Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
quote:
Originally posted by babayada:
DS,

I have to say it is very convenient that people have better things to do than perform experiments that would confirm or eradicate their beliefs. That is, put their rhetoric to a real test. I understand you're busy believing what makes you feel comfortable and just don't have time to see if those beliefs really reflect reality or not. The truth hurts sometimes.


And I have to say, it is very ignorant for someone to assume that they could scientifically establish the truth-validity of a general proposition, which in this case is "Can the mind, to any degree, affect objective reality"....

by setting an arbitrarily high standard for the "proof" of the proposition, and then proposing to test it with one individual case.

Not a very good method for evaluation.

That is like a cancer researcher saying.."Oh yeah? Your cancer drug works, eh?? Well, if it works, then I want to see it completely cure all 1000 patients! Otherwise I don't believe you!"

The way theories like this are tested, is statistically, i.e., by means of a p-test, over many cases, to establish the probability that the results observed are consistent with the null hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesis that NO CORRELATION exists between the two variables.

THAT is how you correct for and eliminate blind error, and individual variations, etc; and actually establish a definite and mathematical level of confidence about the BASIC PROPOSITION, i.e., does mind or intention have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on the results achieved in the realm of objective reality.

[This message has been edited by garics (edited September 02, 2005).]






Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Ok. I'll do my best to address your points one at a time, Garic.

The "peek a boo" argument was for using the knowledge you have as to what you know to be true in order to determine how you are to intepret new information, in terms of what is sensible. Whether or not we have seen an electron, we should abide by what we know to be true, what is common sense. On the macroscopic level, at least, things don't pop in and out of existence. I disagree with you about the validity of my argument and its conclusions, and from discussing the issues with others more educated in physics than I (which I have done since our argument began) I am not alone in this.

Occam's Razor.

I agree that we should accept what our experiments show us, but we should remain careful about our interpretations of it. I suppose what I am arguing here is what is elegantly demonstrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his Sherlock Holmes novels. There are, at times, clues and evidence that points to a supernatural explanation. Instead of ignoring the facts, Holmes keeps going, but he is reluctant to give in to superstitious notions. You can tentatively hold on to what you've got (even if it is unsatisfying and seems crazy, as Holmes did when he found the apparent cause was supernatural), but still try your best to work things out. It's not just in fiction where reason wins the day.

So, yes, something can shock you and not make sense and be true. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing for doing your best to make sense of a situation and not checking your brains at the door and believing in something willy nilly.

The discoveries of Quantum Mechanics were mind numbing. Especially around the 1920s. Something might not make any sense, but the more you learn about it, the more sense it should make. It may take a little stretching and expanded knowledge, but it should always make sense in the end. It isn't chance, I think, that people attribute supernatural traits to something we don't really understand that much and are learning a great deal about ... and it isn't surprising that this new, somewhat fuzzy area is used to validate superstitious nonsense.

And, by the way, let's say I am completely wrong about everything I've said about Quantum Mechanics. The logic you use is something like this: the world that quantum mechanics shows us looks magical in nature, so, therefore, a lot of stuff considered magical must be true! It's associative rather than logical, poetic rather than scientific. It's like saying because the two particles rotate correspondingly with no apparent physical link, our minds are psychicly linked to each other and we're connected by one mind. Nope. Doesn't work that way. A strong correspondence has to be shown between one area and another other than the subjects being similar to one another (sharing the idea of connectivity between them).

More on common sense: common sense was the basis of Einstein's conclusions from his thought experiments, so I am glad that he used it. If he didn't stick to what made sense to him, we may not have many of his accomplishments.

So you found the article a few sizes too small. Ok. I am not surprised.

They are particles, not waves. Light behaves, at least according to Mr. Feynman, as particles in ways that leads him to believe that photons are indeed particles. (And I understand that the particles do not move stictly like billiard balls.... but I have seen physicists I trust more than you use the analogy for teaching purposes.) The author of the skeptic article was using an analogy, one that I found pretty informative and made a great deal of sense. If you can propose something, from your educated point of view, that makes more sense, I'd love to read it.

It seems you go with the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations.

Feynman addresses the phenomenon in the two-slit experiment in the lectures given the links on the skeptic article's web-page. It was interesting to watch. What he says matches much more what David Morgan said in his article than the sketchy information you post here. You're certainly more educated than I am in the subject, but from where I am standing, you appear to have reached the wrong conclusions. And it's always possible for a well educated person to process good information in bad ways.

Believe it or not, I read and consider what you say and earmark it in my mind to see if it will jive with what I experience in the future. My bet is it won't, but that is just a bet.

My emphasis on credentials re. Chopra was for the reason that because he is a Dr. and talks about Quantum physics... some believe that he is an authority on the subject (I did for a while). He's not.

As for myself, I am no authority. I don't publish books with the word "Quantum" in the title. I hope this information is enough to help you understand my reasons for emphasizing qualifications. I can only seek to learn as much as I can in a realistic fashion and do my best to have an accurate view of the world. My educational background is in Communications, English Writing, and Computer Science. I have Bachelor degrees in each. My knoweldge of physics comes from my own personal interest in the subject and self-education (aside from rudimentary education for high-school and university).

As for me parroting ideas, no. I have the same opinions as the person who wrote the article. Why would I link you to an article that stated opinions I disagreed with? The author appeared to be much more knowledgeable in the subject than I am, and he put it more lucidly than I could. And I have to say that I did learn some very interesting things from it.

As for mere belief, I continue to check what I learned against knowledge I continue to find. If I find something that clashes, rings untrue, then I update my knowledge and change my opinions. My beliefs change over time based on what I find to be accurate, pertinent, and helpful. I'll take a 180 turn (a while ago I'd be arguing your side of the issue) when I have to. My beliefs change not based on comfort but on what I find to be reasonable and accurate, do yours?

This is why I was so mad at Chopra, I actually believed that stuff and would argue for it at one time, until I started to sit down and really think about what I was being told, and then sought more information. You don't have to imagine my reaction. You've seen it.

I go with what Schrodinger believed about the whole observation collapsing the waveform thing. It's silliness. A simple dose of common sense (and also some knowledge of philosophy, cognitive science, and general psychology) shows you where Heisenberg and others made their mistakes.

It IS very much about our measuring tools and how we think about things. It IS about confusing a mathematical formula with reality.

Things are no more or less in a state of non-existence than the average American family with 2.5 kids has an indeterminate child that suddenly appears or disappears based on whether or not you visit the home of a specific family in order to observe them.

Some things don't make sense, sure. But you know what? A lot of the times they do. And the goal is to find out how to think about what is in ways that our reason can manipulate and understand. Otherwise, it's voodoo.

Special universes that only the initiated and trained can perceive, huh? The argument from special knowledge is not a new one. You may be right, but then again, you also may be deluded.

As for the openness of my mind and heart, you don't know what you're talking about.

It's a nice little web you've constructed. If you don't do the experiments, you'll never know. If you do the experiments you'll never know. Nice.

How is my aggressiveness parasitic? Am I sucking your chi through the internet?

As to my bet....

Actually, it's like saying, "You can create stuff with your mind? Then show me!" I'm not asking for a double-blind study... or for the double-binds you describe in order to explain why people don't believe in this stuff. I am asking for something that would convince me that there is something to it, other than wishful thinking.

You know, I meant it mostly as a joke. But apparently you take it as an opportunity to interpret it as something that defines absolutely my point of view and ability to think.

Hey, come up with a counter offer. My point is, if you can create stuff with your mind, you can create stuff with you mind. Why not prove it to me in some concrete way without weasely arguments about how you can't while arguing, essentially, that you can.

And a p-test. Sure I know what it is. That's when they give you the little cup when you go to the doctor, right?

You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura. I think you might want to harmonize your charkas with the morphic field of unlimited, creative intelligence before continuing with this conversation. You're at risk of having the negativity put your existence into an indeterminate state until someone comes by and observes you.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 28, 2005).]






Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 279
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 279
Quoting Babayada:
You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura. I think you might want to harmonize your charkas with the morphic field of unlimited, creative intelligence before continuing with this conversation. You're at risk of having the negativity put your existence into an indeterminate state until someone comes by and observes you.

Not that I agree or disagree with anything that has been see-sawing back and forth here for some time now (I have my own ideas about creative thought, and for the time will keep them mine - they certainly won't become fodder for this particular agrument ), however, I'd like to point out that the ferocity with which you (Babayada and Garics mostly) are attacking each another seems to have deteriorated almost to name calling.

Perhaps to clarify: When you point your finger at someone (as the above quote strongly suggests being done), just remember you have four fingers pointing back at you. What I have also learned anent this, is when we are giving someone a strong suggestion of what "they" need to be doing, as we are all reflections of one another, perhaps we need to be looking at ourselves as well.

As to the parties this quote was said to, this does not mean I am or not siding with you either - and the same advice stands. If any of you had a clue as to what creative thought is or isn't, you certainly would be putting it to better use than battering one another with your argumentive rants.

(And I suppose I should now duck for cover - I remember well when I pulled my young children apart from clawing each other to shreds, all of a sudden they were "buddies" and I was the "bad guy". Oh well.... ;D

Cheers!
Unis

"Create something infinite today - Smile!"

[This message has been edited by Unis (edited August 28, 2005).]






Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
quote:
Originally posted by babayada:

You know, even from here, I can detect a lot of negative vibes in your aura.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited August 28, 2005).]


Ha!

babayada accusing me of "negative vibes" over the internet >> Elvis Presley accusing me of being the "King of Rock n Roll"...j/k...

I don't want to fight with you, babayada, and i regret the insulting comments I made.
I guess I do feel a lot of "talking-down", negativity and such from you, towards other posters as well as myself, and I reacted to this, trying to give you a dose of your own medicine.

So I'm sorry. However I would also invite you to examine your own comments and conscience, to see if the above feedback makes any sense.

I will respond with more comments later (if it feels appropriate or necessary), but I don't have the time right now to organize my thoughts.

How about instead of "parasite" I'll call you "ladybug" instead...LOL

Peace

Garic

[This message has been edited by garics (edited August 28, 2005).]






Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
quote:
Originally posted by Unis:
(And I suppose I should now duck for cover - I remember well when I pulled my young children apart from clawing each other to shreds, all of a sudden they were "buddies" and I was the "bad guy". Oh well.... ;D

Cheers!
Unis

"Create something infinite today - Smile!"

[This message has been edited by Unis (edited August 28, 2005).][/B]


Don't worry, Unis, you're safe....thanks for the input.








Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Learning Strategies Admin
Member
Offline
Learning Strategies Admin
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Guys, when you start slinging derogatory comments about your discussion loses merit. And even though it doesn't answer the original question very well. I thought thought the discussion raised some interesting comments.

However they are starting to flame. So please stick to the subject.

The questions was with the right mindset can I fulfill my dreams?

If you have the mindset of a victim you play the role of the victim. If you have the mindset of a leader you play the role of a leader. I could list a number of mindsets that one can adopt that would change ones life.

Unfortunately one can pretend to be a leader and still be playing the role of the victim in their own mind and that does affect how you respond and how you react to challenges that take you off your path. Unfortunately we cannot see into a persons mind to know that they say believe is true is in fact what they believe. Since lying is a human trait.

How much this has to do with quanta. I don't know. But I do know your mindset affects your own attitude and motivation. And your attitude is your bargaining chip with the rest of the society. How they react to you and how they will support you. Your motivation is your forward motion to taking action.

There is no one right mindset. You adopt a different one for each area of your life. So while one can be a leader in business one can still be a victim in relationships.

Alex






Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 250
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 250
Yes, you can!

Thanks for the good contributions to this topic. I'd like to add the following:

When people use the word dreams they often think about a very big goal. Something they have never done before. So there is often an underlying expectation that this is to far out and beyond our reach.

This expectation/feeling is the reason why we don't get it. I takes away our motivation and to take action and makes us hoping that somehow from outside our "dream" will be fulfilled.

On the contrary when we talk about goals or plans that is ususally something they have done before or it looks achievable or realistic to them. E.g. Let's say my goal is
earning $ 120K p.a.. This looks achievable because I'm already on $ 70K right now. A few years ago I was on $ 40K and moved up to my current income level. So the goal looks achievable to me.

Mindsets: Mindsets are like roadmaps or concetps. A certain mindset may good for some goals but not for others. There is no ideal mindset which can map our way to every goal since reality is fast that it cannot be described in singel concept/mindset.

Cheers,









Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Ladybug I can handle.

Whether or not mindset can do anything, I'd like you all to extend your best wishes to New Orleans. I am from there.

They need a lot of help.

I haven't gotten on here in a while because I have been dealing with my own stuff. My family lived there, and I have been staying in touch while they have been traveling around.

So, with you intentions, but more importantly with your donations of money, canned goods, water, whatever, please lend the suffering people in New Orleans a helping hand.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/katrina_aid.html

Oh, and Garics, please go on about Quantum Mechanics. Please spell it out where you see total misconceptions. I really do want to learn from you.

And, of course, it's like the King of Rock.... I was going to say something like, "That's right ... feel your hate, let it FLOW through you."







Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 132
baba (or lady)....

Thank you for your comments.

*sigh of relief*

I grew up in New Orleans and still have grandparents and cousins that live(d) there. Fortunately they had the means to evacuate before the storm hit, unlike so many others.

My mother still has a couple of friends in the area who are unaccounted for.

Let us all support the people of New Orleans, Mississippi, and Alabama, however we can. I am donating matched contributions through my employer to the relief efforts, and hope others are able to do the same.

Puts our ideological differences into perspective, doesn't it...

Maybe we can resume the theoretical chat (on friendlier terms) after some of the chaos dies down.






Joined: May 2003
Posts: 272
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 272
Yes, please let's support by whatever donation we can. My company is donating $1 million and they will match the total of employee donation. So I'm donating through them to double the amount.






Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Wendy_Greer 

Link Copied to Clipboard
©, Learning Strategies Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.6.40 Page Time: 0.195s Queries: 33 (0.040s) Memory: 3.2720 MB (Peak: 3.6000 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-06-20 11:26:41 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS