The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

a reply to: artistpoet

Nice ad hominens, but don't get butthurt when subjective, wishy washy 'intuition' defences of junk science ideas don't go down very well. Ironic, as expecting people to swallow such cobblers on a science forum is in fact expecting us close our minds to logic, reason and empirical evidence.

a reply to: GetHyped

Not butt hurt by any means and I do not defend junk science
So without any evidence being presented you deem Intuition as "wishy washy" ...
guess you have not experienced such a thing

Intuition is based on reason ... tell me your reasons for thinking Intuition is a wishy washy thing
Or alternatively you can continue your unsubstantiated insults

a reply to: artistpoet

Intuition is not based on reason. It is:

the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

...which is of no scientific value whatsoever as it's utterly subjective and arbitrary.

a reply to: GetHyped

Using reasoning we can see that Intuition is a real thing by our own or being witness to others experience of it

Of itself Intuition requires no reasoning it just occurs
Yet ... reason shows us by example of it actually occuring

Can you see the difference?

But to be sure this is a side issue regarding the existence of the Soul

a reply to: GetHyped

It has no scientific value because it is has not been investigated by science

a reply to: artistpoet

You want to do science? The you use use instruments to objectively observe natural phenomena.

You don't like that? Then don't do science.

a reply to: artistpoet

All your doing is showing how painfully ignorant you are of the scientific method.

"This feels right to me therefore it's true" will NEVER be a legitimate answer in science.

Seeing as you seem to be so against science (possibly because it contradicts things you "feel"/want to be true?), let me leave you with this:

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”


― Steven Novella

a reply to: GetHyped

Is the brain regarded as an instrument ... do telescopes and microscopes and mathmatics do their own thinking

Is putting an idea to the test not science ... we all have a little bit of scientist in us in that respect

Now answer me why you think Intuition is not a valid subject for scientific investigation
Or does science walk a narrow line and accept only what it's limited tools inform it of

You know one thing you need to realise that not all people lie
But all are regarded as liars until science proves otherwise

Science is a fickle god

a reply to: artistpoet

It's really not a difficult topic to grasp: "This feels right to me therefore it's true" is not science. End of story. Don't like it? Fine, just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're reaching such conclusions in a scientific manner.

a reply to: Phantom423

The instruments of radionics.

Although I guess "quantify" is not what the instruments do. Rather, I guess "detect" or aid detection is more accurate.

I think Thomas Joseph Brown, who was Director of Borderland Sciences Research Foundation from 1985 to 1995, is a credible source; he certainly is aware of lost science from the past.

This article is by him: "Radionics – At the Crossroads of Science & Magic."

a reply to: intrptr

by using the words "Bound by the same laws of physics" it may give you a feeling of security or finiteness. Remember maths/physics are only an abstract man made phenomena. Where it gets interesting is when one plays with the forces and energies that surround us. The choice is ours.

"This feels right to me therefore it's true"

a reply to: GetHyped

Just to pick up you up on this point you made

My experience of Intuition is not based on what you say ""This feels right to me therefore it's true"
Just shows me how quickly you assume something of a person you do not know
Perhaps because of your own pre concieved bias

You condemn without any research ... tut tut bad science my friend

Intuition is recognised by most reasonable people ... as such it is represented in the dictionary
It is not under the entry imagination, imagination is of iteself and not Intuition
Intuition has nothing to do with something feeling right
It is a knowing ...

I may not be scientist but from what you posted you know nothing of intuition
You live in a small world confined by your faith in science and nothing else exists for you but what your god science says is so ...

Should all the world be scientists ... by your logic yes

Intuition is a real thing.

originally posted by: Phantom423
That's a layman's interpretation.

I know.

I'm a layman and I said it.

But the layman has a lot at stake in what mainstream science does or does not accept and follow up on for the common good.

Regular people have a lot of common sense.

Scientists (who are limited in what they can get away with in speaking their true minds) should pay attention to them.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Science is all about measurement - whether you're measuring a unique phenomenon or comparing against another measurement. That's why mathematics is at the core of scientific investigation.

If a phenomenon can be observed, but no trusted instrument has been invented yet to measure it, it does not mean that the phenomenon is not real.

originally posted by: artistpoet
I may not be scientist

No! Surely not!!

You're entitled to your wishy washy "feels before reals" but you're not entitled to pass it off as anything but, especially in a science forum.

a reply to: GetHyped

No! Surely not!!

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

You're entitled to your wishy washy "feels before reals" but you're not entitled to pass it off as anything but, especially in a science forum

Again insults ... You never even asked for my examples of how I understand Intuition to be a real thing
And now I am not prepared to share such with you

Go back to your safe science room and lock the doors so you do not have to consider others ideas

I can say what I want in a science forum ... try stop me

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phantom423

The instruments of radionics.

Although I guess "quantify" is not what the instruments do. Rather, I guess "detect" or aid detection is more accurate.

I think Thomas Joseph Brown, who was Director of Borderland Sciences Research Foundation from 1985 to 1995, is a credible source; he certainly is aware of lost science from the past.

This article is by him: "Radionics – At the Crossroads of Science & Magic."

I'm not familiar with radionics but went over some of the references. I wouldn't discount anything without proper experimentation. The method was developed in 1916 and so, I haven't found any further experiments with the original design.

That said, there are technologies that use the same concept:

Method and apparatus for altering neural tissue function
US 5983141 A
ABSTRACT
A method and apparatus for altering a function of neural tissue in a patient. An electromagnetic signal is applied to the neural tissue through an electrode. The electromagnetic signal has a frequency component above the physiological stimulation frequency range and an intensity sufficient to produce an alteration of the neural tissue, the alteration causing the patient to experience a reduction in pain, and a waveform that prevents lethal temperature elevation of the neural tissue during application of the electromagnetic signal to the neural tissue.

www.google.com...



So the idea wasn't totally lost.

a reply to: artistpoet

You can complain that the pool is wet as much as you like, but if you don't like it, then get out of the pool!

So if you don't like the fact that science does not take your wishy washy feels seriously as credible evidence, then it is you who has the problem, not the scientific method.

Meanwhile, all that technology you use (such as how you are communicating now) will still continue to work, whether you like the method or not.

a reply to: ConnectDots

If a phenomenon can be observed, but no trusted instrument has been invented yet to measure it, it does not mean that the phenomenon is not real.

I will agree with you on that. You need only look at cosmology and QM to see that - but the basic premise is still true - a phenomenon must be measurable in order to validate the observation. There are certainly many "observations" made by telescopes and other instruments that do not give complete information about the phenomena being observed.

As an instrument scientist, I've seen remarkable progress made in spectroscopic methods such as NMR, MRI, advanced chromatography. It's just a matter of time and development.

Science has its limitations, but that's the reason we get up in the morning - to go fill in the blanks and find new ones.

a reply to: GetHyped

I am not against the scientific method ...
You really are missing the point
That Intuition is a real thing that science is unable to measure
Yet there are so many examples of it

Just because science or you has not bothered to investigate how it comes about
does not demean it to the derogatory terms you choose to use

I know several scientists personally non are as abusively ignorant as you thank goodness
Your record shows you like to argue and rail against anything that does not fit into your narrow perspective

You are one of those people who cares little but for the smug satisfaction of feeling you have won a percieved arguement
Rather than discuss in a civil manner

originally posted by: ConnectDots

But the layman has a lot at stake in what mainstream science does or does not accept and follow up on for the common good.

Regular people have a lot of common sense.

No they don't. Example: Common sense dictated that Aristotle would be correct and that in regard to 2 balls of equal size weighing different weights, dropped at the dame time from the same height, the heavier object who fall to earth at a greater rate of speed than a lighter object.

That was common sense til Galileo showed otherwise. There is nothing common about common sense. The term is a misnomer and subjective to ones own viewpoint and cultural upbringing.