IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ghosts

Reply
Old 6th November 2015, 03:29 PM   #521
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed. "Speculation based on science" is a red herring. Faced with the dichotomy between science and speculation, Jodie seems to have invented some new thing that, I infer from context, has all the favorable properties of science (rigor, trustworthiness, etc.) and all the favorable properties of speculation (flexibility, scope, etc.). Simultaneously it requires none of the pesky obligations of science (proper method, evidence, etc.), and avoids all the pesky shortcomings of speculation (predictive and explanatory impotence).
What's wrong with speculation? Why shouldn't we do that?

Quote:
t just doesn't work that way. First and most obvious, all speculation is "based on" something -- a set of facts, an observable outcome, a body of law.
I listed the observations that indicate that we might live in a multidimensional world, and some of the consciousness research that suggests there is more to our "I" than just chemical processes within our brains.


Quote:
It starts from known properties and observables and imagines what else there could be. But that imagination is the point of departure from the original basis. A speculation based on law, for example, might start with an existing corpus of case law and attempt to apply it informally to some hypothetical or as-yet untried set of facts. Or it may imagine how law will evolve in the future, say, to accommodate polygamous marriage, or autonomous drone flying, or seemingly intelligent machines. Similarly scientific speculation starts with known scientific laws and imagines what other natural laws might exist, yet to be discovered. Touting the strength of one's departure point doesn't obviate the fact that one has departed it in order to speculate. You don't get to carry that strength with you everywhere your imagination might thereafter take you.
Feel free to reject my idea simply because it doesn't reflect your world vision. Science hasn't addressed consciousness on a dimensional level. Science would first have to have a clear understanding of what consciousness is and better evidence that other dimensions exist. Even then, it might not be something you could feasibly test. Imagination is the root of all science, one has to first think about what might be before they can look for evidence of it's existence.

Quote:
Second, the scientific method and speculation are inherently, qualitatively, and fundamentally different things. There is no tenable centrist doctrine. Jodie insinuates she can take a red shade of science and a blue shade of speculation and mix them into a lovely violet shade of acceptable sciency-speculation. It's more accurate to say you can't take the dough of speculation and the trumpet of science and smoosh them together, expecting a cookie that plays mariachi music.
Science starts with a hypothesis. Hypotheses are developed from evidence but that evidence can be from various other branches of science. There is no reason you can't take new research regarding consciousness and how it might operate on a quantum level and consider what the implications of that might mean if a multidimensional universe exists. That makes your analogy ridiculous because it indicates that you've either deliberately misunderstood or you want to discredit the science behind the hypothesis for your own emotional/personal reasons.

Quote:
Speculation does not and cannot have any sort of explanatory or predictive value. Those goals require the rigor that science provides, not the infinitely mutable nebula that defines speculation. And it can provide it only by trying specific, applicable evidence. Starting with a predetermined quod erat demonstrandum and drawing speculative lines between known science and what would need to hold in order to exclaim that QED is a quintessential loading of the dice. It's made only worse by imperfect knowledge of the departure point. None of that is in any way science, or even responsible speculation.
I understand my departure points clearly enough but I believe many of you would prefer that I didn't based on your own personal belief systems. Speculation would have to have some direction in order for hypotheses to be built upon them. They might be incorrect, but it doesn't make postulating something irresponsible. Not considering various different ideas/speculation would be the irresponsible approach IMO.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 6th November 2015 at 03:30 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 03:31 PM   #522
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you don't understand the science behind the statement then it wouldn't make sense to you. Go back and read what Tegmark and Song had to say about consciousness...
As I and others have pointed out, Tegmark rather strongly contradicts your claims. I have read and understood Tegmark's paper. Not articles written about the paper, but the paper itself. His findings directly contradict your insinuation that something "else" must be eventually understood by science in order to reason about the nature of consciousness as he defines it.

Quote:
After that, I think you'll understand where my speculation starts.
Your speculation starts entirely with your desire to prove that your dream actually happened, or could have happened. You have pretty much said this yourself. The materials you cite as the "scientific" basis of your speculation are, as has been explained, either not science or not compatible with your speculation.

Quote:
You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about my dream but it did happen.
Apparently we're not welcome to believe as we wish, because you seem to have issues with people who are giving you very good reasons to believe differently than you do about it. You're welcome at any time to supply proof that it did happen the way you say. Until then you have to make good on your invitation for others to draw their own, different conclusions.

Quote:
I have no reason to make up anything.
Moot. The question is whether you did or not, not whether we can guess your reasons. Since you pose a farfetched claim and supply no proof, the most parsimonious conclusion is that you have invented or embellished it.

Quote:
I like my idea but whether or not I have it right remains to be seen.
Certain aspects of your claim, vis-a-vis the sources you cite allegedly in support of it, can be immediately dismissed as in conflict with them.

Last edited by JayUtah; 6th November 2015 at 04:09 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 03:42 PM   #523
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
What's wrong with speculation? Why shouldn't we do that?
Asked and answered. When challenged, you claim it's only speculation. At other times you claim it's "speculation based on science," as if that were somehow a stronger thing. Speculation per se is not objectionable. Speculation intended to prove a farfetched claim is simply specious. Since the motivation for your speculation was to attempt to prove your interpretation of your dream is true, it is not the good kind of speculation.

Quote:
Feel free to reject my idea simply because it doesn't reflect your world vision.
I reject your idea because you've attempted and failed to prove it. Kindly do not assume that rejection of such a claim constitutes closed-mindedness.

Quote:
Imagination is the root of all science, one has to first think about what might be before they can look for evidence of it's existence.
Asked and answered. Science starts with imaginative hypotheses, but ends with proof. Only then does it actually become science. You do only the former and excuse yourself from the latter under the presumption that science isn't ready for you. Not all that can be imagined proves to be true.

Quote:
There is no reason you can't take new research regarding consciousness and how it might operate on a quantum level and consider what the implications of that might mean if a multidimensional universe exists.
Your physics authors do not discuss the multiverse. They do, however, discuss consciousness at the quantum mechanics level and conclude that no more is necessary to explain consciousness than what we can already deduce from the quantum nature of matter. There being nothing necessary to explain by the appeal to multiple dimensions, your claim is superfluous.

Quote:
That makes your analogy ridiculous because it indicates that you've either deliberately misunderstood or you want to discredit the science behind the hypothesis for your own emotional/personal reasons.
No, your critics are not wallowing in emotion. I am not discrediting the science. I am disputing your interpretation of it, which is clearly in error for the reasons stated repeatedly at length. The science you cite is not behind your hypothesis. The purpose of this forum is, among other things, to test claims of a putatively scientific nature. You have explicitly said you posted your ideas here with the expectation that they would be addressed skeptically, not as in more sympathetic forums that you were afraid might just be echo chambers. It is now time for you to come to terms with the nature of that skeptical response and quit trying to blame your critics for a plethora of imagined sins.

Last edited by JayUtah; 6th November 2015 at 03:53 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 04:07 PM   #524
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
As Garrette noted, you have characterised my response as 'knee-jerk', whilst excusing yourself from the same designation by saying you give your responses a lot of thought and pick your words carefully to best express what you want to say.
Are you suggesting that I do not? You acknowledge that I have never insulted you, so why respond with what looks like an insult aimed at me? Moreover, being "snide" could also be construed as an insult. I cannot see that asking you to show what you consider to be knee-jerk responses is snide, so, again, why the insults?
I don't recall any specific insult from you but "knee jerk" doesn't necessarily refer to insulting responses. As far as this topic is concerned, I haven't seen any indication that you have a reason to reject what I'm saying.

Quote:
No, but it's possible for mathematicians to be mistaken. Especially if they are agenda-driven, evolution-denying Christian fundamentalist ones. Some discussion here of his claims.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...ver-will.2218/

Did you watch the video I linked to? It answers all of that.
I haven't seen the video yet, work has been especially busy. I think I should be able to get to it this weekend since no one is due. When it comes to physics, all you can do is rely on the math to give you an indication of what to look for if it isn't directly observable. I realize this requires adapting the equations to solve for missing data. I'm assuming based on the link I haven't looked at it that Song is a fundamentalist?

Quote:
Was the Dark Ages a golden age of the scientific method? If not, why do you think this is in any way an apt comparison?
No, the Dark Ages were definitely not a golden age but it allowed old systems and infrastructure to be cleared away so that new ideas could arise such as the scientific method. This method is great for testing the observable, but not so much when testing for the presence of hypothetical dark matter that would explain the missing mass of the universe, for example. In the Dark Ages we didn't have the ability to look for things, like germs for instance, much less even dream that they might exist. I'm not sure what kind of leap in scientific discovery would have to take place that would allow you to perceive dimensions outside of this one that we are living in at the moment. I think we will get there one day if we don't kill ourselves in the process.



Quote:
The germ theory supplanted the miasma theory. This latter theory was supported by speculation. The germ theory, to quote Wikipedia, " gained widespread credence when substantiated by scientific discoveries of the 17th through the late 19th. century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
So not only does germ theory not provide an example of the destruction of "decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results", as I asked you for, but it in fact provides a great example of why it is unwise to rely on speculation as a reliable guide to, or predictor or, reality.
The hypothesis for the germ theory was there before there was physical evidence to support it and, yes, it did revolutionize medicine.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 04:31 PM   #525
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Asked and answered. When challenged, you claim it's only speculation. At other times you claim it's "speculation based on science," as if that were somehow a stronger thing. Speculation per se is not objectionable. Speculation intended to prove a farfetched claim is simply specious. Since the motivation for your speculation was to attempt to prove your interpretation of your dream is true, it is not the good kind of speculation.
Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?

Quote:
I reject your idea because you've attempted and failed to prove it. Kindly do not assume that rejection of such a claim constitutes closed-mindedness.
You make your own assumptions regarding my motivations therefore I feel free to do the same.

Quote:
Asked and answered. Science starts with imaginative hypotheses, but ends with proof. Only then does it actually become science. You do only the former and excuse yourself from the latter under the presumption that science isn't ready for you. Not all that can be imagined proves to be true.
As so often is found in physics. Science begins with hypotheses that are built upon evidence from previous research. Science is not a nice little finished product that has a start and a finish, it is an ongoing process whereby you move up and down along a continuum as the evaluation of the results will dictate. There is no way to test my idea at this point. I'm sure nothing about my idea is original so it's only a matter of time before more research will evolve, whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen.

Quote:
Your physics authors do not discuss the multiverse. They do, however, discuss consciousness at the quantum mechanics level and conclude that no more is necessary to explain consciousness than what we can already deduce from the quantum nature of matter. There being nothing necessary to explain by the appeal to multiple dimensions, your claim is superfluous.
Not necessarily, why would physicists be consulted on consciousness? They would only address the quantum nature of such a thing if it exists. This is one of those topics that would require a convergence of multiple branches of science before we could ever obtain any evidence, assuming we ever could.

Quote:
No, your critics are not wallowing in emotion. I am not discrediting the science. I am disputing your interpretation of it, which is clearly in error for the reasons stated repeatedly at length. The science you cite is not behind your hypothesis. The purpose of this forum is, among other things, to test claims of a putatively scientific nature. You have explicitly said you posted your ideas here with the expectation that they would be addressed skeptically, not as in more sympathetic forums that you were afraid might just be echo chambers. It is now time for you to come to terms with the nature of that skeptical response and quit trying to blame your critics for a plethora of imagined sins.
I do criticize you, and a few others, because you haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the scientific method, specific topics such as physics, psychology, or any other branch of science that might be related to my idea in order to to be an adequate judge.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 6th November 2015 at 04:33 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 05:08 PM   #526
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
--snip--

I do criticize you, and a few others, because you haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the scientific method, specific topics such as physics, psychology, or any other branch of science that might be related to my idea in order to to be an adequate judge.
And this is more evidence for the gaming hypothesis, but I will follow JayUtah's lead and leave motivation out, at least for the moment.

Of everyone actively involved in this discussion JayUtah (to whom you are responding) is the one who has demonstrated absolutely the best understanding, so either you have not read his posts, have read them and not understood them, or understood them but are pretending.

After JayUtah come a few others, myself included, who have shown a good layman's grasp.

After that group, going strictly by the posts in this thread, is you. Your links contradict each other and your claim. You repeatedly talk about the math and how it supports you and/or you can use it as a launching pad, but everything you say indicates you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

That's where we are. I've read your posts and watched all but one of your videos. You haven't read our posts -- or at least show no indication of understanding them -- and haven't watched the one video Cosmic Yak put out there for you.

You are where you were long ago, i.e., tossing your desired outcome around as if it is supported by something. It's not, even despite your attempts to compare your musings to those of Einstein. It was not his thought experiments that were proven later; it was the math that he had used the thought experiments to illustrate.

Indirect self-comparisons to real geniuses do you no credit.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 05:10 PM   #527
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As I and others have pointed out, Tegmark rather strongly contradicts your claims. I have read and understood Tegmark's paper. Not articles written about the paper, but the paper itself. His findings directly contradict your insinuation that something "else" must be eventually understood by science in order to reason about the nature of consciousness as he defines it.
It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.

Quote:
Your speculation starts entirely with your desire to prove that your dream actually happened, or could have happened. You have pretty much said this yourself. The materials you cite as the "scientific" basis of your speculation are, as has been explained, either not science or not compatible with your speculation.
It depends on how capable you are of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science. You might not be familiar with everything to be able to discount what I'm suggesting. It seems you aren't based on what you've posted so far.

Quote:
Apparently we're not welcome to believe as we wish, because you seem to have issues with people who are giving you very good reasons to believe differently than you do about it. You're welcome at any time to supply proof that it did happen the way you say. Until then you have to make good on your invitation for others to draw their own, different conclusions.
I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority. I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.

Quote:
Moot. The question is whether you did or not, not whether we can guess your reasons. Since you pose a farfetched claim and supply no proof, the most parsimonious conclusion is that you have invented or embellished it.
The question of whether the dream occurred or didn't occur doesn't really have any relevance regarding the idea, if you want to get that picky about it. The only reason you would question it's authenticity would be as a means to question the motive for the discussion. You would do this because it would derail the discussion or confuse the premise for the hypothesis. The debate tactic, in and of itself, demonstrates your motives.

Quote:
Certain aspects of your claim, vis-a-vis the sources you cite allegedly in support of it, can be immediately dismissed as in conflict with them.
I'm sure they would for those that had a superficial understanding of the implications of the research conclusions.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:08 PM   #528
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.
And this clinches it. You toss around words and phrasse that you do not understand and do not support your claim.


Originally Posted by Jodie
It depends on how capable you are of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science. You might not be familiar with everything to be able to discount what I'm suggesting. It seems you aren't based on what you've posted so far.
And you are? The evidence suggests not.


Originally Posted by Jodie
I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority.
Unless it's you doing it? That seems to be the case here.


Originally Posted by Jodie
I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.
You have been asked to demonstrate that what you claim is true. You have failed to do so. In the meantime, others here have demonstrated a grasp of the relevant concepts yet you pretend they have not.



Originally Posted by Jodie
The question of whether the dream occurred or didn't occur doesn't really have any relevance regarding the idea, if you want to get that picky about it.
If you wish to drop your dream claim that's fine, except now you need something else to indicate what the idea is. If it is that the consciousness of a deceased person not only survives but can communicate via dreams events still in the future to a living person, then you still have the same burden of proof. If that is not the idea, then you need to elucidate it.


Originally Posted by Jodie
The only reason you would question it's authenticity would be as a means to question the motive for the discussion.
No. The reason to question its authenticity is that you have not demonstrated that it is, in fact, authentic.


Originally Posted by Jodie
You would do this because it would derail the discussion or confuse the premise for the hypothesis. The debate tactic, in and of itself, demonstrates your motives.
You are actually pretty good at this gaming. The derails are all yours, Jodie.

Let's cut to the chase then and prevent all derails:

1. Regardless if it actually occurred to you or not, your hypothesis is that the consciousness of a deceased person (a) survives the person's death, (b) can invade the dream of a living person, and (c) convey accurate prophetic information via that dream

2. In support of your hypothesis you offer:

a. A general reference to the work of Song, but the general reference does not in fact support the hypothesis

b. A video by Bryanton on the 5th Dimension, but the video -- besides being quite silly -- says nothing that supports any part of your hypothesis

c. A general reference to Christof Koch, but Koch's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis

d. A general reference to Tegmark, but Tegmark's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis

e. A claim that the math supports your hypothesis but a refusal to indicate whose math where

Please let's not derail. We are in the meat of it now so now is your chance.

Where is the math that supports your hypothesis?

What exactly in Tegmark and Koch support your hypothesis and in what fashion?



Originally Posted by Jodie
I'm sure they would for those that had a superficial understanding of the implications of the research conclusions.
That does appear to be the problem. The person with the claim is demonstrating a superficial understanding.

But I could be wrong, seriously. It only needs demonstrating.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 6th November 2015 at 06:10 PM. Reason: Formatting and spelling
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:10 PM   #529
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Do you mind clarifying what areas of psychology, AI research, and physics I've misinterpreted ? You don't have to go into great detail but a few statements with links that I can use to do follow up reading would be appreciated.
Pretty much all of it. You just randomly pick statements and claim they justify your beliefs.
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:13 PM   #530
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?
No, they were well thought out and logically consistent.
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:15 PM   #531
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority. I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.
They have, you just haven't been able to understand the difference.
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:16 PM   #532
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Mashuna
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?
No, they were well thought out and logically consistent.
Yep. This is a variation of the "They laughed at Galileo" gambit and deserves little attention in response, but I'm in an expansive mood tonight.

Einstein did not submit thought experiments to journals and then the thought experiments were experimentally verified years later. He submitted scientific papers complete with math supporting the thought experiments. The math held up, and it was the math that was empirically verified later.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 6th November 2015 at 06:17 PM.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:23 PM   #533
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Einstein's theories also explained previously inexplicable observations - the Michelson Morley results in the case of Special Relativity, Mercury's orbit in the case of General Relativity.

'Superficial' is too kind a word to describe Jodie's understanding of the science she appeals to. 'Non-existent' is more accurate.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 06:28 PM   #534
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you don't understand the science behind the statement then it wouldn't make sense to you.
There is no science behind the statement Jodie. You don't understand science. You treat it like a magic spell to invoke, not the process with meaning and and standards that it is.

Quote:
Go back and read what Tegmark and Song had to say about consciousness and what indications we have here in our 4D world that multiple dimensions exist.
Deepak Chopra would tell you that sentence had too much psuedoscience woo in it.

Quote:
After that, I think you'll understand where my speculation starts.
Oh I understand perfectly well where your speculation starts and ends.

Quote:
You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about my dream
You see here's the thing Jodie that you put such monumental effort into not getting. No we are not all "welcome to believe whatever we want." You are welcome to hold any opinion you want provided that opinion can be supported by evidence, or baring that at least some logic or reason. None of us have the blank card to believe stuff at random.

Quote:
but it did happen.
No it did not. Nothing you are claiming happened happened.

Quote:
I have no reason to make up anything.
Some people don't need a reason. Making stuff up comes naturally to them.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 6th November 2015 at 06:30 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2015, 11:59 PM   #535
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
...
Some people don't need a reason. Making stuff up comes naturally to them.
..... to those with an irrational mindset, it is a requirement.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2015, 02:24 AM   #536
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I don't recall any specific insult from you but "knee jerk" doesn't necessarily refer to insulting responses. As far as this topic is concerned, I haven't seen any indication that you have a reason to reject what I'm saying.
OK, so you grudgingly acknowledge that I haven't insulted you, so would you now like to withdraw the insult you levelled at me?
And for the record, I do reject what you're saying. My understanding of the scientific method is sufficient to reject it based on that alone. JayUtah and others, who are way more knowledgeable about physics that I, have shown in great depth how the sources you quote do not support your claims. Conversely, you have provided nothing but speculation to support what you say. Who wouldn't reject such claims?


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I haven't seen the video yet, work has been especially busy. I think I should be able to get to it this weekend since no one is due. When it comes to physics, all you can do is rely on the math to give you an indication of what to look for if it isn't directly observable. I realize this requires adapting the equations to solve for missing data. I'm assuming based on the link I haven't looked at it that Song is a fundamentalist?
He is most definitely a fundamentalist. I suggest actually looking at the links before you reply, especially in light of what you've been saying about others not doing so.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post

No, the Dark Ages were definitely not a golden age but it allowed old systems and infrastructure to be cleared away so that new ideas could arise such as the scientific method. This method is great for testing the observable, but not so much when testing for the presence of hypothetical dark matter that would explain the missing mass of the universe, for example. In the Dark Ages we didn't have the ability to look for things, like germs for instance, much less even dream that they might exist. I'm not sure what kind of leap in scientific discovery would have to take place that would allow you to perceive dimensions outside of this one that we are living in at the moment. I think we will get there one day if we don't kill ourselves in the process.
Nice try. I asked you this:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but that still doesn't answer my question. If what you claim is true, and scientists one day discover and interact with these dimensions, the qualities you claim for them would overturn everything science has discovered about them so far. How is that possible?
You responded with this:
Quote:
Consider yourself to be a person seeing reality as it was perceived in the Dark Ages with what we know now.......it wouldn't be the first time a paradigm shift in our thinking has occurred.
My response:
Quote:
Was the Dark Ages a golden age of the scientific method? If not, why do you think this is in any way an apt comparison?
Your response was a dodge. You admit that the scientific method did not exist in the Dark Ages, but stop short of admitting it was therefore an irrelevant comparison. Nothing in the Dark Ages was based on science, as science as we know it now did not yet exist- as you admit. To then say that a paradigm shift in scientific thinking such as I outlined has occurred by citing this example is deeply flawed. Your response does not answer my point at all: in fact, you tacitly admit you were in error. Why not just admit it? After all, this is just a discussion- no emotions involved, so nothing to get upset or embarrassed about, right?

And here comes another dodge!
I asked you
Quote:
As you mention these many wrong physicists, perhaps you could provide some (and here I go with that nasty word again) examples of this, and also a discovery that has destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results, in the way you are predicting for this multidimensional consciousness idea of yours?
You responded by citing the germ theory. My response:
Quote:
The germ theory supplanted the miasma theory. This latter theory was supported by speculation. The germ theory, to quote Wikipedia, " gained widespread credence when substantiated by scientific discoveries of the 17th through the late 19th. century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
So not only does germ theory not provide an example of the destruction of "decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results", as I asked you for, but it in fact provides a great example of why it is unwise to rely on speculation as a reliable guide to, or predictor or, reality.
You ignored that entirely:
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The hypothesis for the germ theory was there before there was physical evidence to support it and, yes, it did revolutionize medicine.
I didn't ask you if it revolutionised medicine. I asked you if it had destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results. Your response dodges that entirely. Care to try again?
Then you go on to contradict yourself entirely. Having tried to claim as fact something that would totally overturn decades of scientific research, you then say

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
As so often is found in physics. Science begins with hypotheses that are built upon evidence from previous research. Science is not a nice little finished product that has a start and a finish, it is an ongoing process whereby you move up and down along a continuum as the evaluation of the results will dictate.
So which is it? Is science built on evidence from previous research, or is it a series of unexpected, out-of-the-blue paradigm shifts in our thinking? You can't have it both ways.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2015, 09:12 PM   #537
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
This thread is about a guy's ghost story.

All of the things Jodie has thrown around has nothing to do with the phenomenon in anyway, shape, or form.

The OP was a story about phantom footsteps approaching the poster on the top floor of an old school house. It freaked him out even though he was familiar with old buildings and the endless menagerie of sounds they are known to unleash.

It would have freaked anyone else out too.

But, the explanation is that those old floor boards and the supporting wood structure underneath was the cause of the sounds he heard. The problem is that he'd "heard rumors" about the old building and it got to him.

Again, it happens to honest people all the time.

Whether or not he accepts this or chooses to keep his ghost story a ghost story is up to him. Cool, maybe he gets a free bear out of it from time to time.

If I were still investigating this kind of thing my explanation ends with old floor boards singing out.

Why?

Because that's what it was. More importantly, that's all it was. The OP even admits it's likely the floor boards, but seemed to kinda hope to stump us. That's because people want their ghosts to be real. Hell, I do, but there's just not enough evidence to seriously suggest ghosts are real in the context that most ghost hunters and believers advocate.

The problem as I see it is the claim that ghosts are spirits of the dead, trapped in a specific location. Like I said earlier, the most common ghosts or apparitions are those of living people, so something else is going on. Something that doesn't involve other dimensions, dark matter, or a slew of physics concepts I don't pretend to understand.

I think it has to do with the brain, and our five senses, and exposure to rare natural phenomenon that somehow tells our mind to see specific things, or hear specific things. I don't pretend to understand the brain or neurology either, but that's where I'd put my money. They're very real inside a person's head, and I'm interested in the whys of the phenomenon (Why did they see it?Why did they see it where they saw it? Why did they see it when they saw it? What was going on when they saw it? What was going on in their heads before they saw it, etc). My interested is not metaphysical satisfaction, if people are seeing stuff that isn't there it's no joke. What if the viewer is a big-rig truck driver or school bus driver? That's my concern. How often do people see things that aren't there but don't know it?

That's my interest in ghosts, it's about the living, and I don't think the Woo crowd are helping in any way.

Back to the discussion in progress...
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 02:30 AM   #538
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I think it has to do with the brain, and our five senses, and exposure to rare natural phenomenon that somehow tells our mind to see specific things, or hear specific things. I don't pretend to understand the brain or neurology either, but that's where I'd put my money. They're very real inside a person's head, and I'm interested in the whys of the phenomenon (Why did they see it?Why did they see it where they saw it? Why did they see it when they saw it? What was going on when they saw it? What was going on in their heads before they saw it, etc). My interested is not metaphysical satisfaction, if people are seeing stuff that isn't there it's no joke. What if the viewer is a big-rig truck driver or school bus driver? That's my concern. How often do people see things that aren't there but don't know it?
My understanding is that it's essentially all down to the fact that, whilst false positives and false negatives are both mistakes, false positives are less potentially dangerous mistakes than false negatives. Mistaking a shadow for a bear may cause you to spend the night in the open rather than in a warm dry cave, but mistaking a bear for a shadow gets you eaten. We're all descended from those who survived long enough to produce offspring, ie those whose mistakes were more likely to be false positives than false negatives. So our brains have evolved cognitive biases which make them more likely to see patterns in the noise, even when there is in fact only noise, than miss a real pattern. In order to be sure the pattern we think we see is really there we need to compensate for those biases, which is why we invented the scientific method.

ETA: For example there are noises going on around us all the time, our brains are constantly filtering most of them out as noise and picking out just a few to bring to the attention of our conscious awareness. The OP's brain picked out what sounded like footsteps and alerted his consciousness to them; the question is whether it was correct to do so, ie whether this was a true positive or a false positive.

Likewise we dream all the time, we often dream about people we know/have known, and occasionally something we dream is bound to correspond with something that later happens (especially when our memories are sufficiently malleable to retrospectively alter the dream to match the event). When someone attributes significance to one such correspondence are they doing so correctly, or is it a false positive? The only reliable way to find out whether dreams can genuinely be precognitive is to collect thousands of such dreams, accurately estimate the expected chance hit rate, and measure the actual hit rate for comparison. ie to use the scientific method to compensate for our propensity to see patterns that aren't actually there.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 8th November 2015 at 02:58 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 10:49 AM   #539
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post

Whether or not he accepts this or chooses to keep his ghost story a ghost story is up to him. Cool, maybe he gets a free bear out of it from time to time.
Oh, oh! I have an unevidenced ghost story, Can get a free bear?
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 11:23 AM   #540
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Oh, oh! I have an unevidenced ghost story, Can get a free bear?
If you can catch it
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 05:23 PM   #541
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Oh, oh! I have an unevidenced ghost story, Can get a free bear?
You just have to tell it well. Everybody loves a good ghost story.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 05:29 PM   #542
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
My understanding is that it's essentially all down to the fact that, whilst false positives and false negatives are both mistakes, false positives are less potentially dangerous mistakes than false negatives. Mistaking a shadow for a bear may cause you to spend the night in the open rather than in a warm dry cave, but mistaking a bear for a shadow gets you eaten. We're all descended from those who survived long enough to produce offspring, ie those whose mistakes were more likely to be false positives than false negatives. So our brains have evolved cognitive biases which make them more likely to see patterns in the noise, even when there is in fact only noise, than miss a real pattern. In order to be sure the pattern we think we see is really there we need to compensate for those biases, which is why we invented the scientific method.

ETA: For example there are noises going on around us all the time, our brains are constantly filtering most of them out as noise and picking out just a few to bring to the attention of our conscious awareness. The OP's brain picked out what sounded like footsteps and alerted his consciousness to them; the question is whether it was correct to do so, ie whether this was a true positive or a false positive.

Likewise we dream all the time, we often dream about people we know/have known, and occasionally something we dream is bound to correspond with something that later happens (especially when our memories are sufficiently malleable to retrospectively alter the dream to match the event). When someone attributes significance to one such correspondence are they doing so correctly, or is it a false positive? The only reliable way to find out whether dreams can genuinely be precognitive is to collect thousands of such dreams, accurately estimate the expected chance hit rate, and measure the actual hit rate for comparison. ie to use the scientific method to compensate for our propensity to see patterns that aren't actually there.
Exactly.

My first big evolution in my thinking came one day when I was driving in the rain through the woods. As I came to a stop sign I glanced to my left and at first saw an old man riding a bicycle wearing a yellow rain slick, but when I looked again it turned out to be a mail box.

My brain, already on the lookout for jogger and little kids, took an incomplete image and made a picture.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 11:15 AM   #543
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit.
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The question of whether the dream occurred or didn't occur doesn't really have any relevance regarding the idea...
It has exactly the relevance you gave it. You're telling your own ghost story in a thread clearly marked for ghost stories. You explicitly told us your pseudo-physics speculation was aimed at trying to justify or explain your belief that your mother actually appeared to you, rather than the more prosaic explanation that you merely dreamed about her.

If the alleged apparition was not factual, then there is no need to explore speculative physics to explain it. An embellished dream serves perfectly well as an explanation. And unfortunately for your argument, the scientific method does not simply ignore clearly-stated non-evidentiary motives for favoring one explanation over another. On the contrary it explicitly notes such motives and rejects any subjective portion of the explanation as biased.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established.
Einstein started out with a clearly demonstrated knowledge of the pertinent underlying sciences, something you have not done. For that and reasons expounded by others, you are not in the same class as Einstein. The argument, "Noteworthy Person did _____; I also do _____, therefore I am equivalent to Noteworthy Person" is specious on its face.

Einsten sought to explain emergent discrepancies that were factually uncontested. You haven't yet shown that there is anything factual that requires explanation. Einstein didn't ask people to believe his speculation as an explanation for things only he had claimed to see and hear. So no, his speculation was not specious. Yours, in contrast, is.

Quote:
You make your own assumptions regarding my motivations therefore I feel free to do the same.
No. On more than one occasion you have asked us to grant you credibility for your ghost story because, as you say, why would you make up a story like that? When you clearly invite people to speculate about your motives, don't get upset when they do. Conversely no one has asked you speculate on their motives. So kindly don't.

Quote:
There is no way to test my idea at this point. I'm sure nothing about my idea is original so it's only a matter of time before more research will evolve, whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen.
But you're patently uninterested in science that we have today that illustrate why your claim doesn't hold. That makes it difficult to evaluate your claims in the context of pure scientific curiosity. Holding out hope that someday science will vindicate your beliefs is about as unscientific as one can get.

Quote:
Not necessarily, why would physicists be consulted on consciousness?
You tell me; citing physicists was your idea, as was claiming variously that they support your beliefs or that you base your beliefs upon them.

Quote:
This is one of those topics that would require a convergence of multiple branches of science before we could ever obtain any evidence, assuming we ever could.
Quote:
I do criticize you, and a few others, because you haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the scientific method...
And I'll put your opinion of my competence in the scientific method up there on the shelf next to that of the faculties of three major universities and half a dozen or so employers in the scientific and engineering fields. For the past nearly 30 years I've made my living by employing the scientific method. Guess how much your evaluation matters.

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.
Doubling-down on the babble is probably not a good idea amongst this crowd. Tegmark discussed his exceptions to the limiting properties I mentioned, and I cover them in a previous post.

Quote:
It depends on how capable you are of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science. You might not be familiar with everything to be able to discount what I'm suggesting. It seems you aren't based on what you've posted so far.

[...]

I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority. I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.
It's difficult to have a conversation when one side of it is simply haughty disdain for her critics and exaltation of her own undemonstrated prowess. I don't see how you're the one "capable ... of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science." What I see is someone having thrown an uncoordinated, widely-netted mush of speculation and poorly-understood science on the ground and expected them to form some sort of coherent, convincing proof. You can't even decide whether you beliefs follow from that mush or whether you are freely speculating in contradiction to them.

I wish I could say this is an unfamiliar pattern, but alas it is not. Comparing oneself favorably to eminent practitioners, dancing between speculation and advocacy, accusing one's critics of incompetence or narrow-mindedness when questioned -- yes, that's every amateur pseudo-physicist on the web, ever.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 12:04 AM   #544
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
A recent post from NeuroLogica seems relevant at this point.
The gist is that speculation leads to jumping to the wrong conclusions. whereas skepticism, being a more cautious approach, is generally borne out. The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.
Quote:
But here is where I find there is often a disconnect between scientists and the public, exacerbated by pseudoscientists: when scientists encounter an anomaly, what does that mean and how do they proceed? I often find that pseudoscientists encounter an anomaly and simply declare the anomaly as evidence for (or even proof of) the phenomenon for which they are looking. “You see that electromagnetic field? That’s a ghost.”
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...al-skepticism/
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 10:51 AM   #545
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.
Indeed. Of all the amateur web.physicists who compare themselves to a famous real physicist, most compare themselves to Einstein. I have yet to figure out whether this is because he's the only physicist they can name, or whether because there are so many things said about him that in addition to his body of genuine works there is now a lake of urban legends attributed to him.

The most famous quip relevant to your statement is the famous, "Imagination is more important than knowledge," which everyone rail-splits right there, even the T-shirts they sell at my local planetarium. It is almost universally accepted among web.physicists that this was meant to describe his approach to science. It wasn't. The full quote, which continues, "For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand," talks about the advancement of science.

Similarly, Einstein's "though experiments" were not just rampant speculation. They generally fell into two categories, those meant to structure a non-empirical test of a hypothesis, and those meant to illustrate the problems he was trying to solve. They were not barren what-if scenarios of the kind web.physicists love so well. Einstein knew full well many of his hypotheses dealt with concepts that he could not prove empirically at the time. For example, they treated how things behaved at speeds approaching that of light, clearly not something easily obtained with equipment of his day. But he didn't just throw his hands up and say, "Well, we can't actually test this so I'll just keep proposing it as a fervent hope." Instead his "thought experiments" turned to mathematics for the proofs. There were proofs, just not empirical ones.

Conversely he posed "thought experiments" the same way every teacher of physics does to help illustrate difficult concepts. The classic illustration of relativistic velocities is one of those: you're on a train going .75 c and you throw a baseball forward at .75 c -- what is the space-fixed velocity of the ball? It's not speculation per se, it's simply a way to formulate problems for later reasoning. The reasoning occurred, rest assured.

The notion that scientific hypotheses are the product first of speculation, therefore speculation is appropriate to science, misses the point. That hypothesization is a constituent of the scientific process is not in debate. That speculation forms a substitute for scientific reasoning is not. Oven baking is a constituent step in both pottery and breadmaking. That doesn't make their products equivalent. Science is hypothesization followed by testing. Web.physicists typically excuse themselves from the testing phase by pointing out that it's impossible. Then they invoke Einstein et al. to validate that approach, pointing out that Einstein's theories of relativity weren't proven empirically until much later. They ignore that Einstein's theories were proven by a different means. Einstein didn't tell the world, "Sorry, I can't prove any of this so you'll just have to take my word for it and hope science eventually recognizes my genius."

"Science is incomplete, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. "My critics don't understand my genius, therefore ghosts" is not an argument. "You guys have no imagination, therefore ghosts" is not an argument.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 07:28 PM   #546
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
And this is more evidence for the gaming hypothesis, but I will follow JayUtah's lead and leave motivation out, at least for the moment.

Of everyone actively involved in this discussion JayUtah (to whom you are responding) is the one who has demonstrated absolutely the best understanding, so either you have not read his posts, have read them and not understood them, or understood them but are pretending.

After JayUtah come a few others, myself included, who have shown a good layman's grasp.

After that group, going strictly by the posts in this thread, is you. Your links contradict each other and your claim. You repeatedly talk about the math and how it supports you and/or you can use it as a launching pad, but everything you say indicates you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

That's where we are. I've read your posts and watched all but one of your videos. You haven't read our posts -- or at least show no indication of understanding them -- and haven't watched the one video Cosmic Yak put out there for you.

You are where you were long ago, i.e., tossing your desired outcome around as if it is supported by something. It's not, even despite your attempts to compare your musings to those of Einstein. It was not his thought experiments that were proven later; it was the math that he had used the thought experiments to illustrate.

Indirect self-comparisons to real geniuses do you no credit.
YOU thought his description of the scientific method was accurate? That is just sad.

I don't compare myself to Einstein, I'm comparing the hypotheses that some of these scientists that I've cited to Einstein. The math involved remains to be verified but it starts with a thought experiment.

As for the video, I'm just now getting to the links for Song's paper.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 08:08 PM   #547
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
YOU thought his description of the scientific method was accurate? That is just sad.
Explain in exactly what way it is sad.

Quote:
I don't compare myself to Einstein, I'm comparing the hypotheses that some of these scientists that I've cited to Einstein.
Nonsense. Your claims were rejected as specious. You cited Einstein's thought experiments in direct response to my post about your speculation, and asked if we should also reject Einstein's thought experiments as well. Your argument makes no sense unless you were comparing yourself to Einstein. Comparing those other people to Einstein neither helps nor hinders your argument.

Quote:
The math involved remains to be verified...
The math involves remains to be presented. You suggested that your claim has a mathematical basis, but we have yet to see a single iota of math from you. You suggested further that the mathematics involved were to be found in your various citations, but when pressed you conceded you were departing from (and thus contradicting) those robust presentations.

Your claim is evidently in no way based upon mathematics.

Last edited by JayUtah; 10th November 2015 at 08:15 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 08:44 PM   #548
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post

You have been asked to demonstrate that what you claim is true. You have failed to do so. In the meantime, others here have demonstrated a grasp of the relevant concepts yet you pretend they have not.
I've seen no evidence that any of you understand the concepts. You referred to my synopsis of physics, or the aspects that indicate that we live in a multidimensional universe as "weird stuff".......OK. There isn't anything else I can say to something like that.

Quote:
If you wish to drop your dream claim that's fine, except now you need something else to indicate what the idea is. If it is that the consciousness of a deceased person not only survives but can communicate via dreams events still in the future to a living person, then you still have the same burden of proof. If that is not the idea, then you need to elucidate it.
It has changed as a result of our conversations here, not specifically you, but from everyone as a whole. I think that our consciousness is multidimensional and that our physical brain acts as a type of lens. If that is the case, then there would be no need for my mother to tell me anything, my own higher self would know. Now whether I would be able to communicate with that extension of myself is debatable. How would it occur? Maybe some form of intuition? I don't know. I'm assuming it would have to be via some kind of thought form if the brain acts as a type of lens in this layer of existence.

Quote:
No. The reason to question its authenticity is that you have not demonstrated that it is, in fact, authentic.
How would one demonstrate that a dream was authentic? That's pure nonsense.

Quote:
You are actually pretty good at this gaming. The derails are all yours, Jodie.
I'm not sure how gaming could be applied to this or how stating a simple idea on a forum would be part of that. The only game going on here is when people attribute various motives for starting the discussion because they don't appreciate what's being said.

Quote:
Let's cut to the chase then and prevent all derails:

1. Regardless if it actually occurred to you or not, your hypothesis is that the consciousness of a deceased person (a) survives the person's death, (b) can invade the dream of a living person, and (c) convey accurate prophetic information via that dream
No, see the modified statement above. I would like to add that if consciousness exists on other dimensional levels as extensions of ourselves then it's possible that individual consciousness is just an illusion.

Quote:
2. In support of your hypothesis you offer:

a. A general reference to the work of Song, but the general reference does not in fact support the hypothesis
So someone stated, but you didn't read his paper or the math to come to that conclusion for yourself. I happened to read it from the links that Cosmic Yak included, Song left out time as a factor. My counter argument to that is that time would only be relevant here for the observer, not in other dimensional space since time wouldn't exist. I don't agree with Song's comments on evolution as they apply to our existence, we most definitely did evolve. However, evolution, or anything else related to our "now" is a matter of perspective of the past,present, future so the corrected equations would work in that respect.

Quote:
b. A video by Bryanton on the 5th Dimension, but the video -- besides being quite silly -- says nothing that supports any part of your hypothesis
I'm not certain why you would take issue with him. He simply tried to put the concepts in to a visual format for better understanding.

Quote:
c. A general reference to Christof Koch, but Koch's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis
He's studying the neural correlates for consciousness, how is this opposed to my idea? If consciousness is expressed through the brain one would need to understand the mechanism for how that happens.

Quote:
d. A general reference to Tegmark, but Tegmark's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis
Not really, he didn't find what he was looking for but did find evidence that suggested that quantum processes are involved in energy transference.

Quote:
e. A claim that the math supports your hypothesis but a refusal to indicate whose math where
Any of the physicists I listed have there own equations to support what they are saying. You asked for the equations to be reproduced here, that links weren't good enough. I don't have the keys on my laptop to do that but I explained what cosmological aspects might indicate multidimensionality, the "weird stuff" that you commented on.

Quote:
Please let's not derail. We are in the meat of it now so now is your chance.

Where is the math that supports your hypothesis?
Equations for the Kaluza Hypothesis- expands Einsteins work to include the 5th dimension.
Equations that express Calabi -Yau Manifolds that describe 10 extra dimensions.

These are specific for string theory but the equations build one upon another to describe a whole concept. You can't separate out one sequence and say,
" This is the equation that states other dimensions exist."

Quote:
What exactly in Tegmark and Koch support your hypothesis and in what fashion?
Koch was trying to identify specific neurons of the brain that are responsible for specific processes. He's looking at function, he's not looking at the brain as a receiver. Now take what Song and Tegmark say about quantum processes and apply that to the research Koch has done. If you can't replicate a human neural network to express consciousness, then it isn't strictly a matter of A+B+C do this...

Quote:
That does appear to be the problem. The person with the claim is demonstrating a superficial understanding.

But I could be wrong, seriously. It only needs demonstrating.
Of course there are people that have a better understanding of these concepts than I do. All I'm saying is that the loudest critics here probably aren't those people.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 08:59 PM   #549
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I've seen no evidence that any of you understand the concepts.
Yep, just keep poisoning that well, Jodie.

Quote:
How would one demonstrate that a dream was authentic? That's pure nonsense.
No more nonsensical than your demand that we explain it. The difference is that our demand for you to substantiate the reality of it arises from, and is subservient to, your demand for an explanation. But for your challenge to your critics to explain the dream, such a demand for substantiation would never have arisen.

Quote:
Not really, [Tegmark] didn't find what he was looking for but did find evidence that suggested that quantum processes are involved in energy transference.
"Energy transference" is not consciousness or ghosts. If you believe differently, you prove it. Tegmark doesn't.

Quote:
Any of the physicists I listed have there own equations to support what they are saying.
But it is your contention (sometimes) that the equations support what you're saying. You haven't shown that your suppositions follow necessarily from what they say. In fact you conted (at other times) that you depart from them and therefore necessarily at those times contradict them. You can't therefore rely upon their mathematics if they support a contradictory argument.

From your critics' perspective, you have suggested you have a mathematical basis for your beliefs, but you simply handwave toward someone else's mathematical elaboration. You are being asked to supply your own now.

Quote:
Equations that express Calabi -Yau Manifolds that describe 10 extra dimensions.
Not the same dimensions as in your speculation. I explored the idea of conceptual dimensionality at some length. I find it disappointing that you now write as if that exploration doesn't exist.

Quote:
Of course there are people that have a better understanding of these concepts than I do. All I'm saying is that the loudest critics here probably aren't those people.
But you can't explain how or why. You have simply, from Day One, insisted that your critics are beneath you.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:06 PM   #550
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Explain in exactly what way it is sad.
I commented previously on why you were incorrect. If he doesn't understand the reason then that is sad.



Quote:
Nonsense. Your claims were rejected as specious. You cited Einstein's thought experiments in direct response to my post about your speculation, and asked if we should also reject Einstein's thought experiments as well. Your argument makes no sense unless you were comparing yourself to Einstein. Comparing those other people to Einstein neither helps nor hinders your argument.
It is your opinion that my argument is specious, what evidence do you have for that? Hypotheses in physics that haven't been tested or verified are all thought experiments, so is my idea. My original statement was that it took many decades before Einstein's thought experiment was proven. It might take many more than that to even get to a point where we'ld know what evidence to look for, for the existence of multidimensional consciousness. In that respect, the situation is similar. But this is just another debate tactic toderail the discussion away from a topic that you find hard to consider.

Quote:
The math involves remains to be presented. You suggested that your claim has a mathematical basis, but we have yet to see a single iota of math from you. You suggested further that the mathematics involved were to be found in your various citations, but when pressed you conceded you were departing from (and thus contradicting) those robust presentations.

Your claim is evidently in no way based upon mathematics.
My claim is based on the premise that other dimensions do exist based on the mathematics that indicates their presence. Why would anything that exists here be limited to just 4 dimensions whether it was human consciousness or a rock?
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:08 PM   #551
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Now take what Song and Tegmark say about quantum processes and apply that to the research Koch has done. If you can't replicate a human neural network to express consciousness, then it isn't strictly a matter of A+B+C do this...
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what quantum mechanics is. The inability to produce an automaton consisting of some particular vocabulary, that replicates quantum behavior, is not proof that such behavior must lie outside the ordinary expression of the physical world. The nature of quantum-governed systems is exactly that the progressive outcomes transcend the purview of A+B+C-do-this, yet conforms entirely to statistically knowable states of the system. Replace addition with Hamiltonians in your model and you have Tegmark's principal product, which he argues satisfies his definition of consciousness.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:09 PM   #552
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yep, just keep poisoning that well, Jodie.



No more nonsensical than your demand that we explain it. The difference is that our demand for you to substantiate the reality of it arises from, and is subservient to, your demand for an explanation. But for your challenge to your critics to explain the dream, such a demand for substantiation would never have arisen.



"Energy transference" is not consciousness or ghosts. If you believe differently, you prove it. Tegmark doesn't.



But it is your contention (sometimes) that the equations support what you're saying. You haven't shown that your suppositions follow necessarily from what they say. In fact you conted (at other times) that you depart from them and therefore necessarily at those times contradict them. You can't therefore rely upon their mathematics if they support a contradictory argument.

From your critics' perspective, you have suggested you have a mathematical basis for your beliefs, but you simply handwave toward someone else's mathematical elaboration. You are being asked to supply your own now.



Not the same dimensions as in your speculation. I explored the idea of conceptual dimensionality at some length. I find it disappointing that you now write as if that exploration doesn't exist.



But you can't explain how or why. You have simply, from Day One, insisted that your critics are beneath you.
Because you have done nothing to explain why you think the premise is wrong. What exploration of dimensional reality did you do? I must have missed it.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:11 PM   #553
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
A recent post from NeuroLogica seems relevant at this point.
The gist is that speculation leads to jumping to the wrong conclusions. whereas skepticism, being a more cautious approach, is generally borne out. The idea that speculation ahead of any evidence is the way science, and therefore increasing our knowledge of the world, is and should work is soundly refuted.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...al-skepticism/
I would agree if I had stated my idea was fact but I haven't. There has to be some speculation involved based on what is known. If you can't state what you are looking for in your research you won't get funding.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 10th November 2015 at 09:12 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:13 PM   #554
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I commented previously on why you were incorrect. If he doesn't understand the reason then that is sad.
Not an answer, Please try again.

Quote:
It is your opinion that my argument is specious, what evidence do you have for that?
Asked and answered at length. In any case the point at hand is you comparing yourself to Einstein. Either you did so and must confront the hubris of that argument, or you did not and your argument is moot. Which is it?

Quote:
My claim is based on the premise that other dimensions do exist based on the mathematics that indicates their presence. Why would anything that exists here be limited to just 4 dimensions whether it was human consciousness or a rock?
Your argument is that your vague mashup of physics and speculation constitute a scientific rationale for believing your mother actually appeared to you in the guise of a dream figure and portended the future. This is a thread about ghost stories in which you have proffered a ghost story. Do not suddenly pretend it is now just a coffeehouse physics discussion.

None of what you've presented proves the ghost of your mother predicted the future.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:16 PM   #555
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I would agree if I had stated my idea was fact but I haven't. There has to be some speculation involved based on what is known.
You have at times assured us your idea is speculation. You have at other times identified it as "scientific" speculation, by which we apparently meant to see something more rigorous than mere speculation. You have at times stated that your speculation is based on the findings and conjectures of well-known scientists. You have at other times clarified that you contradict, disagree, or otherwise depart from them as you feel necessary and useful.

In other words, you seem to have deployed a chimeric argument that defies all critical evaluation by changing form as the occasion requires.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:18 PM   #556
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Because you have done nothing to explain why you think the premise is wrong. What exploration of dimensional reality did you do? I must have missed it.
Denial is not an argument. The other contributors managed to notice without difficulty my discussion of the mathematical basis of Tegmark's proofs.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:22 PM   #557
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what quantum mechanics is. The inability to produce an automaton consisting of some particular vocabulary, that replicates quantum behavior, is not proof that such behavior must lie outside the ordinary expression of the physical world. The nature of quantum-governed systems is exactly that the progressive outcomes transcend the purview of A+B+C-do-this, yet conforms entirely to statistically knowable states of the system. Replace addition with Hamiltonians in your model and you have Tegmark's principal product, which he argues satisfies his definition of consciousness.
Then what does it prove? We should be able to replicate it and we can't.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:28 PM   #558
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Then what does it prove?
Get an appropriate degree and find out.

Quote:
We should be able to replicate it and we can't.
No. As I said, the vocabulary of automata and the vocabulary of quantum dynamics have only a slight intersection.

You told me once that you doubted my expertise in artificial intelligence. I listed my qualifications and asked for yours. I never heard back from you. The expectation you express above requires some degree of expertise. Therefore I will repeat my question.

What are your academic and/or professional qualifications in the field of artificial intelligence?

Last edited by JayUtah; 10th November 2015 at 09:30 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:28 PM   #559
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not an answer, Please try again.
You described the scientific method as a closed system with a start and finish when it is a fluid process that doesn't necessarily have a linear flow.



Quote:
Asked and answered at length. In any case the point at hand is you comparing yourself to Einstein.
I compared the two situations as being thought experiments.

Quote:
Either you did so and must confront the hubris of that argument, or you did not and your argument is moot. Which is it?
Neither, you are on a side bar to derail the original discussion.

Quote:
Your argument is that your vague mashup of physics and speculation constitute a scientific rationale for believing your mother actually appeared to you in the guise of a dream figure and portended the future. This is a thread about ghost stories in which you have proffered a ghost story. Do not suddenly pretend it is now just a coffeehouse physics discussion.
The discussion has progressed and I know longer think the dream was literally my mother. In my theory it wouldn't be necessary, I could simply inform myself.

Quote:
None of what you've presented proves the ghost of your mother predicted the future.
And nothing ever will, I only speculate as to how it might have happened.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2015, 09:34 PM   #560
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Get an appropriate degree and find out.
That's hubris on your part. You don't know the answer because you didn't truly understand what you posted in the first place.

Quote:
No. As I said, the vocabulary of automata and the vocabulary of quantum dynamics have only a slight intersection.

You told me once that you doubted my expertise in artificial intelligence. I listed my qualifications and asked for yours. I never heard back from you. The expectation you express above requires some degree of expertise. Therefore I will repeat my question.
Where? I never saw it. I've stated what I do for a living numerous times on here. I make no pretense at being an expert at anything I'm discussing.

Quote:
What are your academic and/or professional qualifications in the field of artificial intelligence?
What are yours sir?
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.