47 AM

"...as some people have the ability to accurately identify the pitch of any musical note..."

I get the point, but the example is not good. We can TEST the pitch of a musical note and measure it directly and repeat it, and record it...etc.... auras are something that we can't photograph, measure, record, repeat under controlled conditions..etc. (Kirilian photography is itself a disputed technique) If only a limited number of people can 'see' them, then the answer might be that that they are mistaken (I don't accuse anyone of lying) and that the phenomenon is subjective, like vivid dreams.

It's a funny argument that whenever someone 'sees' something that others don't (like two little girls at Lourdes) that the answer must be "oh, the rest of you just aren't tuned in" or "The Virgin Mary didn't choose to appear to you."..etc...

We sceptics hold our stubborn position, not because we know such claims are totally impossible, but because we know that the are other ways and conditions that can cause someone to subjectively have experiences that seem real. It is here that Occam's Razor is applicable.

All you have to do is read reports from 10 witnesses to an accident or crime to realize that the car can't be both red AND brown, and the guy with the gun couldn't have both 6'3" and 5'7"..etc... The mind can be fooled, even when the supposed memory is recent and intense!!

It is always worth investigating, (indeed investigations go on constantly) and SOME vivid & intense experiences may indeed reflect reality. (Little Hawk may indeed have seen a 'real' phenomenon when that 'alien ship' appeared....but who, and what and how and why?...etc) When we have demonstratable, repeatable, public, recordable instances...preferably with artifacts, THEN we can do more than shrug and say "well, that must have been interesting".

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 01:21 AM

Sorry, CarolC, that was referring to Wolfgang's post of 20 Aug 04 - 03:57 AM. I should have specified.

clint.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 09:08 PM

Plenty of people can detect auras, not just Two Bears. I have a very limited ability (at present) to see auras...under dim lighting conditions when I'm quite relaxed, and I am usually not expecting it when it happens. I've met any number of people who are way better at it than I am. No, I don't think they were lying about it. Unlike the Unamazing Randi, they are not making money out of this area of inquiry, they are not using it for professional purposes, they are not using it for personal glorification, publicity or fame. Nor are they doing it to attack or discredit other people, as the Unamazing Randi is presently using his no doubt considerable talents and abilities. They just have the ability, that's all...as some people have the ability to accurately identify the pitch of any musical note, while others (most of us) only have relative pitch, and still others are tone deaf.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 08:40 PM

I can't address that one, Clint Keller. And I'm still waiting for Wolfgang to get back to me on my last question to him about the tests I proposed. But I have certainly demonstrated that I'm willing to participate in some kinds of tests.

The problem with the conditions that the Amazing Randi sets up is the same kind of thing as what you get if you sign up to appear on the Jerry Springer show. You have no control over how the content of your work gets used. Randi will have ownership of all of the results and he will have the right to use them any way he sees fit. He could make a real circus of your life if he wanted to. And I'm guessing, if he thought it would get him some publicity (and maybe a lot of money), he wouldn't care if the way he used your results hurt you personally in ways that have nothing to do with the results of the tests. It's all about entertainment to people like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 08:19 PM

OK, I don't really believe 2Bears can detect auras, but the screen experiment is not proof of much. After all, many kinds of screen will block vision, but eyesight exists.

The first thing, it seems to me, would be to see if he can get the results he claims to get from seeing auras, not to argue aura theory to prove that he can or can't. De gustibus & all that.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 08:13 PM

My post is in reference to this from you:

"refusal to take part in any tests"

Had you read the thread, you would know that this is most certainly not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 08:11 PM

Looks like you never read the thread in the first place Guest, Ohh Ahh.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 07:58 PM

My God you people are wordy! I can really be bothered to follow this thread any further, but I will depart with Carl Sagan's comment that 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof'. And we haven't had any, just a bunch of personal anecdotes and the refusal to take part in any tests because the tester is a Nasty Man or Not One of Us.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 09:02 PM

You're beating the drum over nothing, Wolfgang. I have no trouble entertaining doubts about many things, and I agree with your approach to scientific investigation wholeheartedly. But I am not a research scientist by profession. THAT is why I do not spend large amounts of my time investigating things by an empirical laboratory method that you might find totally satisfying! I have too many other things to do already.

Don't accuse me of disagreeing with you on things I agree with you on. :-)

Maybe I should quote you:

I am sure your way of thinking is comforting for you.

Everyone's way of thinking is comforting for them, within their own understanding.

I have always had the impression that you have difficulties dealing with doubts.

You are mistaken. I have doubts about numerous things from time to time, including my own perceptions.

You seem only to have replaced the authorities/securities of your youth by others.

Now you're really getting snide, aren't you? :-)

Empirical testing is a way of gathering knowledge and a way of testing whether what you consider correct may turn out to be wrong. This is not the way for the lazy thinkers and for those threatened by finding out they have been wrong.

I could hardly agree more with anything than with that statement!

It is not your way...

Codswallop. You are mistaken.

and so it is no wonder you have forgotten this as a reason for a change of opinion in your 20 Aug 04 - 11:57 AM post.

Wolfgang, I have had girfriends petty enough to drag up every single word I said in the last five or ten years and browbeat me with it, but I think it is unbecoming of you to do so. The Pope is not infallible, and neither am I. I have many times in my life changed an opinion, and I'm sure I will again.

Completely contrary to what you seem to believe, science is open for a change of opinion or theory given a good reason to do so.

That is in no way contrary to what I believe.

Carol's experiment done in a convincing way and found repeatable could of course change all thinking in science. Not necessarily in an individual scientist, for these people are as conservative or stubborn individually as all others, but there are always enough of them grasping at the new findings and trying to get famous with new theories. The individual scientist may be immune against change, science in a broad sense isn't.

Agreed, but the professional world of science, I think, is not interested at present in what Carol chooses to do with her time. She has no pull in that peer group. I hardly think anything she comes up with will make a particle of difference, except to Carol.

Look at what has happened after an experiment seemed to show that eihter ether is moving with the earth or the speed of light is independent of the frame of reference. Unthinkable that was to ageing scientists for it warranted such a big change in thinking they were not ready for it. But young scientists did think the unthinkable and came up with new theories for that. Einstein for instance. The old camarilla was strong enough to prevent him getting the Nobel prize for the theory of relativity and so he got it as a compromise for a minor contribution, the explanation of the photoelectriy effect and 'for his other contributions'. But his theory has won.

Absolutely! That is how science advances. You do not need to convince me about that.

As immune each individual scinetist may be against new facts and theories, the endeavour 'science' is extremely open to changes. That is by the weayy much different from faiths or belief systems which are unchanged since centuries.

If you are speaking of organized religion, you are right. I don't place any reliance upon organized religion whatsoever. I just find it a handy reference to the history of human culture.

This vitasl difference you are unable or unwilling to grasp, for if science is 'just another faith' you feel less threatened in your world view.

I do not feel even slightly threatened in my world view, I am simply enthusiastic about it and enjoy talking about it.

It would take two decades or so, but a repeatable experiment demonstrating spiritual action upon matter would change the thinking of science. But a mere assertion of individual experiences will not change anything.

Except this...it will signal a change in the individual who is changed BY the experience! It is myself I try to change, Wolfgang, not others. I repeat, I talk about what I am interested in and enthusiastic about BECAUSE I am interested in it and enthusiastic about it, NOT because I wish or intend to change others.

The other side of the medal, of course, is that a well controlled experiment may repeatedly confirm the null hypothesis of no effect of thought upon matter.

That has already been disproven so many times that it's hardly worth arguing about. (But not to you... :-))

Doing convincing empirical reasearch has a big prize that may be won: a result necessitating completely new theories may be found. But this is only the way for those strong enough to face that their pet theories may be found wrong and not for those not willing to give up cherished beliefs.

I agree entirely. Hear! Hear! Let it be written in gold!

For thousands of years, the spiritual way of thinking has never changed.

In one sense that is quite untrue. New spiritual ideas are always coming to individuals, quite apart from organized religion and its ancient traditions. In another sense it is quite true what you said...because...if spiritual thinking is based upon something real, then why WOULD it change? Does the truth change? Only the way people perceive the truth changes.

The same concepts have been expressed in different words. Nothing has been added to our knowledge.

Because you have not actually listened to anything spiritual with anything but skepticism and what really amounts to uninterest in the subject. Your disagreement is with organized religion.   I do not belong to organized religion or subscribe to it.

Compare to that how radically our thinking about the world and our knowledge (and accompanying that, our technology) has changed and you'll see that science is not just another of many faiths but simply a method to empirically test ideas about the world. The endeavour 'science' doesn't make scientists materialists (there are scientists who believe in a supreme being or/and in a soul/spirit) though scientists according to surveys are more likely to be atheists (and the more so the more successful they are). It is a method of knowledge gathering and a very successful one.

Agreed. I approve of that method of gathering knowledge very much.

50,000 years of belief in spiritual communication haven't been able to provide a reliable mean of communication between people far apart, but science has.

You are mistaken. There are reliable means of such communication without the advances of science, but they are limited to very, very few individuals because most people are something you alluded to early in your post, Wolfgang...

They're lazy thinkers. And they are used to thinking on only one level...one bandwidth, so to speak. But I'm not going to waste more of this bandwidth trying to tell you about something that you have utterly no inclination to give even a hypothetical existence to. It would be like trying to explain nuclear fission or the internal combustion engine to a monk from a 13th century monastery. And it is something you could NEVER find evidence for unless you personally accomplished it yourself...and then your fellow scientists would not believe you.

Wolfgang, it is not my sacred mission to change you nor is it my desire to change you. The only reason I talk about this stuff on Mudcat is because I am interested in it. I respect your scientific method.

Now let's hope I left all those danged italics in the right places!

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 08:50 PM

Wolfgang:

It needs to be kept in mind, as I have mentioned before, that there is an important difference between material elements and spiritual elements used in a controled situation for experimentation. Some of your descriptions sound like an effort to reduce all possible factors down to just one factor by hammering away at eliminating possible influences and repeating the test or tests with more and more controls until the isolation of cause-and-effect conclusions reaches a certainty. This is excellent if you are dropping balls from a tower, or measuring the delay in electrons responding, or measure a coefficient of friction as influenced by humidity or any other combination of material variables.

But life doesn't respond that way; if you reject its performance and add more conditions, submit it to a pronounced skepticism, inform it or imply to it that it isn't good enough, or some similar form of coercion it will respond in unpredictable ways, not uniform ways.

Life is sensitive to the degree of communication going on in an environment, as well as to to her kinds of thought. In fact you are trying to take measuring systems from materiaL frames and then apply them to the framework of thought itself. This is a sure recipe for uncertain results.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 07:31 PM

Wolfgang, why wouldn't it be as effective to spread the tests out over time rather than space? In other words, instead of having a lot of tests all going at the same time in order to spread out the numbers and guard against undetected third variables, what is wrong with doing a series of tests over time and spread the numbers out that way? We have a very long growing season here where I live.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 07:22 PM

Little Hawk,

I am sure your way of thinking is comforting for you. I have always had the impression that you have difficulties dealing with doubts. You seem only to have replaced the authorities/securities of your youth by others.

Empirical testing is a way of gathering knowledge and a way of testing whether what you consider correct may turn out to be wrong. This is not the way for the lazy thinkers and for those threatened by finding out they have been wrong. It is not your way and so it is no wonder you have forgotten this as a reason for a change of opinion in your 20 Aug 04 - 11:57 AM post.

Completely contrary to what you seem to believe, science is open for a change of opinion or theory given a good reason to do so. Carol's experiment done in a convincing way and found repeatable could of course change all thinking in science. Not necessarily in an individual scientist, for these people are as conservative or stubborn individually as all others, but there are always enough of them grasping at the new findings and trying to get famous with new theories. The individual scientist may be immune against change, science in a broad sense isn't.

Look at what has happened after an experiment seemed to show that eihter ether is moving with the earth or the speed of light is independent of the frame of reference. Unthinkable that was to ageing scientists for it warranted such a big change in thinking they were not ready for it. But young scientists did think the unthinkable and came up with new theories for that. Einstein for instance. The old camarilla was strong enough to prevent him getting the Nobel prize for the theory of relativity and so he got it as a compromise for a minor contribution, the explanation of the photoelectriy effect and 'for his other contributions'. But his theory has won.

As immune each individual scinetist may be against new facts and theories, the endeavour 'science' is extremely open to changes. That is by the weayy much different from faiths or belief systems which are unchanged since centuries. This vitasl difference you are unable or unwilling to grasp, for if science is 'just another faith' you feel less threatened in your world view.

It would take two decades or so, but a repeatable experiment demonstrating spiritual action upon matter would change the thinking of science. But a mere assertion of individual experiences will not change anything. The other side of the medal, of course, is that a well controlled experiment may repeatedly confirm the null hypothesis of no effect of thought upon matter.

Doing convincing empirical reasearch has a big prize that may be won: a result necessitating completely new theories may be found. But this is only the way for those strong enough to face that their pet theories may be found wrong and not for those not willing to give up cherished beliefs.

For thousands of years, the spiritual way of thinking has never changed. The same concepts have been expressed in different words. Nothing has been added to our knowledge. Compare to that how radically our thinking about the world and our knowledge (and accompanying that, our technology) has changed and you'll see that science is not just another of many faiths but simply a method to empirically test ideas about the world. The endeavour 'science' doesn't make scientists materialists (there are scientists who believe in a supreme being or/and in a soul/spirit) though scientists according to surveys are more likely to be atheists (and the more so the more successful they are). It is a method of knowledge gathering and a very successful one. 50,000 years of belief in spiritual communication haven't been able to provide a reliable mean of communication between people far apart, but science has.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 06:29 PM

You're right, Wolfgang. It is definitely a tremendous amount of work, and Carol would be wasting a valuable portion of her life in pursuing it merely to convince some skeptics...who I am quite sure would remain unconvinced in any case.

I can live happily enough knowing that there will always be plenty of people out there who don't believe something I happen to believe. It has ever been so and ever shall be.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 06:11 PM

Carol,

the problem I have is intertwined with the correct level of statistical analysis. From what you have written it is obvious that you regard the individual plant's outcome measure as the input for the statistical analysis. Imagine had had a statistically significant result with this analysis. You could generalise to other plants under exactly the same set of conditions. That is not what you want to have. On the qualitative level of discussion you want to generalise to the action of the independent variable. You want to make sure that your manipulation (and not something else) is responsible for the difference in the dependent variable found.

The way you have designed your experiment any undetected third variable confounded with the experimental variable could as well be responsible for a difference found.

The 'as similar as possible' approach can so easily fail. Drastic examples: Your cat has peed on one plant bed and not on the other (then all plants in one bed suffer from the same interference and therefore the assumption of independence necessary for the analysis you have planned is violated. Or a pregnat worm was in one of the beds and not in the other and so on.

The mistake to overlook such a possibility is one of the most common mistakes even in the published literature.

The best solution is to have a big selection of plant beds and to assign them randomly to the two experimental conditions (much more work). The correct level of analysis for the statistics would be the average weight per plant bed.

To blind the evaluator is one thing. Even more urgent is to blind the caretaker of the plants iof there is any caretaking planned.

I'm sure I don't know all articles about the power of prayer (or any other spiritual influence) on plants, but what I have read (I remember the name Backster) is lacking all precautions against alternative interpretations. The reason for that in my eyes is that many of the researchers with such an agenda are coming from the hard sciences (are biologists, physicists) and lack any methodological knowledge on how to do these experiments correctly. That is understandable for they come from a tradition in which experimenting is easy (I mean the experimental design, and not the apparatus which may be extremely tricky). People coming from the natural sciences into these fields are utterly naive when confronted with the problem of controlling confounding factors.

The parasciences are full of such articles. Thoroughly honest physicists naively extrapolating their experimental knowledge from how to deal with electrons (or whatever other particles) to a much more fuzzy field.

To do what you plan to do correctly is a tremendous amount of work.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 12:56 PM

*just reading and following the discussion*...may have more to say later...

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:57 AM

People, following childhood, initially adopt a basic faith. It may be one of the following:

1. There is a spiritual reality and a consciousness behind physical reality. That spiritual reality is the true source of life.

2. There is only physical reality. What we call "consciousness" arises out of it, according to certain quantifiable factors. Physical reality is the true source of life.

They then set about looking for evidence (material or experiential) to support their adopted faith, reading books that support their adopted faith, and paying attention to things that support their adopted faith. They argue strenuously with people of a different adopted faith. :-) And so it goes...

That is all that's actually happening here.

Sometimes adults alter their basic faith! This can be due to:

a. A gradual shift in perceptions. (which is what happened to me in my 20's as I shifted from (2) above to (1) above)

b. A sudden dramatic experience, like the sighting of a UFO*, a near-death experience, a religious experience, a religious conversion, or a complete loss of faith in a religion or a spiritual leader...to give various examples.

*(I had the UFO sighting experience, and it did suddenly alter my basic faith on that particular matter) (Two Bears had a near-death or OBE experience, and that changed him from a materialist to a believer in Spirit) (I have met other people who were once religious, and who became totally disillusioned with religion when their church or leader disappointed them.) It cuts both ways.

So...there is always the possibility that you or I will change or modify our present basic faith. This alone should make having a conversation worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:46 AM

I thought I would just post the results and let anyone here who is good a statistical analysis interpret the results him or herself. I figure that could be an interesting discussion in and of itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:41 AM

Thanks, Bagpuss.

I am afraid I find it less than impressive -- the discussion asserts that Libet demonstrated certain conclusions, but there is no particular reason to accept thos econclusions in the data presented.

Any switching system can produce similar phenomena. A phone network invariably shows signs of electronic activity well before the manifestation of communication in human-recognizable form (voice). One could then argue that all communication is conceived in unconsciousness.

His discussion of the manifestation of consciousness preciptating predictors in the brain strikes me as the voicing of a preference, not a rigidly supported conclusion. For example, were Libet's test subjects talking about the construction of their will in terms of words? Surely that would be rather late in the chain of consciousness? I would hazard a guess that an act of conscious will in its most fundamental form is more like a blast of pure will, not stepped down into voiceable steps, images, language, etc. IT is possible we don't even have a good vocabulary for discussing the impulses of pure intent.

The remark about wishing we could build a computer that was unconscious in the same way we are is clever and humorous; but it does not propose to say what that way is, and it is distinctly possible that calling it unconscious is a bias of interpretation and erroneous.

A