PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Self-doubt, and powers of the body.

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Self-doubt, and powers of the body.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Self-doubt, and powers of the body.
Author Message
Posted on Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:47 pm

Woodpecker

Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 218

1. Because it's interesting to see how other people handle their beliefs?
2. Because it's interesting to talk to people with different opinions?
3. Because it's interesting to test out the validity of people's arguments, including your own?
4. Because it's interesting to see how people with different opinions handle yours?

Smile
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:41 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

Woodpecker wrote:
1. Because it's interesting to see how other people handle their beliefs?
2. Because it's interesting to talk to people with different opinions?
3. Because it's interesting to test out the validity of people's arguments, including your own?
4. Because it's interesting to see how people with different opinions handle yours?

Smile
Nailed it.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:53 pm

Catalystlimit

Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 7

All I know is that I'd feel much better about the world if psionics were real. The day I see it is the day I'll have the knowlege of just how blind everyone is for doubting such things.

and no that is not a stab at you, Johnny.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:10 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

Catalystlimit wrote:
All I know is that I'd feel much better about the world if psionics were real. The day I see it is the day I'll have the knowlege of just how blind everyone is for doubting such things.

and no that is not a stab at you, Johnny.
No, no offense taken. I actually feel the same way. I can't tell you how much i wish psionics is real. I even tried making a psiball myself. But still, you can't let wishfullness get in the way of a firm grip on reality.

I'm not saying that psionics are entirely useless. Most of the techniques that allegedly channel psi seem to have a very relaxing effect on the body. It's a nice method of meditation and stress relief.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:55 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

pants wrote:
The whole problem is you have claimed seeing and personal experience can create hard evidence.

In my opinion quite the oppsite is true. Your beliefs, your experiences are very subjective. A large part of how we define reality and how science proves what is and is not real is to remove the subjective and the arbitrary. I.e. You are not talking about meaningful evidence. More just reinforcing a belief.

By embracing belief instead of proof you risk leading yourself in to a delusion. This can be very dangerous. It can lead people to be suceptible to manipulation, cults, and, arguably worst of all, it can lead to set backs in science.

A possible area this is happening is in the quantum that you refer to. When you say quantum manipulation I cant be entirely sure what you are talking about, however, it is common for people to talk about consciousness affecting quantum states. I have already made a couple of posts on the subject that provide some evidence that this is not true. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence, so far, to counter this.*

It is therefore quite worrying to see these ideas used by some as concrete theories.

*I may be off base in my assumption that this is what you are refering to, or you may have some further papers and such that prove me wrong.
Our world is based on the perceptions of observors. You cannot have an arbiter.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:12 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

Niushirra wrote:
pants wrote:
The whole problem is you have claimed seeing and personal experience can create hard evidence.

In my opinion quite the oppsite is true. Your beliefs, your experiences are very subjective. A large part of how we define reality and how science proves what is and is not real is to remove the subjective and the arbitrary. I.e. You are not talking about meaningful evidence. More just reinforcing a belief.

By embracing belief instead of proof you risk leading yourself in to a delusion. This can be very dangerous. It can lead people to be suceptible to manipulation, cults, and, arguably worst of all, it can lead to set backs in science.

A possible area this is happening is in the quantum that you refer to. When you say quantum manipulation I cant be entirely sure what you are talking about, however, it is common for people to talk about consciousness affecting quantum states. I have already made a couple of posts on the subject that provide some evidence that this is not true. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence, so far, to counter this.*

It is therefore quite worrying to see these ideas used by some as concrete theories.

*I may be off base in my assumption that this is what you are refering to, or you may have some further papers and such that prove me wrong.
Our world is based on the perceptions of observors. You cannot have an arbiter.
Yes, you can, if you combine the collective perceptions of many individuals and combine them with previously obtained knowledge about how something works.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:55 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Niushirra wrote:
pants wrote:
The whole problem is you have claimed seeing and personal experience can create hard evidence.

In my opinion quite the oppsite is true. Your beliefs, your experiences are very subjective. A large part of how we define reality and how science proves what is and is not real is to remove the subjective and the arbitrary. I.e. You are not talking about meaningful evidence. More just reinforcing a belief.

By embracing belief instead of proof you risk leading yourself in to a delusion. This can be very dangerous. It can lead people to be suceptible to manipulation, cults, and, arguably worst of all, it can lead to set backs in science.

A possible area this is happening is in the quantum that you refer to. When you say quantum manipulation I cant be entirely sure what you are talking about, however, it is common for people to talk about consciousness affecting quantum states. I have already made a couple of posts on the subject that provide some evidence that this is not true. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence, so far, to counter this.*

It is therefore quite worrying to see these ideas used by some as concrete theories.

*I may be off base in my assumption that this is what you are refering to, or you may have some further papers and such that prove me wrong.
Our world is based on the perceptions of observors. You cannot have an arbiter.
Yes, you can, if you combine the collective perceptions of many individuals and combine them with previously obtained knowledge about how something works.


I'm just curious Pants....Have you ever read "the holographic universe"?...if so what did you think about it...if not I think you should because it has all kinds of info about quantam manipulation and says that it is true, to a degree...also johnny I don't believe reality is concrete...How can it be..do you not believe in ANY phenomena or "supernatural" occurances in the world. If you believe in ANY of them, that science cannot explain, and there is many as I'm sure you know then how can reality be concrete if we don't understand what's going on. In any situation where science had no explanation is where "concrete reality" really doesn't exist does it. Unless we know and understand EVERYTHING about reality how can you say it's concrete?

P.S I think the placebo effect would fall under this category would it not? People were not given anything to heal them yet because they believed they would heal, their minds cured everything themselves....Does science have a concrete explanation?
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:52 pm

paraplayer

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 147

"also johnny I don't believe reality is concrete...How can it be..do you not believe in ANY phenomena or "supernatural" occurances in the world. If you believe in ANY of them, that science cannot explain, and there is many as I'm sure you know then how can reality be concrete if we don't understand what's going on. In any situation where science had no explanation is where "concrete reality" really doesn't exist does it."

Huh? So you're saying that the existance of paranormal or things we can not explain is evidence that reality is not concrete? I don't see how.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:51 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

derricktheone wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Niushirra wrote:
pants wrote:
The whole problem is you have claimed seeing and personal experience can create hard evidence.

In my opinion quite the oppsite is true. Your beliefs, your experiences are very subjective. A large part of how we define reality and how science proves what is and is not real is to remove the subjective and the arbitrary. I.e. You are not talking about meaningful evidence. More just reinforcing a belief.

By embracing belief instead of proof you risk leading yourself in to a delusion. This can be very dangerous. It can lead people to be suceptible to manipulation, cults, and, arguably worst of all, it can lead to set backs in science.

A possible area this is happening is in the quantum that you refer to. When you say quantum manipulation I cant be entirely sure what you are talking about, however, it is common for people to talk about consciousness affecting quantum states. I have already made a couple of posts on the subject that provide some evidence that this is not true. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence, so far, to counter this.*

It is therefore quite worrying to see these ideas used by some as concrete theories.

*I may be off base in my assumption that this is what you are refering to, or you may have some further papers and such that prove me wrong.
Our world is based on the perceptions of observors. You cannot have an arbiter.
Yes, you can, if you combine the collective perceptions of many individuals and combine them with previously obtained knowledge about how something works.


I'm just curious Pants....Have you ever read "the holographic universe"?...if so what did you think about it...if not I think you should because it has all kinds of info about quantam manipulation and says that it is true, to a degree...also johnny I don't believe reality is concrete...How can it be..do you not believe in ANY phenomena or "supernatural" occurances in the world. If you believe in ANY of them, that science cannot explain, and there is many as I'm sure you know then how can reality be concrete if we don't understand what's going on. In any situation where science had no explanation is where "concrete reality" really doesn't exist does it. Unless we know and understand EVERYTHING about reality how can you say it's concrete?
From what I've learned, so-called 'supernatural' occurances only appear that way due to some obscurity behind the circumstances of the occurance.

derricktheone wrote:
P.S I think the placebo effect would fall under this category would it not? People were not given anything to heal them yet because they believed they would heal, their minds cured everything themselves....Does science have a concrete explanation?


Wikipedia:

How the placebo effect works
There are three main hypotheses for how the placebo effect works, the subject-expectancy effect, conditioning and motivation.


Expectancy Effect
The subject-expectancy effect attributes the placebo effect to conscious or unconscious manipulation by patients in reporting improvement. Hróbjartsson and Götzsche argued in their article, "Most patients are polite and prone to please the investigators by reporting improvement, even when no improvement was felt." Subjective bias can also be unconscious, where the patient believes he is improving as a result of the attention and care he has received.

Conditioning
Classical conditioning is a type of associative learning where the subject learns to associate a particular stimulus with a particular response. In this case the stimulant is the substance perceived as medicine but is the placebo, and the response is the relief of symptoms. It is difficult to tell the difference between conditioning and the expectancy effect when the outcome is subjective and reported by the patient. However, conditioning can result in measurable biological changes similar to the changes seen with the real treatment or drug. For example, studies showing that placebo treatments result in changes in brain function similar to the real drug are probably examples of conditioning resulting in objectively measurable results. (Sauro 2005, Wager 2004, Leuchter 2002)


Motivation
Motivational explanations of the placebo effect have typically considered the placebo effect to be an outcome of one’s desire to feel better, reduce anxiety, or cooperate with an experimenter or health care professional (Price et al. 1999, Margo 1999). The motivational perspective is supported by recent research showing that nonconscious goals for cooperation can be satisfied by confirming expectations about a treatment (Geers et al. 2009).
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:04 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

Ok, that's all fine but those are all just hypothesis's, are they not. So nothing has been proven? That means there's still no answer to it. Also, so you are saying that you do not believe in anything paranormal ever johnny?And to respond to your comment paraplayer; yes pretty much. Some occurances that aren't even defined as paranormal have happened all over which science had no explanation for. So, if science, and everything we can possibly think of, doesn't explain the occurance then we have no idea what's going on. That paranormal, or odd, or miracle occurance, is a part of reality, so if we don't understand it, we don't understand reality. Therefor; not concrete. But this only applies if you believe in ANY of such instances. If you do not believe in ANYTHING paranormal or that science cannot explain then this whole post should mean nothing to you. Smile
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:36 pm

paraplayer

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 147

Saying "we do not understand reality therefore it is concrete" Is sort of self contradictory. You can not say that it is concrete BECAUSE we do not understand it.

That's like somebody looking at a videogame, with no prior programming knowledge and saying that a glitch in the game proves that it is not concrete.

Video game analogies rule Very Happy

(Also before we get to far into this lets make sure we're arguing about the same thing. What do you mean when you say concrete?)
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:49 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

derricktheone wrote:
Ok, that's all fine but those are all just hypothesis's, are they not. So nothing has been proven? That means there's still no answer to it. Also, so you are saying that you do not believe in anything paranormal ever johnny?And to respond to your comment paraplayer; yes pretty much. Some occurances that aren't even defined as paranormal have happened all over which science had no explanation for. So, if science, and everything we can possibly think of, doesn't explain the occurance then we have no idea what's going on. That paranormal, or odd, or miracle occurance, is a part of reality, so if we don't understand it, we don't understand reality. Therefor; not concrete. But this only applies if you believe in ANY of such instances. If you do not believe in ANYTHING paranormal or that science cannot explain then this whole post should mean nothing to you. Smile
What I meant before was that often when science cannot explain a paranormal occurance, it's usually because there's something we don't know about the circumstances that led to the occurance, or we are told about the occurance secondhand from someone else

Believe me, I used to jump at the chance of finding out about something paranormal. Until I witness such a thing for myself, I'll give science the benefit of the doubt. And even after I witness such an event, I still won't jump to conclusions right away.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:07 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

paraplayer wrote:
Saying "we do not understand reality therefore it is concrete" Is sort of self contradictory. You can not say that it is concrete BECAUSE we do not understand it.

That's like somebody looking at a videogame, with no prior programming knowledge and saying that a glitch in the game proves that it is not concrete.

Video game analogies rule Very Happy

(Also before we get to far into this lets make sure we're arguing about the same thing. What do you mean when you say concrete?)


Ok read over my post. I said IT IS NOT concrete. And I'm thinking of concrete as, set. Like "this is reality and this is how is works". Also, your analogy about the videogame makes no sense. If there's a glitch in the game, then no, it's not concrete. It has a glitch. It makes no difference whether you have past knowledge about it Confused .

–adjective
1. constituting an actual thing or instance; real: a concrete proof of his sincerity.

2. pertaining to or concerned with realities or actual instances rather than abstractions; particular (opposed to general): concrete ideas.

3. representing or applied to an actual substance or thing, as opposed to an abstract quality: The words “cat,” “water,” and “teacher” are concrete, whereas the words “truth,” “excellence,” and “adulthood” are abstract.
~DICTIONARY.COM

Concrete means 100% proven/factual. This is how I view it. My points earlier explain my views on how A LOT of instances in "reality" are not proven nor factual. ( All the paranormal, miracles, coincedences, scientifically unexplainable events, etc. )

TO: Johnny
sounds good to me Smile
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:15 pm

paraplayer

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 147

I actually did read over your post, I messed up my own post. Sorry abouts thats.

A glitch in a game does not mean it's not concrete. The glitch follows set rules "this is reality and this is how is works". The glitch is part of the game it "follows the rules". If it didn't follow the rules/programming it wouldn't be there in the first place.

So let's say our world has a "glitch" (anything paranormal or unexplainable). Just because you don't understand why it's there, doesn't mean it "doesn't follow the rules".
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:00 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

I see your point about the game. Although I don't think you can compare a game to real life only because we don't know the program/programar. It's much more complex and I believe that we don't really have set rules or a program to follow. If we did, we still don't know what the program of reality is supposed to be like or if it is supposed to have these "gliches" or not. I guess that's the main point I've been getting at. I just can't accept this as concrete, or true reality, because there's simply too much we don't understand or even have a grasp on yet.
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Self-doubt, and powers of the body.