Hello from a non-skeptic

Hello all,

I am aware that I will probably be torn to shreds here, but I came upon this forum thanks to a reference made by a member of Dr Carol Bowman's forum in a link I began there about the case of Jacqueline Pool, which has also been debated here on this forum (have tried to add the link to it but as a newcomer here this is still not yet possible).

Firstly, I must say that I too was skeptical of anything paranormal for a number of years until I had my own personal evidences that "there are more mysteries between heaven and earth than supposes our vain philosophy", which I am quite willing to share here just as long as the term "skeptical" might not be used as synonimous of biased, pre-judgemental or pre-conceptual, but as analytical and scientifically based in order to analyse not only a contrary point of view but a rational analysis of phenomenae beyond any current scientific knowledge, which naturally cannot be used as a premise for immediately discarding it. Science, as we know, does not as yet hold all the answers to all the mysteries.

In the case of Jacqueline Pool, a medium claimed to have been contacted by the deceased passing on to her information of her killer which proved to be astoundingly accurate and correct. She informed the police authorities of such an encounter and the information that was passed to her, allegedly by the deceased, including the information of who the assassin was. Such information was eventually proven to be correct thanks to DNA testing, which was not available at the time of the murder (1983).

I personally have also encountered apparently mediumnic occurrences which would go well beyond the possibility of a scam of any kind - to mention just two: my 2nd wife's pregnancy of my daughter when my wife was just two weeks pregnant and neither she nor I even suspected that this could be possible, and the death of Lady Diana just seven days prior to the actual event. Neither of these two incidents could have been a set up or a scam, but of course you may simply claim that I am lying in what I am saying and we can consider this case closed. That's fine... But to me who experienced these occurrences personally, the question as to how this is possible still remains.

My first question is the following: we now know as a fact that the human consciousness, or our intent in observing the reality around us, collapses quantum waves into particles. But if "consciousness" is merely the result of electro-chemical discharges of the human brain, as is understood by modern science, how does this interaction take place? Could "consciousness" not perhaps be that which vibrates the super-strings and causes such a collapse?

Some researchers have been investigating the possible association of the greater or lesser mediumnic capacity of an individual to the pineal gland, a small organ in the brain which could possibly be responsible for converting spiritual messages into stimulus to the brain thanks to a mineral called apatite, which is present in the gland's cells. The greater the number of apatite crystals present in such cells, the greater would be the capacity to maintain contact with the electromagnetic signals from the spiritual entities and realms.

Such intercommunications seem to apparently discard the possibility that such a phenomenon should be "dimensional", for in my limited knowledge I do believe that it is certain that two different dimensions could not possibly interact with each other. So what could we be talking about? Subtle and perhaps yet unknown forms of energy/matter? Indeed, what kind of "energy" is "thought"?

Look forward to reading your views...

Charles

Charles Boden said:

I personally have also encountered apparently mediumnic occurrences which would go well beyond the possibility of a scam of any kind - to mention just two: my 2nd wife's pregnancy of my daughter when my wife was just two weeks pregnant and neither she nor I even suspected that this could be possible, and the death of Lady Diana just seven days prior to the actual event. Neither of these two incidents could have been a set up or a scam, but of course you may simply claim that I am lying in what I am saying and we can consider this case closed. That's fine... But to me who experienced these occurrences personally, the question as to how this is possible still remains

Click to expand...

This is a very common route into belief in the paranormal, the assumption that there are just two possible explanations of unusual experiences: that they are either scams/lies or that they are evidence of the paranormal/supernatural. In most cases they are neither, they are simply the inevitable result of the law of large numbers.

http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html

If enough mediums make enough intelligent guesses they are bound to make some correct ones occasionally. The question is not whether mediums have occasionally proved to be correct, but whethe they are correct more often than would be expected by chance. Unfortunately the way the human brain works means that we all have some built-in cognitive biases that predispose us to notice 'hits' and ignore 'misses' whilst vastly underestimating the probability of those 'hits' being due to chance.

This Jacqueline Pool?

I don't think talking about superstings, collapsing quantum waves and the like helps.

Until the effect can be demonstrated there is little point trying to work out what causes it. No medium has ever been able to pass a proper test.

Link to a previous thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9518

I haven't read it all yet, but I don't think it's as clear as you claim that the psychic helped the police.

No problem discussing the Poole case which was dissected quite thoroughly on this forum some seven years ago, but to do that you will need to be specific about it. Don't say that the descriptions were accurate: post the descriptions and the sources. Don't say the DNA proved something: post specifically what it proved against what was known and what your sources are.

Prior to that, you may wish to consider what you wrote here:

Charles Bodenwhich said:

I am quite willing to share here just as long as the term "skeptical" might not be used as synonimous of biased, pre-judgemental or pre-conceptual, but as analytical and scientifically based in order to analyse not only a contrary point of view but a rational analysis of phenomenae beyond any current scientific knowledge, which naturally cannot be used as a premise for immediately discarding it. Science, as we know, does not as yet hold all the answers to all the mysteries.

Click to expand...

Would it be fair for me to insist that the term non-skeptic not be used as synonymous with biased, prejudgmental or preconceptual bus as analytical and scientifically based in order to analyse not only a contrary point of view but a rational analysis of phenomena?

What you are demanding of skeptics is what skeptics demand of themselves; experience shows that when it is demanded of those espousing a particular belief, the claims of bias, etc., come in, not because they are accurate, but because they are not.

Further, your statement: "...a rational analysis of phenomenae beyond any current scientific knowledge..." begs the question. The point of the analysis is to determine if it is beyond current knowledge; what you have done is assume it.

Finally, it is scientists and skeptics who admit a lack of knowledge while -- frequently -- it is the believers who cry "GHOST!" who assume completeness of knowledge when in fact there is none.

Welcome to JREF. You can post links if you just remove http:// and someone will be happy to convert them for you.
Also, you are welcome to post proof of your claims of predictions. The only "former skeptics" that have trouble on JREF are those who come here with an agenda for convincing the uninformed of their particular paranormal fetish.

Charles Boden said:

Firstly, I must say that I too was skeptical of anything paranormal for a number of years until I had my own personal evidences that "there are more mysteries between heaven and earth than supposes our vain philosophy", which I am quite willing to share here...<snip>

Click to expand...

Hello and welcome!

It sounds to me like you have personal experiences not personal evidence. I must warn you that personal experiences will not fly very far here. Evidence isn't personal. It's something which can be tested by anyone.

It's tricky stuff to get hold of but if you do have evidence of psychic activity then I'd be fascinated to see it.

Charles Boden said:

My first question is the following: we now know as a fact that the human consciousness, or our intent in observing the reality around us, collapses quantum waves into particles.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. That is not what we know for a fact.

1) duality wave / particle describe that the same particle can be depending on the observation described as particle or as wave. You can interpret it as a limitation of the observation, or as an underlying physical attribute. But both are present in every particle.
2) Observation is not something which involve a human. That is a physical interaction. Can be a simple photon.
3) corollary : collapse occurs when an interaction happens, human do not need to be involved.
4) human consciousness has never been demonstrated to have any influence at distance whatsoever on the physical world. And trust me, however I wished it, when my experiment failed, I could not accuse my brain of having a part in it, except by having made the wrong setup.

Hi all, and thanks for your promt replies...

Yes, I agree that certain terminology should be used more accurately here, but in the case of what was said concerning my wife's pregnancy I could not refer to the "personal experience" as anything else but "personal evidence", for when she got pregnant of my daughter my youngest son (I am the father of four) was just three months old, and I even asked if there was not a confusion being made betwen the two. There wasn't, as we later found out...

A lucky guess? Maybe. Maybe not.

I didn't go into any further details concerning the case of Jacqueline Pool because I saw that the topic was amply debated previously in the thread that has been shared above.

But still my questions remains: there is still an obvious interconnection between the act of observation influencing the result, so how could this interconnection occur?

Charles Boden said:

My first question is the following: we now know as a fact that the human consciousness, or our intent in observing the reality around us, collapses quantum waves into particles. But if "consciousness" is merely the result of electro-chemical discharges of the human brain, as is understood by modern science, how does this interaction take place? Could "consciousness" not perhaps be that which vibrates the super-strings and causes such a collapse?

Some researchers have been investigating the possible association of the greater or lesser mediumnic capacity of an individual to the pineal gland, a small organ in the brain which could possibly be responsible for converting spiritual messages into stimulus to the brain thanks to a mineral called apatite, which is present in the gland's cells. The greater the number of apatite crystals present in such cells, the greater would be the capacity to maintain contact with the electromagnetic signals from the spiritual entities and realms.

Click to expand...

Hi welcome to the forum. You're going to need to do a lot better than this if you're going to say "we now know as fact". We know no such thing. I'd like to see a repeatable experiment of this.

"Some researchers"??? Who are they? Where are they published? In which discipline do they work? "Spiritual messages to the brain"???? Provide some evidence that there is such a thing as a spiritual message to begin with and then show me how it can interact with the brain.

You need a primer on String Theory and quantum physics. Pick up a copy of "Elegant Universe", that's a good starting point.

Welcome again.

Hello and welcome.

Its not a question of "tearing you to shreds", at least for me.

It is a possiblity for us to question you and to learn and for you to question us and to learn.

Some researchers have been investigating the possible association of the greater or lesser mediumnic capacity of an individual to the pineal gland, a small organ in the brain which could possibly be responsible for converting spiritual messages into stimulus to the brain thanks to a mineral called apatite, which is present in the gland's cells. The greater the number of apatite crystals present in such cells, the greater would be the capacity to maintain contact with the electromagnetic signals from the spiritual entities and realms.

Click to expand...

Hhmm... Is there a way to measure the amount of apatite in different people? Perhaps Penn Jillette and my Aunt Carol (who is the opposite of PJ and once claimed that it was the love of Jesus that made me discover that my car battery was dead before I left Baltimore to head back home to Raleigh*)?

4) human consciousness has never been demonstrated to have any influence at distance whatsoever on the physical world. And trust me, however I wished it, when my experiment failed, I could not accuse my brain of having a part in it, except by having made the wrong setup.

Click to expand...

Did you try the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy thing and try to make a woman's shirt move 6 feet to the left?


*Yes, I know I wouldn't have gone anywhere with a dead battery, since the car wouldn't start. But, my Aunt Carol didn't know that.

Charles Boden said:

I personally have also encountered apparently mediumnic occurrences which would go well beyond the possibility of a scam of any kind - to mention just two: my 2nd wife's pregnancy of my daughter when my wife was just two weeks pregnant and neither she nor I even suspected that this could be possible, and the death of Lady Diana just seven days prior to the actual event.

Click to expand...

Can you provide more details?

You may get flak for mediumnic, but I personally like neologisms.

Charles Boden said:

But still my questions remains: there is still an obvious interconnection between the act of observation influencing the result, so how could this interconnection occur?

Click to expand...

If you're speaking of anything beyond the quantum level then you need to be more specific in the question and describe the interconnection you are talking about.

If you are referring to the quantum level then you are voicing a question that physicists are looking at but which does not serve as an explanation for phenomena on the macro level, particularly not for phenomena which have not even been demonstrated to actually exist. Of course, actual physicists on this forum will chime in with the equations if you like.

What you have done is take a characteristic of quantum physics and--without understanding what it says--posit that it explains what has not been shown to exist. This is what I referred to in my earlier post: you accuse skeptics and science of assuming they have the answers when in fact it is the promoters of woo who take a little mistaken knowledge and turn it into a claim of knowledge.

Charles Boden said:

But still my questions remains: there is still an obvious interconnection between the act of observation influencing the result, so how could this interconnection occur?

Click to expand...

Observation involves probing something and sending back information to an observer. A tree may exist, but it cannot be observed until it is hit with photons from the sun, and those photons bounce back to an observing instrument.

You must be careful here because there are two separate phenomena: 1) being probed and 2) observing the results. It is important to note that the observer need not be a person. It can be a dog, or a chicken, or a camera, or a particularly reflective lake. The observer is irrelevant.

The only relevant thing is the probe - usually a photon. That hits the object and bounces away. It is this act that collapses the waveform - not the actual observation of it by any person, animal or machine.

So, your concept that consciousness somehow radiates some sort of energy that collapses waveforms is misguided. The waveform has been collapsed and the decision has been made before the observer even gets the information.

This is not a possible method by which clairvoyance or fortune telling could be accomplished.

Charles Boden said:

Yes, I agree that certain terminology should be used more accurately here, but in the case of what was said concerning my wife's pregnancy I could not refer to the "personal experience" as anything else but "personal evidence", for when she got pregnant of my daughter my youngest son (I am the father of four) was just three months old, and I even asked if there was not a confusion being made betwen the two. There wasn't, as we later found out...

Click to expand...

I hope you understand that this is an example of anecdotal evidence, and that anecdotal evidence, on its own, is not sufficient to reach any firm conclusions about anything (read up on confirmation bias if you doubt this). That doesn't mean anecdotal evidence is worthless, it's usually the first indication that there is something going on that may be worthy of further study, but we have learned the hard way that that further study needs to be done carefully and methodically if we are not to risk convincing ourselves of something that later turns out not to be true. It's why the scientific method was invented.

A lucky guess? Maybe. Maybe not.

Click to expand...

Do you know how to find out which? It can be done, and every time it has been done the results have been clear: no medium or psychic has ever done significantly better than chance. So there is no reason to speculate about possible mechanisms to explain a phenomenon which has not been demonstrated to exist.

Apologies for abrubtness, but I believe what our friend is saying so far is "Here's some stuff that's never been shown to exist. Does quantum mechanics explain how it works?" Does this seem accurate?

The experiment has been conducted in various laboratories with the same result (please correct me if I am mistaken): electrons bombarded one at a time upon a plate with two openings and a sensor placed behind it. Initially the indications on the sensor gave the results expected for a "wave", but when another sensor was placed to observe what might be happening the sensor began to give the results expected for a particle.

Does the explanation of fotons truly account for this?

I hope you understand that this is an example of anecdotal evidence, and that anecdotal evidence, on its own, is not sufficient to reach any firm conclusions about anything (read up on confirmation bias if you doubt this).

Click to expand...

I am not questioning this. Contrarily to what has been said here, I believe we are more prone to disbelieving than believing. It took a heck of a lot before I came to believe in the possibility that there might be more than just what meets the eye...

Charles Boden said:

...

I personally have also encountered apparently mediumnic occurrences which would go well beyond the possibility of a scam of any kind - to mention just two: my 2nd wife's pregnancy of my daughter when my wife was just two weeks pregnant and neither she nor I even suspected that this could be possible, and the death of Lady Diana just seven days prior to the actual event. Neither of these two incidents could have been a set up or a scam, but of course you may simply claim that I am lying in what I am saying and we can consider this case closed. That's fine... But to me who experienced these occurrences personally, the question as to how this is possible still remains.

...

Charles

Click to expand...

I'm not quite following this anecdote: You're saying that you knew your wife was pregnant when she was 2 weeks along? I knew I was pregnant both times i conceived, because we were actively trying for a baby. And I might also mention that I "knew" I was pregnant every month leading up to my actual pregnancies, because I was in such a hopeful state of expectation.

Also, is the second part of your anecdote that you "knew" Princess Diana would get killed in a car crash 1 week before she actually died? Your wording is difficult to follow.

Unless "foton" is something so new I can't find anything relevant with a quick Google, you've just misspelled "photon." I suspect you may not have a sufficient background in science to understand the answers to your questions, or even the questions themselves.