|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.192.238.193
In Reply to: RE: It is rather amusing to read the website. posted by unclestu on February 24, 2012 at 14:11:32
What PEAR experiments demonstrate is evidence of the proposition, not proof. The proposition that the mind has the capacity to influence or affect inanimate objects including electronics is not the sort of thing that is easy to demonstrate. If it were then everyone would be on board. The evidence of the phenomenon starts to accumulate, however, over many many trials. As I pointed out earlier the Mind Lamp from Psyleron, as its electronics are extremely sensitive to subtle influences, the output of the random event generator (REG) determined by monitoring the quantum fluctuations of the applied voltage, can demonstrate rather easily the ability of the mind to influence the electronics of the lamp. In the case of the Mind Lamp, only a relatively few trials are usually necessary to convince a died in the wool skeptic that something is going on here. It is evidence of the phenomenon, not necessarily proof.Geoff Kait
Edits: 02/26/12Follow Ups:
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
If we can dispense with absolute semantics and expand to accepting a general idea, I would say that to establish a "proof" one must obtain impirical evidence. To obtain impirical evidence one must have an "instrument" to measure an activity or event. If the "activity" or "event" occurs at a frequency higher or lower than the ability of the instrument to measure, then no evidence will be gathered. BUT, that does not mean that the event or activity did not occur, only that we could not measure it. Certain animals hear sounds and sense activities that humans cannot. Just because WE didn't hear it, doesn't mean that it isn't there. We don't see radio waves, but we know they are there, on and on and on...
We know that the "material" world is comprised of composite materials...compounds, elements, sub-atomic "particles", sub-sub atomic "particles". Intelligence must then reign,so that we can at least posit that this ever decreasing "particle" process might continue past the point of our instruments to measure. We have been inventing ever more sensitive measuring instruments for years, so why should ever more sensitive instruments not be available in the future. We have been told by "others" that the sub-atomic zoo continues far past what we know now. If we can understand the nature of things human can detect with their senses, relate that to what more sensitive machines can measure with theirs, and expand that process to nano, sub-atomic, sub-sub atomic processes and beyond, logically we can arrive at a world described by the mystics. If a physical "brain" can process electrical impulses, would it be possible to a sub-atomic form of a higher frequency and invisibvle to us to process electronic impulses and exhibit "consciousnes" as well? How far does the chain extend? Might it depend on the number of sub-sub-sub atomic "particles". How many dimensions are there? How many sub-sub-sub-sub atomic "particles"(waves) are there?
I know that this extemely simplistic, but it is also logical, at least to me. Therefore, we cannot let the lack of "proof" keep us from moving forward. We must form logical "theories" and work at developing the evidence that provides the "proof".
So, "..That is the Observer which here, yet not here, which can see but can not be seen, which knows but can not be known," is but one level of an ever higher frequency of consciousnes.
The study of science is the study of God, for surely he/she created in a perfectly logical and ordered fashion.
kendo
Proof is the evidence of the proposition.
Without proof, you have the Salem witch trials. Without proof, you have the numerous pograms through out history. Without proof, you have a dictatorial government, one without law.....
It is rather amusing to read your defense, especially since you claim to be a rocket scientist....
Stu
For those of you who are still confused about the difference between scientific evidence and proof. Your confusion over basic scientific terminology probably explains why you jumped to the conclusion that the magnets on the Clever Little Clock operate by channeling electromagnetic waves.
Pl;ease read the Wikipedia very carefully and then take your very own explanation ( of the clock)in light of what it states. Your explanation of the clock is not evidence nor proof.
It is pure speculation, but even more insidiously, it is an attempt at a scientific like Mumble jumble, with missing links in logic and and extremely speculative statements which have no grounding in any current physics.
You can claim that it ain't so all you like, but just name one reputable scientific journal which will support your view point. Even the audiophile journals which say they hear something ( which I do admit I do hear, BTW, that was never the issue), will dispute your rationale.
Stu
I suspect any reasonable person who has a chance to experiment with the CLC will reach the same conclusion I did - the clock cannot work via RFI/EMI channeling or RFI/EMI absorption or any such thing. Once you eliminate the more obvious theories, a reasonable person would probably conclude that something else must be going on with the CLC. That something else I have proposed in my article on the clock. Of course my paper is not Proof nor is it intended to be. Ditto for the PEAR Mind Lamp. Anyone is welcome to come up with a theory why the Mind Lamp does what it does, conventional or otherwise, but a reasonable person who has experience with the lamp would probably conclude that what PEAR states is most likely true -that mind matter interaction is the culprit. Like the CLC.
Geoff kait
So you are admitting that your hypothesis has no proof.
Great, that's a good start.
Have you actually employed RF measuring gear to demonstrate that RF can NOT be at the root cause? I ask because as a "claimed" rocket scientist, you should have access to some pretty sophisticated gear. You have never stated the reasons why you believe that RFI can NOT be at any causality.
In my experimentation with your clock ( and with other clocks of various manufacture, BTW) it works better when placed next to sources of RFI. When employed as you recommended, I could barely discern any sonic difference (Placed in windows, per your recommendation).
Stu
I never said it was proof. You must have been confused again about the meaning of the word Proof and the word Evidence.Hint: the CLC has an orange magnet on the face and a red magnet on the back. If you reverse the colored magnets the sound will get worse. How does your RFI/EMI theory fit in with that? There is a big problem with your theory. Are you attempting to claim that magnets absorb RFI/EMI? LOL
Edits: 03/02/12 03/03/12
Thanks for sending me down rathole number 13 of the linked paper. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I don't like articles with formulas.
:-)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: