Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Which theory may explain psychic phenomena?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,588 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:37 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 21 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:



Ah, Rupert Sheldrake and his "morphic fields".

I don't even know where to start with this. Sheldrake might have a scientific degree, but is that is how he conducts his experiments, he is no scientist. That is literally the least scientific thing I've seen in a long time. Look up Double Blinding, and you'll see what I mean.

The scientific community almost wholly rejects his MF hypothesis, and there are no experimental data to support it. A word about scientific progress: it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community.

All major breakthroughs - Maxwell's field equations, Einstein's Relativity and Special Relativity for example - all answered, and agreed with known observations. MF doesn't. It is pseudo science, and when Sheldon et al start talking about the evils of "rigid, dogmatic materialism", it is because they don't understand the scientific method and why it is so rigid, and are annoyed that it won't bend and bow to their view of the world.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#17    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,793 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:49 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 22 February 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Ah, Rupert Sheldrake and his "morphic fields".

I don't even know where to start with this. Sheldrake might have a scientific degree, but is that is how he conducts his experiments, he is no scientist. That is literally the least scientific thing I've seen in a long time. Look up Double Blinding, and you'll see what I mean.

The scientific community almost wholly rejects his MF hypothesis, and there are no experimental data to support it. A word about scientific progress: it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community.

All major breakthroughs - Maxwell's field equations, Einstein's Relativity and Special Relativity for example - all answered, and agreed with known observations. MF doesn't. It is pseudo science, and when Sheldon et al start talking about the evils of "rigid, dogmatic materialism", it is because they don't understand the scientific method and why it is so rigid, and are annoyed that it won't bend and bow to their view of the world.
All that's sounds a lot like opinion

"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."

This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed  to entertain this kind of dogma.

Many increadibly discoveries do come out of left field.... Everything from black holes to eleven dimentions in string theory. New ideas that become successful usually have to fight against the grain for many years until experimentation can catch up with them. You should read the history of how some of our modern theories came to pass. Books by green, suskind, hawking of course often have detailed personal accounts of their struggles...,  Rest assured the Next greatest of discoveries made will not be things that we already know ;)

Edited by Seeker79, 22 February 2012 - 02:54 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#18    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,588 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:54 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

You don't understand the effect at all. You are laying motionless in a bush, douwn wind, in full camafloug and the deer or wild pig has absolutely no idea you are there. Their color blind, with not so great eye sight remember, and the wind is in your favor. The animal is eating with it's head down. You are staring at it intently hopeing it comes down the game trail. It looks up. And in your direction. Remembering the wisdom of native Americans, you avert your eyes. You wait. The animal puts it's head down. Out of pure experience of myself and thousands of years of now hunters, if you keep staring at the animal you will probably spook it. It will look up every time you focus on it. But if you don't it will not know you are there unless you make noise or the wind moves against you. I can't tell you how many times I have been within a matter of feet of an animal and keeping your eye averted and your thoughts non aggressive is s must. It's also how I feed squirrels by hand. ( just anecdotes though) did you whatch that documentary link? There are repeatable experiments regarding this.

We're not going to get anywhere with this argument; you think that a prey running away from a predator proves they are somehow psychicly linked. I think its because prey have evolved to avoid predators through a conscious and subconscious mixture of sight, sound and smell. I will leave this up to anyone reading to make their own minds up.


View PostSeeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Science is about overcomeing eronius assumptions. Scientist only use assumptions to usually proove them wrong. Just like your assumption that deer have better eyesight, that you tried to pass off as fact, to support your view. Nighttime dosnt count ( we dont hunt at night---quite illegal)  I understand most science just fine.

Yep, I said they had better eyesight, and got that wrong. Owning animals myself, I should know better. But I content that it is obvious that you don't understand the scientific method. Anyone who did and applied it correctly, would not give this MF nonsense more than a minute of their time.

View PostSeeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

I don't trust documentaries, books, or even peer reviewed papers. All have flaws, and only the strongest of theories withstand the test of time. Most things that we hold as truth evenchually get prooven wrong, so I rather wait to jump on board for the latest theory just because this generations science gurus say it's so.

See? You don't understand science. It is not about "jumping on board the latest theories", and you can't just "wait". What for? For science to know everything?? Science is flawed by definition, but that does not, and can not allow unevidenced waffle life MF to gain any sort of credence. It is a pseudo science. You can't just change the rules of science, which have worked so well and for so long, because they don't agree with what you want to be true.


View PostSeeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

By the way emma. My father and I did share a long distance communication of sorts. That I am now finding that I also share with my sons.

Anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.


View PostSeeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."

This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed  to entertain this kind of dogma.

This is just plain wrong. The scientific community (the quotation marks go some way to betraying your general mistrust of it) has to have the seemingly impenetrable high standards you call dogma.. Why? So crackpot ideas don't flood in and become accepted. If that were to happen, our scientific and technological industries would crumble overnight.

View PostSeeker79, on 22 February 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

"it never, ever, comes out of the left-field from a source who completely at odds with the rest of the scientific community."

This is another danderous unscientific assumption here. The "scientific community" is not supposed  to entertain this kind of dogma.

Many increadibly discoveries do come out of left field.... Everything from black holes to eleven dimentions in string theory. New ideas that become successful usually have to fight against the grain for many years until experimentation can catch up with them. You should read the history of how some of our modern theories came to pass. Books by green, suskind, hawking of course often have detailed personal accounts of their struggles...,  Rest assured the Next greatest of discoveries made will not be things that we already know ;)

No, many incredible discoveries do not come out of the left field. Black holes and string theory both originated in solid, scientific circles, based on solid, understood, scientific models, and were proposed by the sort of people who write and review the papers you refuse to read. Einstein was not an outcast, no one scoffed at his proposals, despite what the fringe want you to believe. Even the most wacky sounding theory we work by today will have originated in a scientific lab or study, by a scientist, using the scientific method. Nothing of has ever come out of the wooly-headed world of the pseudo scientist who posts videos on youtube.

Oh, and as for OOBE experiments, read up on Henrik Ehrsson, Michael Persinger and Olaf Blanke.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 22 February 2012 - 10:58 PM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#19    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,793 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:55 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 22 February 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

We're not going to get anywhere with this argument; you think that a prey running away from a predator proves they are somehow psychicly linked. I think its because prey have evolved to avoid predators through a conscious and subconscious mixture of sight, sound and smell. I will leave this up to anyone reading to make their own minds up.




Yep, I said they had better eyesight, and got that wrong. Owning animals myself, I should know better. But I content that it is obvious that you don't understand the scientific method. Anyone who did and applied it correctly, would not give this MF nonsense more than a minute of their time.



See? You don't understand science. It is not about "jumping on board the latest theories", and you can't just "wait". What for? For science to know everything?? Science is flawed by definition, but that does not, and can not allow unevidenced waffle life MF to gain any sort of credence. It is a pseudo science. You can't just change the rules of science, which have worked so well and for so long, because they don't agree with what you want to be true.




Anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.




This is just plain wrong. The scientific community (the quotation marks go some way to betraying your general mistrust of it) has to have the seemingly impenetrable high standards you call dogma.. Why? So crackpot ideas don't flood in and become accepted. If that were to happen, our scientific and technological industries would crumble overnight.



No, many incredible discoveries do not come out of the left field. Black holes and string theory both originated in solid, scientific circles, based on solid, understood, scientific models, and were proposed by the sort of people who write and review the papers you refuse to read. Einstein was not an outcast, no one scoffed at his proposals, despite what the fringe want you to believe. Even the most wacky sounding theory we work by today will have originated in a scientific lab or study, by a scientist, using the scientific method. Nothing of has ever come out of the wooly-headed world of the pseudo scientist who posts videos on youtube.

Oh, and as for OOBE experiments, read up on Henrik Ehrsson, Michael Persinger and Olaf Blanke.
Most new scientific ideas come from thought experiments Emma. What ifs that gradually turn into wholly crap it might work.

You have been fun Emma and much more pleasant to talk to than others of your world view. I apreciate that. it's much more entertaining to actually discuss the material than to degrade to arguing about arguing. Thanks. But your right I have seen all this material before we are headed down the path I have been with many others. No point in it. Until next time :)

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#20    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:06 PM

John Eccles, famous neurophysicist once said: "I want you to know that there are no colours in the real world, there are no fragrances in the real world, that there’s no beauty and there’s no ugliness. Out there beyond the limits of our perceptual apparatus is the erratically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup. And we’re almost like magicians in that in the very act of perception, we take that quantum soup and we convert it into the experience of material reality in our ordinary everyday waking state of consciousness."

Keep in mind he received a Nobel Prize. Is his "theory" proven? Nope. Does it make him a bad scientist or a fool? Nope. Not in my opinion should I say.

Einstein only swore by classical physics. He said: "God dosen't play dice with the universe". Because of that frame of thinking, he didn't like quantum physics and didn't beleive in black holes. Why? Because it was inconsistend with his "beleif" about physics (which was obviously wrong on some point). He thought that God created the universe which is totoally an unscientific statement. Should we discredit him as a scientist for that? Nope. We can discredit his "beleif" as much as the scientific method is concerned but not him and his entire work.

There's this guy I met a couple years ago. We didn't know eachother at all. At some point in a conversation (about spirituality), he told me he could sort of "scan" my body and mind. I was of course very skeptic but I said ok, go. He told me I had a weak right knee, 2 tension points on my back (he pointed them), told me my heart, kidneys and liver were going through a lot of stress because my blood was full of a "substance that seems to be a drug or medication" and also some specific events about my past (personnal so I won't disclose here) that are giving me a hard time today. Well guess what? He was totoally right. I got extremely destabilized. I had no problem at that point with my knee but had a lot in the past. I wasen't under the influence of a drug at that point but was going through a drug addiction. My tension points weren't "hurting" at that point but did when I got in a fit of anxiety. He did that to another person that was there (girl) and she left crying because he knew things she haden't told us or him about her health condition. So what the hell was that? I'm either lying or there's something there. There is no way he could know all that even if hypothetically he could have known one or more of my relatives.

That is still to this day a total mystery. The guy is a certified geologist and lived for 25 years with natives. That's all I know. I haven't been able to retrace him yet.

I know some of you will probably think I'm just lying but no. Not at all. I wish I knew what's up with this guy.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users