Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Argument for the External Mind

    The Evidence of the External Mind:

    There is compelling evidence enough to prove the existence of the external mind, meaning that human beings can directly effect the outcome of events simply by thought alone, showing that the mind can reach out externally. Examples would be telepathy, telekinesis, healing, etc.



    What is the External Mind?


    Since the advent of the written word cultures have been writing about the external mind. By the external mind I mean the ability for the mind to influence events without the person physically taking any action, including speech. In simpler terms, the ability to influence the world by will alone.

    Part of the problem is that people think in terms of Star Wars and Darth Vader strangling someone ethereally from across the room or Yoda lifting a spaceship with his mind. Although these are indeed examples of what an external mind might do, they are not very good examples of what the external mind actually does, nor are they very representative of how it would be strategically used. Such things are fanciful fiction.

    The second and more difficult hurdle in getting people to recognize the validity of the external mind is that we do not currently posses the scientific competence to explain these phenomenon. There are many who simply do not wish to believe anything they cannot explain, however, we do not need to know an object to see its shadow. Just because we do not understand the mechanism of the external mind is certainly not evidence against it. Many people will still disbelieve even in the face of conclusive evidence, simply because they cannot comprehend how it happens. This is what is called false skepticism.

    What the external mind really does is far less dramatic in some senses than the Star Wars examples, yet far, far more exciting in other senses. I intend to show evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that people can control the results of random events, communicate telepathically, and heal one another to varying degrees without any physical contact whatever.

    Influencing Random Events with the Mind Alone.


    Over the past three decades the University of Princeton has conducted millions of trials using simple machinery which typically generated predictably random events. They do so many, many times without anyone attempting to influence the machinery's results in order to establish a control. The control experiments follow the predicted results one would expect from using probability statistics.


    Then they also did a number of tests involving human subjects who did nothing but observe the machines in operation, or simply think about the machines in operation from a remote location, or even think about a machine's operation before it took place or even after the machine went through its sequences with the intent to influence the outcome of the results in a predetermined way.


    The results of the study were conclusive. Some people can influence the results of the random machines intentionally. Here is a short description of their experimentation:

    Over the laboratory's 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compound to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations.

    A number of secondary correlations reveal other anomalous structural features within these human/machine databases. In many instances, the effects appear to be operator-specific in their details and the results of given operators on widely different machines frequently tend to be similar in character and scale. Pairs of operators with shared intentions are found to induce further anomalies in the experimental outputs, especially when the two individuals share an emotional bond. The data also display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent series position effects are observed in individual and collective results. These anomalies can be demonstrated with the operators located up to thousands of miles from the laboratory, exerting their efforts many hours before or after the actual operation of the devices.

    The random devices also respond to group activities of larger numbers of people, even when they are unaware of the presence of the machine. Such "FieldREG" data produced in environments fostering relatively intense or profound subjective resonance show larger deviations than those generated in more pragmatic assemblies.

    Venues that appear to be particularly conducive to such field anomalies include small intimate groups, group rituals, sacred sites, musical and theatrical performances, and other charismatic events. In contrast, data generated during most academic conferences, business meetings, or other mundane venues show less deviations than would be expected by chance.

    Elaborate analytical methods have been developed to extract as much understanding as possible from all of these results, and to guarantee their integrity against any experimental or data processing flaws.

    From: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/human_machine.html



    Non-physical Interpersonal Communication


    The same laboratory also conducted many experiments called "Remote Perception" experiments. In these trials one person called the "agent" would be sent to a location at a predetermined time and to record their impressions, both visually and emotionally, of the scene. Then a second person, called the "percipient", in a random location not connected in any way and without any information regarding the agent's location whatever, attempts to deduce the agent's descriptions as clearly and concisely as possible. Here is a brief synopsis of their findings:

    Even casual comparison of the agent and percipient narratives produced in this body of experiments reveals striking correspondences in both their general and specific aspects, indicative of some anomalous channel of information acquisition, well beyond any chance expectation. Incisive analytical techniques have been developed and applied to these data to establish more precisely the quantity and quality of objective and subjective information acquired and to guide the design of more effective experiments. Beyond confirming the validity of this anomalous mode of information acquisition, these analysis demonstrate that this capacity of human consciousness is also largely independent of the distance between the percipient and the target, and similarly independent of the time between the specification of the target and the perception effort.

    Again, we have empirical evidence conclusively establishing the effect of externally applied will. I think they also found part of the reason that scientific studies of the phenomena are so difficult and the results often confusing. Here are a few quotes addressing this:

    ...over the evolution of the analysis programs there has been a striking diminution of the anomalous yield that appears to be associated with the participants' growing attention to, and dependence upon, the progressively more detailed descriptor formats. An intrinsic complementarity is thereby suggested between the analytical and intuitive aspects of the remote perception process that appears to limit the extent to which such anomalous effects can be simultaneously produced and evaluated.

    Nearly three decades of intense experimentation leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in the PEAR studies are valid, and are significantly correlated with such subjective variables as intention, meaning, resonance, and uncertainty. The stark inconsistencies of these results with established physical and psychological presumptions place extraordinary demands on the development of competent new theoretical models for constructive dialogue with the empirical data. But since the contemporary scientific approach leaves little room for such subjective correlates in its mechanistic representations of reality, it follows that science as we know it either must exclude itself from study of such phenomena, even when they precipitate objectively observable physical effects, or broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/remote_perception.html


    In other words, typical scientific techniques of attempting to make the subjects create more objective descriptions and results was counterproductive because the function of the external mind itself seems to be based on subjective thought. This explains why scientists who insist on exclusively objective methodology of thought would dismiss the entire field without a true test. They simply cannot comprehend that subjective thought is in some ways superior in scope to objective thought. This is not truly a logical position, as because we are living creatures dependent upon survival techniques we are not objective and our concept of objectivity is entirely synthetic and symbolic, whereas our subjective thought is not encumbered by axiomatic symbolic representation and is only limited by the actual physical laws of the universe, which our understanding has not begun to encompass. I suggest the error is in what we believe objectivity to be, not in the actual use of objective data. I think our arrogance in believing that our symbolic descriptions of reality actually accurately mirror reality is an enormous barrier to true understanding.

    An example of this is trying to accurately explain the theory of relativity using only words and mathematics well known by the average 4 year old. It cannot be done. The truth being that our scientific understanding of the universe is still in its infancy and to believe that we can describe everything based on the parameters of current knowledge is the height of arrogance and conceit. We do not even begin to have the language for discussing what the human brain is capable of. I am suggesting that we need to collectively take a huge breath and accept in humility that what we think we actually know is mostly incomplete and, for the most part, wrong.

    Several explanations of the information gathered by Princeton's PEAR studies have been formulated. I do not think it is necessary to go into them here, as I have already proven my contention, but I would like to include the summary regarding these theories:


    Although the concepts and mechanics presented in this array of specific models may seem somewhat disparate, their larger value may lie in the identification of certain common-denominator issues that arise in one form or another in all of them. Taken together, they can provide a comprehensive conceptual framework for an overarching "science of the subjective" that may one day support a yet more fundamental representation of the full panorama of human experience.


    As you can see, they recognize that our concept of "objective science" is completely incompetent to deal with the entire scope of information gathered about the real activities of the human mind.

    Other studies done on interpersonal non-physical communication include studies done in Japan at the Yamamoto Bio-emission Laboratory of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences. The NIRS is one of only four laboratories in the world with an Electroencephalogram machine capable of mapping the entire brain or any part of the brain in real time. Here is a synposis of one of their studies:


    The indication that the phenomenon "tohate" performed by a qigong master is caused not only by his suggestion was reported in our first paper at the ISLIS Symposium, March 1996. The issue was re-examined in following three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 were done under randomized and blind conditions.


    Author's Note: Tohate is the practice of a master "punching" a student with energy alone, not by actual physical touch. The student recoils as if being hit.

    Experiment 1: When a qigong master performed a remote tohate action, the master's (sender) qi-emitting motion time and his pupil's (receiver) response motion time (start of recoil) were recorded. The sender and receiver were separated in two rooms of a sensory-shielded building, with the receiver on the 1st floor and the sender on the 4th. Coincidence frequency within +/-5.5 sec was 16 (expected value is 7.88) of the 49 trials. It is statistically significant and the risk is 0.0008. This suggests that there is an unknown communication mechanism between the sender and receiver.

    * A video segment of "toh-ate" [AVI file: 621k]. This movie filmed on May 16, 1996 shows scenes of the qigong master's (sender) qi-emitting motion (4th floor) and his pupil's (receiver) response motion (1st floor) in the actual experiment.

    * "Toh-ate" looks like "waiqi", but it is not the same. "Toh-ate" is a term from Japanese traditional martial arts. "Toh-ate" is seen as a powerful signal by psi. However, we don't have complete theories explaining "toh-ate" or "waiqi". Therefore, the difference between "toh-ate" and "waiqi" may exist only in appearance.


    Experiment 2: Electroencephalograms (EEGs) of the receiver were recorded. The qi-emission was performed at a random time selected during a one minute interval by the experimenter. In 57 trials, the receiver showed a statistically significant difference between the emitting and non-emitting times in the alpha wave mean amplitudes of the EEGs for the right frontal part of the brain. This suggests that extrasensory information transfer took place and that it is related to the right frontal part of the brain.

    Experiment 3: The sender and receiver were located in one room or shielded from sensory contact in two rooms, and their EEGs were simultaneously measured while tohate was performed. Analysis of the changes in multiple parameters of the EEGs from before to after tohate showed that both were more relaxed during tohate than at rest, and that suggests both had images during tohate, in addition to other information. The topographic patterns of the beta waves of the EEGs for both sender and receiver resembled each other during tohate.

    From: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/islis/belabo/VSM1.htm#SAKURA5


    What this series of tests, along with many, many other similar tests, demonstrate is that although the incidence of non-physical communication was not common, it was double that of what probablility statistics consider random. This is an extremely significant number. But, more importantly, the subconscious communication was very significant as the receiver subconsciously "knew" when the message was being sent regularly as demonstrated by the increased activities in corresponding areas of the brain. She knew even though she could not consciously recognize this knowledge. Again, another suggestion of a divide between the internal and external mind functions.
    This suggests, as we suggested earlier with the PEAR results, that the ability to communicate non-physically is not a function of the conscious mind or its symbolic language of logic, but upon something much deeper and more biological within the subconscious mind. This would again support the contention that our symbolic language of logic is not competent to understand or judge these phenomena and must be content, for the time being, to simply accept the test results without any reasonable explanation being available as to the mechanism of their creation.

    Evidence of Remote Healing



    For centuries there have been millions of examples of anecdotal evidence regarding healers who can heal with their minds or hands. NIRS laboratory also did testing to determine the effects of healing energy upon organic matter. Here is a synopsis of the test:

    1. Research on Measurements of Non-contact Healing Effects Using Biophotons






    One of aims of this study is to develop the standard measuring method for
    non-contact healing, such as laying-on-of-hands. Recently I use a measuring
    system for biophotons to detect effects of spiritual healing for small
    samples. Available sizes of samples are from 10cm to 2-3 cm.



    There are various chemical reactions in vivo. Some reactions generate weak visual lights. Such super weak visual photons
    are called as biophotons. Intensity of biophotons from living body is very
    small. Therefore we never be able to recognize biophotons by our eyes.
    They are generated chiefly by reactions relating oxygen radicals.









    biophoton measurement



    Making Pairs of Samples



    In 2006, I succeeded to develop a quantitative evaluation method for non-contact
    healing using biophotons. Original rearch paper will be published on March
    2007.



    Pairs (control and sample) of a cucumber were measured for 18h with a highly
    sensitive detector which has an Image Intensifier (I.I.); wave length 280-650nm.
    The intensity of biophotons from the experimental sample was compared with
    the control. Measurements were done after 30-minute healing treatment and
    four 30-minute non-healing treatments; thermal treatment in which experimental
    samples were stressed by a kettle with water at 40 degrees of Celsius;
    covered treatment in which experimental samples were covered by a screen
    for the room lighting; thermal and covered treatment: and exposed treatment
    in which both experimental and control samples were exposed to the room
    lighting.



    The cucumber samples were prepared by a way as above figure. First, a circular
    slice (thickness: 2cm) was cut from a cucumber. Then, this slice was cut
    in 2 slices of 1cm thickness and each was opened at the center. One of
    the paired pieces was the experimental sample and the other was the control.
    Four pairs of targets were made from one cucumber. Controls and experimental
    samples were placed symmetrically in two glass petri dishes to ensure the
    distance and angle for the camera lens was equal for each pair sample.
    Each petri dish was covered by a glass cover before treatments. Intensities
    of biophotons were compaired each pair.



    Results, there was no difference in the intensity between the experimental
    samples and controls in the non-healign treatments. However, in the healing
    group, the intensity of biophotons from the experimental samples was significantly
    greater than the controls (p = 6.5x10-7, two tails, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Effects of laying-on-of-hands
    are not thermal or lighting effects.



    In addition, as an index of effect of healing, we used J value which is
    the logarithm of ratio of biophoton intensity of experiment IE to the biophoton intensity of control IC.



    J = ln (IE/IC)



    J values of non-healing treatments were nearly zero. However, J value of
    healing treatment was distant from J = 0. Below graph shows J values and
    their 95% confidential intervals.












    biophoton



    Left: Cumulative intensity of biophotons for 18 hours.

    Right: Normal image of samples.
    Spiritual healing increased biophotons of cucumber.



    We can evaluate healing effects quantitatively using J value. We classify
    healers' abilities tentatively such as J < 0.1 is Novice class (Class
    N), J = 0.1-0.2 is Middle class (Class B) and J > 0.2 is Expert class
    (Class A).



    Characteristic points of the method are as follows. (1) There is no effect by suggestion or operant conditioning because experimental samples are pieces of plants (cucumber), not humans nor animals. (2) Subjects (healers) only perform laying-on-of-hands of target samples for 15 to 30 minutes, and there are few burdens for such a short task. (3) Biophotons are measured over a long period (18h). (4) Cucumbers are inexpensive and readily available. Therefore it is easy to plan experiments.



    Even if this measuring method proves that a healer has abilities of bio-psychokiness (bio-PK), it cannot be said that the healer has the ability to cure people. What can be said is the possibility "A human body will not be affected, either, if a vegetable sample is not affected." At the present stage of development, if we apply this measuring method to certifying examination of healers, it might serve as a screening test which checks the existence of abilities indispensable as a healer, for example, an affecting ability which gives some effects to other living bodies.


    From: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/iri/iri_eng/...tStudy01E.html



    As demonstrated by this experiment the healer made an actual physical change within the organic material of the cucumber that was both measurable and predictable. It was not within the parameters of what could be reasonably called random.

    Conclusion

    There is enough evidence to show the realm of influence of the mind extends beyond the range of physical reach.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Yep, I agree - the evidence is overwhelming. I just have one question - if we have telepathic abilities beyond our understanding, how can we begin to understand them?
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop View Post
    Yep, I agree - the evidence is overwhelming. I just have one question - if we have telepathic abilities beyond our understanding, how can we begin to understand them?
    Same way as anything else: study them.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    Same way as anything else: study them.
    The course of study hasn't been established yet. SInce the beginning of time we imagined that we had telepathic powers. Who is going to organize the global effort to mobilize our minds?
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Well, our minds create brainwaves... what is to stop them by keeping them in our bodies? If they are created inside of us they are energy. Maybe the energy of our minds is not stopped inside the body? If our mind creates energy, and it is coded as information for the rest of our brain, what insulates the brain so that it stays inside instead of leaving? Our bodies are after all conductors of energy, so the information could leave quite easily. It is therefore up to the perception of the other person to pick it up, right?

    Information is coded into pulses, so these pulses could venture out and go onto other people, who could interpret it any way that makes sense to their own mind.
    !! going to my destruction !!

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post

    Conclusion

    There is enough evidence to show the realm of influence of the mind extends beyond the range of physical reach.
    Could you please cite the scientific peer reviewed journals (if any) where all this work has been published? Has any of this journals a focus on probabilistic/statistical science
    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    Henry Louis Mencken

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan View Post
    Well, our minds create brainwaves... what is to stop them by keeping them in our bodies? If they are created inside of us they are energy. Maybe the energy of our minds is not stopped inside the body? If our mind creates energy, and it is coded as information for the rest of our brain, what insulates the brain so that it stays inside instead of leaving? Our bodies are after all conductors of energy, so the information could leave quite easily. It is therefore up to the perception of the other person to pick it up, right?

    Information is coded into pulses, so these pulses could venture out and go onto other people, who could interpret it any way that makes sense to their own mind.
    I absolutely agree. But, how does this apply to the simple machines that were effected?
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    Could you please cite the scientific peer reviewed journals (if any) where all this work has been published? Has any of this journals a focus on probabilistic/statistical science
    Sure! They have. Knock yourself out!



    General Overviews

    1. The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective (1982). Proceedings IEEE, 70, No.2, pp.136-170.
    2. Engineering Anomalies Research (1987). J. Scientific Exploration, 1, No.1, pp. 21- 50.
    3. The Complementarity of Consciousness (1991).. Tech. Report 91006, December 1991 (13 pages). [Published in modified form in K.R. Rao, ed., Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human Potential, Wellness, and Healing. (Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1993) pp. 111-121.]
    4. Consciousness and Anomalous Physical Phenomena (1995). PEAR Technical Note 95004, May 1995 (32 pages).
    5. The PEAR Proposition. (2005). J. Scientific Exploration, 19, No.2, pp. 195-246.
    6. Endophysical Models Based on Empirical Data (2005). R. Buccheri, A. Elitzur, M. Saniga, eds., Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective: Proceedings of the ZiF Interdisciplinary Research Workshop, Bielefeld, Germany, 17-22 January 2005. (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2005) pp. 81-102.
    7. Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems (2005). Cellular & Molecular Biology, 51, pp. 703-714.

    Human/Machine Experiments

    8. Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade (1988). J. Scientific Exploration, 2, No. 2, pp.155-179.*
    9. Random Event Generator Qualification, Calibration, and Analysis. Tech. Report 89001, April 1989 (46 pages).
    10. Count Population Profiles in Engineering Anomalies Experiments. (1991). J. Scientific Exploration, 5, No. 2, pp. 205-232.
    11. Co-Operator Experiments with an REG Device (1991). Tech. Report PEAR 91005, December 1991 (23 pages). [Published in modified form in K.R. Rao, ed., Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human Potential, Wellness, and Healing. (Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1993) pp.149-163.]
    12. Experiments in Remote Human/Machine Interaction. (1992). J. Scientific Exploration, 6, No. 4, pp. 311-332 .
    13. Series Position Effects in Random Event Generator Experiments (1994). J. Scientific Exploration, 8, No. 2, pp.197-215.*
    14. A Linear Pendulum Experiment: Effects of Operator Intention on Damping Rate (1994). J. Scientific Exploration, 8, No. 4, pp. 471-489.*
    15. Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No. 3, pp. 345-367.*
    16. Gender Differences in Human/Machine Anomalies. (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 1, pp. 3-55.*
    17. A Double-Slit Diffraction Experiment to Investigate Claims of Consciousness-Related Anomalies (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 4, pp. 543-550.*
    18. ArtREG: A Random Event Experiment Utilizing Picture-Preference Feedback (2000). J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 3, pp. 383-409.*
    19. Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments (2000). J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 4, pp. 499-555.*
    20. The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation (2004). J. Scientific Exploration, 18, No. 3, pp. 369–397.*
    21. Exploring the Possible Effects of Johrei Techniques on the Behavior of Random Physical Systems (2006). Tech Report 2006.01, January 2006 (30 pages).
    22. Time-Normalized Yield: A Natural Unit for Effect Sze in Anomalies Experiments (2006). J. Scientific Exploration, 20, No. 2, pp. 177-199.*
    23. Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects (2006). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 20, No. 3, pp. 361-374.
    24. Response of an REG-Driven Robot to Operator Intention (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 1, pp. 27-46..
    25. The Yantra Experiment (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 2 pp. 261-279.
    26. Dependence of Anomalous REG Performance on Elemental Binary Probability (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 3 pp.473-500.
    27. Dependence of Anomalous REG Performance on Run Length (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 3 pp.449-472.

    Remote Perception

    28. Precognitive Remote Perception (1983). Tech. Report 83003, August 1983 (81 pages).
    29. Precognitive Remote Perception, III: Complete Binary Database with Analytical Refinements (1989). Tech. Report 89002, August 1989 (102 pages).
    30. Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick: Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments (1992). J. Parapsychology, 56, No. 2, pp.115-146.
    31. Precognitive Remote Perception: Replication of Remote Viewing (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 1, pp. 109-110.
    32. Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research (2003). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, pp.207-241.*

    FieldREG

    33. FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 1, pp. 111-141.*
    34. FieldREG Measurements in Egypt: Resonant Consciousness at Sacred Sites (1997). Tech. Note 97002, July 1997 (36 pages).
    35. FieldREGII: Consciousness Field Effects: Replications and Explorations (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 3, pp. 425-454.*

    Theoretical Models and Analytical Methodology

    36. On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, With Application to Anomalous Phenomen (1986). Foundations of Physics, 16, No. 8, pp. 721-772.* (An Appendix (in the form of a Tech. Note) is also available which contains a collection of relevant quotations by many of the patriarchs of modern physics.)
    37. Physical Aspects of Psychic Phenomena (1988). Physics Bulletin, 39, pp. 235-236.
    38. Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems (1989). Foundations of Physics, 19, No. 12, pp.1499-1514.*
    39. On the Bayesian Analysis of REG Data (1992). J. Scientific Exploration, 6, No.1, pp.23-45.
    40. Effect Size per Hour: A Natural Unit for Interpreting Anomalies Experiments (1994). Tech. Note 94003, September 1994 (34 pages).
    41. Selection Versus Influence Revisited: New Method and Conclusions (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 2, pp. 253-267.
    42. Combination of Results from Multiple Experiments (1997). Tech. Note 97008, October 1997 (15 pages).
    43. Empirical Evidence Against Decision Augmentation Theory (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 2, pp. 231-257.*
    44. Contributions to Variance in REG Experiments: ANOVA Models and Specialized Subsidiary Analyses (2000).J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 1, pp. 73-89.*
    45. Overview of Several Theoretical Models of PEAR Data (2000). J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 2, pp. 163-194.
    46. A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5). (2001). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 3, pp. 299-329.*
    47. M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M5 (2002). J. Scientific Exploration, 16, No. 3, pp. 341-357.*
    48. Statistical Consequences of Data Selection (2003). Tech. Note 2003.02, April 2003 (18 pages).
    49. Problems of Reproducibility in Complex Mind-Matter Systems (2003). J. Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, pp. 243-270.*
    50. Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality (2004). J. Scientific Exploration, 18, No. 4, pp. 547–570.

    Philosophical Perspectives and Cross-Disciplinary Considerations

    51. Anomalies: Analysis and Aesthetics (1989). J. Scientific Exploration, 3, No.1, pp.15-26, 1989.
    52. Acoustics Resonances of Assorted Ancient Structures (1995). PEAR Tech Report #95002, ICRL Tech Report #95.1, March 1995 (Also published as "Acoustical Resonances of Assorted Ancient Structures." J. Acoustical Society of America, 99, No. 2, pp. 649-658, 1996, and as "Preliminary Investigations and Cognitive Considerations of the Acoustical Resonances of Selected Archaeological Sites," Antiquity, 70, No. 268, pp. 665-666, 1996.)
    53. Information, Consciousness, and Health (1996). Alternative Therapies, 2, No. 3, pp. 32-38.
    54. Toward a Philosophy of Science in Women's Health Research (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 4, pp. 535-545.
    55. The Subterranean Chamber of the Pyramid of Khufu: A Ritual Map of Ancient Egypt? (1997. Tech. Note 98001, February 1997 (20 pages).
    56. Wishing for Good Weather: A Natural Experiment in Group Consciousness (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No. 1, pp. 47-58.*
    57. Subjectivity and Intuition in the Scientific Method (1997). (Reprint from Intuition: The Inside Story, R. Davis-Floyd and P. Sven Arvidson, eds., New York and London: Routledge, 1997, pp. 121-128).
    58. Science of the Subjective (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No. 2, pp. 201-224.*
    59. The Physical Basis of Intentional Healing Systems (1999). Tech. Note 99001, January 1999 (28 pages).
    60. Deviations from Physical Randomness Due to Human Agent Intention? (1999). Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 10, No. 6, pp. 935-952.
    61. The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: A Reply to Woodward and Mahood (2000). Foundations of Physics, 30, No. 1,pp. 59-80.
    62. Inertial Mass and the Quantum Vacuum Fields (2001). Ann. Physics, 10, 5, pp.393-414.
    63. 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections (2001). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 1, pp. 21-31.
    64. The Challenge of Consciousness (2001). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 4, pp. 443-457.
    65. Change The Rules (2007). Tech. Note 2007.01, July 2007 (28 pages).
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Having casually browsed through the sources cited in the OP, I have found that each of these studies has been seriously criticised for its failure to adhere to the scientific method or misuse of statistics. This is something I will look at in more depth before posting a better formulated reply (thus, this isn't argument; I'm just flagging an issue).

    Question: How do these studies prove the existence of the external mind as defined in the OP? Isn't it the case that, at the most, they demonstrate that there exists some abilities that haven't been fully scientifically explored to far?

    In other wrods, is there any evidence in the studies cited by the OP that any of those phenomena occur BY WILL ALONE, rather than by an ability to transmit or receive some sort of energy or some other physical (albeit not well understood so far) interaction?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Having casually browsed through the sources cited in the OP, I have found that each of these studies has been seriously criticised for its failure to adhere to the scientific method or misuse of statistics. This is something I will look at in more depth before posting a better formulated reply (thus, this isn't argument; I'm just flagging an issue).

    Question: How do these studies prove the existence of the external mind as defined in the OP? Isn't it the case that, at the most, they demonstrate that there exists some abilities that haven't been fully scientifically explored to far?

    In other wrods, is there any evidence in the studies cited by the OP that any of those phenomena occur BY WILL ALONE, rather than by an ability to transmit or receive some sort of energy or some other physical (albeit not well understood so far) interaction?
    You are simply making an attempt to redefine the words. The ability to transmit energy directly with the brain certainly qualifies as using will alone. I stated very clearly that telekinesis and telepathy qualified as examples of an external mind, regardless of what mechanism they use.

    As for the studies being criticized, every OP on this website is criticized. Does that mean they are all wrong? Einstein's theory of relativity was considered a joke and received a boatload of criticism when it came out. If you think the University of Princeton, a well-respected Ivy League school, is the type of place likely to have shoddy work and biased results, let's see some evidence. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    You are simply making an attempt to redefine the words. The ability to transmit energy directly with the brain certainly qualifies as using will alone. I stated very clearly that telekinesis and telepathy qualified as examples of an external mind, regardless of what mechanism they use.
    How do you know this? Do we know the mechanism that results in the energy being transmitted? Do we know what gets triggered and how after you make a decision to transmit energy? Apparently we don't. So if there's a physical part of the body (including the brain; but not the "will-making" part of it) that is triggered by the will and then transfers or receives energy, then it is not done by will alone. One of the examples (studies) you're using is the laying-on-of-hands. I understand this is healing that's done by energy that's transmitted via the hands. We don't know where the energy is originated or what process it is that allows it to be transmitted. How is this process different to raising a finger? I submit the only difference is that with the finger we know in some detail how the process works wheras with healing we don't. If lifting your arm is done by will alone (and it certainly appears that way to us; you just will your arm to raise) then why don't we argue that lifting one's arm is evidence of an external mind? Supposedly the difference lies in the nature of the interaction with the external world. So, when you lift your arm (by will) and you touch the wall with your hand, the interaction is the touching and it's not done by will alone. But one could just as easily say that when you will your body or brain to transmit energy (just like you will your arm to lift up) so that the energy can interact with the external world (just like your arm can touch the wall), you're also not doing it by will alone. It's not your will that interacts but the energy that your body/brain transmits as a result of that will. Isn't this so?

    As for the studies being criticized, every OP on this website is criticized. Does that mean they are all wrong? Einstein's theory of relativity was considered a joke and received a boatload of criticism when it came out.
    It doesn't mean they were wrong and I said quite clearly that I'm just flagging an objection. This wasn't part of any argument but just a "trailer" of what's to come. Obviously, in order to attack the studies, one would have to show that their methodology is indeed tainted; not just that someone THINKS that it's tainted.

    If you think the University of Princeton, a well-respected Ivy League school, is the type of place likely to have shoddy work and biased results, let's see some evidence. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
    Of course.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    How do you know this? Do we know the mechanism that results in the energy being transmitted? Do we know what gets triggered and how after you make a decision to transmit energy? Apparently we don't. So if there's a physical part of the body (including the brain; but not the "will-making" part of it) that is triggered by the will and then transfers or receives energy, then it is not done by will alone. One of the examples (studies) you're using is the laying-on-of-hands. I understand this is healing that's done by energy that's transmitted via the hands. We don't know where the energy is originated or what process it is that allows it to be transmitted. How is this process different to raising a finger? I submit the only difference is that with the finger we know in some detail how the process works wheras with healing we don't. If lifting your arm is done by will alone (and it certainly appears that way to us; you just will your arm to raise) then why don't we argue that lifting one's arm is evidence of an external mind? Supposedly the difference lies in the nature of the interaction with the external world. So, when you lift your arm (by will) and you touch the wall with your hand, the interaction is the touching and it's not done by will alone. But one could just as easily say that when you will your body or brain to transmit energy (just like you will your arm to lift up) so that the energy can interact with the external world (just like your arm can touch the wall), you're also not doing it by will alone. It's not your will that interacts but the energy that your body/brain transmits as a result of that will. Isn't this so?
    This is complete nonsense and makes no actual point. You are just trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. Stop it. They don't mean what you want them to mean. They mean what they mean. The context of the OP said that the definition of the external mind was to influence events in a non-physical manner, meaning the body is not used. No other definition is needed. Try to pay attention to the context.

    It doesn't mean they were wrong and I said quite clearly that I'm just flagging an objection. This wasn't part of any argument but just a "trailer" of what's to come. Obviously, in order to attack the studies, one would have to show that their methodology is indeed tainted; not just that someone THINKS that it's tainted.
    If you are not going to present evidence, why bring it up? That is not debating. Wait until you are willing to write an argument before you make such statements. That is debating.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    This is complete nonsense and makes no actual point. You are just trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean. Stop it. They don't mean what you want them to mean. They mean what they mean. The context of the OP said that the definition of the external mind was to influence events in a non-physical manner, meaning the body is not used. No other definition is needed. Try to pay attention to the context.
    Let me quote you from the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by Your OP

    There is compelling evidence enough to prove the existence of the external mind, meaning that human beings can directly effect the outcome of events simply by thought alone, showing that the mind can reach out externally.
    I submit that unless you can establish that each of the processes you refer to in the OP and in the studies you seek to rely on is a process effected BY THOUGHT ALONE (ie, it's the THOUGHT that interacts with the external world, as opposed to the thought generating an action within your body that releases energy which interacts with the external world), your OP fails to prove what it seeks to prove.

    If you are not going to present evidence, why bring it up? That is not debating. Wait until you are willing to write an argument before you make such statements. That is debating.
    "Professional" curteousy. Just wanted you to know where to expect an attack. I don't see anything inappropriate in putting someone on notice. Do you? Why?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Perv,

    Not sure what follows is an argument, but it is nonetheless a challenge.

    There is a long standing million dollars challenge by the James Randi Educational Foundation to prove any paranormal claim. These claims must be proved using the double blind method of verification.

    Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.
    In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
    Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
    Seems to me that a million dollars to prove something that exist is an easy enough proposition. Why as this not been collected yet ?
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Perv,

    Not sure what follows is an argument, but it is nonetheless a challenge.

    There is a long standing million dollars challenge by the James Randi Educational Foundation to prove any paranormal claim. These claims must be proved using the double blind method of verification.

    Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.
    In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
    Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
    Seems to me that a million dollars to prove something that exist is an easy enough proposition. Why as this not been collected yet ?

    Mr. Randi is what Marcello Truzzi, the man credited with the expression "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." and the father of modern skepticism, referred to as a pseudo-skeptic. He has already made up his mind before the testing begins. Here is an article explaining this.



    From: http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

    Many Randi critics have labeled the Challenge "biased" and "unscientific." Randi often refers to paranormal proponents as "frauds," and/or "self-deluded fools," and inspite of Randi's stated basis, it is JREF which ultimately must approve all testing protocols. Unfortunately, in many ways, the Challenge remains too much of an unknown to come under any real scrutiny, as JREF asserts that numerous applicants, after failing the mandatory "preliminary testing," have asked that their identities be kept secret. It is also JREF's assertion that no applicant to date has ever passed the preliminary testing.

    We can argue over the competency and/or impartiality of the JREF organization, but the issue of the Challenge's credibility is affected far more by the words and behavior of Randi himself. Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena. This obviously includes Sylvia Browne's claim that she can contact the dead, predict the future, and read minds. However, on Randi's most recent appearance on the Larry King show, King asked Randi: "Is one of the possibilities that Sylvia is telling the truth?" Randi's response to this was: "Absolutely." It would seem that Randi would have us believe that he has not yet made up his mind about Browne's alleged "abilities," and only wants to see her tested fairly. If this is Randi's attitude about Browne, then why does he not apply the same logic to others who have attempted to apply for the Challenge?

    In June of 1999 a German man named Rico Kolodzey attempted to apply for the Challenge as a self-described "breatharian." Kolodzey calims he can live on nothing but water and "prana" - a supposed divine form of "life energy." This certainly would qualify as a claim of the "paranormal," and on the surface, does not seem any less plausible than Sylvia Browne's claim of psychic powers. However, Randi immediately and categorically rejected Kolodzey's application. The problem for Randi is the logic - or total lack thereof - he displayed in defending this rejection. Randi's email to Kolodzey reads: (from http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm):
    Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

    Mr. Kolodzey:

    Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.
    Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

    If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

    Signed, James Randi.
    (A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)
    James Randi Educational Foundation
    201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
    Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815

    What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims." Is Sylvia Browne's claim that she can talk to the dead a "responsible" one? What about Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind? Would Randi have use believe that he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more "plausible" than Kolodzey's? Again, we must remember, it is Randi's assertion that there is NO VALID EVIDENCE of any paranormal or supernatural phenomena, so there really can be no such thing as "degrees of plausibility" in this field. But even more importantly, if Kolodzey IS a liar and a fraud (which he may very well be), then one would think that JREF has all the more reason to accept his application. Isn't that the whole point of the Randi Challenge - to expose dangerous hucksters and/or "self-deluded frauds?"

    When Randi asserts CATEGORICALLY and A PRIORI that Mr. Kolodzey is a LIAR and a FRAUD, is he not betraying the sentiment he voiced on the Larry King show - that he hasn't made up his mind, and only wants to find the truth?

    It is also worth noting that there may be evidence of human beings surviving without food or even water for extraordinary lengths of time. Recently, the Herald Sun of Australia reported that an Indian man, claiming to have consumed no food or water for 68 years, was observed for ten days by close-circuit cameras at a hospital in Ahmedabad. He was believed to consume nothing, neither food nor drink, during this time, yet suffered no detectable ill effects to his health. Neurologist Sudir Shah stated: "He has evidence of the formation of urine, which was reabsorbed on his bladder wall. The medical committee does not have any scientific explanation.". (Link: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_
    page/0,5478,7960637%255E401,00.html



    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Let me quote you from the OP:



    I submit that unless you can establish that each of the processes you refer to in the OP and in the studies you seek to rely on is a process effected BY THOUGHT ALONE (ie, it's the THOUGHT that interacts with the external world, as opposed to the thought generating an action within your body that releases energy which interacts with the external world), your OP fails to prove what it seeks to prove.
    No. You simply are trying to cloud the issue by nitpicking. I clearly explained that the external mind simply needed to affect the outcome of events without using the physical body to do so. Using energy to do so certainly falls within that definition. I did not specify what mechanism could or couldn't be used. Until you have actual evidence, this nitpicking is an exercise in futility.



    "Professional" curteousy. Just wanted you to know where to expect an attack. I don't see anything inappropriate in putting someone on notice. Do you? Why?
    Professional courtesies are extended through PM, not in a public venue. It is like the lawyer saying something he knows the judge won't allow, but once stricken from the record, still in the jury's minds. In a debate it is best to only say what you back up.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    732
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    Sure! They have. Knock yourself out!



    General Overviews

    1. The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective (1982). Proceedings IEEE, 70, No.2, pp.136-170.
    2. Engineering Anomalies Research (1987). J. Scientific Exploration, 1, No.1, pp. 21- 50.
    3. The Complementarity of Consciousness (1991).. Tech. Report 91006, December 1991 (13 pages). [Published in modified form in K.R. Rao, ed., Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human Potential, Wellness, and Healing. (Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1993) pp. 111-121.]
    4. Consciousness and Anomalous Physical Phenomena (1995). PEAR Technical Note 95004, May 1995 (32 pages).
    5. The PEAR Proposition. (2005). J. Scientific Exploration, 19, No.2, pp. 195-246.
    6. Endophysical Models Based on Empirical Data (2005). R. Buccheri, A. Elitzur, M. Saniga, eds., Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective: Proceedings of the ZiF Interdisciplinary Research Workshop, Bielefeld, Germany, 17-22 January 2005. (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2005) pp. 81-102.
    7. Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems (2005). Cellular & Molecular Biology, 51, pp. 703-714.

    Human/Machine Experiments

    8. Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade (1988). J. Scientific Exploration, 2, No. 2, pp.155-179.*
    9. Random Event Generator Qualification, Calibration, and Analysis. Tech. Report 89001, April 1989 (46 pages).
    10. Count Population Profiles in Engineering Anomalies Experiments. (1991). J. Scientific Exploration, 5, No. 2, pp. 205-232.
    11. Co-Operator Experiments with an REG Device (1991). Tech. Report PEAR 91005, December 1991 (23 pages). [Published in modified form in K.R. Rao, ed., Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human Potential, Wellness, and Healing. (Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1993) pp.149-163.]
    12. Experiments in Remote Human/Machine Interaction. (1992). J. Scientific Exploration, 6, No. 4, pp. 311-332 .
    13. Series Position Effects in Random Event Generator Experiments (1994). J. Scientific Exploration, 8, No. 2, pp.197-215.*
    14. A Linear Pendulum Experiment: Effects of Operator Intention on Damping Rate (1994). J. Scientific Exploration, 8, No. 4, pp. 471-489.*
    15. Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No. 3, pp. 345-367.*
    16. Gender Differences in Human/Machine Anomalies. (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 1, pp. 3-55.*
    17. A Double-Slit Diffraction Experiment to Investigate Claims of Consciousness-Related Anomalies (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 4, pp. 543-550.*
    18. ArtREG: A Random Event Experiment Utilizing Picture-Preference Feedback (2000). J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 3, pp. 383-409.*
    19. Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments (2000). J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 4, pp. 499-555.*
    20. The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation (2004). J. Scientific Exploration, 18, No. 3, pp. 369–397.*
    21. Exploring the Possible Effects of Johrei Techniques on the Behavior of Random Physical Systems (2006). Tech Report 2006.01, January 2006 (30 pages).
    22. Time-Normalized Yield: A Natural Unit for Effect Sze in Anomalies Experiments (2006). J. Scientific Exploration, 20, No. 2, pp. 177-199.*
    23. Assessing the Evidence for Mind-Matter Interaction Effects (2006). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 20, No. 3, pp. 361-374.
    24. Response of an REG-Driven Robot to Operator Intention (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 1, pp. 27-46..
    25. The Yantra Experiment (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 2 pp. 261-279.
    26. Dependence of Anomalous REG Performance on Elemental Binary Probability (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 3 pp.473-500.
    27. Dependence of Anomalous REG Performance on Run Length (2007). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 21, No. 3 pp.449-472.

    Remote Perception

    28. Precognitive Remote Perception (1983). Tech. Report 83003, August 1983 (81 pages).
    29. Precognitive Remote Perception, III: Complete Binary Database with Analytical Refinements (1989). Tech. Report 89002, August 1989 (102 pages).
    30. Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick: Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments (1992). J. Parapsychology, 56, No. 2, pp.115-146.
    31. Precognitive Remote Perception: Replication of Remote Viewing (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 1, pp. 109-110.
    32. Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research (2003). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, pp.207-241.*

    FieldREG

    33. FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 1, pp. 111-141.*
    34. FieldREG Measurements in Egypt: Resonant Consciousness at Sacred Sites (1997). Tech. Note 97002, July 1997 (36 pages).
    35. FieldREGII: Consciousness Field Effects: Replications and Explorations (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 3, pp. 425-454.*

    Theoretical Models and Analytical Methodology

    36. On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, With Application to Anomalous Phenomen (1986). Foundations of Physics, 16, No. 8, pp. 721-772.* (An Appendix (in the form of a Tech. Note) is also available which contains a collection of relevant quotations by many of the patriarchs of modern physics.)
    37. Physical Aspects of Psychic Phenomena (1988). Physics Bulletin, 39, pp. 235-236.
    38. Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems (1989). Foundations of Physics, 19, No. 12, pp.1499-1514.*
    39. On the Bayesian Analysis of REG Data (1992). J. Scientific Exploration, 6, No.1, pp.23-45.
    40. Effect Size per Hour: A Natural Unit for Interpreting Anomalies Experiments (1994). Tech. Note 94003, September 1994 (34 pages).
    41. Selection Versus Influence Revisited: New Method and Conclusions (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 2, pp. 253-267.
    42. Combination of Results from Multiple Experiments (1997). Tech. Note 97008, October 1997 (15 pages).
    43. Empirical Evidence Against Decision Augmentation Theory (1998). J. Scientific Exploration, 12, No. 2, pp. 231-257.*
    44. Contributions to Variance in REG Experiments: ANOVA Models and Specialized Subsidiary Analyses (2000).J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 1, pp. 73-89.*
    45. Overview of Several Theoretical Models of PEAR Data (2000). J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 2, pp. 163-194.
    46. A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5). (2001). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 3, pp. 299-329.*
    47. M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M5 (2002). J. Scientific Exploration, 16, No. 3, pp. 341-357.*
    48. Statistical Consequences of Data Selection (2003). Tech. Note 2003.02, April 2003 (18 pages).
    49. Problems of Reproducibility in Complex Mind-Matter Systems (2003). J. Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, pp. 243-270.*
    50. Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality (2004). J. Scientific Exploration, 18, No. 4, pp. 547–570.

    Philosophical Perspectives and Cross-Disciplinary Considerations

    51. Anomalies: Analysis and Aesthetics (1989). J. Scientific Exploration, 3, No.1, pp.15-26, 1989.
    52. Acoustics Resonances of Assorted Ancient Structures (1995). PEAR Tech Report #95002, ICRL Tech Report #95.1, March 1995 (Also published as "Acoustical Resonances of Assorted Ancient Structures." J. Acoustical Society of America, 99, No. 2, pp. 649-658, 1996, and as "Preliminary Investigations and Cognitive Considerations of the Acoustical Resonances of Selected Archaeological Sites," Antiquity, 70, No. 268, pp. 665-666, 1996.)
    53. Information, Consciousness, and Health (1996). Alternative Therapies, 2, No. 3, pp. 32-38.
    54. Toward a Philosophy of Science in Women's Health Research (1996). J. Scientific Exploration, 10, No. 4, pp. 535-545.
    55. The Subterranean Chamber of the Pyramid of Khufu: A Ritual Map of Ancient Egypt? (1997. Tech. Note 98001, February 1997 (20 pages).
    56. Wishing for Good Weather: A Natural Experiment in Group Consciousness (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No. 1, pp. 47-58.*
    57. Subjectivity and Intuition in the Scientific Method (1997). (Reprint from Intuition: The Inside Story, R. Davis-Floyd and P. Sven Arvidson, eds., New York and London: Routledge, 1997, pp. 121-128).
    58. Science of the Subjective (1997). J. Scientific Exploration, 11, No. 2, pp. 201-224.*
    59. The Physical Basis of Intentional Healing Systems (1999). Tech. Note 99001, January 1999 (28 pages).
    60. Deviations from Physical Randomness Due to Human Agent Intention? (1999). Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 10, No. 6, pp. 935-952.
    61. The Case for Inertia as a Vacuum Effect: A Reply to Woodward and Mahood (2000). Foundations of Physics, 30, No. 1,pp. 59-80.
    62. Inertial Mass and the Quantum Vacuum Fields (2001). Ann. Physics, 10, 5, pp.393-414.
    63. 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections (2001). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 1, pp. 21-31.
    64. The Challenge of Consciousness (2001). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 4, pp. 443-457.
    65. Change The Rules (2007). Tech. Note 2007.01, July 2007 (28 pages).
    So, basically, the results have been done by only one reserach group and mostly (seems like more than 90% of times) published in one scientific journal: Journal of Scientific Exploration.

    Lets look at another article published in the same journal:

    Publication Bias: The “File-Drawer” Problem in
    Scientific Inference
    , Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 91–106, 2000:

    Extracted from article:

    Publication bias arises whenever the probability that a study is
    published depends on the statistical significance of its results....A large body of not only psychic research, but medical
    and social science studies as well, has mistakenly relied on this method to
    validate claimed discoveries. Statistical combination can be trusted only if it
    is known with certainty that all studies that have been carried out are included....Erroneous statistical conclusions
    may result from a prejudiced collection process ...


    Now you must acknowledge that these studies are not immune to such bias, and that the only possible way to actually rely on the collected data is if they were successfully reproduced by an independent reserach group (preferably by more than one), now I am not aware of this, but if you have this information please provide it. Until then, these data is at best scientifically questionable at its worst a fraud.
    Last edited by ians25; February 13th, 2009 at 01:32 PM.
    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

    Henry Louis Mencken

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by ians25 View Post
    So, basically, the results have been done by only one reserach group and mostly (seems like more than 90% of times) published in one scientific journal: Journal of Scientific Exploration.

    Lets look at another article published in the same journal:

    Publication Bias: The “File-Drawer” Problem in
    Scientific Inference
    , Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 91–106, 2000:

    Extracted from article:

    Publication bias arises whenever the probability that a study is
    published depends on the statistical significance of its results....A large body of not only psychic research, but medical
    and social science studies as well, has mistakenly relied on this method to
    validate claimed discoveries. Statistical combination can be trusted only if it
    is known with certainty that all studies that have been carried out are included....Erroneous statistical conclusions
    may result from a prejudiced collection process ...


    Now you must acknowledge that these studies are not immune to such bias, and that the only possible way to actually rely on the collected data is if they were successfully reproduced by an independent reserach group (preferably by more than one), now I am not aware of this, but if you have this information please provide it.
    I gave links to the site and all of the information is there for you to study at your whim.

    Until then, these data is at best scientifically questionable at its worst a fraud.
    Baloney. Saying something "might be" tainted when you have zero evidence is just a raspberry through a hollow tube. It means nothing and is not a compelling argument. You gave no evidence except that some studies collect evidence in bias ways. So what? How does that translate into anything you personally don't believe is either suspect or fraud?

    That is not how logic works. You find support for your claim and I will deal with it. Since your claim is based on evidence that "some studies are bias" and you have not given one actual example of any study that was bias, let alone any of the ones listed in this thread, you are simply shooting in the dark and you have missed the mark completely.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by PerVirtuous View Post
    I absolutely agree. But, how does this apply to the simple machines that were effected?
    It mst have something to do with the energy that originated in the people. If they had energy enough, and knew that it would activate the machines, then they could have focused their energy onto the machine with their mind.

    If you focus energy anywhere it will accumulate, and eventually activate other energy seeking things. Electicity is after all just one form of energy isn't it?
    !! going to my destruction !!

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Argument for the External Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan View Post
    It mst have something to do with the energy that originated in the people. If they had energy enough, and knew that it would activate the machines, then they could have focused their energy onto the machine with their mind.

    If you focus energy anywhere it will accumulate, and eventually activate other energy seeking things. Electicity is after all just one form of energy isn't it?
    I agree with this. However, the tests also showed that if the machines were run at a convention of accountants that the results would be less random and that if it was run at a convention of artists it would be more random. This is without the knowledge of the people at the convention. Just having the people in the proximity made a difference.

    What this also implies is that people influence things subconsciously without any conscious thought or awareness at all. This is a very interesting development.
    Last edited by PerVirtuous; February 13th, 2009 at 08:31 PM.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. God: On God's Existence Part 1: The Cosmological Argument
    By chadn737 in forum Religion
    Replies: 284
    Last Post: March 26th, 2012, 04:02 PM
  2. Burden of proof and the argument from ignorance fallacy 2
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: January 11th, 2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Why the free will argument fails
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: November 29th, 2008, 02:43 PM
  4. Fear based arguments for theism
    By TheSparrow in forum Religion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: May 26th, 2008, 03:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •