BS: Matter and Spirit

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:36 AM

Also. Carol, how will you statistically analyse the results?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:34 AM

Thanks Bagpuss. Yes, you will indeed do.

Re: your second point. That's why I'm thinking about doing a series of tests instead of just the one.

Re: your first point. I think I can fix that one also. Thanks for the input.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:26 AM

"His problem is that he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge."

Yes, you may be right about that, Wolfgang. Most people tend to overstep the boundaries of their knowledge a bit when having a lively conversation about anything. :-) I'm not sure you do, though, because you are pretty careful when expressing yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:24 AM

CarolC - I'm not Wolfgang, but I have a basic grounding in scientific method - will i do?

Whenever an experiment is carried out which examines what is usually thought of as paranormal (and in many "normal" experiments too), an extra protection against fraud or unconscious bias is usually employed, called blinding. In your case, what this would mean would be that the person doing the weighing of the plants has no knowledge of which condition each of the plants has grown in, until after the results are recorded. Also you would need to make sure that you have sufficient numbers of plants to determine if there is a statistically significant effect (a power calculation would be needed here).

Anyone else got any methodological problems with Carols experiment?

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:06 AM

Wolfgang, do you have any specific problems with my experimental model? I am open to having your input on how it might be improved if you have any. If not, I will certainly be open to your input on the results I get after I get them.

I have based my experiment almost entirely on a model that has been used successfully by someone who has been conducting scientific experiments on plants for years, and has a solid reputation for being a good scientist. Please keep in mind the fact that my experiment is not for the purpose of testing perceptions or how the mind works. It's just solid science that tests and measures the effects of things on matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 10:30 AM

Here you are Amos: free will. Its a fairly clear summary of the experiment, with a bit of discussion below about the limitations in interpretation. It may not be totally conclusive but it certainly makes you think (or it makes some neurons fire anyway... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 10:00 AM

Carol, I have printed 'Dunnete', but for a search it is easier with the correct spelling: Dunnette.

I remember Bagpuss's article too but it isn't convincing (though intriguing!): As so often, it has a very clear unambiguous result (when talking in terms of neural activity) and is open to lots of interpretations when words like 'intention' are pinned to observable results.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 09:07 AM

I care, Bagpuss.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 09:06 AM

I havent read all of this thread, so apologies if someone has already mentioned it, but near the start of the thread Amos said this: "IF you will command your arm to rise up int he air and observe it to do so, you will see the mechanism you are looking for by which SPirit interacts with Matter."

I just wanted to point out the experiments that show that the nerve activity in the motor areas occurs BEFORE one makes the conscious decision to move. I'll see if I can find the reference if anyone cares.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 08:48 AM

WG:

A very nicely expressed post.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 03:57 AM

Everyone's lack of basic knowledge about something can be seen as embarrassing if you want to find it embarrassing (Little Hawk)

No, that's not the problem with Two Bears. His problem is that he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge. Nobody knows everything and not to know something is not embarassing at all, but embarassing is to do as if you would know something on a field on which you don't. Two Bears fights above his weight when he tries talking science.

I don't mind at all him talking about personal experiences, what he does and all that. He is the expert in that field. But when I read him talking for instance that "Kirlian photography has proven" it becomes obvious instanteneously that he just repeats second hand literature and lacks any knowledge about the pitfalls of that research, about the many counterarguments and what would constitute a good controlled experiment on that field.

He may be good on what he does and impressive to some others, but he lacks any appreciation about his own limitations.

Two Bears,

you may not like Randi and I agree that his no nonsense language doesn't appeal to everybody (though I find him personally very charming and patient) but the rules which way he offers his money are very clear cut. If you are as goos as you think you are that should be an easy grab for you. For instance, you just could offer him you perceive the energy field (aura) of a person behind a screen when all (usual) sensory means of perception are excluded. That's an easy experiment, basically, when you know how to explude other cues. But I could understand if you are reluctant because there is something to lose for you: an unrealistic self-evaluation. But one could argue that that can be seen as a gain.

Carol,

I'm here without my books, so I cannot give you the correct/complete reference. In M.D. Dunnete's (editor, probably more editor names) Handbook of industrian and organizational psychology there is a chapter titles something like 'Conduct and design of quasi experiments in field settings' by Cook & Campbell (& one more?). Read the first part about what can go wrong in experiments, in particular what threatens internal validity.

The main problem with y
There is a lot of work to do before such an experiment would start to be convincing. I know that I'm being a wet blanket here but I have seen it too often that believers in something paranormal do their own quickly thought out experiment. They are initially full of enthousiams for they usually get positive results. Then it is pointed out to them that they have overlooked a lot of counter interpretations. They repeat the experiments with more and more controls and the effect eventually goes down to nil. They are disenchanted and stop experimenting for without positive results their initial enthousiams is lost. Then they blame science for not being able to find out what they know is true instead of considering that the null hypothesis may be true after all.

The first badly controlled experiment makes it (without the small print) into the believers' literature as "CC (2005) has proven that energy..." Then unavoidably believers like Two Bears looking for corroboration of what they have no doubt about read it and feed it back into discussions as the one we have here.

Doing research is like playing an instrument. It is easy with most instruments to get a sound at once, but it takes long years of practice before you get really good.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 04 - 04:35 PM

"...and the recepient's basic self (sub conscious mind) is responsible for the healings;..."

this part I certainly accept! I know of bio-feedback and the ability of the mind/brain to affect many processes...I presume that this may be involved in the gradual recovery that Christopher Reeves is making from his spinal injury. The mind IS limited...we don't regrow limbs or (as far as I know) kill the flu virus be merely having a positive attitude...but we may well reduce healing time from certain injuries and diseases by controlling blood-pressure or production of certain enzymes...etc.

but 'higher' powers'?.....that's a horse of a different color.

" I have yet to have a failure in teaching people how to do this spiritual technology"...and could this be because those who tried already accepted that it COULD be done?..As you see, I am a tough case..

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Aug 04 - 04:07 PM

I've never heard of or seen a Ganesha crystal.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Aug 04 - 04:00 PM

No, Pied. Check this link...

Genesa Crystals

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Pied Piper
Date: 19 Aug 04 - 03:50 PM

So am I right a Ganesha crystal is a statue of the Hindu God Ganesh carved out of quarts.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 07:17 PM

I think I've decided on radishes because they're pretty robust, generally, and they are compact and will be easy to measure at the end of the test. I want to grow them in identical circular containers. I haven't decided on what I will be using as containers yet.

Here's a basic outline for the test. I'll add more detail as I get everything figured out.

-Measure equal amounts of identical potting medium (I'll mix it all up in one batch to ensure that it is all the same). Record amount of potting soil by volume or weight.

-Use equal number of seeds from each packet in each container (ie: if I use more than one packet, I'll use, for example, six from one packet in each container, and six from the other packets in each container). Record number of seeds in which container and from which packages.

-Measure all water and plant food. Give equal amounts of water and plant food to each container and keep records of amounts and frequency of application.

I think I might do this in a series of tests instead of just one test.

My control will be placed in the same lighting conditions as the experimental container, but far enough away to not be effected by the energy conductors that I will be using in the experimental container. And it will not have anything near it that I percieve to have properties that will effect the spiritual energy around the control plants. I will be using a small Genesa crystal as the energy conductor. I may use some other things that I percieve to effect energy, but I don't know for sure yet what they will be. I will keep records of everything I use that is for the purpose of effecting spiritual energy.

At the end of each test, I will weigh all of the plants in each container, both the root as well as the foliage (not including the very fine, thread-like roots), and record this information.

I don't think this test can determine causes of anything, but what it can do is determine whether or not it is possible to get different results with plants using these two different techniques. Personally, I see that as a pretty good start if it proves successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 06:51 PM

five minutes? well...I 'may' be in Tennesee next summer. (do you ever HAVE failures in your teaching or healing? And if so, why? And what are the limits?)

(do be warned...I have been given up as lost by many others..I once had a lady read my horoscope...I told her I didn't put much faith in that sort of thing...."Yes", she replied.
that's just what your stars SAYS you'd say!"...You can't win

I have yet to have a failure in teaching people how to do this spiritual technology, or to see auras0 but anything is possible.

I have seen LOTS of failures in healings; but I have stated repeatedly that I am NOT the healer. The higher powers, and the recepient's basic self (sub conscious mind) is responsible for the healings; then I have seen quite a few things that could only be considered miracles (These have happened under my hands, and the hands of a lot of my students.).

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 05:32 PM

Well...it isn't about winning. :-) It's about learning and discovering.

Pied Piper - You are oh, so right about the false gurus. However, there are also genuine gurus and spiritual teachers. It's the false ones we must all watch carefully for along the way. You stay around one for awhile, see what he or she is up to, and you can figure it out if you're not the type who wants to give away your personal power to the first charismatic individual who comes along. It's the same deal with politicians by the way...many of them are also snake oil salesmen. In fact, I might say "most of them". They rob far more people than the gurus do.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 05:19 PM

":... I would bet that I could teach you to see and FEEL auras in 5 minutes or less."

five minutes? well...I 'may' be in Tennesee next summer. (do you ever HAVE failures in your teaching or healing? And if so, why? And what are the limits?)

(do be warned...I have been given up as lost by many others..I once had a lady read my horoscope...I told her I didn't put much faith in that sort of thing...."Yes", she replied.
that's just what your stars SAYS you'd say!"...You can't win...

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 02:23 PM

I am perfectly familiar with the wide range of religious views held by people

Aside from sounding pompous, this statement also rings untrue.

I have not had a deep philosophical discussion with anyone on the mudcat about my views.

I have labeled my beliefs in general; but not disclosed specifics.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: HRH ted of hull
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 11:40 AM

200. i thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 11:39 AM

PP:

How is the relationship between material space-time and individual spirit defined in non-Christian and/or agnostic metaphysics?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: HRH ted of hull
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 11:31 AM

198

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 11:29 AM

Ask me a question then.

--Pied Piper

Here's one- what sort of sensation do I experience when I get too close to an energy vortex?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Pied Piper
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 11:12 AM

Ask me a question then.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 07:13 AM

I am perfectly familiar with the wide range of religious views held by people

Aside from sounding pompous, this statement also rings untrue.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Pied Piper
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 06:27 AM

I am perfectly familiar with the wide range of religious views held by people, these ideas aren't complicated or difficult to understand (unlike some areas Science and Mathematics), and here at mudcat were dealing with a small subset of these beliefs.
The mudcat Mystics are like us all a product of their times; the 60's. The baby boom generation's adoption of heterodox attitudes, imported from various eastern "spiritual paradises" has now become orthodox, and American capitalism has taken it to its sweaty bosom.
Self appointed "Gurus" like Sai baba now hold many Americans in thrall mentally and financially, and use their power to abuse their followers.
Add to this a crop of home grown frauds, coffee-table book writing, charlatans, and the effort involved in understanding Science, it's no wonder these view are popular.
Perhaps PT Barnum was right, but I'm optimistic that the truth will out.
PP

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 05:07 AM

What about your own actions, Wolfgang? Is it your opinion that they are founded upon intentions or do you think that "nothing but a complicated neural circuitry is in action

Clint, I'd talk about them in our everyday language, but I think that a description in terms of neural circuitry is a better approach for doing research.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 01:50 AM

Carole...I, for one, would LOVE to have those things proved true...not just to those who experience them, but to all. I can't read minds, see the future, see auras, influence plants, remember past lives, 'feel' crystals, perform out-of-body visualizations, talk to spirits, heal illness, levitate, bend spoons, read tea leaves, see fairies in my garden...or ANY of the things often discussed here.

Ahem: Bill.

I teach people how to heal almost every day, and I would bet that I could teach you to see and FEEL auras in 5 minutes or less.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 01:42 AM

Sooo... no takers for this ready cash then. If Mr Randi is such an egotistical person, wipe the smile off his face by taking the money off him! His ego is beside the point of course - a classic case of attacking the man not the ball.

Go on the net and read the trvails of Sifu Richard Mooney and the pompous Randi.

Mr. Mooney contributed material to the book "The Ultimate Martial Art" by Paul Dong, and Mr. Mooney was one of the several Qigong masters I interviewed about some people being insensitive to detect this subtle lifeforce energy.

Mr. Randi is simply a fool. He is fond of making statement (there is no energy field around the body) when kirlian photography has proven there IS an energy field around plants and people.

ANL - 2B

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Aug 04 - 12:43 AM

"Complex machine action looks to us like founded upon intentions. That's how we perceive it and how we describe it. I've no problem with that language at all. It is my own language when I speak about these things in daily life. But as a start for a research programm it is worthless..."

What about your own actions, Wolfgang? Is it your opinion that they are founded upon intentions or do you think that "nothing but a complicated neural circuitry is in action," and your consciousness is just along for the ride and only thinks it's (at least sometimes) steering?

I myself feel that I'm on autopilot far too much, but there are times when I get to steer. B F Skinner said it's all cause and effect, but It seems to me he contradicted himself...

To quote Sir j0hn: waht you think?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 11:17 PM

That's good, Bill. I didn't really like my invisibility hypothesis anyway. *g*

Since you have expressed an interest, I'll come up with a workable model that won't require much in the way of statistical analysis, and I'll post it probably tomorrow (possibly the day after tomorrow). I don't think it should require anyone to oversee it if I make it fairly simple and if I use very detailed measurements and record-keeping. That's the normal way that science is done. They don't have people watching over everyone's shoulder all the time to keep them honest. They just require that the experiment be immaculately set up and documented so that anyone else who wants to will be able to repeat it him or herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 11:05 PM

I've just discovered a major paranormal phenomenon! All of my posts that mention the words "scientific model" are completely invisible to Pied Piper, TBPL, Bill D, and various other scientifically minded people in this thread!

*grin*...Carol...what you have 'discovered' is time, energy and focus constraints upon denizens of Online Forums. I saw the original post, and sort of remember thinking..."well, if Carol was still near here, maybe...."...then I got lost in other posts and issues. (I even clicked briefly on the link you posted) It would be fascinating to see a serious study such as you suggest, but I could only be a limited observer, not an administrator, of such a study.

I understand the basic principles of such studies, but *I* am not trained in the details of setting them up, nor in the analysis of statistics. What do you think could be arranged, given the current situation?

Now...you need a new hypothesis about invisibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 10:45 PM

I think I'll test my hypothesis about some of my posts being invisible to some people by describing the process we used in our herbicide experiments at the U of Md. If everyone can see this post, then it will probably be safe to conclude that my invisibility hypothesis was incorrect.

We had experimental plots measured out and planted with whatever crop we were testing the herbicide on. The plot was then staked and made into a grid. This comprised several rows of rectangluar areas with a pathway in between each row of rectangles. Each rectangle recieved a different treatment. Some of them had nothing applied to them. These were the controls. The rest of the rectangles had various herbicides applied to them. Some of them had just one herbicide applied to them. Some of them had a combination of herbicides applied to them. We kept careful records of what was applied to each area (and in what quantities), and which areas were the controls.

We then allowed the crops to grow and we used the standard methods of caring for the crops while they grew, except that we only cultivated the pathways in between the rows (using a garden hoe). We left the weeds that grew within the experimental areas alone.

When the crops were ready to harvest, they were cut and left within their rectangle. We then harvested the contents of each rectangle into big plastic lawn and garbage bags, and labled them according to the rectangle they were harvested from.

The crops were stored in a large walk-in refrigerator until they were ready to be sorted. We sorted them bag by bag. First we sorted out the crop and weighed it. Then we sorted the weeds according to category... broad-leafed weeds (dandilions, plantain, etc.), grasses, etc. We weighed each category of weed. We recorded all of the weights of the crops, and different categories of weed.

I wasn't involved in tabulating the results, but they took the information from the records of what was applied to which rectangle of crop (and the controls), and the information from the records of what we measured of the weeds and the crops, and they did their statistical magic to arrive at the results of the experiment.

We had plots at Poplar Hill and the Wye Plantation on the eastern shore of Maryland (USA), and several plots in various locations around Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Carroll Counties in Maryland (USA).

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 07:02 PM

That may be because those posts do not appear to support their chosen argument very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:53 PM

Woah... LH and Amos!

Check it out. I've just discovered a major paranormal phenomenon! All of my posts that mention the words "scientific model" are completely invisible to Pied Piper, TBPL, Bill D, and various other scientifically minded people in this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:26 PM

Everyone's lack of basic knowledge about something can be seen as embarrassing if you want to find it embarrassing. Just depends on what the subject might be. Most people's lack of knowledge of Bob Dylan's lyrics is really embarrassing, for example. At least, I think so. :-) In your case, Wolfgang, I think you are demonstrating a certain lack of knowledge (or awareness) regarding spiritual matters. In this respect Two Bears and you could both choose to be embarrassed by the other...or not. Depends on the degree of mutual respect, I suppose.

Is Two Bears supposed to know more about practical science than you do about spiritual things...or is there room for comparing notes?

If I want a science question answered, Wolfgang, you are one of the first people I would ask, because you know your science. If it's a question about healing techniques, I'd ask Two Bears.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:19 PM

Perhaps the results of the herbicide testing are available for examination?

This part of my last post should have been in quotes because I was quoting someone else's post.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:17 PM

...and here's the post where I offered to describe the scientific model that I have in mind. Not one person took me up on my offer to even just to describe it to see if it is a legitimate scientific model:

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 07:43 PM

"CarolC ... you would not be the best candidate to set up the test and I'm sure you would not want me to do it! It would have to be done by a third party. Who'd believe either one of us? ;o) Plus we're in two different countries."

Is that you TBPL? I don't see any reason why I couldn't be a good candidate for conducting a test that uses a rigid scientific model with detailed records and exact measurements. I can describe the model for you if you want.

Perhaps the results of the herbicide testing are available for examination?

I have no idea. It was the College Park campus. I worked there during the summer of 1979, I believe. The department head was Dr. Ron Ritter. I believe Roundup was one of the herbicides we were testing, but I'm not sure.

Here's a Google search with "university of maryland" herbicide "dr. ron ritter" as the search parameters.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:11 PM

protron or Neutron orbiting the nucleus (Two Bears)

Please, Two Bears, take your analogies from birds and bees or any other field in which you have some knowledge, but not from physics. Your lack of basic knowledge is embarassing.

As for that one study claiming to have found an effect of prayer upon well being, that's just one among many with negative results, and not a very good one, methodologically speaking. But this one study is cited all over again in the one-sided literature and all critical commentaries are of course omitted. Another study that was not only double-blind but triple-blind has found no effect. So what? If you want to learn a bit more about such studies and the methodological pitfalls this old post from me is a good start and gives some hints where to find the original sources. The small print in the sections about methods is what you have to read when you want to give an informed opinion about these studies. Secondary sources as the ones you recommend are a bad start.



In the old ages, people all over the world have been puzzled by things moving and not moving in their environments. That's how most of them explained it to themselves: The things moving had to have some 'life energy' (psyche, anima, or whatever) in them, to make them different from things not moving by themselves. Therefore the old Greek, for instance had a god moving the sun, a god moving the ocean waters when he was in a bad mood, a god for the winds. The Germans had all kinds of gods for each well, each waterfall. That was one way of coming to grips with the observations that some things move by themselves and others don't.

Nothing of any real value (in the sense of prediction and manipulation) has come out of these assumptions. They appeal to the intuitive mind, but as an explanation with predictive power they fall completely flat. The well stops giving water because a god (spirit) is angry? Cul de sac.

Since long, the postulate of spirits as movers of wells, waterfalls, trees has been given up in science (not in fables, tales, but that is a different story). The increaes in knowledge about what moves the water, what makes the clouds move, what makes the trees grow has been tremendous.

No wonder then that recent attempts to explain what makes the animals move (and later, perhaps, what make man move) look not at a failed program of explanation of which never anything worthwhile has come out, but at a successful set of ideas.

The group who has studied all 1000 neurons of a normal fly has done more to our understanding of autoception of the fly and of how a fly moves (in a way that to an observer may even look full of purpose) has done more than centuries of philosophers.

Humans tend to see intentions where nothing but a complicated neural circuitry is in action. Look for instance at how chess games between a human and a machine are commented. I have yet to see a comment avoiding concepts like 'intention' for moves of the machine. 'Fritz 8 is trying to block the line for the rook and at the same time bring his bishop into the game to put more pressure upon the knight defending the king'.

Complex machine action looks to us like founded upon intentions. That's how we perceive it and how we describe it. I've no problem with that language at all. It is my own language when I speak about these things in daily life. But as a start for a research programm it is worthless. And that is the reason why the people doing actual research do not follow any other programm and not that they only want proof that it isn't true..

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:10 PM

Here's the post again in case anyone missed it. I posted it four days ago:

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 13 Aug 04 - 06:58 PM

TBPL, the energy is what's already there. As I said, they work with the energy that's in the vicinity of the crystal.

I agree that one of the problems with trying to do a test involving my own perceptions of energy would be tricky, although I don't think necessarily impossible. That's why I have proposed an experiment involving plants. There's a woman in Jeffersonton Virginia who does this kind of experimentation. I first discovered the unpleasant reaction I experience around large Genesa crystals while visiting her experimental gardens.

I can set up a test using the scientific model we used at the U of MD for herbicides, to measure the effect of spiritual energy on plants. And by "measure" I mean physically measure. I already have a small Genesa crystal and the materials for two identical container gardens with the only variable being the Genesa crystal, possibly in tandem with some other kinds of spiritual energy conductors. This would not be difficult to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:06 PM

I didn't see you indicate any interest in knowing what I have in mind for a scientific model to test the effect of spiritual energy on plants, Bill. Why is that, if as you say, you are seriously interested in exploring these possibilities with an open mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 05:42 PM

Carole...I, for one, would LOVE to have those things proved true...not just to those who experience them, but to all. I can't read minds, see the future, see auras, influence plants, remember past lives, 'feel' crystals, perform out-of-body visualizations, talk to spirits, heal illness, levitate, bend spoons, read tea leaves, see fairies in my garden...or ANY of the things often discussed here.

If you TRULY can, I am envious, and would love to either learn how, or find out before I die why not....if you can't, and it is all only subjective, wishful thinking...I'd like to know that too....Simply telling me "Oh, **I** know it's real, but it is by definition untestable!" won't do for someone like me who like answers, not claims.
   I try to always have an open mind and not state categorically that ALL that is totally impossible, but the ONLY alternative for someone who studied 'thinking' seriously is to be a careful skeptic and distrust answers that seem too pat, vague and 'fuzzy'.
What else can I do, poor thing who had his receptors damaged due to too much Country Music in Kansas? *grin*

There are several issues...who is 'right'? How can we KNOW? and Does it make any practical difference? At different times, one of these issues is more relevant than the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 12:21 PM

...however, I don't think any of the posters on this thread who have said they want scientific proof really want proof that what people like LH, Amos, and I are saying is true. I think that they only want proof that it isn't true. I notice that when I offered to do a test using plants, not one of the people who has said they would like proof took me up on my offer. Not even my offer to describe the scientific model I would be using. The silence in response to my offers was deafening (figuratively speaking).

Of cause this brings us to the subject of consciousness, but I think that should have it's own thread.

For some of us, "consciousness" is not a separate subject, but, as with matter and spirit, it is all a part of the same thing.

de gustibus non disputandem est

Precisely, Bill. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 12:16 PM

well, Pied Piper...whether it is that, or something slightly different...or even something completely different--I am glad to see research and ideas going into some positive STUDY of the possibilities, rather than vague attribution to some "higher power", just because it's easier to toss out abstract opinions instead of doing hard work. (I don't BEGIN to comprehend the details of those links, but I see the principle being explored)

Sadly, if the ultimate mechanism were discovered and demonstrated tomorrow, with detailed maps of brain circuits, most of the 'spiritual' crowd would either flatly deny it, or assert that THEIR model was what drove and and 'enervated' the process, simply, I suspect, because some people's ego/personality/emotions/background require the poetic and mysterious component.
(I don't consider that to be an insult to them, and really, not even much of a criticism, since, if I AM right, they can't help feeling what they feel. I do happen to think there's enough poetry and awe and mystery in the physical reality of it all to satisfy anyone, if they'd could just see it.)

   Obviously, I would like to see a bit more rigor in the language involved in the debates..*grin*...so that we are not all tossing out words & phrases which mean very different things to different people.
Just look at the various uses of God, Mind, Spirit, Belief, Truth, Proof, etc...that we find just here at Mudcat!

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 12:13 PM

Precisely. Like I said, he reminds me of J.Jonah Jamieson. He is either obsessed, or he's a scoundrel, or both of those at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 12:11 PM

I looked into the conditions Mr. Randi places on anyone who wants to try to claim the money he is offering. This is the one that stops me from ever wanting to get myself involved with his little scam:

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.

He's nothing more than a rip-off artist, and anyone with any sense of self-preservation will go running in the opposite direction from him and his little enterprise... and fast.

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 11:59 AM

What specific test(s) are you suggesting, Ooh-Ahh? Can you describe it? And have you considered a lucrative career doing the narration for porno movies?

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Pied Piper
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 11:28 AM

I'm not asserting that consciousness is an emergent property of large arrays relaxation oscillators, just that this is the way the brain does a lot of it's stuff.
I think consciousness arises through some quantum mechanical process, possibly sequential Bose-Einstein condensates, produced in the microtubules of the Brains cells.
PP

Subject: RE: BS: Matter and Spirit
From: Pied Piper
Date: 17 Aug 04 - 06:08 AM

The Unijunction transister circuit is a good example.
Here are some more electronic versions.
There are chemical, mechanical, and even genetic relaxation oscillators as well.
I'm playing around with RO circuits made with DIAC as there cheap and require less components.
PP