Forum Replies Created

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #7221
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Thanks Karen!  Just ordered it…  E

    • #7218
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Mike, I think that Swimme and Berry’s Cosmogenesis concept holds promise for intellectual common ground as you suggest. The term is not as pithy and self-explanatory as the expression “living universe,” however.

       

      Duane, the term “trans-biological life” is intriguing and self-explanatory. However you still may run into philosophical issues since you continue to equate biological attributes to the universe (similar to the Gaia Hypothesis), albeit there is the differentiation from biological life and cosmogenetic life. 

       

      In seeking terms for classifying the “living universe” concept while differentiating it from biological life (and not over-ascribing biological life-like attributes to the universe), I explored the field of scientific cosmology for similar concepts. “Living universe” itself would be considered a cosmological concept. While I did not find a good fit, this is good reading nonetheless: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-theology/

       

      It also occurred to me that, rather than attempting to nail down a particular flavor or concept of “living universe” (because I am sure there are many concepts and lots of room for debate), that it might be better to leave it open as a conversation and think of this as a general field of study – that is, the scientific cosmological study of the life-like nature of the universe.

       

      So with this in mind, here is one term I came up with:

       

      cosmovitology – a branch of scientific cosmology that studies macroscopic life-like properties of the universe, including concepts such as Swimme and Berry’s Cosmogenetic Principle that the universe can be characterized by properties of differentiation, autopoiesis, and communion and Elgin’s concept of a Living Universe.

       

      Yea, it’s also not very pithy…  I tried… Perhaps our pedagogists can help out here?

       

      Finally, in my research into philosophical schools of thought regarding life and the universe (and everything), I ran across this philosophical overview of the debate regarding the definition of life that may interest some of you: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/. It left me wondering how the  “living universe” concept differs from “vitalists.” Are we saying that there is “something more” to the universe – some vital factor – that makes it special, or that the observable universe is already special without having to invoke properties beyond known mechanical laws?

       

      Wishing you all a Happy New Year!!!

    • #7153
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Great to see the conversation continuing…

       

      Mike: “The question, “Is the Universe a living system”, is a non-sequitur. There is a disconnect between the premise and the conclusion.”

       

      Thank you for this!  Yes, this thread has been going in circles and agree with your observation that folks are sticking to their guns, so to speak. I believe there are disconnects here regarding the definition of a “living system.”

       

      Jon: “If one is to object to reductionism, or accuse this or that person of being a reductionist, it could go a long way toward having a fruitful discussion to be clear about whether that “reductionism” is MR or PR. “

       

      I agree, this is an important differentiation. Methodological reductionism is an essential tool in science. Philosophically, the universe is not a collection of disconnected bits… it is a connected whole. It is our mind that does the reducing in MR, not the universe. In doing so we discover (seeming) causal relationships between bits of the universe and this gives us great insight and power over matter. However most scientists (especially a quantum physicists) will tell you that the absolute isolation and separation of systems is not physically achievable.

       

      Philosophically then, the universe IS alive because WE are alive and we are inseparable from the universe.

       

      Scientifically, however, this is a useless statement because there are bits within the universe (biological organisms, for instance) with properties that are extremely well differentiated from other bits (inert matter, for instance). In order to perform science we must separate and categorize these bits. One category is called “living” and the other is called “dead.” No scientist is going to want to lose this differentiation between biological life which has a finite life span and inert matter that just “sits there” obediently conforming to the laws of physics without volition of any kind. Declaring the entire universe as living is therefore anathema to science.

       

      Other arguments have been raised for the “universe as living system” as well that go beyond the simple philosophical one.

       

      Duane asserts that the universe has life-like properties with a beginning, a progression of growth, and reproduction of sorts. Elisabet called this autopoiesis.  This is a more difficult argument to make with scientists who have defined life in a particular way and in my opinion this argument is more akin to the Philosophically Non-Reductionist case, requiring a “big” view of the universe as an interconnected whole. Gathering scientific evidence to support this case seems like an uphill battle.

       

       

      There is also the (presumably) evidential view – anthropic arguments aside – that the probability of the universe spontaneously and randomly forming as it currently exists is so improbable as to be nearly impossible without some underlying distributed intelligence – and intelligence implies life. This possibility is supported by the observation that nonlocal quantum information and computational capacity pervades the universe, leaving the possibility that quantum randomness may in fact not be random but may indicate underlying computational processes that might be though of as a pervasive “intelligence” that is somehow related to consciousness.

       

      I also have asserted that the phenomenological domain has relevance here, although this is not widely accepted scientific practice. Basically, when polishing the lens of contemplation, we can achieve a state of consciousness where the entire universe APPEARS to be alive.  To me this is a valid datapoint on the scatter plot of observations about the universe…

       

      Considering all of these arguments, here is my conclusion at this time which is the best “common ground” that I can muster. We must allow science the categories of “living organism” and “non living matter” for them to do their work. However there is also room for the “big philosophical view” of an interconnected universe where living and non-living matter (in the scientific sense) are inseparable and part of larger phenomena that we are only starting to understand. Methodological reductionists need to respect that their methods are conceptual and not actual, and that quantum physics is clearly showing us that there are (or could be) informational interconnections that prevent our conceptual separations from ever being achieved. At the same time, philosophical non-reductionists must recognize the power of MR, however imperfect, to “decode” the workings of the universe.  MR works.

       

      So in this spirit, my suggestion (as pointed to by Jon) is to honor methodological reductionists (MR’s) for their good work – AND – to honor philosophical non-reductionists (PNR’s) for their “big view” observations and speculations which may one day prove to be scientific fact (that is, everything is integrally interconnected and therefore “alive”).

       

      So how do we honor both?

       

      The challenge, it seems to me, is one of language. PNR’s want to take control of the word “living” and use it to describe everything. MR’s say no, that word is reserved for a very specific phenomena (biological life) that is well differentiated. 

       

      Duane, is there another word that would suitably describe the non-biological yet highly interconnected and interdependent matter of the universe without co-opting a scientific term with a much more narrow definition?

       

      Jon, is there some sort of qualifier that Duane could use in front of the word “living” that would differentiate the use of this word from the implication of biological life?

       

       

    • #4610
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Jon – Thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments. You’ve taken the time to sift through and respond to my points in detail and I really do appreciate that. While we personally gravitate towards different approaches given the same data, we’ve reached a place of mutual understanding and respect and, as you say, we’ll see where the data take us.  I appreciate the apology for making what was perhaps a snap judgement about my motivations, which I understand and accept.

       

      You are absolutely right about the intuition-driven pseudoscientific claims being made about quantum physics, anomalous phenomena and such. It makes it difficult to sort out the sincere science-based researchers from those making pseudoscientific leaps of faith. Thanks for taking the time to discern the difference.

       

      Also thanks for helping me to refine my thinking and framing of this work. I’m going to be more careful not to “quack like a duck” when presenting this work 🙂

       

      Best,

       

      Ed

       

    • #4601
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Davidson,

       

      I’ve too have pondered these questions. 

       

      I think the plant experiments you are referring to were referenced in the “Secret Life of Plants,” and is the work of Cleve Backster. His work was subject to scathing attacks by skeptics and, in their favor, he did not work under strict laboratory conditions so his work was easily discredited. More recently, “ordinary” mechanisms have indeed been discovered which explain Cleve’s (most likely accurate) observations – plants can emit a gas that warns other plants of danger and wards off predators: http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2012/02/the-secrets-plants-keep-was-backster-right-after-all/

       

      The “flock of birds” phenomenon does look magical. However it can be modeled using very simple mathematical rules wherein each bird reacts to neighboring birds in what is called a Complex Adaptive System. There’s a great NPR piece on this: http://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/191348007/what-flocks-of-geese-and-fish-can-teach-us-about-the-future

       

      I experimented with Kirlian Photography (a method of photographing “auras”) in the 1970’s after reading the book Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain. A spiritualist church sent me on a national tour of their centers speaking on Kirlian photography. I did my best to give a scientific explanation of the phenomenon. When asked if it was revealing the same auras that psychics saw, I explained that it was a relatively ordinary phenomenon called corona discharge induced by applying a 40kV charge to an electric plate that revealed paths of least resistance through the air surrounding the skin. I said that maybe, just maybe, it was revealing the aura that psychics saw in the same way that the fictional “invisible man” is revealed by throwing paint on him.

       

      What I realized, however, is that many of the spiritualists did not want to hear the scientific explanation. They saw angels and aliens in the aura photographs that I provided, and wanted me to validate their perceptions.  I just smiled and nodded. I realized that they were living in another worldview than me.  To a scientist, this is “magical thinking” and is a projection of wishful thinking or subjective imagination onto an otherwise objective universe. To a mystic, this is the sensitive reading “signs” and “subtle vibrations” that surround us constantly.

       

      I have, off and on over the years, immersed myself in both lifestyles. For the most part, neither one understands the other. Science, of course, has been highly successful – it is a systematized approach of vetting and accumulating knowledge about objective phenomena that intentionally rejects the creative projections of the mind. Witch doctors, shaman and faith healers are oft considered enemies of science. However it is my perception that rationalists/scientists do not understand that, what might be called a mystical worldview, is a mode of thinking that honors the mind and imagination and is capable of tapping the potential of the mind in ways that science has yet to acknowledge (although research into meditation practices are now scratching the surface of what is possible).  Of course, most mystics themselves confuse their own mental projections with “real” happenings in the objective physical world which does not help when trying to bridge these two worldviews.

       

      In my view, the skeptic movement, while claiming to be the stalwarts of science and rationality, are sometimes more like the crusaders of a culture war between two worldviews. And many mystics (including those who are spiritual, psychic, new age, indigenous, etc) judge science as “missing the boat,” causing an anti-science backlash. With proper framing, I do not see any conflict between these two equally valuable and important worldviews, and I seek to bridge the gap.

       

      The thing about the physical world is that our stochastic equations (quantum wavefunction, for instance) very accurately describe observed behavior of the universe. It is extremely rare (some would say impossible) to find anomalies where these equations are violated. Where informational anomalies or “mind” could enter into the physical world would be through synchronicities – that is, odd coincidences or “anomalous correlations” that, to a scientist, would be indistinguishable from chance but to a “seer” would be highly significant. Are coincidences in the universe, or are they only in the mind? I see this as a philosophical question that may not be answerable, but is also totally irrelevant from a practical point of view.

       

      What is important here is that we honor the mind. When we get goosebumps, see visions, experience a series of synchronicities or whatever, these are signposts of the mind that can be used to navigate our consciousness and (as a consequence) the physical world. It’s a longer discussion than is warranted in this forum. Perhaps I should write a book…

       

      Anyway, you can see these two often conflicting worldviews at work here in this forum. Is matter and the universe alive? To a mystic it is absolutely alive – alive with mind, alive with limitless potential. To a scientist matter does not have life because it only behaves according to the laws of chemistry and physics – and their tests prove it.

       

      Both are correct.

       

       

       

       

       

    • #4595
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      That’s great, Duane – I have some reading to do…

    • #4590
      Ed Lantz
      Member

       Duane,  
       
      I agree with your “rational knowing” versus “direct knowing” differentiation – it is an extremely important one in these discussions.
       
      As was alluded to in the conversation with Davidson, objective and subjective are radically different domains and care must be taken when cross-referencing from one to the other. Phenomenologists and mystics have often confounded scientists by making sweeping metaphysical proclamations about the physical domain based on an intuitive realization. While they no-doubt experienced that “everything is light,” “physical reality is an illusion,” or that “lords of karma are living in the sun,” that does not make it a physical reality to those of us who did not join them on their experiential journey.
       
      Likewise, rationalists sometimes belittle mystics who speak of “cosmic consciousness” or epiphanies by telling them it was “just” a brain state. After all, Einstein’s theory of relativity was also just a brain state – a very profound brain state. I believe these phenomena of consciousness will one day be incorporated into our daily lives just as logic and rationality now are. Mastering our own consciousness the next challenge for humankind.
       
      I have a personal practice that keeps the two domains separate. It is as if there are two file drawers in my mind – one for rational knowledge and one for intuitive knowledge. When I sit and listen to a mystic rant about cosmic stuff, I nod yes and file it appropriately… who knows, it might be true!
       
      There are occasional crossovers, to be sure. Like Einstein, we can have an intuitive flash about a real-world problem that we are working on. Or we might evoke a rational explanation for a mental phenomenon that we experienced.
       
      Your work at SRI is compelling to me because is bridges the two domains. Could intuitive insight provide information about real physical places that we have never visited before? Intuition is fleeting and imperfect – not at all like our physical senses. It could be the result of massively parallel processes in the brain… or maybe it is an “extrasensory” informational channel. Could these fleeting images be glimpses of non-local quantum information?  Things that make you go hmmmm…

    • #4585
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Thanks for replying, Jon. You’ve raised some questions that I can address.  You say you need a “test for reasonableness”:
       
      “…I can’t accept all interpretations of experiences (because they contradict each other), so I have to find a way to choose which to look into – and that way can’t be just by gut prejudices, but must be based on fairly applied criteria if I’m to keep it as unbiased as possible.  This goes back to the list I gave in post #4511 – did you read that?  Which of those 1-6 approaches, do you think we should use?”
       
      Here is your list:
      1.     Dismiss all personal experiences as irrelevant for getting information.
      2.     Reject everyone else’s experiences, while promoting one’s own as the only valid experiences.
      3.     Use some standard of comparison and logic to get the most reliable information from everyone’s experiences.
      4.     Accept all experiences of everyone as real and true.
      5.      Accept only those experiences which support a certain ideology, and reject all other experiences.
      6.   Other.
       
      Just to clarify, I am not trying to “prove” anything or justify beliefs or conclusions about anomalous mental phenomena – I agree that we need more compelling evidence and, specifically, better methodologies for these investigations that are (ideally) directed by hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms involved. I am only trying to justify the research topic itself. You are dismissing it as frivolous.
       
      To better explain my “test for reasonableness,” I subscribe to the following methodology which is not limited to the “either-or” choices you have given above:
       
      1. Use personal experiences as inspiration for possible research topics, understanding that personal experiences are subject to bias and misinterpretation. I had several difficult-to-explain phenomenological experiences. It piqued my interest.
      2. Review public literature for reports of similar experiences by others – is this an isolated phenomenon (12 alien babies) or a common one (seeing ghosts)? I realized that my anomalous experience was in fact very, very common. I reject “alien baby” outliers and stick with the highly robust reported phenomena that span across cultural, religious or philosophical boundaries.
      3. Review scientific publications for existing hypotheses, experimental data, etc. Review open discussions and debates in the scientific community about the phenomena. Consider as many possible interpretations as possible and assess the thoroughness of past research. In my case I realized that the phenomena was highly debated and not at all satisfactorily explained or dismissed, despite the best efforts of skeptics.
      4. Hypothesize an underlying cause for the mental phenomena. In my case, I attributed the phenomena to the acquisition of anomalous mental information. And after studying quantum information science, it became apparent that there is a theoretical basis for nonlocal information transfer as a core property of the universe that is backed by experimental evidence. So that became my working hypothesis – anomalous information transfer via the exploitation of nonlocal quantum information by the human nervous system. You might call this a “trial interpretation” contingent upon additional research.
      5. Seek other phenomena that might also result from that same hypothetical underlying cause. As I investigated unrelated phenomena that might also result from anomalous information transfer what I found was astounding. Millions of people over millennia have reported a very wide range of phenomena, ALL of which might be explained by anomalous information transfer.
      6. Develop better measurement techniques for assessing the phenomena. I am currently in this phase.
      7. Perform experiments to test the working hypothesis.
      8. Assess the data and proceed accordingly (improve experiment, adjust hypothesis or abandon hypothesis).
       
      So just to be clear, I am not making any claims. I am positing a possible explanation for phenomena that I have both experienced firsthand, and that has been reported by many, many others under the guise of many religious, philosophical and cultural framings. And my interest involves new detection modalities that exploit advanced signal processing algorithms.
       
      I appreciate that you have met a lot of open minded scientists. I have too. In my career I’ve at times worked alongside as many as 3000 other scientists and engineers doing cutting-edge R&D. It is clear to me is that there is indeed a bias against this work, primarily coming from a small handful of highly vocal skeptics who seem to have a philosophical bone to pick. Their scathing criticism and ridicule of this work has caused other more open minded researchers to shy away from it. And while the skeptics are calling for more evidence as they stand behind the banner of science, they are actually attacking those who are attempting to gather such evidence, which is anathema to science.
       
      While there may be “tens of millions of dollars of attention” being paid to this space now, that would be a fairly recent development (assuming it is true, which I doubt). By and large, the space is not receiving the gravity of support from the scientific community that it would take to crack it open. My own work involves the application of real-time ultra-wideband signal processing to improve the detection of anomalous correlations in a noisy information channel. This would need to be supplemented by quantum physicists (ultra-wideband quantum detectors) and neuroscientists (for scanning in vivo or in vitro brain tissue). That is not going to happen amidst high-visibility attacks in the popular press by skeptics claiming that this work is hooey. Negative press of this sort is toxic to funding efforts. A small number of brave souls have somehow pushed through this resistance.
       
      If skeptics want evidence then they need to encourage this potentially game-changing work, not attack it. IMO these attacks are ideological in nature and are not coming from a quest to explore and understand the nature of consciousness. It is one thing to have an opinion about the validity of a particular hypothesis. It is quite another to lead a crusade against it. 
       
      With all due respect, Jon, sometimes your arguments have the tone of a crusader. I appreciate healthy skepticism and intellectual debate. However, suggesting that I pursue another career without the slightest inquiry into my specific research topic indicates to me that you find this entire line of research ideologically distasteful. 
       
      I would invite you to consider that, even if anomalous information transfer is not at work in the brain, experimental research into informational processes in brain tissue is likely to provide interesting data. Given what we know about the “spooky” world of nonlocal quantum information processes, shouldn’t we be looking for how these effects might be supporting consciousness in the brain? That’s all I’m suggesting here. 
       
       
       
       
       
       

    • #4582
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Davidson,
       
      I agree with your point that we’re talking about mental experiences or processes, not sensory experiences (at least not in the way that ordinary sensory experiences are taken in). Sure, there may well be anomalous physical phenomena “out there” (UFO’s, etc.) but I expect the vast majority of phenomena that are believed to be “out there” are actually mental in nature. This includes the seeing of “auras,” ghosts and apparitions, synchronicities, telepathy, past-life recall, remote viewing, mystical experiences and more.
       
      Many have dismissed such phenomena as insignificant because it is “all in your head.” I strongly differ with this view, and think that we place far too little importance on mental phenomena. A person that sees ghosts, for instance, might be activating new “informational” senses that the brain processes using existing visual centers, thereby appearing in their visual field.
       
      Granted, the subjective mind is full of transient thoughts and sensations. That is a given, and it comes with the territory of mind which is a fundamentally different domain than the objective physical world. I refer to the mind as an “informational domain.” Unlike the physical domain, the mind is highly mutable, and it reacts almost instantly to focused will or intent. Also, in the realm of mind there are indeed delusions, hallucinations and mis-perceptions.
       
      At the same time, there are definable/trainable properties and abilities of mind. Logic, as discussed, is a mental function that can differ widely from person-to-person, but still we all can agree that 1 + 1 = 2.  Logic is a learned, shared mental process that yields powerful real-world outcomes when applied to science and engineering.  There are other mental practices that are less popular in the Western world, such as meditation, lucid dreaming, shamanic journeying and such that can also have important and powerful real-world outcomes. Such outcomes might include self-transformation and healing, social influencing, enhanced human capabilities and more.
       
      We have much to learn about our true human potential. Savants give is a glimpse of what we are capable of, for instance, when they perform amazing feats with numbers, music, memory or art. Duane’s remote viewing work at SRI, along with a long list of other anomalous informational phenomena, may be giving us another glimpse of what is possible. As with math, some of these skills can be intentionally trained and activated with the right mental practices.
       
      So to me, the experience of one-ness or “cosmic truths” could – in the end – be infinitely more powerful than mathematics when we learn to properly frame and apply these mental states. But for every “eureka!” experienced by a scientist and written down as a math equation, it is rare to find one with lasting significance such as Einstein’s theory of relativity or Newton’s laws of motion. Likewise, awe-inspiring “cosmic awakenings” may come and go with little lasting or real-world significance, especially in a culture that places no value on these realizations and provides us with no way to translate the experience into real-world outcomes.
       
      So for now, these experiences are relegated to poets, theologians, dreamers and writers. However I argue that the informational domain of mind ought to be welcomed by science as a new frontier. We know more about than the deepest oceans or the farthest reaches of space than we do about our own subjective minds. And unlike phenomenological explorers of the past who wrote the Vedas and other inspiring texts, we now have the ability to correlate mental states with physical realities, providing objective validation to a degree that was never before possible.
       
      It will be interesting to see what real-world benefits come from mastering our own consciousness.
       
       
       

    • #4580
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Davidson,

       

      I agree with your assessment of personal versus empirical “truth.” That was a very poignant story illustrating your point.

       

      I would add that there are types of mental phenomena that _can_ be evaluated objectively and shared. Mathematics and logic are purely mental exercises, for instance. Because we have developed a shared language, shared axioms and proofs, we are able to creatively innovate new mathematical or logical structures in our minds and share them with others for validation or refutation. 

       

      Other cultures have very different – yet equally comprehensive and self-consistent – worldviews with specialized languages for expressing those worldviews. The writings of the Vedas in the “sacred” language of Sanskrit is all about the cosmic experience of mind, the universe and everything. The Vedas talk about 52 “flavors” of mind. This is clearly the work of people who have taken the time to observe, record and analyze subjective mental phenomena. There are Vedantic schools that teach this thinking. It is a self-consistent worldview that involves shared mental practices and a shared language to discuss what is discovered. Our modern science is a long way from tackling subjective phenomena in this way.

       

      So I would postulate that when we shy away from mental phenomena such as OBE’s, NDE’s, lucid dreams, mystical experiences and more, it is not really because these are unverifiable by science. It is because we are uncomfortable sharing experiences for which we have not developed a logical framework, shared worldview and language around. Cultures that have that shared framework for these phenomena have no problem sharing their experiences and think of them as everyday occurrences. To them, we are the little girl who is oblivious – oblivious to the real world of mind…

    • #4578
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Exactly, Duane. These are not isolated cases. Anomalous informational “experiences” are a pervasive phenomena spanning from the dawn of history to the present scientific age. Well-meaning skeptics have attempted to suppress popular mystical “face-value” interpretations (i.e. telepathy is exactly as it seems, not a mere coincidence – a ghost really is the “spirit” of a departed soul, not a projection of my mind driven by emotion, etc). Skeptics see mystical interpretations as embarrassing superstitions of ignorant people. Much to their chagrin, their arguments have done little to change popular opinion.

       

      These experiences and their common mystical interpretations persist, even among well educated people. That’s because the experiences are very, very real – even “hyper-real” – to the point of being un-deniable for the individual who experiences it. Only a very strong-willed skeptic can brush off a mystical/anomalous experience as hallucination or coincidence – presumably because they “know” it to be “impossible.”

       

      What we are learning about quantum information suggests that there are indeed nonlocal informational/computational channels in the universe. In other words, anomalous informational phenomena can no longer be said to be impossible or implausible according to the known laws of physics. Firm proof that quantum information is exploited by biological systems has not been demonstrated, and the underlying mechanisms for how biological “intelligence” might access such information and computational capacity are not known or understood, but theories abound. See, for instance: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1142/S0219635214400093

       

      The scientific “party line” is that the universe is “dead” and all matter/spacetime is governed by well-known deterministic (or random quantum) physical laws that do not allow for any sort of underlying bias, intelligence, or anomalous informational influences. If course, as Ursula and others have pointed out, this worldview still has much room for cosmic wonder at the complex systems that emerge from these simple physical laws. The universe is utterly amazing! And it is true – these “intelligent universe”  or “conscious universe” theories, while there may be some circumstantial support for them, remain unsubstantiated and cannot be put forth as anything more than possibilities, theories or working hypotheses.

       

      However, those of us pushing the envelope of human knowledge, sticking our necks out and putting our careers at risk, ought to be respected and honored, not ridiculed. This is serious work, and it could radically change how we see the universe, ourselves and our measure of human potential. I thank everyone on this list for indulging in intelligent conversation on this topic without resorting to blanket dismissals or name-calling, and I hope you will also defend others who are doing this important work when they are attacked, even though you may not agree with their chosen area of study.

       

      Thank you everyone for this healthy and productive debate!

    • #4576
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Davidson, you raise a great point which is the core issue of any phenomenological research… that is, how do we objectively confirm what is essentially a personal subjective experience?

       

      As you point out, the woman having the alien births could be lying/acting, or she could be deluded, or, though few of us would buy it, she could be telling the truth.  How can we know the difference?  One way to deal with the issue is to say that this is not the domain of science and the phenomena should not be studied. This seems to be your solution, correct?

       

      Police and judges have the same challenge when interviewing eyewitness accounts of crimes. They do not have the option of throwing up their hands and saying that the truth cannot be discovered, that it belongs in another domain. Crimes are solved by accessing corroborating testimonies and other evidence. The truth often can be inferred in this way.

       

      While we may never prove a negative (she is lying), what if thousands of people woke up with similar stories – people who had no apparent connection with one another?  Then we could say a genuine phenomena exists – in this case it would either be a phenomena of mass hallucination/delusion, or perhaps some sort of common mental phenomena transmitted through the media or (even more speculative) an anomalous informational channel, or it is a genuine alien phenomena. Regardless of the true cause, you would have to trust that the woman had a genuine experience, but call into question her INTERPRETATION of the experience.

       

      My position is that we should investigate these things – especially now that we have more sensitive instruments for exploring the brain and quantum information phenomena. 

       

      You would be hard pressed to sit in a circle of people and not hear a ghost story.  Polls have shown that 18% of Americans claim to have seen a ghost, and 45% of us believe in ghosts:

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/real-ghosts-americans-poll_n_2049485.html

       

      So, as scientists, shall we sweep this under the rug? Casually dismiss it as delusion? Call it an invalid area of scientific study because it is not repeatable? This is just one of hundreds of “flavors” of circumstantial evidence for anomalous information transfer in the brain. Reincarnation “memories” are very well researched and are quite difficult to dismiss. Out-of-body experiences including NDE’s, telepathy, precognition, “cosmic consciousness” experiences of meditators, etc. etc.  

       

      Mass delusion?  Perhaps. But it is not a fad – people have been having these experiences for thousands of years. My working hypothesis is that the brain can access nonlocal quantum information. This one mechanism would explain all of these “mysteries” in a way that is perfectly consistent with quantum information science. And this is ultimately a testable hypothesis. There are other theories as well…

       

      Unfortunately, researchers who make a serious study of these phenomena are ridiculed…  as scientists, we are supposed to stay away from taboo areas such as this. You’ve seen the (respectful) reactions on this forum. When I bring this up in academic circles, believe me, others are not so respectful in their critique. Taboos are social in nature and have little to do with science. I feel that inhibiting legitimate research into these fields is actually inhibiting the progress of science. 

       

      Do you disagree?

    • #4574
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Here’s my personal take on the “Living Universe” discussion:

       

      1) Elisabet Sahtouris’ “autopoiesis” argument aside (I did not fully understand her argument), I see no evidence for the universe being a self-replicating living being in the same way that a biological organism is alive. Planets and galaxies do not have nervous systems. They do not avoid fatal collisions. They do not learn from their mistakes. They do not behave as if they are alive.

       

      2) We can say, however, that the earth’s biosphere has an ecology that is affected by our actions, and that we are all interdependent. We do not have to subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis to see that this is the case. Our continued existence (as we know it) could be threatened by the choices made by humankind in the coming years. This is a highly robust argument for respecting our planet, the living creatures on it, and being good stewards of our biosphere and the earth’s natural resources.

       

       

      3) Science operates by conceptually/physically isolating systems from one another so they can be studied, classified, and causal relationships between the separate parts can be explored. So when biological organisms are separated from non-biological matter, we see that “non-living” matter behaves differently from biological “living” matter. However you might say that at a “big picture” level, the universe is indeed alive and intelligent because intelligent biological life is an integral outgrowth of the universe. We are intelligent, we are (ultimately) inseparable from the universe, therefore we are the universe and the universe is intelligent.  

       

      4) According to quantum information science, the entire universe is non-locally interconnected on an informational level, and has vast computational capacity as well. While there is currently not sufficient evidence that such information retains coherency, or that biological organisms can access this informational and computational capacity of the universe, quantum consciousness theories suggest this may be the case. Should one of these theories be substantiated it could shed new light on the notion of a “living universe,” which might be better framed as an “intelligent universe.”

       

       

    • #4573
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Jon – To me, your arguments seem to come from a need to fit everything into a particular worldview – one that assures us that there is “nothing out of the ordinary.” And I am sure you see my arguments as the opposite – that I am trying to make something out of nothing. 

       
      I appreciate you sharing your personal (“mystical”) experience. As you know, people have reported profound experiences like this since recorded history. You dismiss it as a mental phenomenon. To me, however, such experiences could be the result of anomalous (nonlocal) information being sensed by some area of the brain. Experiences such as this are quite common, albeit irreproducible of course, and therefore connote be subject to replication.  
        

      Here’s my thoughts on your experience. Certainly, whatever you experienced was not “out there” in the world of matter – not in the usual sense. What you experienced was within the realm of your consciousness – an experience that was subjective or phenomenological in nature, perhaps inspired or triggered by, but greatly expanding upon measurable sensory information. Your experience was beyond that single place, as if the place evoked additional non-sensory information. Experiences of this sort are very difficult to study and replicate. However the experience itself was real and no one can invalidate that.

       
      As you’ve pointed out before, however, it’s the INTERPRETATION of the experience that is subject to scrutiny. Are out-of-body experiences real? Are all apparitions just delusions? How would we even begin to validate one interpretation versus another?  I believe it is possible to turn the scientific method inwards to study phenomenological states. However this sort of work is still in it’s infancy (at least in Western science) with very few conventions or even consensus regarding the validity of such a practice.  

       
      As Duane and others have pointed out, exploring consciousness directly requires polishing the lens of contemplation – call it self-reflection or inner observation. Now that phenomenological states can be correlated with measured brain states using neuroimaging, multi electrode arrays, etc. you are seeing more and more work in this area. Neuroscientists are recruiting Buddhist monks, for instance, to study neural correlates of subjective states since the monks are trained to sustain these unique states of consciousness (including “cosmic consciousness” or mystical states).

       
      Many come out of these “unity experiences” feeling that the universe is indeed “alive” or infused with consciousness or intelligence and everything is interconnected. The experiences can seem hyper-real, as if they are a revelation of a greater reality. Is reality as ordinary as it seems, or is there a deeper reality that we are only just catching a glimpse of in these mystical experiences?  I think its the latter, but would be hard pressed to prove it. In any case, I think these  experiences are worthy of study and will teach us a lot about ourselves. 
       
       

    • #4431
      Ed Lantz
      Member

      Jon – thanks for explaining your reasoning. While I still do not see the “diminishing effect” over time that you mentioned, indeed the effect in Bems’ and others’ data is relatively small. This should not come as a surprise – if these effects were large then they would be incontrovertible.  Anomalous information effects are close enough to chance that doubters are not easily won over.

       

      I had not seen the latest Winnower review – thanks for the reference. It will be interesting to see Bem’s rebuttal, as they have been going back and forth. In medicine, p values of less than 0.05 are often considered statistically significant, meaning that the drug is working enough to be released on the market. I am not a statistician, however, and am happy to passively follow the debate. Winnower does seem to be making some good points.

       

      If I did not have so many personal firsthand experiences with this phenomena I’d probably be more in your camp. However to me, occasional anomalous information transfer is not an “extraordinary” claim – I consider it likely that “something” is going on based on my experiences.  And I want to know what it is and better understand and measure the phenomena (or alternately, identify if the interpretations of my experiences are flawed). This is impossible to do if I’m sitting in doubt waiting for someone else to deliver incontrovertible proof or refutation. So I’ve let go of my doubt enough to do my own research while holding onto a healthy skepticism.

       

      As you point out, reproducibility can be a HUGE problem in PSI research. But it is not a sign that there is not a genuine effect. Indeed, if there is an informational component that is nonlocal, then by definition, it could be impossible to isolate that system from the rest of the universe, making reproducibility very difficult. I do have ideas for more robust experiments that also take the human factor out of the equation. 

       

      While you suggest that I’d be better off spending my time in areas that have already been “proven,” as an innovator that wouldn’t be very much fun. My research is all about revealing hitherto unknown/unproven things, not treading over well explored territory. However, if it makes you feel better, I’ll not be leaving my full-time position any time soon to work exclusively in PSI research 🙂 This is more of a pet area of research for me. There is precious little funding in PSI and researchers have to tolerate a lot of abuse (such as being called a crackpot). Perhaps when I’m retired I’ll set up a lab and enjoy being a crackpot looking for hidden signals in noise 🙂

       

       

Viewing 14 reply threads