Again, your wisdom is awing. Of course, all the absurd and unproveable claims you’ve made are obvious, and invisible to me because I am a simple ape. Of course you needn’t respond to my arguments, why do you even bother speaking with such a proto-human? Why are you stooping to even use a computer, to be defiled by the interaction with the physcial world? Your majesty must surely find more fulfillment in sitting motionless on a pillow and thinking your way around the world. Perhaps, some day, I will understand, when I decide to ask myself difficult questions and stop following science by the nose. Science, of course, is just another religion.
Honestly though, if you’re going to admit that your beliefs are illogical and irrational, that’s plenty. I’m really happy for the delusions that you and Mr. Wilber have embraced, but I don’t buy that either of you is some sort of super-conscious demi-god.
And as to your experiment, I thought of a big cat, a jaguar or something. What does it matter? Did you seriously attempt a test of your own ‘untestable’ claim?
3 problems with the methodology of the first dream study:
-The agent was exposed to the dreams that the subject was having throughout the night, biasing the associations that the agent came up with after that point. I don’t know why this had to be part of the procedure, or what it could accomplish besides biasing the experiment.
-The odds are artificially fudged by counting any picture that ranked in the top six in the judges ranking as a “hit”, and anything that ranked seven through twelve was a “miss”. This increases the odds from 1 in 12 to 1 in 2, a six-fold increase. And even given this, there was barely any significant shift towards “hits”.
-During judging, all the paintings available were those used by patients. There were no dummy paintings, forcing the judges to make paintings fit more than they may have. If repeated, the inclusion of paintings that will at the very least reveal if paintings that were actually a part of the experiment are more likely to be represented in the dream.
But, again, are you going back on the non-testability of these beliefs? These seem like attempts to externally validate psychic phenomena.
I have experienced crazy coincidences over and over again. And they usually didn’t happen unless there was a change that was about to happen in my life.
But I don’t claim to know what the hell was going on? I don’t rely soley on science or belief in psychic experiences, but I know that these things deeply impressed me, and changed me.
For me, what happens is the same person will keep showing up in the same spot over and over again. I’ll share what happens, pick it appart if you want, I don’t care, it was meaningful to me, I don’t claim any supernatural powers because of it.
Boise state is teh school I go to, it has thousands of studends, and I would ride my bike home from school and I keep meeting this kid jordan on the bridge every other day almost for months. We would stop on the bridge, talk, and watch rainbow trout swim underneath the bridge. I would ride my bike home feeling enlightened, I couldn’t figure out why. I started to get to know jordan more, and anyway, why am I telling you gyes this shit, I am sure no one cares, but anyway I ended up hanging out with his sister, which I found out is a girl I have been trying to get in contact with for a while. And we are pretty close, maybe serious relationship sometime.
Anyway, it seems odd, and weird, but it seems right and good too. Call me a believer in predestination. I dunno questions like that. All I know is that this experience, which could be explained away as crap by highly skeptical folks (including myself) was meaningful to my life, and has inriched my life deeply.
why do people love to associate themselves with camps so much. either the science camp or the metaphysical. I mean, I think it closes up our ability to branch out our thinking, analytical skills and our immagination too.
Maybe because we seek to gain power by association, making ourselves seem bigger and have more authority by being associated to something we think has power or some other benefit.
Why can’t we just be. I mean use all thats available to make your life better, science and metaphysical. The west is so preocupied with “truth” and we all know “truth” is a pretty shanty considering the uncertainty principle. Why not be more eastern and think instead of balance, or better yet, take the best of both worlds. That is how my little hamster brain thinks about it anyway.
Cool story Sir, it definitely seems like things are destined sometimes.
Just to let you know, I definitely don’t actively not associate myself with the science “camp”, of course I think science is good for things.
I totally agree with your idea of association closing up one’s ability to grow intellectually and imaginatively.
This reminded me of another psychic experience.
One day, years ago, I was with a friend of mine, and we were planning to go see a movie later that night. At one point during the day I suddenly thought of one person ( I guess you could call him an old friend, I knew him since elementary school). This is a person I never think about. Then I thought of another friend, and another. Then at the movies I saw them there. Before that day I hadn’t seen either of them or thought of either of them in over two years. Carleas would reason that had thought of them in the past, but forgot about it. That isn’t so. I remember that when I thought of them I wondered why, as there was no leading up to them in my thoughts, they just entered my awareness randomly.
Carleas, you’re a pre-teen talking to a young adult.
I don’t know whether to scold you for your impudence or just laugh at the sight of the ignorant, ridiculously confident, child.
It’s not your fault though… if you were able to understand what I understand than you would. That’s why I suggest you realize your ego has no reason to be as big as it is. Then maybe you’ll begin to question and break down some of the “concrete” realities you live under and begin to see the sky a little.
human relationships can be argued to be the most important thing in most people’s life, so it would make sense that we put a lot of emphasis on things like that.
whether coincidence, or not, or even muffled memories, … my whole point is that it is meaningful in our life. And that is what is important.
The emphasis on always going after truth in a world such as ours is where I try to stay away from. Truth is important in some things, and not important in others, but meaning seems to always be the most important. what do you gyes think, hatter and carolos?
I agree with you. Every action we make comes down to an ethical decision. I think truth is important in this aspect. But of course, we can only go so far in agreeing on what is true and what is not.
The most important kinds of knowledge are the kind we can all agree on, and which we can base ethical standards from.
I’m actually a very open-minded and agreeable person, and I can be very patient with people until someone who is wrong about a certain thing starts forcing false information down people’s throats. There are certain unethical ego-based behaviors that have to be stood up to.
Thank you again, Matthatter, for your signature brand of empty enlightenment. It is because I am a preteen that I am wrong. . . I and the entire edifice of modern science. We’re all just angsty pre-teens! Once we, collectively, mature to the vernerable vantage point of young-adulthood, we will see the err of our thoughtless youth.
I don’t mind your character assassinations, they highlight the deficits in the justification of your belief. Every objection I have raised that you have not answered still hangs in the air. Can you feel them all? I can, it’s like a fucking sixth sense.
Your sarcasm is simply a reflection of your inability to integrate the things I have told you into an accurate interpretation of the world. You have to rely on your shallow understanding of superficial, cliche representations of deeper realities.
I have already pointed out your errors, I’m not going to waste more of my time trying to help you understand what I’ve already provided.
By the way, I did feel your anger as you were sending that last post. I was working, focused, when suddenly the thought of you, and your ill feelings, entered my awareness.
I checked the thread, and look at that, there you were.
My sarcasm is actually a reflection of my digust at your pompous windbaggery, while persistently telling me it’s my ego at fault.
By ‘cliche’ do you mean ‘accepted’? Do you mean ‘thoroughly tested and therefor reliable’? I think one of those would be more appropriate.
You’ve pointed out my errors? You totally skipped my criticism of the dream study, so you couldn’t have pointed out any errors there. Besides that, you haven’t respond to my allegation that, despite knocking empirical methods, you continue to offer what tries to pass as empirical evidence. You haven’t commented on my best argument, that all the phenomena that make you believe what you do can be explained in a number of different ways, and that many of the other explanations require much less evidence, yet have much more evidence, than the wild and world-changing explanations to which you adhere.
Let me show you something, Matthatter, and then tell me I’m the sheep:
“You think what I have said is nonsense because you haven’t experienced [God].”
“All of those [religious people] are lying or crazy?”
“Everyone has the potential to [talk to God], we just have a lot of blockages.”
“I REALLY believe in [God].”
“MANY people have these [experiences of God], it isn’t that rare, it’s just that “[atheists]” seem to think about it VERY narrowly.”
I didn’t change much, just references to psychic power into references to god, and the reference to skeptics into a reference to atheists. You have the exact same amount of evidence for your beliefs as any tribal polytheist would. Pre-trans fallacy indeed.
The cliches I was tlaking about were you calling me a demi God. Do you know what sarcasm is?
Your comments on the dream study show that you you didn’t read the whole thing, or you don’t actually understand nearly as much about research methods as you like to let on.
It is pointless for me to explain further because of your limited ability to understand and (the reason for your inability to expand these abilities) your ego.
Silly, unimaginative materialist.
The difference between what I have been saying and God is that psychic processes have a clear definition.
I won’t be replying to you anymore, trying to communicate with you is a waste of my time. You don’t have the mental materials to connect a bridge of understanding with what I am trying to send to you.
You do a lot of putting-down, but you don’t explain your insults. You say I don’t know research methods, but don’t refer to anything I said specifically to show that I have it wrong. You repeatedly tout your superior intellect and my inability to understand, but other than swearing that you feel it, you haven’t responded to my objections or really provided me with anything to understand. You claim that pschic processes have a clear definition, but that’s the first we’ve hear of it, and you still haven’t said what that definition is.
And you still did not respond to the three criticisms I levelled against your beliefs in my previous post.
If you spent less time calling me an ape and telling me I’m wrong, and more time showing me how I’m being an ape and telling me why I am wrong, maybe you wouldn’t have to run away exasperated. Because you’ve spent this whole thread agrandizing yourself and ignoring the discussion of the theory, you’ve failed to prove that you’ve got anything more in your skull than the average drone, and you have wasted your time.
What reasons could they have for exposing the agent to the dreams throughout the night?
A) Bias the experiment (the agent can learn dream symbols/themes typical to the subject, thus increasingly the likelihood that the agent interprets the paintings in ways that will match with (common images of) the subject’s dreams (for that night).
B) Make the agent more able to understand the way the subject dreams, give them a more intimate account of the subject’s mind while dreaming, increasing the agent’s ability to “connect” with the subject, result in a stronger psychic transfer.
In the case of A, the agent only wrote down in his associations the first time he looks at the painting, before the first REM phase. The study explains that the agent only concentrated on the painting during the REM phases. So how can this possibly Affect anything other than the agents ability to psychically connect with the subject? THE AGENT WROTE DOWN HIS ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE EVER HEARING ANY OF THE SUBJECT’S DREAMS.
Nobody was suggesting that, after the initial ranking, a “hit” is anything significant. They know it is a ½ chance.
The fact that, at the end, the analysis of the subjects’ rankings resulted in 10 of the paintings being hits, and 2 as misses, is completely different. This isn’t a 50/50 chance; it is statistically significant at 95%.
It’s also interesting that the ratings were higher for the subjects working with the male agent.
Then, the most successful subject, Erwin, and the male agent, when paired together for a seven-night series, had results that were significant for both the judges and the subject.
Here I think your idea of the agent hearing the subject’s dream after an REM period can actually be relevant, as the agent could have learned common dream symbols/themes on one night and then associated them into his interpretations of paintings on future nights.
However, Erwin is the case of the French painting, and I don’t see how any kind of bias is needed to see the connections between that painting and Erwin’s dream.
It definitely doesn’t force judges to make paintings fit more than they may have, as the judges were blind and simply asked to rank how much the paintings have in common with the descriptions. Whether a judge only chooses obvious connections, or really reaches for them, depends on the person. That’s why they ranked them, rated them, and then a mean of their scores were taken.
I still find it pretty funny that you doubt any significance of the French dream and the Animals dream. You made the excuse that, with enough tries, a result that seems valid is bound to arrive, but we’re talking about one subject, one painting (he did have a few periods of REM sleep throughout the night, but this is significant, it is not the idea of 1 out of some large number that goes ignored), the subject who had the strongest results in the first study.
I can’t believe I was patient enough to actually take the time to explain this to you…
I doubt you’ll be able to accept it anyways.
Or maybe you will… I hope so.
Anyways, we’re done on this subject. No more for me to say to you if it hasn’t gotten through to you yet.
Your words: not mine (re. the description of your ‘simple’ self). If you think it: you’ll be it - the power of a positive mind, and all that…
I’d wanted to be a scientist at the tender young age of 14: then I heard a story on the news about some English scientists being taken to a desert and shot after completing a project in the Middle East: so that kinda hindered that career path; and so began my lack of faith in humanity, but ain’t science great none the less!
Well, I studied Computer Science/Programming as an A level: as well as Art - the urge to combine both disciplines led me to art college: where I studied Graphic Design.
During an art class: whilst studying for my A level art at around the age of 18: my tutor asked me what the hazy glow was around the person that I was immortalizing in chalk and charcoal - I was truly puzzled that they couldn’t see it, and seeing that I couldn’t see behind it I had no choice but to continue drawing it: my tutor relented.
I asked if any-one else could see this ‘haze’ and out of a class of 20/30 students: about 2/3 others could - not long after this: I found out that this was an aura. Over the years I lost the ability to see auras: unless I really concentrated, but know it’s back and just appears around objects (human or otherwise).
What you think about me/this: is irrelevant to me - like I said: I’m just living my life, like you are living yours: just from different perspectives.
My life/other’s lives is not a belief but our actual lives - it’s not a choice you have/ it’s just how it is, so I posed the question to find like-minded people: not look for an argument
‘Super-conscious’: Ilike that
‘Demi-god’: Nah, I don’t like being worshipped - well, not unless it’s a hot guy
Have you tried looking within: instead of always looking without, Carleas? I’d suggest you give it a try, and see what happens/what thoughts arise - grown men have given up after just a few minutes: from the fear of what reality really is, that they get a small glimpse of for those few minutes that they’ve looked within…
Leaving? But you finally answered me! You can’t leave now! Please, stay a while. Truce: I’ll cut the sarcasm if you tone down the put-downs, yeah?
I think you raised good points in reponse to my criticisms of the dream study. I think your own criticism of the second study is right though. I also wonder if similar issues aren’t at play in the initial study, when the agents are given a chance to meet with the subjects. The intent of the meeting seems clear, to develop some sort of relationship that would increase the psychic connection. But I’m curious as to how much is exchanged in these sessions, and how much these exchanges bias the associations written initially by the agent.
Ultimately, the study is intriguing, and it’s a shame that the report on the particular study is only a few paragraphs. I’d also like to know how further trials run at different institutions fared.
But, why should this study, even granting that everything was done properly, outweigh other studies of similar phenomena, even studies of the same phenomena, that have not found any evidence of psychic phenomena. That is, assuming there is equal evidence for both, why choose one over the other?
It probably comes down to personal experience, yeah? You feel that you have experience psychic phenomena, and any non-psychic explanation would require you to accept some unflattering facts about yourself. I, on the other hand, have not experienced any psychic phenomena, and a psychic explanation would require me to accept some unflattering facts about myself. So how do we make an objective decisions.
(p.s. I have a couple co-workers who are interested in our debate, and when I told them about it, they said they wanted to test you. They proposed a number guessing challege, numbers between one and a hundred. There will be three of us focussing on this number today. This wasn’t my idea, and I don’t intend this to prove anything. But I am curious, and I will honestly try to communicate the number to you. )
Well okay Carleas, I can’t deny the kindness of your last post!
However… I really have to be honest with you, any non-psychic explanation for me doesn’t trigger any kind of fear of facing anything unflattering about myself. I am absolutely positive of the reality of psychic experiences. There isn’t any doubt in my mind on the matter.
But since we will agree to try to be patient and respective of each other, I think we can agree to communicate more about this
I would really like to convince you that these things are real (that’s the thing I have some doubt about).
I know this isn’t entirely fair, but it’s just the way it is… as I have said I’m not very confident of my ability to acquire precise information from another person’s head. My empathy is much stronger. So, here comes the excuse I wish I didn’t have to make: I am not confident that I will guess the number 1-100. Why I say it isn’t fair is because if I get it right, it would be a pretty good argument in my favor. If I get it wrong… I have sort of excused myself haven’t I?
Anyways… I do like this idea, for the fun of it if nothing else.
May I ask if you and your co-workers had already agreed on the number by the time you made that last post (this is important, because when I read about your challenge a number came to mind, so I need to know if this is the number you had all agreed on, or a number I picked up before you guys had an established one)?
