 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics
|
|
|
Subject: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 02 - 09:25 PM There are those who can penetrate the clouds with a flash of intuitive brilliance, and those, like me, who are kinda stuck with serial thinking. Now the magic minority are being --more or less- validated by scientific procedures which raise some really interesting and important questions about the relationships between perception, chaos and intuitive thought. Enjoy. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Bobert Date: 07 Mar 02 - 09:52 PM I believe in intuition when it comes to numbers. I have two telephone lines that both have answering services that tell me how many messages were left since the last time. I like to play a game by writing the number down before calling to retieve the messages. I sometimes get on a roll and hit it 3 or 4 days in a row. Now there is a variable in that on one of the lines the least number is zero with 13 being the most and the second line from zero to 7. If I think about it, it doesn't work. What I like to do is wait until the voice says "you have _____ messages". Soon as I hear the word "you" I write down a number. I don't have a clue how it works but when I'm "on" I'm "on". I do have a knack for finding stuff others have lost, too. People in my family will call me when they have misplaced stuff and sometimes, but not always, I know where to look. My dad misplaced his safety deposit key last year and called me and I told him I thought it was in his box of checks... sure enough.... wierd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Mar 02 - 10:45 PM Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics? Multi-tasking. It's a girl thang. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: mack/misophist Date: 07 Mar 02 - 10:47 PM Serial thinking? How ever does one do that? I wish I could. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Genie Date: 08 Mar 02 - 03:08 AM Amos, when I saw this rather unusual thread title, I sez to meself, "Wal, that looks like sumpin' Amos would come up with," so I opened it on a whim. Guess whut? I wuz right! It's midnight and I'm too tired for much of any kind of thinking, especially linear, so I'll have to check out that article tomorrow and join y'all then. 'Night, all. I'm off to the chaos of my dreams. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Hrothgar Date: 08 Mar 02 - 03:31 AM Go on, tell me - is there a future? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Steve Parkes Date: 08 Mar 02 - 03:43 AM Ask us tomorrow, Hrothgar! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Steve Parkes Date: 08 Mar 02 - 03:46 AM Hmm ... don't see how you can make "predictions" about a chaos-based system if you have no knowledge of the system; it would be like guessing the answer without being told the question first. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Mar 02 - 05:26 AM I predict that this line of research will die out soon after the errors in the small print have been found. There are many possibilities for error in such a research. I hope I'm wrong but I bet I'm right. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: MikeofNorthumbria Date: 08 Mar 02 - 06:47 AM Hey, this is seriously weird stuff - but if it works, don't knock it. After all, what's weirder than quantum theory? And that works (if it didn't, the computers that allow us to exchange information like this couldn't be built.)
And another thought - the best people to test for this predictive ability might be musicians (particularly those who jam and improvise a lot). I'm thinking of those amazing/infuriating people you sometimes encounter in sessions, who can foresee (forehear?) what's going to happen next and go along with it, even when there doesn't seem to be enough data available for us mere mortals to make a 'rational' prediction.
Anyone else noticed this phenomenon in a jam session? Wassail! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Dave T Date: 08 Mar 02 - 07:30 AM The article more or less says that some people could predict, with some success,next numbers in "chaotic" sequences, not "random". That might not be too surprising since chaotic in this sense has definite mathematical meaning. Even though chaotic sequences appear to have no recognizable pattern, they can be generated by mathematical equations (albeit non-linear ones). Therefore if someone could do this in their heads, they could "predict" the upcoming numbers. We've all read about people who have special abilities to recall trivia, calculate complex arithmetic sequences, calculate values of certain irrational numbers "on the fly", so maybe it's not that weird after all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Mar 02 - 08:04 AM Here's the author's abstract about his research: Previous studies suggesting that people predict chaotic sequences better than chance, have not discriminated between sensitivity to nonlinear determinism or facilitation using autocorrelation. Since prediction accuracy declines with increases in the look-ahead window in both cases, a decline in prediction accuracy does not imply chaos sensitivity. To overcome this problem, phase-randomized surrogate time series are used as a control. Such series have the same linear properties as the original chaotic sequence but contain no nonlinear determinism, i.e. chaos. In the experimental task, using a chaotic Hénon attractor, participants viewed the previous eight days temperatures and then predicted temperatures for the next four days, over 120 trials. The control group experienced a sample from a corresponding phase-randomized surrogate series. Both time series were linearly transformed to provide a realistic temperature range. The mean relative prediction error increased over days for the chaotic time series, but remained constant and high for the surrogate series. The interaction between the days and series factors was statistically significant, suggesting that people are sensitive to chaos, even when the autocorrelation functions and power spectra of the control and experimental series are identical. Implications for the psychological assessment of individual differences in human prediction are discussed. I haven't read more yet, but it sounds suspicious. Why does he mention the significant interaction in the abstract but not the main effects? I bet you he would have had they been significant. So another result of his study probably was that the chaos group could not predict the future any better than a control group (main effect), but Heath doesn't think that is interesting enough for an article and prefers to interpret an interaction. I've seen too many spurious interactions in my professional life to be overly impressed. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Steve Parkes Date: 08 Mar 02 - 08:19 AM But Dave, while it's possible for some people to perform these feats (think of "Rain Man"), these studies would require them to have the right formula or process in their brain to "predict" their particluar sequence out of all the possible ones in the trial: that's asking a bit more than the ability to calculate roots or determine the day of the week for any date. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Mar 02 - 08:26 AM The original article can be viewed online (pdf) starting from here. As I had presumed the main effect of treatment (predicting chaos vs. predicting a random control condition) was not significant in the article. Therefore, the chaos group did not significantly better than the control. However, since the chaos group's results were getting worse over days and the control group's results were getting slightly better over time, the linear component of the interaction was significant. The statistical analysis is full of numerical corrections about which not enough details are given to allow scrutiny. Of this particular article and its results we will not hear more in the future. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 08 Mar 02 - 08:28 AM I should add you have to click on the January, 2002 issue. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Pied Piper Date: 08 Mar 02 - 10:50 AM All this is a bit over my head, but wouldn't someone predicting a chaotic sequence by doing the maths in thier head have to no the initial conditions, and were in the sequence they came in? All the best PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Mar 02 - 10:59 AM They wouldn't need to HAVE the sequence, they would have an ability to EXTRACT it from the data, since the chaos is in the stimuli. I don't see that it would be so impossible for humans to have such an ability. And sometimes the interaction is more interesting than the main effect. What bothers me is that it was a between-subjects design, as in some people saw chaos and some people saw randomness. What he has is a set of individual differences. The data would be MUCH more compelling had he given all the subjects both types of stimuli, either in 2 sessions or randomized throughout one session, so that the data could be compared WITHIN subjects. THEN you might find either that people in general are better with chaos (which would give you a main effect), or that SOME people are better with chaos (which would give you an interaction but possibly no main effect - which would not detract from how neat-O this finding would be). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 02 - 11:58 AM Ya gotta love a folksinger site that can stir up this much chat on such an arcane topic. I think I agree with Wolfgang that this stab at the subject is unsat. But what it COULD do is most faskinating, because it addresses the least understood phenomenon in all science, IMHO -- the ability to know, which is sometimes a variable that seems to operate independent of data. While it is true that chaos is not unpredictable if you know the increments and can map the attractors, I think it is fair to say that normal human interactions never involve those mathematics as an approach, consciously. Intuitive leaps, as they are called in common parlance, sometimes seem to leave us knowing things we have no reason to know, whether by fancy extrapolation or some other mechanism. Cognates include serenditpitous encounters, synchronicity, and other bits of New Age babble. Food for reflection, as the man said when he threw his sandwich at the mirror. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Bill D Date: 08 Mar 02 - 05:39 PM "it would be like guessing the answer without being told the question first." well, I have done this...and had witnesses...but I don't thing it would qualify as a chaotic system. what happened was... I once answered a TV quiz program question before it was asked!..The topic was "Famous Battles" and contestants could choose 3 levels of question..more $$$ if you answered 2/1 or 3/1.....so I said (to the TV) "I'll take 2/1 and the answer is Thermopylae." Sure enough, a contestant chose that option, and they asked him.."What Greek battle was fought against the Persians in which.....blah, blah, blah..." .....My wife and kids just stared and asked "how'd you know that?"... I didn't 'know' that, and the answer sure could have been "The Coral Sea" or "Hastings" or others...I just applied inductive reasoning and made a guess as to which semi-famous battle might be a good question for a TV program....and I got lucky! The thing is, guessing *right* makes a good story, whereas even I don't remember all the times I have guessed wrong about things. We tend to take one success and attribute more to it than is necessary. I had no 'powers' that strech any laws of physics, I just made an intelligent guess......(but, boy I liked the awed looks *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Dave T Date: 08 Mar 02 - 11:16 PM Yep...after looking into this a bit more (Thanks Wolfgang) it sure looks suspect. While I wouldn't rule out the "possibility" of predicting chaotic events (because we don't know very well how thought, imagination and intuition work) it doesn't look like this article lends any credence to the idea. Now if I could only remember how that faster-than-light communications technique works...oh yeah, I didn't figure that one out 'til tomorrow ;-)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Mar 02 - 12:12 AM Well, ya know, if chaos is going to be predictable.... shit! It ain't chaos no more! What's the fun of predictable chaos? Who needs stinkin' predictable chaos? (hi Bill) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 02 - 12:39 AM One man's chaos is another man'sharmony, now -- it's relative to viewpoint. It's just that, mathematically, a lot of things we called unpredictable and chaotic have been discovered to be analyzable using certain systems of sequences. Arthur C. Clark made the point that tany technology sufficiently advanced appears like magic. Any complexity sufficiently advanced appears like chaos to the uninitiated too, I guess. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 02 - 03:52 PM Here's another piece of the same puzzle. Because of the way we are accustomed to perceiving physically, we persist in the belief that time and space are contiguous and continuous. Also, we believe they are profoundly uniform -- one instant of time is only different by the event in it, but the time itself is just like its predecessor; space is non-discrete and when you get tot the end of some and look out, there's more, alla same except for contents. At Planckian scales, these certainties, too, slip away. This article on the subject raises more questions than it answers, though. Like the true nature of in-between, for example. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: The Pooka Date: 09 Mar 02 - 04:19 PM Amos - (see, I teleported over from the Universal Beige Panthers thread, to confuse you) - Yknow I went out & got some Planckian scales at CVS but my wife still insists they must be wrong. Singular. But serially folkies, fuggetabout "contiguous and continuous", do we not also persist in our stubborn belief that time and space are *separate and distinct*? I know *I* do. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Mar 02 - 04:28 PM I persist chaotically though so it barely passes for continuous. Contiguously Yours, ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: The Pooka Date: 09 Mar 02 - 04:46 PM Susan - *LOL*! Well we continuously thank Almighty God & the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for your chaotic persistence. / O, so it's poochin' on the punnin' izzit? That's sweet. Disconjunctivitisly thine own, - Pooker |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Mar 02 - 04:57 PM Pooker, see PM! Dang ole pooker... ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 02 - 05:09 PM Oh, boy, Ol' Wizzy's cooking again!! Rum, beans and groupers galore!! LOL. Pooker, the notion they are distinct might be truer than not, even though we always tie them together. I believe one of them comes from having any viewpoint at all, while the other comes from believing that persistance is natural to particles. Meaning the chair of today is the same as the chair of yesterday. This is one of those self-proving loops. Dunno how valid it is, it just works in a mass belief systen like ours. I dunno for sure though. If all past is simply delusory, how about all space not immeediately perceived? In other weords, the difference seems to be tied to the proposition that while it may be the case there really IS no time but the present instant, it is apparently not the case that there is no location but the local one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Lonesome EJ Date: 09 Mar 02 - 05:46 PM This kind of stuff really messes with my rational mind, Amos, which is probably good. The study seems to imply that there are people gifted with the ability to deduce from a pattern-less group of numbers, what numbers would likely continue the pattern (or lack of it). Now I realize that life doesn't necessarily obey logical law, but I had supposed that mathematics did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 02 - 05:55 PM LEJ: The notion of chaos is that it is not, actually, patternless, but is in actuality a complex pattern with a high order function behind it of what is called a non-linear sort. Non-linear but not without pattern. A good basic read on the subject is "Chaosd", by (I think) James Gleick -- it seems I lent my copy out or I'd give you the details or even lend it yto you, but your library might have it -- circa 1994 I believe... Rationality also requires a leap from one order of pattern to another on occasion. Nothing more irrational than a fixid idea, right??? LOL!! Love ya man, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 02 - 05:57 PM I had the date about ten years off, but here's some dope on thebook and the subject. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: The Pooka Date: 10 Mar 02 - 12:18 AM "...Pooker, the notion [that time & space] are distinct might be truer than not, even though we always tie them together. I believe one of them comes from having any viewpoint at all..." Well, Amor, that one lets ME out, I guess.... "..., while the other comes from believing that persistance is natural to particles..." Well, Emir, since I read somewheres, The NY Daily News I think it was, that virtual particles & antiparticles spontaneously pop in & out of existence from the Vacuum (postulated to be an Electrolux), I dunno if their Persistance is so Natural after all. But that's just Nothing. I was referring to the Einsteinian spacetime continuum. Uncle Albert said they were One & the Same. Supposedly Proved it, too. Couldn't Prove it by me; but hey, I'm usually Late and Lost. / Take Now, fer instance. / And *Here*, too -- *Now* that I mention it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 10 Mar 02 - 01:24 AM Gee, Pukka, all this popping in and out has caused a swervious case of Lost Vowels. Better take it easy for a while and count your alphabet beforte take off. It's clear that you do have a viewpoint, since you see space. The thing with time is, you gotta assume persistance of objects to measure time. Otherwise it is all brandnew now and now. Which is proabbly closer tot he truth, were we but able to shed our saggy-ass blinders, huh? You can have space without time, I think. Don't know how one would do the opposite. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: The Pooka Date: 10 Mar 02 - 02:00 PM Mon Ami Amo Amas Amat - *L*L* / Woops, lost anudder Vowel there / "Saggy-ass blinders" to be SURE! heeheehee /OKOK: as the Rev. Paisley does not say, "I Surrender." Ye got me, by Outing me: I know the Fizzycists claim Space & Time are just different manifestations of the Same Thing; but I canna *begin* to explain How & Why, nor to refute your points. (For one thing I don't speak the language---pure mathematics---and the science-for-idiots tomes that I like use words & pictures which I usually don't get either, come to think of it.) Ironically---or maybe not so---it becomes a matter of Faith, for a simple Flatlander like me. (I gather that both space & time cease at the Naked Singularity; but this is a family forum so enough of that.)Thanks for the enlightenment, seriously. --Pookerface |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: JulieF Date: 11 Mar 02 - 05:13 AM I have always disliked the term intution. I know that many people disagree but to me intutition is just the ability to short circuit your thinking process without realising that you do it. When I was younger I had an intutive grasp of maths, which a) made it dificult when it became harder and I had to conciously think about it. and b) made me a rather bad at teaching it to anyone. If the research discussed holds and can be reproduced, I am prepared to accept that some people have either a genetic or learned abilty to "intutitively" (as defined above)recognise complex patterns, after all the mind still has may mysteries to reveal to us. All the best Julie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Mr Red Date: 11 Mar 02 - 05:56 AM How does a thread on chaos stay on topic? My feeling is we all think laterally and can make those leaps of connection, we do it with humour, we do it when we are stranded and desperate, and we do it in dreams! However I find there are people who are far more comfortable with rules and guidelines and not with "disorder". eg Appearances cf Frivolity. you see it quite markedly with folk dancing, there are the squares and contra, the Playford, (& yes Morris) who need pattern and are drawn to the genre that provides it and then the ceilidh nuts who improvise deliberately in bizarre variations around the "instructions". Which one is better? The one I like of course. What do you like? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 02 - 09:40 AM Mister Red opens the discourse to the notion that individual states of affinity might be a key variable in human cognitive ability, and by extension, ability in general. Wodda concept!! Loud applause for this subtle implication. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Mar 02 - 05:05 AM the least understood phenomenon in all science, IMHO -- the ability to know, which is sometimes a variable that seems to operate independent of data. Amos, your phantasy has carried away your language. No experimenter has ever made the nonsense claim that their subjects' ability to know was 'independent of data'. If a 'sender' in China looks at cards and a 'receiver' in the USA guesses what the sender sees the experimenter uses the objective data (in China) to evaluate how good the guessing (in USA) was. And only if the guessing was dependent of data then the experimenter claims to have found paranormal access to knowledge. In my eyes, the really interesting phenomenon is that many humans often have the feeling to know, and now I mean it, completely independent of data. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Mar 02 - 04:03 PM The mineral can't comprehend the plant, but the plant comprehends the mineral (and knows how to make good use of it). The plant can't comprehend the animal, but the animal comprehends the plant (and knows how to make good use of it). The animal can't comprehend the human being, but the human being can comprehend the animal (and is capable...given maturity...of making good use of it). The human mind can't comprehend the spirit, but the spirit can comprehend the mind (and knows very well how to make good use of it). The human mind, in its usual state of development, mistakenly imagines itself to the highest achievable level of consciousness, and its proudest forms of expression are: SCIENCE...and...RELIGION...the two great, foolish, self-important historical antagonists who might better have been friends, had they had the wisdom to embrace all of Reality instead of just a part of it. One is founded on what is material, the other on what is not. Both are mired in arrogance and prejudice. Religions are founded by people in touch with the spirit, but maintained (for the most part) by people not in touch with the spirit in the least...they attach themselves to outer forms, rigid beliefs, and worldly gains of the usual sorts sought by selfish people. The conventional scientific community, being on the somewhat higher levels of the mind, is neither equipped nor inclined toward an understanding of the spirit, in no way comprehends the spirit, denies its existence, and will loftily dismiss these statements of mine as meaningless. Fine with me. It actually doesn't matter. Evolution takes care of all these things in the long run, in a very intelligent and invevitable fashion. The human mind is NOT the final stage in evolution! It's a junior high school student who thinks he knows everything. Ever met one of those? Ever left a house in his care for very long? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Dave T Date: 13 Mar 02 - 12:16 AM Well this thread continues to offer surprises if nothing else. There's clearly a lot here relating to things other than Chaos, Intuition and Nonlinear Dynamcis. With respect to some the discussion on space-time, I just don't see how it applies to Chaos, Intuition and Nonlinear Dynamics. Besides, space without time (as suggested by Amos) would require different physical laws for the universe and its behaviour. Since the existing laws are valid as far as we can verify, we can only conclude that for space to exist as we perceive it, space must include time. As far as LH's comments including: The conventional scientific community, being on the somewhat higher levels of the mind, is neither equipped nor inclined toward an understanding of the spirit, in no way comprehends the spirit, denies its existence, and will loftily dismiss these statements of mine as meaningless. I agree, the conventional scientific community does not comprehend spirit; that admission is the first step toward understanding. That they are not equipped to comprehend the spirit is probably true (and evident by their failure to do so). That they they are not inclined implies an understanding of their motives (somewhat presumptuous). That they "will loftily dismiss these statements of mine as meaningless" is in itself a "lofty dismissal" of the scientific community. They may dismiss the statements if those statements have no foundation in theory supported by objective and reproducible experimental evidence but I hardly think that could be called "lofty". Science is concerned with describing the universe as it is, not as how we wish it to be. There have been many "scientific" attempts to describe the human spirit but none, to my knowledge, have proven to yield reliable predictions as of yet. We can therefore conclude that none are entirely correct (nor can we conclude that they are entirely incorrect). Perhaps these other topics could be discussed in a separate thread??? Just a thought - Dave T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: wysiwyg Date: 13 Mar 02 - 02:20 AM LH, that made SENSE! Thank you! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Mar 02 - 03:09 AM Well, fortunately there are always a few scientists (a tiny minority amongst their peers) who are well aware of spirit, and give it proper credence. Most of the greatest names in science in the past few hundred years have been among those few. Science is wonderful within its own boundaries of accomplishment and understanding, it just irritates me because the scientific mind so often seems to think there is nothing worth talking about beyond those boundaries, so that's why I get a little sarcastic now and then. As for religions, if they are incapable of integrating science and spiritual philosophy, then I can't be bothered much with them either. Something is either true or it's not, and if it is it must be acceptable to both science and spiritual philosophy. The one should aid and abet the other in full measure. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Steve Parkes Date: 13 Mar 02 - 03:30 AM LH, I think what you call mind and spirit are what I call brain and mind; sorry if this cause confusion ... I don't believe that the mind is separate from and independent of the brain; "mind" arises from the nature of the very complex system that is the brain; something that affects the brain affects the mind. Can souls really be tormented in Hell without bodies to generate and register and react to the stimuli that cause pain? On the other hand, my mind enjoys a lot of things like good company, good music, good beer, and good discourse--all of which it can find here (except the beer). I don't understand how it works, and it doesn't matter if I continue to make the most of it. Although it would be really interesting to know how it works...! Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 02 - 03:36 AM Wolfgang: I don't think I made myself clear (yet again!). The ability may be verified by using data in the normal forms; but if Ingo Swann, for example, correctly describes a location he has never been to based only on map coordinates (as he is reported to have done in Puthoff's Stanford experiments) then he was knowing without any data about the location aside from the coordinates. Yet he correctly knew what was there. I meant that the knowing seemed to go way beyond the data set available tothe knower, beyond extrapolative or deductive devices. The ability to know is something cognitive science (as much as I have seen of it, not a definitive lot) has only skirted around. IMHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Trevor Date: 13 Mar 02 - 04:10 AM LH - I can really rap with what you're saying, although I agree with Dave about the 'lofty dismissal' bit. Just a question - and it's genuine, not a challenge - how does a scientist express an awareness of spirit in a way that gives it proper credence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: JulieF Date: 13 Mar 02 - 05:01 AM Science by its definition is done by developing hypohthesis, testing and being able to show that the results are constant under constant conditions. There will always be disputes over interpretation and more importantly why scientists are looking at particular hypothesis. A good example was Newton who made his discoveries while trying to show that God made a world that functioned to a constant set of rules and hence knock back the then growing Philosophy that God was present in everything. Currently, the funding of science is tied to corporate finance and interest groups. The pressures to produce results are emmence, as demonstrated by what happened with the cold fusion experiments a few years ago. It is probably fairly obvious from my previous postings that I am both a sceptic in relation to paranormal activities and an atheist. However, I am certain that there is much more to be discovered about the functioning of both brain and mind ( in which I agree with Steve Parkes definition). Susan Blackmore has done some realy interesting work on both near death experiences and visitaion experiences ( Virgins or aliens). What I believe we need is more Blue Sky research in this area without the constraints of industry or interest groups. All the best Julie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Dave T Date: 13 Mar 02 - 07:08 AM Some Blue Sky (actually this is a bit further out and so might qualify as Black Sky) research would help. However, unless there is a working theory and hypothesis there is nothing to test; thus the work would be little more than data gathering at this point. That in itself would be valuable and is usually (always??) a necessary first step in formulating a theory in the first place. To me, it seems this "field" suffers from a large credibility gap due to sloppy experimental controls and erroneous conclusions based on the suspect data and wishful thinking. Some good, objective, well controlled experimental research would definitely help in that area. I also think research into the whole area of cognition, awareness and how the brain works will continue to produce results. I agree with Steve Parkes that you likely can't separate the mind and brain. Since we don't have any solid indication that the mind can exist outside the brain, it seems the mind works within the framework provided by the physical brain. So the more we understand the brain, the closer we can come to being able to study and understand the "mind". Finally in all the research we should keep the principle of "Occam's Razor" in mind: click here for brief description. - Dave T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Mar 02 - 08:38 AM Two things get mixed up in some of the posts here that better should be kept apart:
(1) Experiments on extrasensory perception In (1), the state of knowledge of a subject (Swann is an (in)famous example) depends upon data to which the subject has no access by normal senses (if one can trust the experimenters' description). This line of research has not brought replicable results or convincing theories. It has never found mainstream acceptance after altogether 120 years of empirical research. In (2), the state of knowledge of a subject depends upon data to which the subject has full access by normal means. One interesting question is under which circumstances subjects can see a pattern that is actually there. Depending upon conditions, you easily find all cases, observers see a pattern that is there, don't see a pattern that is there, see a pattern that isn't there and don't see a pattern that isn't there. A particular line of this research that is extremely interesting (I fully agree here with Amos, maybe for very different reasons) is research on 'perception without awareness' or 'intuitive pattern recocnition' or 'perception without declarative knowledge'. In a subgroup of cases, observers 'see' a pattern that is there but can't talk about what makes them see it. They can't explain the rule but they have a certain grasp what it might be as shown by a better than chance performance. Perhaps an easier example to make it clear than the above 'how does this string of symbols/letters/numbers continue?' is this line of research: You look at four squares filled with at the first glance random dots (or other symbols). You have to say which of the four squares is different from the other three. The experimenter varies the rules according to which the squares are filled and sees whether observers are able to detect the rules or are able to tell a differences without detecting a rule or are unable to tell the squares apart.
(a) If, for instances you fill one square with on the averages larger dots, the observer will tell you which square is different and will be able to tell you why she thinks so ("the upper right square looks like having more of the large dots"). These experiments and similar are interesting for many reasons: Under which condition do we come into a state of knowledge in which we are sure that we see something but cannot (yet?) formulate what makes us sure? Are there individual differences between observers that allow us to predict who will detect tiny differences earlier? How do humans detect patterns and rules when they are not explicitely told? Is this related to creative thinking or to scientific discoveries? In this line of research there are, as in all others, bad articles, unreplicated results and all that but all in all it is mainstream science, with a high reputation, a substantial body of replicable results and some promising theories. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 02 - 09:33 PM Well turned, Wolfgang. I am generally in agreement with your well thought out statements. However I do not believe the whole story on the nature, distribution, and generation of cognition is known yet, by as long measure. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Mar 02 - 04:22 AM I fully agree with your last sentence, Amos. It will still be true in 100 years or so. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Grab Date: 14 Mar 02 - 11:36 AM LH, that's very nice poetry, but would you care to give any solid examples? I would "loftily" say that those sentences sound beautiful, but don't actually say anything. ;-) AFAIK, medical science is quite happy to accept that a person's "will to live" makes a difference to the outcome. Whether othe ppl can make a difference (eg. Susan's prayer circles) has some anecdotal examples but no real evidence. Is the number of "miracle" cures from prayees greater than the number of "miracle" cures from non-prayees? Do you have more chance of making it if you're not religious but have a supportive group of friends, compared to those who go to church every day but are naturally anti-social? A good example of how things can get screwed up with this kind of thing (I'm afraid this is an anecdote I've been told, but I'm sure Wolfgang will know of this). A psi experiment comes up with a few ppl who score incredibly highly to start with and are asked to come back, but over time their score dropped down, suggesting that they'd "worn out" their "talent". What actually happened was that their score was the average of all results, so that they just got a lucky streak of random correct results and then reverted to the normal level, so the average returned to normal. :-) Had any of the previous rejects been tested over the same number of multiple rounds, they could have equally come up with the same lucky streaks. An example of a different error would be saying that vegetarians are healthier on average than meat-eaters, therefore vegetarianism is automatically healthier. The problem with this is that all vegetarians have made the decision to eat healthily, whereas a fair proportion of meat-eaters have made no such decision and are quite happy to eat megacalories at McDonalds with no vitamins at all! So the only fair comparison in that case is to compare vegetarians against meat-eaters who have a balanced diet. So the issue is that studies are needed to test out hypotheses under conditions which have been correctly set up to avoid bias in either direction. If "spirit" does exist and people can raise their level of consciousness to a greater understanding of the world around them, then finding out how they do this so that they can teach others must surely be the way forward. Certain religious groups do try this, but the claims of each that they are the "one true way" tends to suggest that they aren't... Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Chaos, Intuition, and Nonlinear Dynamics From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Mar 02 - 12:12 PM Yes, Graham, that effect has been found so often it has a name in the parapsychological literature, the 'decline effect', other researchers termed it 'shyness effect'. Some of the once successful subjects even scored below average later, which is called 'psi-missing'. Words, words, signifying nothing. The decline effect has not only been seen within experiments, but also between experiments. A once successful paradigm of research with promising data over two decades usually loses the ability to bring forth significant results, both in new laboratories studying the effect and in the formerly successful laboratories. Critics like to think that this has to do with improved experimental controls. But there is an alternative interpretation (just to show that parapsychologists can also create theories and not only invent words as 'decline effect'): Over the years, when more critics read the experimental reports, they do not want it to be true and use their mental powers to make the experiments come out with a nil result. The more people with a negative mindset read an article the less likely this line of research will be sucessfull. So the very result of a decline is a proof of the power of mind. About once every twenty years parapsychologists turn to a new experimental design and are still wondering why mainstream scientists are skeptical. Critics just don't want there to be proof of what they don't want to be true and don't want to listen to beautiful explanations as e.g. by Walter von Lucadou (1984) who said ....psi correlations are an emergent property of macroscopic self-referential systems which are phenomenologically equivalent to non-local correlations in Quantum Physics...... But all this has nothing to do with the line of research that has started this thread. I didn't like the particular article, but I'm willing to defend this line of experiments. Wolfgang
|