|
lucid
Jack's AlteredConsciousness
Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 6,319
Loc: up on the bidet
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Calling Swami & all other Sceptics...
#2171263 - 12/11/03 12:38 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What do u think of the PEAR project at princeton ?
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
no fruit-cake jokes please
-------------------- "no-mind un-thinks no-thought..."
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: lucid]
#2171270 - 12/11/03 01:15 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting stuff. It looks like that research may clear up a little of the confusion surrounding human consciousness and its interaction with the physical world.
Perhaps it is just the tip of an iceberg.
|
lucid
Jack's AlteredConsciousness
Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 6,319
Loc: up on the bidet
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: ]
#2171277 - 12/11/03 01:29 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr_Mushrooms said: Interesting stuff. It looks like that research may clear up a little of the confusion surrounding human consciousness and its interaction with the physical world.
Perhaps it is just the tip of an iceberg.
Yup, that's exactly what I thought. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic
-------------------- "no-mind un-thinks no-thought..."
|
muhurgle
Turtles all theway down
Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 299
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: lucid]
#2171286 - 12/11/03 02:11 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It would be kinda cool if there was something to this. But as far as I know, nobody has managed to reproduce their results (the human/machine anomalies).
Also, there are some parts of their works which doesnt sound very convincing. Even though 'consciousness' isn't a well defined or well understood concept, they draw the conclusion that these effects are somehow linked to 'human consciousness'. At the same time they also say that "These random devices also respond to group activities of larger numbers of people, even when they are unaware of the machine's presence.".
Assuming that it is in fact a real measureable effect, it seems to me that if they get a response from people who aren't even aware of the machine, it isn't necessarily linked to 'consciousness'. So that they still use consciousness to explain this sounds a bit dubious.
There's another quote (in http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/correlations.pdf) that is strange:
"Experiments performed by operators far removed from the devices, or exerting their intentions at times other than that of device operation, yield results of comparable scale and character to those of the local, on-time experiments. Such remote, off-time results have been demonstrated on all of the random sources."
Coupled with the first quote (or even by itself), this seems to invalidate the whole experiment. They get the same results at times the operators are NOT exerting their intentions. And they get results when people are unaware of the device. How can they then attribute that the device responds to anything?
-------------------- "To make this mundane world sublime Take half a gram of phanerothyme." Aldous Huxley
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: muhurgle]
#2171311 - 12/11/03 03:25 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
RCA
Lucid: I was dead serious.
|
lucid
Jack's AlteredConsciousness
Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 6,319
Loc: up on the bidet
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: muhurgle]
#2171315 - 12/11/03 03:42 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
muhurgle said: It would be kinda cool if there was something to this. But as far as I know, nobody has managed to reproduce their results (the human/machine anomalies).
Also, there are some parts of their works which doesnt sound very convincing. Even though 'consciousness' isn't a well defined or well understood concept, they draw the conclusion that these effects are somehow linked to 'human consciousness'. At the same time they also say that "These random devices also respond to group activities of larger numbers of people, even when they are unaware of the machine's presence.".
Assuming that it is in fact a real measureable effect, it seems to me that if they get a response from people who aren't even aware of the machine, it isn't necessarily linked to 'consciousness'. So that they still use consciousness to explain this sounds a bit dubious.
There's another quote (in http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/correlations.pdf) that is strange:
"Experiments performed by operators far removed from the devices, or exerting their intentions at times other than that of device operation, yield results of comparable scale and character to those of the local, on-time experiments. Such remote, off-time results have been demonstrated on all of the random sources."
Coupled with the first quote (or even by itself), this seems to invalidate the whole experiment. They get the same results at times the operators are NOT exerting their intentions. And they get results when people are unaware of the device. How can they then attribute that the device responds to anything?
Actually, it's still logically valid. They might be attributing 3 independant qualities to thier findings: 1) Simple Presence of people can affect experiments (sub concious perhaps, but not necessarily). 2) they get results at times when operators are NOT exerting intentions (but note that the operators ARE exerting intentions at a different time) - this would indicate that concious intent affects the experiments 3) remote intention seems to affect results too. so remote concious intent may be a factor. I'm not saying that they're found final proof of anything, but their findings seem to indicate potential and a good case for further studies (altho that makes me wonder if the findings might be fibbed in order to get funding)...
-------------------- "no-mind un-thinks no-thought..."
|
muhurgle
Turtles all theway down
Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 299
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: lucid]
#2171336 - 12/11/03 04:50 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Searched for some more info on PEAR, and found this:
http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_psi_two.htm
which appears to be quite solid critique of the whole experiment and the PEAR lab. This excerpt nicely sums it up:
"Suspicions have hardened as sceptics have looked more closely at the fine detail of Jahn's results. Attention has focused on the fact that one of the experimental subjects - believed actually to be a member of the PEAR lab staff - is almost single-handedly responsible for the significant results of the studies. It was noted as long ago as 1985, in a report to the US Army by a fellow parapsychologist, John Palmer of Durham University, North Carolina, that one subject - known as operator 10 - was by far the best performer. This trend has continued. On the most recently available figures, operator 10 has been involved in 15 percent of the 14 million trials yet contributed a full half of the total excess hits. If this person's figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results."
-------------------- "To make this mundane world sublime Take half a gram of phanerothyme." Aldous Huxley
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: lucid]
#2171343 - 12/11/03 05:07 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
1. Everyone on this board is a skeptic.
2. How many times must I respond to this ancient study?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
lucid
Jack's AlteredConsciousness
Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 6,319
Loc: up on the bidet
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: Swami]
#2171346 - 12/11/03 05:17 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
3. I wasn't aware of 2...
-------------------- "no-mind un-thinks no-thought..."
|
Phoshaman
Litteringannnnddddd?
Registered: 06/01/99
Posts: 1,557
Loc: FLAHHHIDAAA
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: lucid]
#2171495 - 12/11/03 07:11 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Shouldn't the 5th dimensional cyber-uber-beings show the telekinetic information vessels (humans they communicate with) how to be good with their grammar?
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... [Re: Swami]
#2171688 - 12/11/03 09:41 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
1. I am a styptic, not a skeptic.
Whew, that was a close shave.
|
|