Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Mountainmike]

I am identifying what would be needed to show that consciousness is not a biochemical process.

The presumption of existence of your stated research is that such phenomena repeat or can be repeated at will , also when dealing with a person not a thing, that they have the will or interest to become guinea pigs in an experiment. None of that is a given , even if phenomena are real .

many mystics don’t care whether you believe them or not, they are not attention seekers. They don’t experience at will.

As I said - Such evidence is anecdotal. That
does not discount it. It simply doesn’t prove it.
It’s in the unexplained investigate box.

Eg Therese Neumann - a peasant - was reputed to know a variety of ancient languages and was examined by a number of academics in ancient language who validated the claims at the time.

Eg The fascinating thing about Anne emmerich was that As an illiterate bed ridden peasant, She can never have been outside Belgium let alone to turkey , and can never have known anyone who had been there , when she described the location and shape of a house , and the views from it on a very remote uninhabited hillside in turkey with no proper access paths. Her description allowed it to be located and found , tumbled down, abandoned and overgrown.

But there’s the thing : she described it as it was 2000 years before. It was only on excavation they found footings of the shape she described.

Proof ? No. Coincidence from randomly making it up? almost impossible.
Echoing someone else? No. Nobody had been there and what she described was in part below ground. So Inexplicable .

As for the problem of validation:

Neummann also was claimed to have inedia. But like Marthe robin she cared not whether the world believed it which they regarded as the worlds problem not theirs. They are not attention seekers - which is the problem for proof.

The only one of those they did manage to bully into a hospital trial was Alexandrina da Costa against her will. It was sceptics who forced her there. She passed the hospital trial. Didn’t eat or drink for 40 days. Not that inedia matters in this context, but the unwillingness of such people to be trialled is a problem. It’s of no interest to them what others believe.

So you are safe, for now at least.

AFAIAA, there have been no such cases that have been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, and no well-controlled scientific experiments or replications demonstrating such knowledge. Such a demonstration would have physicists queueing up to replicate it and the military & commercial organizations would invest fortunes. Both US and UK military have investigated remote viewing at some length and both have dropped it as unreliable even without the full blinding of better-controlled studies.

But if you have links to published peer-reviewed research, preferably with independent replications, that demonstrate your claim of verifiable 'special knowledge' beyond reasonable doubt, post them up - I'd like to see them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Eg The fascinating thing about Anne emmerich was that As an illiterate bed ridden peasant, She can never have been outside Belgium let alone to turkey ,

Was she always bed-ridden? Did she never have freedom of movement?
As far as I know illiteracy is no obstacle to travel, else there would be fewer nomads.

and can never have known anyone who had been there ,

Never? Really? So, somehow her illiteracy and bed-ridden status inhibited anyone from outside Belgium, especially Turkey, from visiting her.

I guess her illiteracy was so intense that anyone within hearing distance of her lost the ability to read to her from books on foreign lands. Now there is a supernatural ability that would be worth investigating!

when she described the location and shape of a house , and the views from it on a very remote uninhabited hillside in turkey with no proper access paths..

Warning: approaching pedantry. If there was a house there, then at some point it was not an unihabited hillside. The absence of proper access paths does not seem to be the thought of thing that would disturb an illiterate peasant. In fact it seems, excuse the pun, right up her street.

But there’s the thing : she described it as it was 2000 years before. It was only on excavation they found footings of the shape she described.
Proof ? No. Coincidence from randomly making it up? almost impossible.
Echoing someone else? No. Nobody had been there and what she described was in part below ground. So Inexplicable .

As described, sounds like some believers went out and found what they were looking for. Funny how that happens.

 

[Mountainmike]

doesn’t anyone ever research before making meaningless rebuttals?

You impose a world of aeroplanes and google maps and ease of travel, on a world which had none of those pre 1800.

Travel was hard even for wealthy and fit.
Maps were at best poor, at worst nonexistent, none good enough

Certainly the only two involved - her and Bretano had not been there or even close . She was destitute, This is long pre excavation of Ephesus even. So there was no compelling reason for anyone to visit the area.

even one inch maps of civilised U.K. were well in the future

The combination of
1/ describing a view from a place at which
2/ was an ancient isolated building that was long since abandoned
3/ no infrastructure of paths to get access on an overgrown mountainside
4/ the buried foundation of the abandoned building matched the description, which was unusual design. No other similar buildings known certainly in that area.
5/ the building location was the only place at which that view of Ephesus and the islands was possible.
6/ Ephesus was not yet escalated so nobody would visit that region,


Your Ill researched conclusion is ridiculous.
Try to emulate it. Make a fool of yourself.

With phenomena like this there are only three choices.
A/ it is explicable by natural means or reasonable likelihood
B/ it was possible to hoax by a hypothesised means and method
C/ it is a candidate for inexplicable / supernatural.
There is no positive way to confirm C
But A/ is a non starter , the chances of randomly choosing a spot on a map for a described but isolated inaccessible building of Correct shape is beyond chance.
and B/ the area was not surveyed for detail mapping , the detail was buried, so even if someone had been there ( for which there is no evidence) they would not have seen what was described.

they argue over some of the detail in emmerich writings , how much of the text Brentano dressed up his notes, but nothing accounts for the combined location and nature of the building. Only the words used to describe it.

Was she always bed-ridden? Did she never have freedom of movement?
As far as I know illiteracy is no obstacle to travel, else there would be fewer nomads.

Never? Really? So, somehow her illiteracy and bed-ridden status inhibited anyone from outside Belgium, especially Turkey, from visiting her.

I guess her illiteracy was so intense that anyone within hearing distance of her lost the ability to read to her from books on foreign lands. Now there is a supernatural ability that would be worth investigating!

Warning: approaching pedantry. If there was a house there, then at some point it was not an unihabited hillside. The absence of proper access paths does not seem to be the thought of thing that would disturb an illiterate peasant. In fact it seems, excuse the pun, right up her street.

As described, sounds like some believers went out and found what they were looking for. Funny how that happens.

 

[Ophiolite]

doesn’t anyone ever research before making meaningless rebuttals?

Let me be more direct, inspired by your ill-mannered response.

It is not my responsibility to research the alleged "wonderful things" you post post about. If you have something of substance it is up to you to post a cogent, detailed summary of that "wonderful thing". If you fail to do that I am not ony entitled, but obliged, to dismiss it for what it appears to be - a lightweight, waffle -loaded, wish-fulfillment fantasy.

If you wish to have your arguments taken seriously then you need to post substantive evidence, not fatuous drivel.

I look forward to your future posts meeting the standards that you claim to be important and being couched in courteous tones, not loaded with offensive personal remarks. I'm confident you can do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you haven’t.

Adler, heller, Rogers and many others bury mcrone.
You have not read a single one.

You have not provided any proper sources that support that claim. You keep forgetting that Rodgers lost all credibility since his samples were not authorized. You keep ducking the question of when Rodgers and others lied. You cannot take unauthorized samples and expect them to be taken seriously.

The Adler video ( a conference proceeding - don’t conferences count with you?)
is intreresting in that he gives mcrone who was present a clearly needed science lesson: all the issues are raised in that video. Including Adler explaining to mccrone why his results didn’t mean what he thought they did.

You do realise that the other serious voices that disputed authenticity and age, also disagreed with mcrone too? The dialogue of mcrone with others is noted in shroud magazines : mcrones comments and responses, which you would find if you ever looked. I won’t hold my breath. It’s fascinating in those dialogues mcrone refers readers to his book. You know… the one they list on shroud.com!

Adler, heller, Rogers and many others since have determined the blood as blood ( and serum) .The mark a thin layer dehydration/ oxidation. All discount it as any form of artwork or paint.


The RC sample was determined as having little in common, chemistry, structure, density or chemistry with the rest of the shroud. The date was ok for a repair. The daters even fiddled that, as an FOI on their logbooks show! So as the only archeologist involved - meacham - said before the dating, with textiles it would only ever be indicative not definitive , and only then if they characterised it chemically first. Meacham was also angry they ignored the agreed sampling protocol.

I’m writing this for other rwaders who might be interested. I’ve given up that you might consider science instead of your belief. I will no longer respond to you.

You should work on your spelling skills if you want to be taken seriously. Just two upper case letters would help your cause:

McCrone.

Now McCrone was the acknowledged expert in the field that we are talking about so articles by amateurs in that area hardly count as a refutation. You would need to demonstrate that those article were accepted by others, and that does not seem to be the case. Most (except for a few religious extremists) seem to accept McCrone. All you have are claims about repairs etc. that you have not been able to support. Meanwhile let's look at some of the gross problems with the shroud.

Number one is that the body geometry is often definitely wrong. Besides the fact that there was no history of the shroud prior to the 14th century. That it was accurately carbon dated to that period. That he cloth is wrong and that it does not even match the description of wrappings written in the Gospel of John it also had these problems:

"Additionally, the proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically incorrect, but they closely match the proportions of figures in Gothic art of the fourteenth-century. The bloodstains on the shroud are not consistent with how blood flows naturally, which suggests the stains have been painted on. Finally, the fabric of the shroud was made using a complex weave that was common in the Late Middle Ages for high-quality textiles but was not used for burial shrouds in the time of Jesus."

And forensic science refutes the shroud as well:

Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest

"They found that if one examined all the bloodstains on the shroud together, "you realize these cannot be real bloodstains from a person who was crucified and then put into a grave, but actually handmade by the artist that created the shroud,"study lead author Matteo Borrini, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in England, told Live Science.

For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle. In contrast, the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. A person couldn't be in these two positions at once."

In other words the blood stains refute the shroud because though they may match blood real blood stains of a real person, they do not reflect the blood stains of a person in a single position. They should all reflect the same body position, but they do not.



The scientists did find that the bloodstains on the front of the chest did match those from a spear wound. However, the stains on the lower back — which supposedly came from the spear wound while the body was positioned on its back — were completely unrealistic, they said.

"If you look at the bloodstains as a whole, just as you would when working at a crime scene, you realize they contradict each other," Borrini said. "That points to the artificial origin of these stains."



The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten

And there is of course this article:

Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)

"Forensic analysis of possible bloodstains suggest marks could only have been made by someone adopting different poses, not dead Messiah lying still in tomb before the resurrection. ....

The Turin Shroud is a fake.

That is the verdict of Catholic Bishop Pierre d’Arcis who has written to tell the Pope it was “a clever sleight of hand” by someone “falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them”.

Admittedly, since Bishop d’Arcis was writing in 1390, to Pope Clement VII rather than Pope Francis, this is not exactly new news."

Meanwhile you will not even discuss why you think that the dating of the shroud has been refuted except to refer to your poor sources that clamed to do so. The problem is that they could did not have proper sources that would support this.

If you really really really believe that the shroud is real then you should be advocating that it be dated again with C14. I would have no problem with that. The technology has improved quite a bit over thirty years and it could be dated with even smaller samples today. But then when it inevitably tested to the 14th century again we would only have more science denial come out.

 

[Mountainmike]

I treat as I find, You commented without studying even my précis. The conclusion dismissive / irrelevant to the point of insulting.

I told you in the first précis what was inexplicable: that the building was described was as it WAS millennia ago , The remains long since buried so your “hypothesis” was not compatible with even the basics of what was said.

It’s hard to see how it could have been faked, since what was found could not be seen. It was certainly not a product of random chance stick a pin in a map. There were no detail maps to stick a pin in, and even if the view was described, it is beyond chance an ancient isolated building is found( as described) at a random point on a map.

I classified this as anecdotal but of interest , not proof. Which is a fair assessment.

I used it only as example of the type of evidence which if verified challenges the paradigm that consciousness is a chemical process.

Viewed through the lens of apriori sceptic belief ,it seems nothing makes it over the barrier. Even the consensus of serious documented science on the shroud doesn’t pass because The shroud MUST be a fake heh? Because the alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

Let me be more direct, inspired by your ill-mannered response.

It is not my responsibility to research the alleged "wonderful things" you post post about. If you have something of substance it is up to you to post a cogent, detailed summary of that "wonderful thing". If you fail to do that I am not ony entitled, but obliged, to dismiss it for what it appears to be - a lightweight, waffle -loaded, wish-fulfillment fantasy.

If you wish to have your arguments taken seriously then you need to post substantive evidence, not fatuous drivel.

I look forward to your future posts meeting the standards that you claim to be important and being couched in courteous tones, not loaded with offensive personal remarks. I'm confident you can do it.

 

[Ophiolite]

I treat as I find, You commented without studying even my précis. The conclusion dismissive / irrelevant to the point of insulting.

I read it carefully. Three times, hoping I had missed something. No. Your precis was deficient, filled with assertions that lacked credibility. If you don't wish to have your posts critiqued in a negative manner, which you mistakenly take to be insulting when it is merely objective, then write better posts. I'm done with your contributions. I won't trouble you again.

 

[Mountainmike]

How does your “ hypothesis” explain the most significant factors?
The description of something as it was, not as it is, in a place you neither you, nor anyone you know has ever been? In a country in which local politics prevented travel for other than a privileged few, there were no detail maps and nobody had cause to go there.

it wasn’t an objective critique, it was a lazy illconsidered apriori attempt at rebuttal. Without google earth or detailed mapping try describing the view from an arbitrary location, and what would be found there if you did?

I didn’t present it as proof: I presented it as an interesting anomaly which is hard to dismiss or explain. Which is fair comment. Also that demonstration of it would question consciousness of another place and time.

I read it carefully. Three times, hoping I had missed something. No. Your precis was deficient, filled with assertions that lacked credibility. If you don't wish to have your posts critiqued in a negative manner, which you mistakenly take to be insulting when it is merely objective, then write better posts. I'm done with your contributions. I won't trouble you again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am identifying what would be needed to show that consciousness is not a biochemical process.

As I said - Such evidence is anecdotal. That
does not discount it. It simply doesn’t prove it.
It’s in the unexplained investigate box.

So you are safe, for now at least.

OK, so you don't know of any solid scientific evidence for the phenomena you claim are real - it's still anecdotal despite decades of scientific research (AWARE, AWARE II, PEAR, etc.) - lots of initially promising work that simply evaporates, regresses to the noisy mean, on closer, better-controlled examination.

So I'm safe from what? an extraordinary new frontier in science? discovery of amazing new fields and forces that were totally unexpected? That's the last thing I want to be safe from - and I suspect you'd find many experimental and theoretical scientists feel the same way, let alone military and commercial interests. But none of us are holding our breaths - because we've been disappointed so many times, and now the fundamental physics underlying everyday life is understood (the rules of the game, if not the way it plays out), there appears to be no room for the claimed phenomena.

To find out that our current understanding is completely wrong would be liberating, but it's hard to see how, despite predicting the result of every experiment so far done to a precision exceeding that of our best instruments, it can still be completely wrong.

I guess we'll have to wait for someone who can demonstrate such claims with scientific rigour.

 

[Mountainmike]

You do love confusing issues:

I didn’t say the experiments you relate were anecdotal.
I said the anomalies I referred were anecdotal.

I claimed nothing more than several anomalies which were very hard to discount & very hard to explain.

I raised it in the context that awareness of self is not easily explained as a biochemical automaton, and I considered the nature of phenomena that would be needed to challenge the paradigm of consciousness as a chemical process.

Eg if there were demonstrable awareness of a time place or knowledge that cannot have come from experience, and I suggested historic anecdotes that have that form.

Only those things that can be repeated or do repeat naturally can be assessed in a lab. There is no philosophical constraint that limits all of existence to being of that nature, so science is limited to what it can study.

OK, so you don't know of any solid scientific evidence for the phenomena you claim are real - it's still anecdotal despite decades of scientific research (AWARE, AWARE II, PEAR, etc.) - lots of initially promising work that simply evaporates, regresses to the noisy mean, on closer, better-controlled examination.

So I'm safe from what? an extraordinary new frontier in science? discovery of amazing new fields and forces that were totally unexpected? That's the last thing I want to be safe from - and I suspect you'd find many experimental and theoretical scientists feel the same way, let alone military and commercial interests. But none of us are holding our breaths - because we've been disappointed so many times, and now the fundamental physics underlying everyday life is understood (the rules of the game, if not the way it plays out), there appears to be no room for the claimed phenomena.

To find out that our current understanding is completely wrong would be liberating, but it's hard to see how, despite predicting the result of every experiment so far done to a precision exceeding that of our best instruments, it can still be completely wrong.

I guess we'll have to wait for someone who can demonstrate such claims with scientific rigour.

 

[stevevw]

There is an understanding in physics that information is at the basis of the physical. However prominent physicists like Dr. Susskind (theoretical physicist at Stanford University) argument that the information is physical, to be found somewhere on the event horizon. So they avoid the immaterial realm. I haven't been able to find his video where he explains this.

I think the very fact that information is at the basis of physical reality AND information is not physical, but immaterial, is evidence for the interaction of God with the physical reality that God created.
My understanding is that God selected the relevant information in the Mind of God and upheld it in the Divine Consciousness. This brought the physical realm(s) into being AND maintains them in their existence. For science to be able to begin to examine this there needs to be a paradigm shift and to acknowledge that there is a non-physical realm, i.e., The Mind (or The Mind of God), which is the source of all information. And there is evidence but it is being explained away in physical terms one way or the other. Some of that information is the very fact of entangled particles.

Yes well put. I think its because of this that we are seeing more and more ideas fall into the non-scientific side even some in mainstream sciences. Ideas like Pan-physicalism, Panpsychism, and all the emerging ideas about what consciousness represents including dualism. Add to this the counter intuitive ideas stemming from QM and we can see that we are heading towards something that is not represented by Methological Naturalism.

Will this show some support for a realm or influence beyond the physical that influences reality we will have to wait and see for sure. Or maybe we can never fully know. But like you said there needs to be a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn said

Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon, and someone proposes a new theory.

So maybe we are seeing the period where current paradigms are not explaining things and all these ideas around the fringes of science and within science are the new theory being formulated. It may take some time for some to realize that we need to be open to alternative ideas even in mainstream science or accept that scientific thinking has reached its usefullness in some areas and look to other ways of knowing.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes well put. I think its because of this that we are seeing more and more ideas fall into the non-scientific side even some in mainstream sciences. Ideas like Pan-physicalism, Panpsychism, and all the emerging ideas about what consciousness represents including dualism. Add to this the counter intuitive ideas stemming from QM and we can see that we are heading towards something that is not represented by Methological Naturalism.

Will this show some support for a realm or influence beyond the physical that influences reality we will have to wait and see for sure. Or maybe we can never fully know. But like you said there needs to be a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn said

Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon, and someone proposes a new theory.

So maybe we are seeing the period where current paradigms are not explaining things and all these ideas around the fringes of science and within science are the new theory being formulated. It may take some time for some to realize that we need to be open to alternative ideas even in mainstream science or accept that scientific thinking has reached its usefullness in some areas and look to other ways of knowing.

Really really wanting something to be true does not make it true.

In other words, no, there are not going to be a paradigm shift like you want.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You do love confusing issues:

I didn’t say the experiments you relate were anecdotal.
I said the anomalies I referred were anecdotal.

It appears to be you who have confused the issue - I was simply confirming your statement the claims you repeated were anecdotal:

You: "Such evidence is anecdotal"
Me: "so you don't know of any solid scientific evidence for the phenomena you claim are real - it's still anecdotal"

For the rest, we should not expect it to be easy to understand the most sophisticated features of the brain - it's by far the most complex object we know of.

 

[Mountainmike]

It appears to be you who have confused the issue - I was simply confirming your statement the claims you repeated were anecdotal:

You: "Such evidence is anecdotal"
Me: "so you don't know of any solid scientific evidence for the phenomena you claim are real - it's still anecdotal"

For the rest, we should not expect it to be easy to understand the most sophisticated features of the brain - it's by far the most complex object we know of.

You presume it is possible to get what you call “ solid scientific evidence” .

That presumes phenomena that can be repeated or do repeat naturally. There is nothing that constrains the universe to be of that form. Only a subset of reality is of that nature.

In which case the only process then available to judge any phenomenon is by the three hypotheses.
1/ it is sufficiently likely to occur naturally to be explained as a natural process
2/ there is a reasonable hypothesis for how it was faked
Or by elimination:
3/ it is a candidate for assessment as inexplicable or supernatural

3/ cannot be positively demonstrated only by discounting 1/ or 2/

And that is the nature of much evidence of supernatural “ beyond nature”. Which for added measure needs to be not only unexplained but inexplicable by breaching a core paradigm of the scientific model, eg a prophecy fulfilled.

All such evidence is therefore anecdotal. A series of documented events.

The lack of a possible process of lab testing doesn’t invalidate existence. It simply limits the scope of conclusion.

It is also entirely possible the process of observation and testing interferes with experimental results, much more so when the subject is a living thing not inert matter.

Quantum physicists can’t argue with the problem of observation interference.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You presume it is possible to get what you call “ solid scientific evidence” .

That presumes phenomena that can be repeated or do repeat naturally. There is nothing that constrains the universe to be of that form. Only a subset of reality is of that nature.

In which case the only process then available to judge any phenomenon is by the three hypotheses.
1/ it is sufficiently likely to occur naturally to be explained as a natural process
2/ there is a reasonable hypothesis for how it was faked
Or by elimination:
3/ it is a candidate for assessment as inexplicable or supernatural

3/ cannot be positively demonstrated only by discounting 1/ or 2/

And that is the nature of much evidence of supernatural “ beyond nature”. Which for added measure needs to be not only unexplained but inexplicable by breaching a core paradigm of the scientific model, eg a prophecy fulfilled.

All such evidence is therefore anecdotal. A series of documented events.

The lack of a possible process of lab testing doesn’t invalidate existence. It simply limits the scope of conclusion.

Why not take a Bayesian approach based on our best understanding of how the world works?

As already mentioned, given our current understanding of how the brain works and the fundamental physics of the everyday world, our prior credence for the claims you describe should be extremely low - there's no evidence of brain structures and corresponding pathways that might receive or respond to extrasensory input or that might broadcast or narrowcast such information; if there were any fields, forces, or particles sufficiently long-range and sufficiently powerful to carry information a significant distance and interact with the brain sufficiently to effectively transfer that information, we would already know about it - that macroscopic physical regime has been thoroughly explored.

So we can update our extremely low priors given the claims: Firstly, how well does this evidence match our expectations, assuming the telepathy hypothesis is correct? I would suggest not very well; if telepathy was possible and did occur, even if in only a few gifted individuals, I would expect there to be much stronger evidence for it after decades of careful research.

Secondly, how well does this evidence match our expectations, assuming the telepathy hypothesis is incorrect? I would suggest that weak anecdotal evidence after decades of careful research is exactly what we would expect to see if telepathy is not possible. The persistence of weak anecdotal claims is what we see with other false hypotheses (e.g. perpetual motion machines and so-on).

It's clear, without putting specific numbers to these credences, that they will significantly decrease rather than increase our priors - IOW, the evidence presented is consistent with telepathy being just another fringe belief without rational credibility. YMMV.

It is also entirely possible the process of observation and testing interferes with experimental results, much more so when the subject is a living thing not inert matter.

Quantum physicists can’t argue with the problem of observation interference.

The observer effect was known in classical physics long before quantum physics, and the measurement problem in QM is something else again. Having said that, if you want to claim that the observer effect or the measurement problem mean that telepathy won't work with living things, or while being observed, then telepathy is obviously impossible - the claim is that a living sender transmits to a living observer. OTOH, if you're suggesting that telepathy can occur but questioning the participants afterwards to verify this somehow retrospectively disrupts it, or makes the participants forget the relevant information, you'll need to demonstrate that those effects are possible...

If you're suggesting something else, please explain.

 

[Mountainmike]

Bayesian approach is a description of what a world normally does. Regular statistical approaches don’t measure the Long tail - the exceptions- well.

There is also a tendency to try to measure phenomena in the terms of what is easily measurable. It would be convenient, and valuable if transmission of images worked in a statistically reliable way. But that is imposing assumptions. That the process is in any sense controllable and that image transmission is really an instance of real telepathy.

A bit like saying - I’ll believe in dark matter only when my empty glass weighs more than it should - or I’ll believe in gravitational lensing, only when I see light bend round my paperweight, ( and discount it if I don’t) yet the effect is vanishingly small in that instance. I can’t impose what I hope to see on the real world, and then expect to find it, and discount it when I don’t find it. Someone I knew once said: he will believe in the supernatural only when the lions hover at Trafalgar Square. It’s imposing his definition of supernatural.

“Real telepathy” if ever validated and accepted May neither be controllable nor of the type of context measured in labs. Like “do you know who is ringing you” by phone when it rings, which may only apply to biological siblings or not.

The apparent conversation between Katya Rivas in one room and a doctor examining her brain patterns in another room, were not even an attempt at telepathy, it was a side show, but the exchange took place none the less. As the doctor muttered his thoughts, she responded uncannily to what was being said.

It’s anecdotal. Simply an inexplicable history caught on camera.
Much as other locutions of hers. She could write for an hour on continuous camera in fluent prose full of references to documents, without stopping, pausing, thinking, rubbing out. She says “ what was dictated to her”. And her many books are beautifully written. I have never seen anyone else get close.

The experiment was actually looking at brain patterns,( telepathy with the investigator was an accident, not the experiment.) the experiment aimed to show she was in delta wave during locutions. Which with present understanding isn’t possible in a conscious person.

Anecdotal.
Long tail.
Hard to discount or explain.

You cannot impose what the supernatural must do to be believed. It does what it does.

On a physical side there is a mass of evidence for supernatural preservation. From so called incorruptible bodies to Eucharistic wafers to white cells - even a garment at Guadalupe. . Things that should have decayed centuries before but didn’t.
It’s not exciting. Only continued existence defies explanation. Add the fact no identified preservatives are involved.

The most amazing thing about the so called Eucharistic miracle if lanciano is not what is on the slides and sections ( you guessed it - heart myocardium). It’s the fact it is still visible as human heart tissue after 1000 years, and bugs and time haven’t destroyed it.

But it’s long tail. Can’t be repeated. Rarely repeats. Can only be studied on its own terms. Science can’t make it happen.



.

Why not take a Bayesian approach based on our best understanding of how the world works?

As already mentioned, given our current understanding of how the brain works and the fundamental physics of the everyday world, our prior credence for the claims you describe should be extremely low - there's no evidence of brain structures and corresponding pathways that might receive or respond to extrasensory input or that might broadcast or narrowcast such information; if there were any fields, forces, or particles sufficiently long-range and sufficiently powerful to carry information a significant distance and interact with the brain sufficiently to effectively transfer that information, we would already know about it - that macroscopic physical regime has been thoroughly explored.

So we can update our extremely low priors given the claims: Firstly, how well does this evidence match our expectations, assuming the telepathy hypothesis is correct? I would suggest not very well; if telepathy was possible and did occur, even if in only a few gifted individuals, I would expect there to be much stronger evidence for it after decades of careful research.

Secondly, how well does this evidence match our expectations, assuming the telepathy hypothesis is incorrect? I would suggest that weak anecdotal evidence after decades of careful research is exactly what we would expect to see if telepathy is not possible. The persistence of weak anecdotal claims is what we see with other false hypotheses (e.g. perpetual motion machines and so-on).

It's clear, without putting specific numbers to these credences, that they will significantly decrease rather than increase our priors - IOW, the evidence presented is consistent with telepathy being just another fringe belief without rational credibility. YMMV.


The observer effect was known in classical physics long before quantum physics, and the measurement problem in QM is something else again. Having said that, if you want to claim that the observer effect or the measurement problem mean that telepathy won't work with living things, or while being observed, then telepathy is obviously impossible - the claim is that a living sender transmits to a living observer. OTOH, if you're suggesting that telepathy can occur but questioning the participants afterwards to verify this somehow retrospectively disrupts it, or makes the participants forget the relevant information, you'll need to demonstrate that those effects are possible...

If you're suggesting something else, please explain.

 

[stevevw]

Really really wanting something to be true does not make it true.

In other words, no, there are not going to be a paradigm shift like you want.

Why what sort of paradigm shift do you think I want. What am not pushing for any specific shift but rather just allow things to progress naturally in the direction they should even if that means considering other alternatives to methoological naturalism. We do it in just about every other area of life so why not.

Science methid is primarily materialism and thats a hard thing to displace as its so sucessful. MOdern society is materialistic so the powers to be will make sure it remains prominent even if that means ignoring counter evdience.

But the fact is ironically the more we have determined things scientifically the more it is showing something missing in methological naturalism. A limit to its measuring ability to account for everything that is happening. Compared to 100 years ago and even 30 years ago the number of mainstream studies in consciousness has exploded.

A lot of people are questioning the materialist view that consciousness is produced by the brain; there seems to a degree of new openness to psi phenomena; and on a wider cultural level, there is increasing interest in spirituality and altered states of consciousnes.
Dude, where's my paradigm shift? — Philosophy for Life

 

[VirOptimus]

Why what sort of paradigm shift do you think I want. What am not pushing for any specific shift but rather just allow things to progress naturally in the direction they should even if that means considering other alternatives to methoological naturalism. We do it in just about every other area of life so why not.

Science methid is primarily materialism and thats a hard thing to displace as its so sucessful. MOdern society is materialistic so the powers to be will make sure it remains prominent even if that means ignoring counter evdience.

But the fact is ironically the more we have determined things scientifically the more it is showing something missing in methological naturalism. A limit to its measuring ability to account for everything that is happening. Compared to 100 years ago and even 30 years ago the number of mainstream studies in consciousness has exploded.

A lot of people are questioning the materialist view that consciousness is produced by the brain; there seems to a degree of new openness to psi phenomena; and on a wider cultural level, there is increasing interest in spirituality and altered states of consciousnes.
Dude, where's my paradigm shift? — Philosophy for Life

Haha, no.

 

[stevevw]

Haha, no.

I'm only going off what is happening even in mainstream scinces. The type of ideas being investigated are different to the cause and effect on physical phenomena studied in past decades. There has been a 10 fold increase in the study of consciousness for example which challenges the idea of consciousnes being a physical cause. All interpetations of QP requires counter intuitive ideas that go beyond what science can verify.

New theories are being made in most sciences that incoporates some non-material influence and this is increasing all the time. The influence of the agent/observer is becoming central to how reality works.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm only going off what is happening even in mainstream scinces. The type of ideas being investigated are different to the cause and effect on physical phenomena studied in past decades. There has been a 10 fold increase in the study of consciousness for example which challenges the idea of consciousnes being a physical cause. All interpetations of QP requires counter intuitive ideas that go beyond what science can verify.

New theories are being made in most sciences that incoporates some non-material influence and this is increasing all the time. The influence of the agent/observer is becoming central to how reality works.

Haha, double no.