Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#37205 - 04/01/10 02:52 AM Re: The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidenc [Re: Morgan]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
The phenomena you describe here is actually the earths electromagnetic field. Also quite an important effect which made life possible on this planet.

There are different theories about gravitation.
One would be that in every atom a "graviton" is present.
This particle would make explaining that every object/person has a certain "gravitation field". As mentioned by doomsage this cannot be seen due to interaction by the larger field we currently are residing in. ( On a side note; in satellites and spacecentra this effect is still present. These objects are not floating in space but are merely in a continuous state of falling to the earth.) Gravitons would be current in infinite amounts and should have the ability to attract. The snare-theory prophecies the existence of gravitons.
But with the graviton there is a little catch: it's hypothetical.

Another theory would be that gravitation is an equal strong force as electromagnetism but whom is sipping trough another dimension, which results it is a much weaker force in the dimension/universe we are residing in.


Edited by Dimitri (04/01/10 02:52 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#37495 - 04/10/10 07:00 PM Re: The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidenc [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Wijesin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 34
I very briefly browsed Shaldrake's contribution to peer-reviewed research. This is much quicker than risk enduring 90 mins of bollocks. Initially, the stuff he does reminded me (sort of) of similar things that were tried in the seventies, such as Ganzfeld-experiments. These created a lot of hubbub, but in the end only true believers clung on to this branch of parapsychology.

The statistical significance Sheldrake quotes in one of his abstracts is impressive, and I think he immediately should do the following: i) take his results to Science, PNAS or Nature and submit them to the harshes peer-review possible, ii) say "Hello" to the Randi challenge, and iii) ask an independent group of scientists to reproduce his results.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Since MawhrinSkel already has the best signature, I'll sign with the wisdom of Sagan, Truzzi and Laplace.
_________________________
-- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs -- (Attributed to Sagan, Truzzi and Laplace)

Top
#37498 - 04/10/10 07:50 PM Re: The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidenc [Re: Apion]
Wijesin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 34
I followed the link provided by Maw above, and needed only to read the abstract to conclude that Sheldale is not much of a scientist, despite having a presence on pubmed. He did some Clever Hans-ing, and if he fooled himself, he certainly should not fool you. This effect has been known for donkey's years, so I won't parrot on about it. What will the next thing be? Staring down goats until they explode?

Whew. I'm rather happy that I did not spend 90 min watching that clip. Thanks, Maw.
_________________________
-- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs -- (Attributed to Sagan, Truzzi and Laplace)

Top
#37506 - 04/11/10 07:41 AM Re: The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidenc [Re: Wijesin]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
What exactly are you questioning? Most of this phenomenon is clearly observable. In particular, the phenomenon in people knowing when they are being watched.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#37517 - 04/11/10 03:10 PM Re: The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidenc [Re: Fist]
Wijesin Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 34
I question i) the repeatability of his results, ii) the experimental setup (give me double-blind, randomized trials, please, with proper negative controls and rigorous statistics), and iii) his ability to convince other experts in the field.

When it comes to quantum mechanics (QM) and the mind, I admit to having a soft spot for Prof. Roger Penrose and his take on QM and consciousness. Penrose is the mathematician and physicist behind the Penrose tiling problem, so his intellectual credentials are excellent to say the least. He's not much into telepathy, though.

Penrose position, briefly, is that consciousness cannot be reduced to an algorithm - no matter how large or complex. According to himself, his strongest argument is mathematical in nature: "If a human mathematician can solve a problem that cannot be solved by any algorithm, then human (and all other) consciousness(es) must arise from some other mechanism." He finds an example of this, tries to convince the reader, and goes on to postulate a QM mechanism for the mind.

What I like with Penrose is that while his claims are grand, he systematically and openly tries to answer criticism - from, for instance, Stephen Hawkings. He may be wrong, but deserves credit forwarding ambitious hypotheses. An experimental test of a central Penrose concept requires according to himself gigantic arrays of optics in orbit, so don't hold your breath.

Sheldale, on the other hand, makes grand claims that are more easily explained by well-documented effects, i.e., badly designed experiments.

I hope that this answers your question and give you an alternative to Sheldale. I recommend Shadows of The Mind by Penrose. It is a good popular work, but be prepared for formal mathematics, QM physics and much speculation.
_________________________
-- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs -- (Attributed to Sagan, Truzzi and Laplace)

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Moderator:  Woland, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, TV is God, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.02 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 18 queries. Zlib compression disabled.