It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The most important interview in Science that you probably haven't seen

page: 1
25
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 03:26 AM
link   
The most important interview in Science that you probably never seen because materialist are zealots. They control the scientific establishment and everything HAS TO fit materialism or it's called pseudoscience. I believe this mindset has held us back and we could be 30-50 years ahead of where we are now if we studied and did research in the areas of psi. Tesla said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla

Here's a video about Psi Phenomena.

Professor of Statistics at UC Irvine, Jessica Utts was commissioned by the Government to do a statistical analysis of psi phenomena. Even the skeptic she worked with said these psi effects are real but they MUST have a natural explanation.



I dare anyone to watch this video and say Psi Effects isn't a real effect.

She said the odds against chance are 1 in 10 Billion!

Here's an educated woman that's highly respected in her field who was there in the middle of it when the Government worked with Psychics and Remote Viewers for like 15 years doing statics. She started as a skeptic and she makes a good point in the video. She says there's a difference between being skeptical and a debunker. A skeptic wants to search for the truth with an open mind to either validate or refute their skepticism. A debunker is just a pseudoskeptic that wants to deny everything for the sake of being a debunker. Like she said, there's too many debunkers that have too much power in the scientific community.

Findings like Utts should have been looked into vigorously and with an open mind.

One of the things she says is that these phenomena could mean that we have limited access to higher dimensions that go outside of the 3 dimensions that we're used to. Imagine if she's correct. That would be HUGE for science and for understanding more about the nature of reality. We've spent billions on a collider and haven't found evidence of higher dimensions but what if we could find evidence without spending billions by doing research on psi phenomena?

The closed minded materialist that are still stuck in Plato's Cave and simply yell "woo" or "pseudoscience" for everything that doesn't fit their belief.

Again, we can find out our minds operate in higher dimensions and interact with our brains in the 3rd dimension. The point is, without the brain power because most students wouldn't touch these areas because of fear they would ruin any chance of a career and research dollars, it's more than an uphill battle.

The way science works is if you find an anomaly in Physics or Cosmology, you try to explain the anomaly. In areas of Psi Research, it doesn't even get out the gate. There's more than enough evidence to show that an anomaly exists in these areas and there should be a statement that research into these areas are welcomed and encouraged.

This will never happened though because everything MUST FIT into a materialist paradigm no matter how convoluted and illogical it is.

There was a study that showed the Wavefunction was real but non physical. This makes sense for some obvious reasons and it also refutes the nonsensical many worlds theory that says the wave function is real and physical. Imagine what that means!

First, it means that when this split occurs that isn't well defined, an actual physical universe occurs. Where does all of these physical universes come from that just poof into existence because their has to be a version of me in one universe that eats Pancakes and a version of me that's in another universe that's not eating pancakes because in MWI, I don't make any choices it's just the deterministic universal wavefunction evolving.

Secondly, since I don't make any choices, how can I have a favorite food or favorite color? Shouldn't my favorite food be spaghetti one week then brocoli the next? If I have no choice and I'm just subject to this random, undefined splitting of the wavefunction, then I shouldn't have a favorite anything.

Third, it's ridiculous how many universes need to poof into existence for every little decision. If I get up in the morning and watch ESPN, then there has to be 2,000 versions of me in 2,000 universes watching all of the channels on my remote because I didn't make a choice to watch ESPN, I just happened to be in the universe where a version of me watched ESPN but again, how could ESPN be one of my favorite channels? Shouldn't I like ESPN one week and the Hallmark channel the next if I'm just subject to the evolution of a universal wave function?

It makes more sense if the wavefuction is non physical and this could tie into psi research.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography


Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

This was eventually confirmed in experiments where information was sent between points A and B without the transmission of a particle.

Abstract

Intuition from our everyday lives gives rise to the belief that information exchanged between remote parties is carried by physical particles. Surprisingly, in a recent theoretical study [Salih H, Li ZH, Al-Amri M, Zubairy MS (2013) Phys Rev Lett 110:170502], quantum mechanics was found to allow for communication, even without the actual transmission of physical particles. From the viewpoint of communication, this mystery stems from a (nonintuitive) fundamental concept in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality. All particles can be described fully by wave functions. To determine whether light appears in a channel, one refers to the amplitude of its wave function. However, in counterfactual communication, information is carried by the phase part of the wave function. Using a single-photon source, we experimentally demonstrate the counterfactual communication and successfully transfer a monochrome bitmap from one location to another by using a nested version of the quantum Zeno effect.


www.pnas.org...


edit on 28-9-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 03:27 AM
link   
So it makes more sense to look at the wavefunction as real but non physical. If the wave function is real and physical then it makes zero sense. Look at a 50 qubit quantum computer. It has 2^50 different positive, negative and imaginary amplitudes needed to describe the state of the 50 "particles" that make up the quantum computer. Do you think these 2^50 possibilities are physically real? How can you have a -30 percent chaince of rain or a 40i percent chance that the Browns win the Super Bowl this year?

Now, I think imaginary numbers are real but represent the non physical or another dimension that's just as real as the 3 we experience.



Materialism is a cave mindstate that blindly denies anything that doesn't fit a materialist paradigm. With vigorous Psi research and looking into the non physical, we could be miles ahead in scientific understanding.
edit on 28-9-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Did you know if you focus into your mind, the mind will allow you to enter the " eyes of the mind ". I've never taken any type of street drugs so I don't have to be delusional about what I said. It takes complete focus of the " eyes of the mind ' to take you onto a voyage of visual and video ( actual moments ) that you can not control. Its like a manga artist drawing all the movements of its pictures into a movie sequence.

It takes practice, much practice to achieve this. But when you let the eyes of the mind see the inner thoughts that lead to an unbelieve experience into the world of the unknown. It is something that some people call " meditation ", but this is letting the mind open up the secrets of the " eyes of the mind " .



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Well, I can't actually listen to your video right now (which is why most actual scientific dissertations are in writing instead of video), but there are a few things in your OP I would like to address.

Firstly, I do happen to believe there is such a thing as psychic phenomena. There's simply too much indication that it exists for there not to be. I cannot, however, prove there is such a thing as psychic phenomena using the scientific method. I simply don't know how to set up that experiment, because I don't understand enough about the phenomena to do so. That's why science tends to shy away from investigation.

It's not that science cannot or will not investigate. One must understand something of the physics behind a phenomenon before one can experiment on it.

I tend to think most scientists would agree with me on that, that the phenomena may be real but that we don't know enough to find out even. But given that scientific dissertations on phenomena are regularly misinterpreted and misrepresented by laymen, it is better to not even talk about the potential than to be misrepresented and made a laughing stock.


One of the things she says is that these phenomena could mean that we have limited access to higher dimensions that go outside of the 3 dimensions that we're used to. Imagine if she's correct.

Don't have to. I'm already working on something very similar, that better explains gravity, dark matter/energy, and some of the "supernatural" phenomena that tends to happen regularly in encounters. I really can't go into the details of that here, simply because it would fill up several threads. Suffice it to say that I am (slowly) putting together a book with my calculations and observations, which will be released when and if I reach concrete conclusions.

I can give you a hint: we live in a universe of wormholes and there are more dimensions that just the four we are familiar with. Thank you, Mr. Einstein.


everything MUST FIT into a materialist paradigm no matter how convoluted and illogical it is.

Of course it does. Not necessary what you are referring to as a "materialist paradigm." but one must be able to explain phenomena before one can speak about it intelligently. So without a good, solid reference to the physical, we are unable to speak intelligently about the ethereal.

One final note: I believe you misunderstand how computers work with numbers, even quantum computers. It is the calculation that determines what range the result will be in, not the capacity of the memory. The computer might be capable of expressing a probability of "40i," but that does not mean the calculations can result in a probability of "40i." If they did, that means the calculations are wrong, not that the computer is incapable of providing a correct answer. We already have computers, not even quantum computers, that can work with imaginary numbers. Yet they still are able to work out correct answers.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

This is highly relevant to my interests and a topic I'm putting more of my energy into recently. I'm bookmarking the article as well. I've had limited success diving in to the academic research on the topic. They're using a lot of jargon. I suppose I need to become familiar with it if I expect much success researching. A thread on remote viewing got me thinking about this just a few days ago. I won't copy and paste, but will paraphrase.

Given our tiny bit of understanding, our accelerating rate of discoveries, and our limited perception of the energy around us, it's not really possible to rule out a vast network of forces we're unaware of. It seems more likely that our understanding is simply insufficient and our tools too primitive.

Humans have a long history of giving things mythical origins when we don't understand them. It's easy to dismiss them when you attribute them to religious kooks or charlatans looking for personal gain. It's comfortable to think that we have a pretty good grasp on science and there isn't much that has escaped our study, but it's a comfortable lie. We know very little.

Is PSI indicative of a broad "quantum" intelligence sharing the world around us unseen? If there's intelligence out there we haven't the slightest idea how we would go about approaching it. If it's not physical, material, how do we even know we're communicating with it? We don't even know how many iterations intelligent life may have, nor do we understand some of the intelligence we share the planet with. Intelligence on this planet is likely the closest to us of any other life we ever will come across in the universe. It crawled out of the same primordial soup as us and we don't fully understand it.

I think there's room for speculative theory on this topic. I've haven't heard much of it. It should perhaps be a bit like physics, an amalgamation of speculative and empirical study pushing the limits of our knowledge. The speculative leads a bit of the study, forming hypotheticals that can be tested. Rather than ridicule these speculative thinkers we should hold them in the same regard as speculative physicists. I'm willing to bet that all the world powers have an active program studying this that's buried deep in black budgets and hidden from all but a few.

Good thread. S&F. I'm going to look into this lady a bit more. I think it's going to be one of the more exciting fields of science in the coming years.

a reply to: TheRedneck
I was already replying so I missed yours. I'm very interested in your research although, from what I recall, you've got me well beat in physics. I'll still be excited to try following along. If you're on to something there's a good chance it will shed some light on my research as well. Is there any data out there, or complete studies, where you took some direction? Any particular people you suggest reading that are somewhat related?
edit on 9/28/21 by Ksihkehe because: Added response to another post



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe




Is PSI indicative of a broad "quantum" intelligence sharing the world around us unseen?


No.



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Actually, no, this research is based on previous experiments I have conducted in the past, but also builds on Einstein's work. It is really an extension of Special Relativity. So there aren't any similar theories out there.

The mathematics is literally horrendous. That's the biggest slow-down for now. I have one equation that has already surpassed 20 pages trying to solve it, and it looks like it could take 20 more before all is said and done. The result, if it will verify my general theory, will pretty much clinch it for theoretical proof, subject of course to real-world experiments. Since winter is approaching (and I am retired, meaning I don't have to suffer the pains of cold weather), I will probably be doing a lot more work on it. How far I get remains to be seen.

However, I will say this: if and when I complete it, I will publish it and will make it known on ATS where it can be purchased, site restrictions permitting of course. The price will reflect the cost of publishing; this is not something I plan on making any real money from.

Thank you for the vote of confidence; that really means a lot to me and tends to inspire me to go dig through the numbers some more.


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



There was a study that showed the Wavefunction was real but non physical.


I thought that was the accepted theory.

Back when they started playing around with radio waves they thought that, like sound waves that compress and rarefy air in our atmosphere, that radio waves did the same in a vacuum to a substance they called the "aether".

Now they just use the term empty space like space was real but non-physical, that unseen forces like gravity and EMF emissions have an effect on space. Using radio waves to transmit information through an unseen medium seems mysterious enough to me, but I'm just someone who has used wave forms in music theory and had an interest in radio.

ETA: After some thought, perhaps you are talking about a hyper space beyond the speed of light? Just some sci-fi stuff from my other interests. Old science fiction stories talked about hyper space when traveling faster than light speeds, now it's all about warping space. Sounds like a wave form acting on a medium IMO.
edit on 28-9-2021 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I've explored this phenomenon myself. I shared some of the results of my experimentation but then the rabbit hole went so deep that i no longer feel comfortable publicly sharing what i learned.

You can PM if interested.



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 09:43 AM
link   
i've been astral projecting for years. I also a took a class to learn how to see blindfolded. i've practiced and succeeded at telekinesis.
the problem with the current scientific method is they are unable to quantize the data in this type of experiment and discard it every time.
They definitely don't want people to know that consciousness is the fabric which makes up our physical reality.

They want people to be materialists so they can continue to keep power over a subservient culture.



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's a video about Psi Phenomena.

Professor of Statistics at UC Irvine, Jessica Utts was commissioned by the Government to do a statistical analysis of psi phenomena. Even the skeptic she worked with said these psi effects are real but they MUST have a natural explanation.
The skeptic who was also commissioned along with Utts was Ray Hyman, and I don't think your characterization of his findings is accurate. Let's see what Hyman actually said:

Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena

Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote viewing and related phenomena which was carried out at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) during the years from 1973 through 1994. We focussed on the ten most recent experiments which were conducted at SAIC from 1992 through 1994. These were not only the most recent but also the most methodologically sound. We evaluated these experiments in the context of contemporary parapsychological research. Professor Utts concluded that the SAIC results, taken in conjunction with other parapsychological research, proved the existence of ESP, especially precognition. My report argues that Professor Utts' conclusion is premature, to say the least. The reports of the SAIC experiments have become accessible for public scrutiny too recently for adequate evaluation. Moreover, their findings have yet to be independently replicated. My report also argues that the apparent consistencies between the SAIC results and those of other parapsychological experiments may be illusory. Many important inconsistencies are emphasized. Even if the observed effects can be independently replicated, much more theoretical and empirical investigation would be needed before one could legitimately claim the existence of paranormal functioning.


Hyman and another person named George Lawrence visited SRI and found that Targ and Puthoff were not operating in a scientific manner:

The Bunny, the Witch, and the War Room

“Targ and Puthoff, from the way I have encountered them by day in their laboratory, seem to emerge as bumbling idiots rather than as respected, accomplished physicists,” Hyman wrote.

While the statistics Utts mentions sound impressive without any other context, they are not impressive to me at all, because if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. If Targ and Puthoff are behaving as bumbling idiots instead of scientists establishing strict scientific controls, the outputs of their experiment are garbage, so when Jessica Utts does her calculations using garbage inputs, her results will also be garbage. Utts seems to me to be completely delusional if she is not aware of or fails to recognize these types of bias issues in the experiments, so no her numbers are not impressive or convincing at all. Let's look at her claim, from time 8:54 in the video:
"The bad news is it's not a large effect...the experiments were set up so you'd get things right by chance about one in four times, and instead consistently across laboratories people got it right about one in three times."

So they are wrong 2 out of 3 times instead of the expected 3 out of 4 times. Statistically it may sound impressive but actually being wrong 2/3 of the time is still not very impressive, and a small effect like that can result from a large number of well known experimental issues which have plagued the history of psi research.

On the other hand, if Targ and Puthoff had been behaving like respected scientists and put the proper controls in place, then her results might be impressive, but that's not what happened. And I think Utts also underestimated the tendency of other researchers besides Targ and Puthoff to have similar biases.

edit on 2021928 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Though Mss. Utts got it clearly wrong, one thing in her favor is the fact she kindly published in her web page Hyman's report and criticism. Or at least she did last time I checked.

I liked the main criticism about the inability of psi researchers in giving the student an exemplar of what to expect in conducting their experiments, something clearly unscientific. As for Jessica Utts, I always wondered how she, being a master in statistics, ignores the fact that for her results to be credible she at least has to run them in bins of hundred thousands trials, and even then only a weak statistical pattern could emerge.

(Not to mention the fact that she should also replace some students by other mammals in the experiments if she really wants the effect to be universal).



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This sounds like a pseudoskeptic.

“Targ and Puthoff, from the way I have encountered them by day in their laboratory, seem to emerge as bumbling idiots rather than as respected, accomplished physicists,” Hyman wrote.

Yeah, bumbling idiots that the Government kept working with and going to. Anybody can just watch the documentary on Amazon Third Eye Spies. Here's the trailer:



You said:

Utts seems to me to be completely delusional

This is a typical, pseudoskeptic asinine comment. You can't refute what she's saying so you attack her. Nobody can listen to her interview and say she's completely delusional. Only a blind, irrational pseudoskeptic can make such a claim. Here's Jessica Utts page from UC Irvine where she's a Professor of statistics.

www.ics.uci.edu...

Again, it just proves Professor Utts point. There's being skeptical and searching for the truth then there's blind debunkers who just attack people when they can't refute what she said. Your post is exhibit A of a blind, irrational pseudoskeptic.

"The bad news is it's not a large effect...the experiments were set up so you'd get things right by chance about one in four times, and instead consistently across laboratories people got it right about one in three times."

Did you even listen to what she said? She said it was a small effect size but it was consistent across different labs doing the testing. There shouldn't be any consistent effect size if materialist are correct.

Let's first quote from Ray Hyman, the skeptic. He agrees with EVERYTHING Utts is saying about the effect size:


I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation. However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model.

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."


Let me repeat that for the pseudoskeptics in the back:

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."

THIS IS FROM THE SKEPTIC YOU QUOTED AND FROM THE ORIGINAL STUDY!

It's exactly what Professor Utts said in the video! The skeptic agreed with her conclusion. He looked at the same evidence Utts did, so will you say:

Hyman seems to me to be completely delusional

Of course you wont because that's just the dishonesty of pseudoskeptics. You claimed Utts was COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL, a Professor with great credentials because you couldn't refute her claims and THE SKEPTIC HYMAN LOOKED AT THE SAME EVIDENCE AND SAID:

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."

He says this throughout his official report. Here he said:

Having accepted the existence of non-chance effects, the focus now is upon whether these effects have normal causes.

HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF NON-CHANCE EFFECTS!!

This isn't Utts, this is skeptic Ray Hyman saying this in the official report!

Listen to what THE SKEPTIC HYMAN says about the test themselves:


The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.


LET ME REPEAT:

The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.

AGAIN, THE OFFICIAL REPORT! This isn't Utts saying this, this is the skeptic Hyman.

Here's the kicker. In the official report, the Skeptic Hyman admits everything that Utts said about the FACTS, he then adds his skeptical opinion. LISTEN TO THIS:

Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, including those from the SRI/SAIC program, justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. Professor Utts and some parapsychologists believe otherwise. I admit that the latest findings should make them optimistic. The case for psychic functioning seems better than it ever has been. The contemporary findings along with the output of the SRI/SAIC program do seem to indicate that something beyond odd statistical hiccups is taking place. I also have to admit that I do not have a ready explanation for these observed effects. Inexplicable statistical departures from chance, however, are a far cry from compelling evidence for anomalous cognition.

So much for your silly statement about Utts.

What Hyman is saying is Psi effects are real but his skepticism will not allow him to accept the results. HE SAID:

I also have to admit that I do not have a ready explanation for these observed effects.

Will you say:

Hyman seems to me to be completely delusional like you did with Utts? Of course you wont. You will now go on a Google search looking to trash Utts because you have no interest in the truth, you want to attack Utts because you can't refute what she's saying. The skeptic Hyman couldn't stoop as low as you because it was an official report and he couldn't refute what Utts is saying.

Here's a link to Hyman's Report: www.ics.uci.edu...

Also, a small effect size is still effect size greater than chance. Many psi studies have a greater effect size than the effect size that showed aspirin can prevent a second heart attack. That small effect size is enough to allow Doctors to put patients on aspirin and for aspirin companies to advertise that aspirin helps prevent heart attacks. Here's Dean Radin talking about this:



Starting at 18:35 Radin talks about the really small effect size of trials that show aspirin can help prevent a second heart attack. I suggest watching the whole thing if you have an open mind.


edit on 28-9-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This is ridiculous.

We don't even have a proper, working theory of gravity that explains anything (not on a large scale like the universe, nor on the small scale like the quantum world). Science largely ignores the effects of electromagnetism and simply discounts it as "not relevant".

So, how could anyone with a sane mind even start to think we know anything about the universe at all? Ridiculous.

In the end, of course, it just comes down on your definitions on what is what.



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: booyakasha

You said:

They want people to be materialists so they can continue to keep power over a subservient culture.

Excellent point and materialist don't have any foundation because the subatomic particles that make up the foundation of materialism aren't particles like particles of sand or salt. In fact, Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics and the uncertainty principle said they're not real.

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

So if the foundation of materialism isn't material then how is materialism objective as atheist and materialist blindly believe?
edit on 28-9-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Ksihkehe




Is PSI indicative of a broad "quantum" intelligence sharing the world around us unseen?


No.


I appreciate the response, but admit I'm disappointed by the brevity. A definitive no would seem to imply additional information might be available, but all I got is no instead of "know". Is there some problem with my framing or language that makes you give it a firm no? I'm in no way married to the idea and am simply curious if you might have other ideas.

If there are factors we don't understand it would imply, to me at least, that we can't be confident in any experimental design as being inclusive. To become more confident in our exploration it would make sense to operate under a loose experimental design, revise liberally with additional data, and hopefully refine. This may have already happened and I'm unaware of it, but I've not had much luck getting deeper into the topic. Maybe it's mostly dismissed by academic journals. I noticed that a colleague of Dr. Utts has several grievances against the establishment. Reading his page gave me the impression that I'd want to avoid him as well.

Any further insight you have would be appreciated.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Thank you for the vote of confidence; that really means a lot to me

I'm glad it's worth something to you. Be warned, if you try to sell that on the US market you'll be guilty of negotiating the sale of a worthless instrument and possibly even a hate crime. The State of California puts a cancer warning on all of my opinions and Tipper Gore has deemed my lyrics "objectionable" across the board.
edit on 9/28/21 by Ksihkehe because: Typo



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Direne

Nothing Utts said was refuted by Hyman. She just said:

PSI EFFECTS ARE STATISTICALLY REAL!

This is what Hyman said:

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."

THIS IS SCIENCE!

Utts never said they were supernatural or where they derive. She just said they're real and the evidence supports her. Science should now be looking into what's the cause of these effects.

It amazes me how closed minded people are. Utts said the exact same thing as the skeptic WITHOUT OPINION! She never said what was the source of these effects. She just said if you look at these studies the way we look at every other studies in science, then you have to say Psi effects are real.

They may find a natural cause for these effects but the point is the effects are real and should be studied vigorously. The sad fact is that closed minded materialist control the scientific establishment and just looking into these areas brings about the usual pseudoskeptic nonsense.



posted on Sep, 28 2021 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This sounds like a pseudoskeptic.

“Targ and Puthoff, from the way I have encountered them by day in their laboratory, seem to emerge as bumbling idiots rather than as respected, accomplished physicists,” Hyman wrote.

Yeah, bumbling idiots that the Government kept working with and going to. Anybody can just watch the documentary on Amazon Third Eye Spies. Here's the trailer:



You said:

Utts seems to me to be completely delusional

This is a typical, pseudoskeptic asinine comment. You can't refute what she's saying so you attack her. Nobody can listen to her interview and say she's completely delusional. Only a blind, irrational pseudoskeptic can make such a claim. Here's Jessica Utts page from UC Irvine where she's a Professor of statistics.

www.ics.uci.edu...

Again, it just proves Professor Utts point. There's being skeptical and searching for the truth then there's blind debunkers who just attack people when they can't refute what she said. Your post is exhibit A of a blind, irrational pseudoskeptic.

"The bad news is it's not a large effect...the experiments were set up so you'd get things right by chance about one in four times, and instead consistently across laboratories people got it right about one in three times."

Did you even listen to what she said? She said it was a small effect size but it was consistent across different labs doing the testing. There shouldn't be any consistent effect size if materialist are correct.

Let's first quote from Ray Hyman, the skeptic. He agrees with EVERYTHING Utts is saying about the effect size:


I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation. However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model.

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."


Let me repeat that for the pseudoskeptics in the back:

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."

THIS IS FROM THE SKEPTIC YOU QUOTED AND FROM THE ORIGINAL STUDY!

It's exactly what Professor Utts said in the video! The skeptic agreed with her conclusion. He looked at the same evidence Utts did, so will you say:

Hyman seems to me to be completely delusional

Of course you wont because that's just the dishonesty of pseudoskeptics. You claimed Utts was COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL, a Professor with great credentials because you couldn't refute her claims and THE SKEPTIC HYMAN LOOKED AT THE SAME EVIDENCE AND SAID:

So, I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments "are far beyond what is expected by chance."

He says this throughout his official report. Here he said:

Having accepted the existence of non-chance effects, the focus now is upon whether these effects have normal causes.

HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF NON-CHANCE EFFECTS!!

This isn't Utts, this is skeptic Ray Hyman saying this in the official report!

Listen to what THE SKEPTIC HYMAN says about the test themselves:


The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.


LET ME REPEAT:

The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.

AGAIN, THE OFFICIAL REPORT! This isn't Utts saying this, this is the skeptic Hyman.

Here's the kicker. In the official report, the Skeptic Hyman admits everything that Utts said about the FACTS, he then adds his skeptical opinion. LISTEN TO THIS:

Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, including those from the SRI/SAIC program, justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. Professor Utts and some parapsychologists believe otherwise. I admit that the latest findings should make them optimistic. The case for psychic functioning seems better than it ever has been. The contemporary findings along with the output of the SRI/SAIC program do seem to indicate that something beyond odd statistical hiccups is taking place. I also have to admit that I do not have a ready explanation for these observed effects. Inexplicable statistical departures from chance, however, are a far cry from compelling evidence for anomalous cognition.

So much for your silly statement about Utts.

What Hyman is saying is Psi effects are real but his skepticism will not allow him to accept the results. HE SAID:

I also have to admit that I do not have a ready explanation for these observed effects.

Will you say:

Hyman seems to me to be completely delusional like you did with Utts? Of course you wont. You will now go on a Google search looking to trash Utts because you have no interest in the truth, you want to attack Utts because you can't refute what she's saying. The skeptic Hyman couldn't stoop as low as you because it was an official report and he couldn't refute what Utts is saying.

Here's a link to Hyman's Report: www.ics.uci.edu...

Also, a small effect size is still effect size greater than chance. Many psi studies have a greater effect size than the effect size that showed aspirin can prevent a second heart attack. That small effect size is enough to allow Doctors to put patients on aspirin and for aspirin companies to advertise that aspirin helps prevent heart attacks. Here's Dean Radin talking about this:



Starting at 18:35 Radin talks about the really small effect size of trials that show aspirin can help prevent a second heart attack. I suggest watching the whole thing if you have an open mind.



I see what you're saying. Utts is just saying the effect size is real and the skeptic agrees with her. So saying Psi effects are real is a true statement. She never said where they came from. She speculated about it but that's science.



posted on Sep, 29 2021 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Dear Ksihkehe, you are right, my answer to your question was disappointingly brief and self-containing. Let's remedy this.

See, your question was whether Psi is indicative of a broad "quantum" intelligence sharing the world around us unseen. My answer was no, it isn't. You state you have not had much luck getting deeper into the topic, and you pinpoint a possible reason, namely, that it maybe psi research is mostly dismissed by academic journals.

That statement is not true. Psi research is a very active field, only that we do not call it "psi". It goes under different names and it is actively researched in mammalian biology, human psychology, and quantum computing. The problem is the term "psi". What's is exactly what Mss. Utts mean by "psi"? Mss. Utts considers psi the effect she records in her experiments, in which a random number generator produces sequences up to a point in which she requests some students to try to guess next pair of symbols generated by the random sequence generator.

If the generator is truly random, the ratio of success of the students should show no relevant statistical pattern. After running many experiments with different set-ups, she shows through statistical analysis that, contrary to what we would expect of a random generator, the students' predictions show a positive bias which, she concludes, is an indication of the existence of a psi phenomenon: the ability to guess the results of a random generator. The criticism to Mss. Utts' experiments come from different camps, but essentially reduces to just one: there is no truly random generators in computing, only pseudo-random generators. This means Mss. Utts has proven something we already knew: that the alleged random sequence is, after all, not random and can, within reasonable limits, be predicted.

Her statistical analysis only proves that. Does this mean psi effects are non-existent in Nature? Not at all. But let's first define what we must understand by psi. In the case of mammal biology and human psychology the question reduces to just this: does intuition, and superintuition, exist? And if so, how does it work? I prefer to take a liberal more mundane scenario: can a 'ghost' appear in your room, get the room temperature drastically fall to a freezing point, make walls exudate blood, produce rapping noises, move objects without touching them, slam doors, and get objects spontaneously engulfed in flames? The answer, surprisingly, is yes, it can. Are those phenomena supernatural, ghostly, ultra-terrenal, otherwordly? Not at all. They are just physics at work. And it is not fringe physics, it is the usual mesoscopic scale physics. Not even quantum.

There's nothing 'psi' in a poltergeist event, just physics.

But let's start with the simple case (one Mss. Utts feels confortable with): predictive anticipatory activity, better known as 'presentiment'. Have you ever had a presentiment, Ksihkehe? I'm sure you had. Does psychology, neuroscience, and biology have an explanation for presentiments? Indeed. It basically goes along the lines of 'the subconscious processing of patterns we are not consciously aware of, and that it allows the mammal brain to produce information not directly accessible by the cognitive part of the brain'. In other words: yes, Mss. Utts students do predict, with some confident, the result of a pseudo-random generator. But there is no magic and no 'psi' in that, only precognitive processing of information. To put you a more mundane example: any mother and father can effectively experience precognition in such a way as to turn back to the room where they left the kids playing, to just find one of the kids was about to fall from the open window, and hence save her life. Precognition is a necessary requirement for survival, much as prediction and inference reasoning is. No magic in it: mammals are made that way.

What about more extreme cases? What about a kid laying in bed while, all of a sudden, curtains and carpets in the room start igniting and burning, electric hardware suddenly fails, lamps start flickering, and rapping noises are heard and recorded? This situation have been thoroughly studied for one simple reason: we don't want kids to mess up with our expensive military computers.

In conclusion, my negative answer to your question on whether there is a broad "quantum" intelligence sharing the world around us unseen is negative. There is no quantum intelligence, only precognition, mammal neural set-up, and Casimir effect at work. That's all about poltergeist and creepy events: physics as usual.



posted on Sep, 29 2021 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
Did you know if you focus into your mind, the mind will allow you to enter the " eyes of the mind ". I've never taken any type of street drugs so I don't have to be delusional about what I said. It takes complete focus of the " eyes of the mind ' to take you onto a voyage of visual and video ( actual moments ) that you can not control. Its like a manga artist drawing all the movements of its pictures into a movie sequence.

It takes practice, much practice to achieve this. But when you let the eyes of the mind see the inner thoughts that lead to an unbelieve experience into the world of the unknown. It is something that some people call " meditation ", but this is letting the mind open up the secrets of the " eyes of the mind " .
are “street drugs” the only way delusions come to be? That seems quite ignorant and misinformed



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join