Mar 11 2014

Can Thinking Change Reality Part II

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Can Thinking Change Reality Part II”.

Share

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “Can Thinking Change Reality Part II”

  1. Sastraon 11 Mar 2014 at 2:36 pm

    It seems odd that smoking gun evidence of such teleportation existed over 20 years ago and yet has not garnered international scientific attention.

    Just as it seems suspiciously odd that all these ten amazing examples have not garnered international scientific attention. The trouble is that there are two ways to satisfy that suspicion. The first, that these examples are weak and not compelling — and the second, which involves either conspiracy thinking, a grave misunderstanding of how science works, or both.

    I know people who — if they haven’t already seen this article — would enthusiastically agree with its conclusion anyway. When asked why scientists, the people who would seemingly have so much to win if these things are true, are not convinced, they say that scientists are “afraid” of losing their world view (as if that would stop them on the way to fame, fortune, and new discoveries.)

    They also have a very distorted understanding of where the scientific consensus is, based on the fact that the woo they read is always citing approving scientists. Someone guessed that maybe 40% of all physicists already believe in vitalism, for example. This is cutting edge stuff, apparently.

  2. chrisjon 11 Mar 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Instead of saying, “THERE ISN’T a single line of scientific evidence that objectively establishes a phenomenon that represents consciousness affecting reality.” (I agree there probably isn’t). Shouldn’t you say something like, “I HAVEN’T FOUND a single line of scientific evidence…” After all there is a vanishingly small possibility you have missed something.

  3. steve12on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:33 pm

    I don’t think so chrisj. It’s not like a real science lit search where you’re worried there’s a paper out there that you should cite but weren’t aware of. If there was real, solid evidence for psi it wouldn’t be languishing in some arcane journal.

    E.g., Darrel Bem’s paper was poorly done and couldn’t be replicated, but it’s quite famous.

  4. steve12on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Daryl Bem, pardon me

  5. Ori Vandewalleon 12 Mar 2014 at 7:42 am

    Re #8: I once thought about moving my leg, AND THEN IT MOVED.

  6. BillyJoe7on 12 Mar 2014 at 7:56 am

    Ori,

    The brain that produced the illusion-of-self called Ori, had already determined to move that leg before it determined to inform Ori of this determination.

    (I hope you appreciate that effort – it took have a dozen corrections to get right!)

  7. Bronze Dogon 12 Mar 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Citing government agencies for researching the phenomena strikes me as interesting. Psi proponents are often quick to assert governments are in on or controlled by the big conspiracy to cover up psi. I think some use the perceived authority because they believe we’re the straw sheeple who believe whatever the government says, therefore we have to trust the judgement of government agencies. Some might approach it from the premise that the government is super-competent (minus the ad hoc super-incompetence hypotheses that spring up for convenience), therefore they would never research something unless they knew it worked.

    Among those who aren’t so quick to spin global conspiracies, many probably project a love of authoritarianism onto us. If the government researches it, it must be Serious Business and thus they disapprove of analysis and ridicule by lowly non-sanctioned commentators.

    In either case, a lot of them conflate the idea of scientific authority as something akin or even synonymous to legal or political authority, specifically endowed in designated individuals instead of something much more abstract and emergent.

  8. steve12on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:11 pm

    “Citing government agencies for researching the phenomena strikes me as interesting. Psi proponents are often quick to assert governments are in on or controlled by the big conspiracy to cover up psi.”

    When you catch conspiracy theorists in these kinds of conflicts, they just say false flag.

    The playbook is that you cite conspiracy when the facts don’t agree, and you claim false flag when the conspiracy is absurd and makes no sense.

    They have completely insulated their ideas from any type of falsification.

    The condescending “You’re so naive – do you believe everything you’re told?” is really just for style points.

  9. SteveAon 12 Mar 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Steve12: “When you catch conspiracy theorists in these kinds of conflicts, they just say false flag.”

    My favourite example of an alleged false flag operation concerns David Shayler, the former journalist and MI5 officer who was jailed for breaches of the Official Secrets Act. He later joined the 9/11 Truthers and became their darling for a time…till he declared himself to be the Messiah and came out as a transvestite.

    Of course, THEN it became ‘obvious’ he was nothing but a Government plant designed to discredit the movement…

  10. Bronze Dogon 12 Mar 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Yeah, they’ve got many, many individually optional layers of insulation against having to reevaluate (or even define) their worldview. Some amuse me and/or grind my gears more than others do.

  11. Sirius1001on 15 Mar 2014 at 11:20 am

    Is it possible that consciousness affects reality without statistically different results and thus undetectable? On an individual level it may show effects but since the state of mind needed to produce an effect is so rare in society and barely reproducible due to tiny amounts of stress sabotaging it, it is conceivable that the rest of the results even themselves out as part of the way the universe works. This is especially logical if you don’t see the observable world as the essential world but the result of another unseen primary reality which keeps everything observable in balance and that everything is connected in some way like a massive computer simulation (I’ve seen some people promote the idea of zero world rather than many worlds). I’ve noticed that the state of unconditional love is threatening to a lot of people on the opposite end of consciousness as they think they have them beat but never can beat them so this increases their stress so a balancing effect on consciousness does seem to be in operation as showing true love always increases the fear of those not ready for it.

  12. Bill Openthalton 17 Mar 2014 at 4:48 am

    Sirius1001 –

    Is it possible that consciousness affects reality without statistically different results and thus undetectable?

    Is it possible we live in the matrix? Is it possible god created the world, including all galaxies, suns, planets, fossils etc., last Thursday?

    What you say is possible, but highly improbable, and –by your own definition– unverifiable. This means it’s nothing more than idle speculation, akin to debating how many angles can dance on the head of a pin (which we know, of course, to be 16, because we really do live on Discworld).

  13. Bruceon 17 Mar 2014 at 4:59 am

    “Is it possible that consciousness affects reality without statistically different results and thus undetectable?”

    I stopped reading there because you are proposing an invisible, heatless, silent dragon living in the basement…

    If it is not that, then you have as much evidence to prove it than someone proposing the dragon and that makes both your arguments as valid as each other’s.

  14. Steven Novellaon 17 Mar 2014 at 8:20 am

    Sirius – a hypothesis is only useful if it can be tested in some way. If, by definition, your notion does not result in any possible observable phenomenon, then it is “not even wrong.”

  15. Sherringtonon 17 Mar 2014 at 11:01 am

    Just one minor quibble that does not at all detract from your analysis (does this mean I am being pedantic?).

    You write that:

    “Placebo effects (plural) are mostly reporting bias, regression to the mean, investment justification, researcher bias, and other sources of self-deception.”

    In experimental psychology, the term “placebo effect” is usually reserved for the subjective perception that a treatment is having an effect. Thus, if someone is given an injection of saline and told it is a painkiller and then, on a self-rating scale, reports a decrease in pain, that is a placebo effect.

    The other effects you mention — such as regression to the mean and researcher bias — are other, but separate, phenomena. For example, a single-blind study helps deal with placebo effects and a double-blind study also deals with experimenter bias.

  16. The Other John Mcon 17 Mar 2014 at 11:07 am

    Sherrington, that is a good point, the placebo effect is technically the statistical effect often observed from a placebo treatment. The other issues Steve mentions are some of the many possible influencing factors on the placebo effect. Spontaneous remission might be another one to add to list.

  17. BillyJoe7on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:06 am

    Sherrington,

    Steve is taking about the placebo effect in clinical trials, and he did use the word “mostly”.
    In clinical trials, the placebo effects includes all those things he mentioned, and it also includes the subjective psychological effects you mentioned.

  18. grabulaon 18 Mar 2014 at 7:34 am

    ” I’ve noticed that the state of unconditional love is threatening to a lot of people on the opposite end of consciousness as they think they have them beat but never can beat them so this increases their stress so a balancing effect on consciousness does seem to be in operation as showing true love always increases the fear of those not ready for it.”

    …I think my head just exploded

  19. unitedcats1957on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:56 am

    I agree, there is no current scientific evidence for “magickal” events, the idea that people can change reality with their minds alone. And people who claim there is are lying or misinformed. I have nothing good to say about pseudo-science. What I do submit though is that there are some curious anecdotal reports along these lines, and there’s certainly no harm in serious scientific inquiry into same. Why would any scientist judge what another scientist chooses to look into?
    — Doug

  20. Casperon 19 Jun 2014 at 1:07 pm

    Not on the topic at hand but I really, really don’t know where else to go other than to a neurologist that I trust and have for years. If there is a better place for this question, I would be happy to go in that direction but please, someone, help….

    There is this cute thing called “cloud bursting” or “popping clouds” or “dissolving clouds” which is a practice that is supposed to be something along the lines of making a cloud disappear with your mind by focusing and staring at it. I have now wasted hours of my life trying to find any information on what actually causes the cloud to vanish (either it actually has or it only appears to have) and I can’t find one piece of information regarding the subject that is reasonable or rational, to explain it.

    Mind you, I have stared at the cloud(s) in question. They have disappeared. I just don’t understand why?!?!

    http://realpsychicpower.com/dissolving-clouds-with-your-mind

    ^^ That is a full explanation of the concept, clearly from a ridiculous source, which is all I seem to find and they are all the same.

    If someone could find it in themselves to offer insight to this or even just point me in the right direction, I will be ever grateful!!

    ~Casper

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.