The Fallacy of Classical ThoughtQuoting: "My big problem with the idea Walach expresses is that he points out, correctly, that light is always light, but depending how you measure it it's physical properties vary. This is fundamental to quantum mechanics."
Actually this isn't fundamental to quantum mechanic but is the fallacy of classical Newtonian physics. What was once old is new again. One of the things to consider when labeling quantum mechanics “weird” and taking about classical (Newtonian) physics as accepted, is that from the very beginning the theories haven't been able explain all that happens in the physical world. So by the end of the 19th century, a compromise was made between particle theory and wave theory and physicists agreed that energy and matter were separate things. However, they did so only in respect that it depended upon what you want to “look” at which theory and therefore mathematics you invoked. However, it was less than 30 years after that, less than 1/10th of the time that Newtonian physics exited to that point, that quantum mechanics began to be discussed. Heisenberg came up with the Uncertainty Theory which was obvious by the fact that neither particle nor wave theory could explain. <br/>The language (math) of explaining became too difficult for it to be discussed by most. However, most theoretical physicists accepted it. It was only because of the three physicists who happened to be better known in the popular media that non-locality became generally unaccepted in the public eye. Those physicists being Einstein, Podolosky, and Rosen. And it clearly became too complicated to think of non-locality and the mind for scientists. However, non-locality of the mind has had more acceptance for so much longer than any physics, going back 2500 to 3500 years being the premise of Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism. Even in the era of Newton, the scientists of the times (philosophers) questioned whether the realty we experience isn't some apportionment of our unconscious, the most famous being Descarte. “So I suppose that all the things I see are false. I assume that nothing my mendacious memory represents really is the case. Thus, I have no senses; body, figure, extension and place are chimeras....So from the fact that I judge that I walk, I may validly infer the existence of a mind which makes this judgment, I cannot infer the existence of a body that walks” (Descartes, 1641).” In that same era John Locke took this further consider that perhaps the non-locality of consciousness is the true reality and this (rapping on a table) is at best an agreed upon reality “So that if any one will examine himself concerning his notion of pure substance in general, he will find he has no other idea of it at all. We accustom ourselves to suppose some substratum wherein they do subsist and from which they do result, which therefore we call substance” (Locke, 1690)” George Berkely argues against the proof of the physical, saying, “The ideas of sense are more strong, lively and distinct than those of the imagination.” So given the historical precedence of a non-local consciousness and the lack of purported “classic” physics to explain the real world any better, I turn the tables on the skeptic and say prove to me your position. Don't just ask me to accept it because it is popular belief. Popular belief also would have us believe in Friedmanesqure Free Market theory, but the current global economic crises shows otherwise. As for the inability to replicate phenomenon which has centuries of precedence, I refer to Tao Te Ching: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name..” (Lao Tzu, 600BC) REFERNCES Berkely, G. (1710) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge Locke, J. (1690) Knowledge of mental substance is inferential, AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING<br/><br/>Descartes, R. (1641) Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation Two Tzu, L. (600 BC)Tao Te Ching |
Available for Kindle:
|
Mind To Mind
I
think if you were to ask the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
their ancestors about whether or not what Walach and von Lucadou (as
well as a number of other physicists including Targ and Puthoff, not to
mention the staff working at Fermilabs and at CERN), you might get a
positive testimony as to whether Quantum Mechanics is real physics.
I find it a bit ironic that the disbelief of the non-local mind in the sciences seems more rooted in parapsychology than among scientists; likely the impact of skeptics rhetoric. Even as far back as 1946 in what started out to be a lecture and became a book in 1948, Rene Warcollier (a chemical engineer by degree and trade) cited experimental psychologist William MacDougall who claimed: ";I believe that telepathy is a very nearly established for all time among the facts recognized by Science." In France, Warcollier ran controlled experiments where an agent (sender) would draw a picture and receiver (often miles away) would try to duplicate the picture and did so very accurately with significant frequency. I wish I had an electronic version of his book, for it has pages after pages of these images. (Warcollier, 1948)
In his book, Warcollier refers to the ";meta mind} which very cloesly ties to Walach's adaptation of Proper Quantum Theory into General Quantum Theory to account for actions at the macro level. There is a duality between what we cognitively experience consciously and the non-local unconscious. This duality is to some part explained by the duality of the meta-mind and the cognitive mind that Warcollier describes.<br/><br/>In a forward to an updated version of Warcollier's "Mind To Mind" Targ says: "Considering that these phenomena are thought in many circles not to exist we certainly know a great deal about how to increase and decrease ESPs accuracy and reliability. Remote viewers can often contact, experience and describe a hidden object of a remote natural architectural site gen geographical coordinates or some other target demarcation which we call and address."<br/><br/>Targ and Puthoff were first brought from laser research to research and develop remote viewing (ESP) by understanding the quantum mechanics and then wanting to apply it to concepts of non-local consciousness by proving some use. About the non-local conscious Targ says: "What do the spiritual healer, the mystic and the scientist all have in common" The answer is that they are all in touch with their interconnected and nonlocal mind. In my [RT] work with remote viewing research at Standford Research Institute, we observed the inflow of information that is the hallmark of psychic perception. We also saw an outflow of intent that pays a part in facilitating distant healing." (Warcollier, 2001)
At this point I have to wonder if skepticism is an artifice of westernized parapsychology. If physicists, practitioners of applications such as Qi Gong and Eastern spiritual believers are putting the concept of non-locality to practice where lies the value of questioning "if something exists" vs questioning "when does it exist and how can it be applied to human needs and behavior" Maybe it's because those physical scientists just don't know better. If so there's a value in naivete.
REFERENCE
Warcollier, R. (1948), (2001), "Mind to Mind", New York, Creative Age/Hampton Roads
I find it a bit ironic that the disbelief of the non-local mind in the sciences seems more rooted in parapsychology than among scientists; likely the impact of skeptics rhetoric. Even as far back as 1946 in what started out to be a lecture and became a book in 1948, Rene Warcollier (a chemical engineer by degree and trade) cited experimental psychologist William MacDougall who claimed: ";I believe that telepathy is a very nearly established for all time among the facts recognized by Science." In France, Warcollier ran controlled experiments where an agent (sender) would draw a picture and receiver (often miles away) would try to duplicate the picture and did so very accurately with significant frequency. I wish I had an electronic version of his book, for it has pages after pages of these images. (Warcollier, 1948)
In his book, Warcollier refers to the ";meta mind} which very cloesly ties to Walach's adaptation of Proper Quantum Theory into General Quantum Theory to account for actions at the macro level. There is a duality between what we cognitively experience consciously and the non-local unconscious. This duality is to some part explained by the duality of the meta-mind and the cognitive mind that Warcollier describes.<br/><br/>In a forward to an updated version of Warcollier's "Mind To Mind" Targ says: "Considering that these phenomena are thought in many circles not to exist we certainly know a great deal about how to increase and decrease ESPs accuracy and reliability. Remote viewers can often contact, experience and describe a hidden object of a remote natural architectural site gen geographical coordinates or some other target demarcation which we call and address."<br/><br/>Targ and Puthoff were first brought from laser research to research and develop remote viewing (ESP) by understanding the quantum mechanics and then wanting to apply it to concepts of non-local consciousness by proving some use. About the non-local conscious Targ says: "What do the spiritual healer, the mystic and the scientist all have in common" The answer is that they are all in touch with their interconnected and nonlocal mind. In my [RT] work with remote viewing research at Standford Research Institute, we observed the inflow of information that is the hallmark of psychic perception. We also saw an outflow of intent that pays a part in facilitating distant healing." (Warcollier, 2001)
At this point I have to wonder if skepticism is an artifice of westernized parapsychology. If physicists, practitioners of applications such as Qi Gong and Eastern spiritual believers are putting the concept of non-locality to practice where lies the value of questioning "if something exists" vs questioning "when does it exist and how can it be applied to human needs and behavior" Maybe it's because those physical scientists just don't know better. If so there's a value in naivete.
REFERENCE
Warcollier, R. (1948), (2001), "Mind to Mind", New York, Creative Age/Hampton Roads
Methodolgy to please the unpleasable
The poetic aspect of ghost stories reflects much of what draws us (humans) to the study of psychical phenomena and fits into the discussion of the 3rd part of the West interview (Watts, 2009)i touches on what has possibly been lost by psychical researchers moving more toward laboratory testing. I have to ask why “they could do without the spirits of the dead to explain the evidence” Big question, so I will refer to our text: “Investigation of mediums has failed to authenticate any parapsychological phenomenon” (Irwin & Watt, 2007)ii In their conclusion, Irwin and Watt state that the medium should not set the circumstances. That should be the researcher for purposes of control. In fact the perils that result from lack of control are outlined by James Munve's in his centennial recounting of Hodgson's writings on the medium Mrs. Piper and “George Pelham” (Munves, 1997)iiiHis paper demonstrates in detail the inextricable social relations between sitters, mediums and even researchers (in this case Hodgson. Also it brings to light how a fervent desire to “find” a certain hypothesis can lead to 'unconscious' bias which in the case of Hodgson lead him to ignore some very important incongruities in his reporting. Henry James explained rather charitably how this fervency in Hodgson mitigates him from purposeful fraud. “To understand that [Hodgson] did not deceive his colleagues, we must understand that his consciousness was unlike ours. He believed in his integrity in the dominance of the conscious mind, was a stranger to the divided self introduced by Freud.” He quotes Piddington as saying, “Once [Hodsgson's] mind was made up he became constitutionally unable to appreciate another point of view.”<br/><br/>What seems to me to be an odd dichotomy here is that Targ insists that part of what makes for success in a psi experience is a “conviction” on the part of the experient (Targ, 2004); while clearly Munves in his paper on Hodgson points out the fallacy of conviction on the part of the researcher. (Munves, 2007) Interesting to note though that in her interview with Prof. Donald West (Watt, 200?), West pointed out that he himself believed he was acting as an inhibitor to psychical experiences when in a laboratory situations. He spoke of the dichotomy between the needs of spontaneity and scientific methodology <br/><br/>Clearly this seems to give at least a nod to what Annie says in her second paragraph when she speaks of the philosopher Mehuest. I agree with Mehuest sentiment. The rigors of scientific methodology have a certain presumption that psychical events “don't occur” forcing many parapsychological researchers to be constantly battling skeptics, rather that trying to understand the mechanic of how such phenomena such as ESP, Clairvoyance, telepathy, etc....
I will note that in some realms there have been researchers such as Russell Targ and Harold Puhtoff who have in their research made a conceit to believe that this type of phenomena exist and have pursued the study of application of psi in their remote viewing studies which were launched at the Stanford Research Institute (Targ, 2004)iv starting in the 70s However, their application was hardly a laudable one. However, I have to admit that the term remote viewing has reached pop culture aspects here in Chicago and people refer to trying it as social sport, usually in the context of spying on others, and I remember the “channeling” craze of the 80s, so perhaps we still have our “mediums”, but we just don't refer to them as such any more.
The question this begs was raised by Mr. Bonner in his blog response when he asked if there was any other discipline in science where so much evidential data can be collected and still so much skepticism. I believe it was mentioned in the interview with Prof. West that no such rigidity had been placed on any psychological study. (Watt, (200?). It was my understanding that the act of inhibiting that Prof. West referred to was in the context of Erwin Schrodinger in his thought experiment on paradox referred to as Schrodinger's Cat (Schrodinger, 1935)v The paradox being that once we observe something we influence the event ourselves. In his summation of his career in remote viewing, Russel Targ (Targ,. 2004) indicated that aspects of successfully remote viewing was dependent upon, intent (focus on the target), conviction (that the event could take place) and a quieting of the mind (not trying too hard). <br/><br/>Does scientific methodology make us “try too hard?” That is not posed by me as a rhetorical question. I can see the value in both the rigidity of scientific method and a a full appreciation from my own experiences of the spontaneous experience. In our text, Irwin and Watt, speak of the “antipathy between spiritualists who reject the scientific researchers reductionistic approach (Irwin & Watt, 2007). Interestingly Targ speaks to the spiritual aspect in terms of facilitating the act of remote viewing Early on they tapped into the expertise of Buddhist monks and practitioners of Vedic Hindu meditation to help them achieve the “quieting of the mind” necessary for successful psi phenomenon.(Targ, 2004)<br/><br/>Perhaps there is a need for a different paradigm between the researcher and that of the experient. However, isn't it the same interest that draws the researcher to research as the experient. Even Targ who never considered himself adept at psi, eventually spending “more of his day with his eyes closed than open.” (Targ. 2004). Perhaps this is the best answer to the question as to why people continue to report psychical phenomena: because it happens. Which by a common sense argument would say it exists...in some form or some consciousness or another.<br/><br/>I think it both wonderfully ironic and sad that it is the physicists spawned by the simple photon experiments of Nials Bohr to come to accept as fact what parapsychologists feel forced to prove, via the interconnectedness of sub atomic particles (Talbot, 1992)vi It is further sadly ironic that it was pursued for nearly a quarter century for the purposes of the U.S. Intelligence community.
References
Watts, C (Producer/Interviewer) (200?) Expert Interview: Professor Donald West<br/><br/>Irwin, H. J. & Watt, C (2007) An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed), Jefferson, NC. McFarland & Co.
Munves, J. (1997), Richard Hodgson, Mrs Piper and 'George Pelham': a centennial reassessment, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 62, 849, 138-154<br/><br/>Targ, R. (2004) The Limitless Mind, Novato, CA, New World Books
Schrödinger, E. (1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics)". Naturwissenschaften, Nov, <br/><br/>Talbot, M (1991), The Holographic Universe, New York, NY, Harper Collins
Maligning the Believer
Anyway we all know about the theories (Irwin & Watt, 2007) of what makes people believers in psi: socially marginalized, certain world views, cognitively defective, and/or there is psychodynamic need for belief in psi including the effect of childhood trauma. As for skeptics, there's the... hmmmm well let's see the text book offers no theories concerning any possible psychological anomalies or disturbances as to why skeptics might refuse to consider theories for this as a possibility. Now that may seem weighted or even slanted, but I'm sure it's not.
Irwin in his paper, did take issue with some of the methodologies and language used by skeptics,but mostly reiterated the basis of the skeptic's arguments. There doesn't seem to be any studies as to what influences go into the skeptic not being able to believing to the point of invalidating someone elses process of discovery. Certainly this might be warranted given the historical precedence for skepticism to have stood in the way of what we now view as excepted science (e.g. Columbus and the idea of a round world, Gallileo and the cosmos, Anton van Leeuwenhoek and the 2 century delay in the acceptance of bacteria, etc...).
I notice that all the theories seem to be based on very Westernized psychological or anthropological models of socialization. This excludes well over half of the population of the planet and possibly represents a rather bigoted approach in the modeling of data collection. Also, I was a bit dissapointed that the statistics in our text only dealt with "belief" and offered no details in representational percentages of "disbelief" and "ambivalence" toward psi. One factor not explored, is what I call the Mephistopheles or Faustus Factor, the need for new and raw experiences, to experience that which has not yet been experienced.
Perhaps it's a natural function or inclination of research in psychology, but I do find it somewhat disturbing that there exits studies which delve into the cause of anyone's belief systems not only in the context of paranormal studies, but in any context of any possible phenomenon to be researched. Are there any studies about the belief systems of Quantum physicists who profess realities other than the one we exprience? I can appreciate the skeptical "watchdog" and organizations such as CSICOPS which fundamentally will act as consumer protection against the unscrupulous claimants. However, the four theories presented, cross into the murky waters of "profiling" which has been proven to be ethnically unethical. Each of the theories treat the causes of belief as maledictions: lack of cognitive skills, a deep need, fantasy prone.
Irwin in his paper, did take issue with some of the methodologies and language used by skeptics,but mostly reiterated the basis of the skeptic's arguments. There doesn't seem to be any studies as to what influences go into the skeptic not being able to believing to the point of invalidating someone elses process of discovery. Certainly this might be warranted given the historical precedence for skepticism to have stood in the way of what we now view as excepted science (e.g. Columbus and the idea of a round world, Gallileo and the cosmos, Anton van Leeuwenhoek and the 2 century delay in the acceptance of bacteria, etc...).
I notice that all the theories seem to be based on very Westernized psychological or anthropological models of socialization. This excludes well over half of the population of the planet and possibly represents a rather bigoted approach in the modeling of data collection. Also, I was a bit dissapointed that the statistics in our text only dealt with "belief" and offered no details in representational percentages of "disbelief" and "ambivalence" toward psi. One factor not explored, is what I call the Mephistopheles or Faustus Factor, the need for new and raw experiences, to experience that which has not yet been experienced.
Perhaps it's a natural function or inclination of research in psychology, but I do find it somewhat disturbing that there exits studies which delve into the cause of anyone's belief systems not only in the context of paranormal studies, but in any context of any possible phenomenon to be researched. Are there any studies about the belief systems of Quantum physicists who profess realities other than the one we exprience? I can appreciate the skeptical "watchdog" and organizations such as CSICOPS which fundamentally will act as consumer protection against the unscrupulous claimants. However, the four theories presented, cross into the murky waters of "profiling" which has been proven to be ethnically unethical. Each of the theories treat the causes of belief as maledictions: lack of cognitive skills, a deep need, fantasy prone.