A question of dimensions

[Florence]

So....If all of this is true then I guess the Astral plane must be made of invisable gases.


What we need scientists to do is to develope a method of making objects in these gases visable.


I don't know how many people watch the "Ghost Hunters" program from the States...but I do every week. They have some kind of camera or what-ever that makes sprits appear. They appear as dark shadows....you don't see features. I saw one program where 2 members were on a ship in the area where meds were kept.In the doorway there appeared the form of a man wearing a captain, or Officers hat. He was no more than 3-4 feet away from them and they were shocked to see him....What kind of camera is that?


If Scientists would ever seriously look into these mysteries we just might find something out. If a man has no curiousity he should not be a scientist.


That is what it is all about....rant...rant...grin

 

[Nightrain]

As I observe this discussion in the light of more recent reading and observation, it seems to me that some of what may be observed by psychics, adepts, sound equipment, infrared and thermal cameras, or specialized instruments can actually be considered part of our own three-dimensional world. Very often what we ascribe to additional dimensions may simply be part of our world, although we cannot observe it with our own natural senses. Since the development of atomic microscopes, space-borne telescopes and sensors of all manner, type and shape we are now aware of worlds that our ancestors would not have considered part of our three-dimensional realm.


Yet, theoretical quantum physics suggests that there are seven additional dimensions, which I cannot even begin to imagine, let alone discuss with any insight or intelligence.


I do feel that traditional science has ignored a huge component of our three-dimensional world for the obvious reason that it cannot be measured in the same way as energy and mass. My analogy is that science has dissected the frog and tried to define it only in terms of its components. The problem is, figuratively speaking, that science is not able to adequately define "frog-ness" without some kind of subjective observation.


Within our own three-dimensional world we have observed that humans and animals are able to behave in ways that cannot be defined or understood by science, for we are more than just the sum of our parts.


Could it be, therefore, that we are making a mistake by even defining ourselves and our world in terms of dimensionality?

 

[Florence]

Yes Johnny, I think you are very right. That is why I think that one day Science will be able to explain it all. The problem seems to be that many of them would prefer to say that these things do not exist and that people who make claims of strange happenings are guilty of a great imagination, telling stories to get attention or are just plain fruitcakes.


In this way it can all be dismissed....


Maybe with the Internet and so many TV programs on the subject more people are becoming aware.


Maybe soon it won't be such a taboo subject for Scientists to being to seriously study. I sure hope so.


I don't like being a fruitcake !! giggle....

 

[stardis]

Just some thoughts that I have had recently when doing some reading and I hope that this isn't too disjointed to make sense to you.

Could it be, therefore, that we are making a mistake by even defining ourselves and our world in terms of dimensionality?

I found Roger Penrose's theory about the cyclic nature of Big Bang-like events in our Universe to be quite interesting and when reading the Henry Bolduc material, Journeys Within, I found this channeled statement that seemed to go with that theory:

You are the pieces of a jigsaw
puzzle that shall be placed back together. You have fallen apart. You have


been taken away from your original and individual state, your holiness, the


one vibration which you were originally. And yet it shall come again, and it


shall be many more times apart and together. For there is the creation and


the re-creation, and the re-creation, and the re-creation, and always the re-


creation.

And also the theory of Garrett Lisi named E8 to be particularly fascinating when thinking about dimensionality and time. (The E8 theory appears in a well written article in the December Scientific American.) I will just quote a few words from the article "A Geometric Theory of Everything" :

The dawn of time was the breaking of perfect symmetry.

The question of dimensionality may not be appropriate in the context of where we exist as spirits or physical beings and perhaps we should think more of how we exist or in what energy state. Everything is energy. I like to think of us as energetic consciousness but conscious energy is also descriptive (to me anyway). There may not actually be other dimensions but instead just different ways of "being".

 

[Charles Stuart]

Hi Dlorde,


If we assume that the existence of the Soul is a reality, and that somehow we retain our individuality as Conscious Beings even after physical death, what current knowledge of physics might possibly explain this? Naturally the current line of thought amidst skeptical scientists is a possibility also. Perhaps indeed who we are as individual conscious beings in our physical bodies might be all there is for us, but several of us here have had personal experiences that seem to indicate the contrary. The question is: how could this be possible?


The explanation of the phenomenon being dimensional seems a coherent possibility, but yet there seems to be an interaction between realms that appears to indicate that there is a connection between them. Our "Spiritual Body" would already be a part of us even while we are incarnated in the physical realms. It is this apparent interaction that made me think of the possibility of "dark matter" being the answer we are seeking for, as it appears to be dimensional but yet it interacts with our physical universe, so much so that it has been detectable by science due to its gravitational influence and effect.


Any thoughts on this?


Charles

 

[dlorde]

Hi Florence,


I'm impressed you read those articles - I hope you were able to make sense of them.

...I went to google once more and asked for a description of the raw energy in the Universe.
Here is what I found....


There are 3 states of matter...solids...liquids...and gases

Yes (well, there are plasmas too, but let's not quibble).

Solids...molecules are tightly packed yet still moving. They bounce off each other at a slow rate There is a slight hum....This is vibration

Not quite - The atoms in a solid are tightly bound to each other, they aren't free to move around and bounce off each other. Each atom vibrates in place according to the temperature of the solid - the more vibration, the higher the temperature. There is no hum - a hum is a sound, which needs coherent vibrations in the air. The atoms in a solid vibrate randomly at the atomic level, and thus cannot be observed or detected without highly specialized equipment, although we can measure the overall effect - the temperature - with a thermometer.


Think about a crowd of people, each holding on to their neighbours, and each doing their own dance (or shivering if it's really cold). The dancing is equivalent to the vibration. The more energetically they dance, the higher the temperature.

Liquids,,,The molecules are more spread out and are moving faster. The sound of liquids are a much higher frequency than that of solids

Partly. Liquid particles are bound firmly but not rigidly. They are able to move around one another freely, resulting in a limited degree of mobility. Liquids don't make sounds any more than solids do. The molecules aren't as tightly bound together because the vibrations are bigger and keep breaking them free.


Think about the dancers dancing so energetically that they can't hold on to their neighbours all the time, so they tend to stay together, but can move around a little. This is like heating a solid until it melts.

Gases... Gases have the highest frequency. Many gases are invisible and the particles are moving at a very high frequency.

No. Gases don't have a frequency. The particles are not bound together at all, so they don't vibrate any more. They are free to move in all directions and the faster they move around, on average, the higher the temperature. Gases are visible or invisible depending on whether the atoms or molecules absorb or reflect light. If they don't affect light at all, they will be invisible.


Imagine that the people break out of their groupings and just run around in all directions, bumping into each other. The faster they run, overall, the higher the temperature. No vibrations here.

Everything in the Universe is energy.

Yes.

Everything in the Universe exists in vibration.

Not really.

Vibration is the process of harmonization and without it the Universe would collapse in on itself

No, vibration is just mechanical oscillation, 'jiggling'. The whole universe is known to be expanding, and vibration doesn't affect whether it might or might not collapse.

http://unfoldingdestiny.com/the-science-of-contagious-you-turn-my-pages-scientific-evidence-as-to-how-we-become-our-surroundings
Scroll down to Resonance to find this and read the balance of the article. It's very good advice and smacks of Edgar Cayce

The problem is that much of the science on this web page (your link) is incorrect or misleading. Of the six examples they give of 'Resonance', only the last one - the musical strings - is actually an example of resonance. The others are examples of imitation and non-resonant synchronisation.


When it says that in the change of state from solid to liquid to gas,

"When an extremely high vibration meets a lower vibration, the vibrations MUST harmonize. The stronger vibration almost always wins..."

This is a misunderstanding. The increasing vibration (commonly called heat) of the particles in solids and liquids breaks them free of the bonds that hold them together, as I described with the dancing crowd analogy above.
This area of science isn't uncertain at all, it is very basic, and it is what enables engineers and physicists to design and build boilers and freezers, power stations, electronic circuits, engines, and all the other technology of our lives.


That web site is using scientific terminology and mixing a bit of science with unscientific ideas to produce pseudo-science. It may sound like good advice and smack of Edgar Cayce, but the science it is using is a mixture of mistaken, misapplied, and plain wrong.


I can't speak for the effectiveness of their lifestyle advice - it may work well, but the scientific explanation they try to put behind it is just wrong, and I don't understand why they feel the need to do that. If their advice is good enough to stand on its own, they really don't need to wrap it in pseudo-science.

 

[Florence]

Well darn it Diorde....I thought I found a good article ....


Yes, I read all kinds of articles and I have a number of books on the sciences...I would give you the names and authors but I'm moving and they are all packed up.


Now....I'll blow you mind further to tell you I also have a very extensive library of Astrology books. I used to do personality charts years back but stopped because it was too time consuming and I ran into too many people who wanted to direct their lives day to day by the planets....I don't believe in doing that. I believe you check out your positive qualities and your negative qualities.


You try to develope the positives and ditch the negatives...It's as simple as that. You try to become the best human being that you can be in this life so you can take all of that goodness into your next life....


Hey....did you start dropping your extra change into a spare teapot yet.?? I want to hear about your regression....if you get one.....


All the words in the world cannot replace a personal experience.....


I'll give you a break now.....and shut up!! Ha Ha

 

[dlorde]

If we assume that the existence of the Soul is a reality, and that somehow we retain our individuality as Conscious Beings even after physical death, what current knowledge of physics might possibly explain this?

That's the big problem, Charles, there is nothing known to physics that can explain it. Nothing that could conceivably account for any part of it. That is a major reason why so many people are adamant that it can't be true.


The nature of our individuality must involve some information - information that describes what makes us who we are. Information needs to be carried or encoded in some physical medium, like writing or drawing on paper, magnetic 0s and 1's on a hard disk, radio wave frequency modulations for radio broadcasts, etc.


The physical brain appears to be sufficiently complex and has the storage capacity to hold all the information we can imagine that might describe our individuality, and more besides. If that information is to survive the death of the brain (or just exist independently), it needs some persistent medium in which it can be carried or encoded. Something independent of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma), so that it's not subject to the physical constraints of matter, and something that can carry encoded information and can interact with matter (so that the information can have some effect in the real world). The closest physics can get is probably some kind of electromagnetic field, but they require energy to maintain, and there is no source of energy available to maintain an independent information-carrying field of this type, i.e. no known way for a field to be self-sustaining (let alone the incidental detail of where it originates and how it might interact with matter to have some appropriate effect).

Naturally the current line of thought amidst skeptical scientists is a possibility also. Perhaps indeed who we are as individual conscious beings in our physical bodies might be all there is for us, but several of us here have had personal experiences that seem to indicate the contrary. The question is: how could this be possible?

The more we investigate how our brains/minds work, the more we realise that what we perceive (what we think we experience) is mostly interpolation and guesswork - the brain gets low-resolution snapshots of the world from our senses, processes them to get the gist, and fills in the gaps with good approximations and generalisations. See Optical Illusions for examples of how fallible our sight is. The same applies to our other senses (try blind-tasting dry white wine against red wine at the same temp). Another startling mixed-sense example is the

Not in standard physics. Even in M-Theory (String Theory), with its required 11 dimensions, the extra dimensions must be 'curled up' too small to be noticeable or have any macro-scale effects.

 

[dlorde]

.. but yet there seems to be an interaction between realms that appears to indicate that there is a connection between them. Our "Spiritual Body" would already be a part of us even while we are incarnated in the physical realms. It is this apparent interaction that made me think of the possibility of "dark matter" being the answer we are seeking for, as it appears to be dimensional but yet it interacts with our physical universe, so much so that it has been detectable by science due to its gravitational influence and effect.


Any thoughts on this?

Apologies in advance for this long ramble, but you did ask
Dark matter is just the name for some form of physical matter that we can't detect using light or radio-waves. We know it is there because it affects the way galaxies rotate and interact (as if they had more matter than we can see). The most popular candidate currently is an as yet undetected sub-atomic particle. I don't know of any informed 'dimensional' speculation.


However, the idea that we can use one unknown to usefully explain another unknown is a logical fallacy. A variation of this fallacy involving quantum physics is all too frequently used to explain unlikely or weird phenomena or claims. Reduced to its basics, it says 'quantum physics is pretty weird, and this phenomenon or claim or whatever, is pretty weird, so it's reasonable to attribute it to quantum physics'. Well, no, it's not. As it happens, quantum weirdness is very well understood - we know very precisely (more precisely than anything else in physics) how it behaves, but not really why it behaves that way. So we know very precisely where it can and can't apply.


To a scientist, your speculation on the physical explanation for souls, etc., is begging the question, i.e. assuming that the particular phenomenon exists, then trying to find observations and explanations that might fit. If you want to tackle it scientifically, you need to find some way to establish that what you feel you have experienced is consistent and real, and not due to perceptual, interpretive, or recall distortion or other error, and that really has to involve physical evidence, because as it stands, there is no physical evidence of the 'soul' phenomenon, no scientific hypothesis whatsoever for how it could occur, and several plausible alternative explanations (above) that fit the anecdotal reports without requiring major undefined reworking of the foundations of current knowledge.


That's a scientific view. If there's no obvious scientific explanation and you want one, you need some scientific evidence to think up explanatory hypotheses for.


If you're already convinced that your experiences are of real-world events that really mean what you interpret them to mean, go with that, because I seriously doubt that you're ever going to find a satisfactory scientific (real-world) explanation that matches.

 

[dlorde]

Well darn it Diorde....I thought I found a good article ....

Yeah, I know. Sometimes it seems there's more junk science out there than correct science.

I would give you the names and authors but I'm moving and they are all packed up.

I can wait until you unpack Good luck with the move.

...I also have a very extensive library of Astrology books. I used to do personality charts years back but stopped because it was too time consuming and I ran into too many people who wanted to direct their lives day to day by the planets....I don't believe in doing that.

Have you seen this Derren Brown video ?

You try to develope the positives and ditch the negatives...It's as simple as that. You try to become the best human being that you can be in this life so you can take all of that goodness into your next life....

I think that's a good philosophy whether you believe in a next life or not.

Hey....did you start dropping your extra change into a spare teapot yet.?? I want to hear about your regression....if you get one.....
All the words in the world cannot replace a personal experience.....

It's still on the list, and I have a possible contact, but it's going to have to wait until after Christmas. Being newly retired, I'm trying to establish just how much I have spare each month, and Christmas isn't a good time for experiments...

 

[Florence]

Yes, I believe a lot of that is true and that there are a lot of fakes and tricksters in this world....but....I also believe that one day a new tool will be invented or a new type of particle will be discovered and these experiences will be proved true.


I poked around and remembered a few titles of my science books. I have at least 3 by Carl Sagan....Contact and Cosmos are two....I have forgotten the third. I have QED by Richard Feynman. QED The strange Theory of light and matter...Mr Feynman has sadly passed on. I saw him on TV and enjoyed every minute. He has a number of other books out there that I wanted to get ....but have not so far. One is called "Surely your Jokng" and the other is " 6 Easy Pieces"


I have another book by a well known scientist but I forget what it is.


I also have "The Frontiers of Science" by National Geographic


I also have a few large coffee table books on Space with wonderful photos...

 

[Florence]

Ok Diorde....explain this for me if you can....


Sally York and I worked together and attended Meditation classes of 3 hours every Monday night.


Our Instructor was also a hypnotist. He worked a regular daytime job and in his evenings he assisted people with weight loss and all of the usual....plus he regressed people into their past lives.


One evening he tested all of us to see who was the most easily hypnotised and Sally turned out to be the one.


Sally was seated in a school desk right beside me.


Todd hypnotised her very deeply and then had her go out of her body. He was standing 6 feet in front of her with his hands behind his back holding an object. He asked Sally to go behind him and identify the object. ( I watched like a hawk for any shimmer or wisp of mist or ANYTHING ) Todd asked her if she was behind him ....she said "Yes"


He asked her what he was holding and she told him it was a crystal....She was right....


He did this demonstration several different nights asking Sally to go to the Hall of Records etc.


She finally refused after meeting some spirits who asked her what she was doing there....It frightened her....


I'm only sorry now that I never went to be regressed myself.


Some part of Sally left her body and walked around that room. Sally was no trickster or in kahoots with Todd. We barely knew him as our classes had just started....She made no money..


So what is that all about???

 

[Nightrain]

There are, actually, hundreds of books and thousands of articles that one could recommend as palpable evidence of what is commonly called paranormal phenomenon, or psi. For example, there was an article in MailOnline, "Could there be proof to the theory that we're ALL psychic?" in which it was reported that certain experts were called in by the U.S. Congress to report on whether money spent on Remote Viewing was worthwhile.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

(part one) Consciousness Beyond Life, in which he discusses his book and many experiences he has had with patients who have died.
I can recommend books by Dr. Dean Radin, Dr. Charles Tart, Dr. Russell Targ and many others, which I personally consider extremely convincing. As far as Reincarnation is concerned, I highly recommend Carol Bowman's books, "Children's Past Lives" and "Return from Heaven". I can assure anyone who reads these books, that they will engender a different view of life's possibilities. Furthermore, traditional science will begin to seem short sighted.

 

[Charles Stuart]

Instantly some more questions start popping up:

The physical brain appears to be sufficiently complex and has the storage capacity to hold all the information we can imagine that might describe our individuality, and more besides.

This was why I mentioned the experiment with plants in the JFEK forum. A plant knowingly has no brain, and yet when the experiment was conducted by which a same person would come into the room where it was kept with a pair of scissors and snip at it, a "lie-detector" that was connected to it would later detect variations every time this person came into the room. Now, a plant has no eyes either, but appears to have a form of "consciousness" that enables it to recognise the person's approximation, and apparently also recognise which person it is and the pair of scissors. How would this be possible unless to conclude that even a plant must hold a form of consciousness?

If that information is to survive the death of the brain (or just exist independently), it needs some persistent medium in which it can be carried or encoded. Something independent of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma), so that it's not subject to the physical constraints of matter, and something that can carry encoded information and can interact with matter (so that the information can have some effect in the real world).

It is here that the mystery lies. It seems to me that whatever it might be it would probably be "information" in itself. What I was wondering regarding "dark matter" is that it might be the medium by which the spiritual realm and a spiritual body might exist; but what for lack of a better term I have been referring to as the "Soul-Consciousness" would be in a category of its own. In theory, this "information" would be at the origin of all things and all manifestations.


The great mystery is that it apparently radiates a form of "light", and yet it also contains the capacity of "attraction" by which it is simultaneously capable of radiating and attracting, and apparently it is by "attraction" that it is capable of creating not only the physical body but also a spiritual one formed by whatever particles would form the spiritual realms. What is more is that it would have to be an inexhaustible and eternal source, which some refer to as the "God-particle". So, it is hardly surprising that those with any greater current knowledge of physics should be skeptical.


But yet, as in the example Florence gave, and which seems to have also been demonstrated by the experiences of others in OBEs (Out of Body Experiences) and NDEs (Near Death Experiences), it does seem that this "Consciousness" is capable of dislocation going beyond the physical body, and all describe very similar experiences regarding "light" and "light-beings".


Physics is based on observations. A phenomenon is observed and then attempts and studies are made to explain it, not simply discard and "debunk" it because no current knowledge can explain it. That, to me, is certainly not good science...


Charles

 

[dlorde]

Yes, I believe a lot of that is true and that there are a lot of fakes and tricksters in this world....but....I also believe that one day a new tool will be invented or a new type of particle will be discovered and these experiences will be proved true.

That really would be amazing!

... I have QED by Richard Feynman. QED The strange Theory of light and matter...Mr Feynman has sadly passed on. I saw him on TV and enjoyed every minute. He has a number of other books out there that I wanted to get ....but have not so far. One is called "Surely your Jokng" and the other is " 6 Easy Pieces"

Those are excellent books - I'm a very big fan of Feynman - he was someone who never simply accepted things he was told, he preferred to work them out for himself.


I highly recommend "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman", it's not so much about science as about Feynman's life and adventures - it's very funny. There is a follow-up book called "What Do You Care What Other People Think?", published after his death, which is half collected stories about him and half a detailed description of his work for NASA on the space shuttle Challenger disaster. For an amazingly clear explanation of the foundations of physics, check out "The Character Of Physical Law", also by Feynman.

 

[dlorde]

Ok Diorde....explain this for me if you can...
....


Some part of Sally left her body and walked around that room. Sally was no trickster or in kahoots with Todd. We barely knew him as our classes had just started....She made no money..


So what is that all about???

I can't really say - a major problem with anecdotal reports is that there's usually no way to conclusively confirm their accuracy, and, as I described at length above, there are a myriad ways that what we experience and/or remember can be faulty. The only way to be sure is to do an experiment recorded under controlled conditions, and so far, such experiments haven't been able to demonstrate the phenomenon. Hopefully, the AWARE study will give us more information about it. But even if every study comes up negative, we can never prove that it doesn't or can't happen - you can't prove a negative like that. Although it would be reasonable to say that if every serious effort to reproduce the phenomenon fails, and there is no plausible hypothesis that could explain the phenomenon other than perceptual or memory fallibility, then the most likely explanation is that it doesn't actually occur, but is a result of perceptual or memory fallibility. Of course, you'd still have to plausibly show exactly how those fallibilities could result in those reports... If you can't reproduce the phenomenon and you don't have any plausible explanation for those reports, the phenomenon must remain unexplained.


Feynman himself said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."


He also said: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."


And: "…I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing."


See You Are The Easiest Person To Fool for a good little article on self-doubt and self-questioning.

 

[dlorde]

... For example, there was an article in MailOnline, "Could there be proof to the theory that we're ALL psychic?" in which it was reported that certain experts were called in by the U.S. Congress to report on whether money spent on Remote Viewing was worthwhile.

The Daily Mail seems to have cherry-picked positive reports for the article - understandable, as their interest is selling papers. The problem with this remote viewing research was that while Utts' report supported the evidence for it, her colleague on the panel, Dr. Ray Hyman, described her conclusions as premature, and pointed out that it hadn't yet been independently replicated. It comes as little surprise to discover that Prof. Utts is on the executive board of the International Remote Viewing Association, and Dr. Hyman is a noted magician, sceptic, paranormal investigator, and critic of parapsychology. You pays your money and takes your choice...


The US military did extensive research into remote viewing, but eventually dropped it when it turned out not to be reliable enough for practical use. Again, vested interests on both sides of the fence have subsequently used this research as support for and against it.


The truth is that it is extremely difficult to test in a fully controlled and blinded way. Back in the '70s when I was studying human biology at the University of Surrey, we first heard about it and tried to test it (unofficially) by having three people choose some 'secret' place to go on the campus or in Guildford (hide & seek style) and write and sketch a description of what they could see at 12:30, 1:30 and 2:30pm. The other three of us sat and tried to visualise what they were seeing or describing at those times, writing it down on paper, including drawings. We then gave the location descriptions and our RV attempts to a few friends in the students union bar, and asked them to compare all the RV descriptions with the location descriptions, and score the match out of 10. The results weren't very good - we didn't get any score greater than 7/10, and each matcher gave very different match scores... We didn't have a large enough sample and alcohol may have affected some of the results (well, we were students), so the whole thing was inconclusive, but it at least showed that RV wasn't as easy or as clear-cut as those initial media reports had suggested.

 

[Nightrain]

The problem with remote viewing is that it takes considerable training to get it right, just as it takes practice in order to improve one's golf game. The other problem is that it takes a great deal of subjective judgment to link one's cryptic impressions with the proper target. However, in spite of these problems, there have been numerous accurate hits that proved to be extremely valuable. One should read Joe McMoneagle's books about his direct involvement as a remote viewer. The fact is, that the U.S. Government curtailed official operations in this area for several practical reasons, one of which was the fact that the U.S. military could not conduct operations based on information that was only occasionally accurate. Military strategy depends upon much more input than remote viewing could provide. However, the positive hits provided by a few specific individuals is more than adequate proof that something paranormal is going on. Otherwise, the government would not have spent 20 years actively conducting these operations.


The fact that Jessica Utts was on the current executive board of the International Remote Viewing Association does not necessarily mean that there automatically was any bias, but certainly would suggest that she would know more about the subject than her colleague, Dr. Ray Hyman.


Individually, the books and articles that I've suggested may prove nothing to the discerning reader, because any one of those sources, by themselves, could have been written by a deluded crackpot. However, collectively, I feel confident that these sources should engender greater public interest and research. We are presently immersed in a materialistic paradigm, which has isolated such interest and research to a back-alley of disdain and academic persecution, such that traditional science resembles the Church of Galileo's time.


I think it's time for intelligent people to realize that plenty of well-designed, double-blind experiments and objective observations exist out there to prove that there is something going on that deserves more intense investigation. And, if such proof exists, we may be more willing to accept additional phenomenon, which has been observed by perfectly sane and responsible people.

 

[dlorde]

...
The fact that Jessica Utts was on the current executive board of the International Remote Viewing Association does not necessarily mean that there automatically was any bias, but certainly would suggest that she would know more about the subject than her colleague, Dr. Ray Hyman.

I agree with that, but it's worth bearing in mind that Hyman was (is?) an expert statistician, magician, and an authority on experimental design, practice, procedure and analysis, so he'd be better placed to critique the experimental work. Together, they should have made the perfect review panel. Reading between the lines, my guess is that they didn't get on with each other...

...We are presently immersed in a materialistic paradigm, which has isolated such interest and research to a back-alley of disdain and academic persecution

To be fair, it's a materialistic paradigm because that's where the measurable stuff is, that gives solid, repeatable, results. What's more, that kind of stuff slots in around the edges of what is already known. At present, the paranormal stuff doesn't have a mechanism, it's not consistent, it doesn't make testable predictions, and it doesn't fit any slot around the edges of the known, so it's not going to be viewed with any great enthusiasm by people who need to make a living from research. I think that if they felt there was something so revolutionary just out of reach, they'd be climbing over each other to be first to the Nobel Prize, and so would big business & the military-industrial complex. But they've had a look, spent a little time on it, and most have decided there are better things to do. There's no doubt but that paranormal stuff needs some kind of physical mechanism to be taken more seriously - something for the physicists to get their teeth into.

... traditional science resembles the Church of Galileo's time.

I think that's overstating it a bit. The scientific community is made up of a whole bunch of people with different beliefs and opinions. Some are arrogant and dismissive, some just dismissive, some indifferent, some interested, and some actively investigating, pretty much like it's always been. Science (the accepted body of knowledge) itself, by its nature, has considerable inertia. It's never been easy to change and it's always been hard to get unusual or surprising results accepted, even with lab experiments (cold-fusion?). It's slow because it must be extremely careful to thoroughly test even apparently solid ground. Most of the scientific community laughed at plate-tectonics, bacteria causing ulcers, even Darwin's evolution, but not all laughed; and as the solid evidence came in, there eventually came a time where most accepted them - but not all did. Here's an interesting blog post on this very topic. Carl Sagan said "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".


Ideas that don't connect with existing (scientific) knowledge or have no apparent mechanism get an especially hard time, for obvious reasons, but when such a link is clearly fabricated via pseudo-science, they are unsurprisingly rejected. The marketeers and profiteers of paranormal products and services have done no favours to the chances of scientific investigation by their pseudo-scientific sales pitches.

I think it's time for intelligent people to realize that plenty of well-designed, double-blind experiments and objective observations exist out there to prove that there is something going on that deserves more intense investigation. And, if such proof exists, we may be more willing to accept additional phenomenon, which has been observed by perfectly sane and responsible people.

Well-designed, double-blind experiments and objective observations should get a fair appraisal - although it's not easy to tell the really good experiments from the not-so-good when it only takes one tiny error to invalidate them. Which reminds me, it's been quite a long time since I trawled the remote viewing literature. There wasn't a great deal then, but things must have moved on... time for a retrawl, methinks :cool

 

[Nightrain]

Ideas that don't connect with existing (scientific) knowledge or have no apparent mechanism get an especially hard time, for obvious reasons, but when such a link is clearly fabricated via pseudo-science, they are unsurprisingly rejected. The marketeers and profiteers of paranormal products and services have done no favours to the chances of scientific investigation by their pseudo-scientific sales pitches.

I agree that much of "new age" industry is unfortunately dedicated to fleecing the public. It is obvious that much of the internet is drowning in snake oil salesmen and scam artists who are banking on the fact that we can't see or understand what is in the container. That which cannot be easily measured and tested is also what can be easily sold to unsuspecting seekers, who haven't the time to adequately investigate and discern for themselves.


However, there are many reputable scientists like Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Russell Targ, and Pim van Lommel, who have performed very good research, which is still being unfairly called pseudo-science. They have done so at the risk of losing their careers and academic positions merely because of the extreme bias that has been clearly documented among Western institutions.


I continue to maintain that what is truly viewed as measurable and proven by science constitutes only a fraction of what we commonly experience in our lives on a daily basis. One example of something that we all accept, but which cannot be proven, is our own consciousness. I should add that science readily accepts a great deal that is presently still theory and mathematical reasoning, but which has not been and may never be adequately measured with the help of fully controlled double-blind repeatable experiments. There is also more of science that has accepted conclusions that have been based on mere data correlations, but have nothing to do with causation. Yet, when someone mentions the double-blind and repeatable results of paranormal phenomenon, the term pseudo-science is suddenly invoked, which clearly implies fraud and trickery. Such a term is derisive and I would rather call such research frontier-science, if anything.