Isolation Ward

From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

Return to Isolation Ward

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

The Experiment That Debunked Materialism

65.19.76.104
Posted on January 29, 2012 at 11:43:59
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 For all you naive realists out there, your dogma is debunked. It's been reduced to pseudo-science.

Enjoy Dr. Quantum's video. Afterwards, if you expand the first comment you will find a link to the research paper that prompted the 'toon.






Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Yawn.... , posted on January 30, 2012 at 12:58:33
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 It does nothing of the sort. Extensive research on the two slit experiment has led to 1. the realization of the duality of the both particle and wavelength nature of electrons, and 2. that electrons are not necessarily matter in the common sense of the word. The unusual nature of the measuring anomaly was determined by Heisenburg in the 1930's, so that is nothing new.

The super luminality of electrons, again is old news. That was determined back in the 1970's, IIRC.

Current electron and sub atomic theory has the electron as being not a particle at all but a state of energy (string theory).

Remember Newtonian physics still apply for the macro world. It is at the subatomic world where quantum physics apply, although we are finally seeing or being aware of the ramifications of the quantum in the macro world.

The double slit experiment was conducted in 1803.

Heisenberg published his uncertainty principle in 1927

Feynman published his diagrams in 1947. The interesting part about his diagrams is that it reveals the possibility of electrons moving backwards in time.

J.S. Bell published his theory in 1962, IIRC, giving mathematical proof for non localized reality.

First proof indicating the applicability was in 1971, IIRC and further proof ( Aspect) was not obtained till 1982's.

All the video (admittedly charmingly done), is to present the learning of the above gentlemen and then some.

Stu

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on January 31, 2012 at 16:17:32
geoffkait
 There is no boundary between classical physics and quantum physics.

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 17, 2012 at 20:16:38
asikhs
Audiophile

Posts: 143
Location: pennsylvania
Joined: December 1, 2005
 And what exactly replaces materialism? Angels dancing on pinheads?

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 07:39:13
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "And what exactly replaces materialism? Angels dancing on pinheads?"

Consciousness.







Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 08:00:54
asikhs
Audiophile

Posts: 143
Location: pennsylvania
Joined: December 1, 2005
 But what is the basis of consciousness? Cells and their connections inside your skull. You develop Alzheimer's and from brilliant scientist you become a bumbling idiot who does not recognize his spouse of fifty years.

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 08:16:38
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 One theory is that matter evolves out of universal consciousness. Individual mind evolves out of matter and eventually merges back into universal consciousness.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 08:56:33
asikhs
Audiophile

Posts: 143
Location: pennsylvania
Joined: December 1, 2005
 I do not know what universal consciousness is. My personal consciousness is, for better or worse, a function of my cellular composition. Circulation to my brain stops for 8 minutes and it's gone. Noone has proven that it metamorphoses to something else.

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 09:07:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You have stated what you believe. But what if that belief is mistaken? There are methods to go beyond these beliefs, but first one has to recognize that one is locked into a limited belief system that is sustained by self-referential logic and supported by the dismissing evidence contrary to this belief system as "anomalous".

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:40:14
asikhs
Audiophile

Posts: 143
Location: pennsylvania
Joined: December 1, 2005
 If there is a evidence that points to a different direction I will reconsider. In medicine, for example, I am aware that deeply held beliefs change all the time. So, why materialism is wrong?

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 12:15:45
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Look at the results of the PEAR project done at Princeton.

Or obtain spiritual experiences through the practice of meditation, thereby realizing that knowledge does arise solely through the senses.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 13:12:12
asikhs
Audiophile

Posts: 143
Location: pennsylvania
Joined: December 1, 2005
 These experiments do not negate materialism. It is possible that there are forms of extrasensory communication or the ability of humans to affect systems in ways not yet understood. A materialist is not someone who says I cannot see atoms, so they do not exist. These experiments were done with live human beings. My point is that when our physical existence ends there is no spirit or soul that goes on independently.

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 18, 2012 at 16:29:47
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "My point is that when our physical existence ends there is no spirit or soul that goes on independently."

This is a belief characteristic of Western Civilization. It is not universally followed. Some western sects and most eastern religions and philosophies believe in reincarnation. Early Christians believed in reincarnation but it was thrown out of Christianity at the Council of Nicea, the point at which Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Some say this was done so that the priests would gain power over the people though instilling the fear of eternal damnation to those who defied their authority.

There is anecdotal evidence of reincarnation, particularly among younger children.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 20, 2012 at 15:40:24
geoffkait
 Not only is it possible. It can be proven. Enter the Mind Lamp, created by the good folks at PEAR.

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 21, 2012 at 12:18:38
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I don't get what the Mind Lamp has to do with reincarnation or other aspects of life beyond death. AFAIK, the Mind Lamp is just a device to show effect of mind (of a living human) on matter. Did I miss something?

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: The Experiment That Debunked Materialism , posted on February 21, 2012 at 14:29:05
geoffkait
 It doesn't have anything to do with reincarnation. I was responding to the idea that consciousness is simply a collection of cells and the comment that consciousness might affect inanimate systems.

 

It is rather amusing to read the website., posted on February 24, 2012 at 14:11:32
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 to Quote:

"little consensus was realized other than the need for better direct experimental data."

"experimenters not present for the perception process."

Perception ranged from "a few cryptic descriptions at one extreme to lengthy impressionistic views."

Not bothering to read all the text, the first set of experimental analysis shows a correlation of under 20%. That is not overwhelming positive evidence, in my view point. Plus the rigorousness of the experimentation is open to question, unfortunately, and there is precious little given in terms of the actual experimentation which was made. Quite obviously because of the time span of the data collected, experimental procedure must have been changed or been modified over the years. Such questions are not addressed nor completely described.

I can not believe this came out of Princeton, and perhaps that's why the papers have not been published in any major scholarly scientific journal, like Nature or the Lancet.

Stu

 

RE: It is rather amusing to read the website., posted on February 25, 2012 at 10:43:39
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Is this the article you mentioned?

(It would be helpful in the future to accord inmates the courtesy of a complete link.)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: It is rather amusing to read the website., posted on February 26, 2012 at 08:31:44
geoffkait
 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

 

Its taken from your link (NT), posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:57:18
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Stu

 

evidence of the proposition?, posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:01:48
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 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

 

RE: Its taken from your link (NT), posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:05:46
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 My link was to an entire web site, not a specific article. That's why I asked the question that I did. I am trying to establish the correct context to your remarks.

You still haven't answered the question that I asked. Please do so.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Scientific evidence for dummies, posted on March 1, 2012 at 06:50:54
geoffkait
 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.

 

RE: Scientific evidence for dummies, posted on March 1, 2012 at 11:10:00
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 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

 

RE: Scientific evidence for dummies, posted on March 1, 2012 at 11:41:25
geoffkait
 I don't like articles with formulas.

:-)

 

In your link, posted on March 2, 2012 at 13:52:11
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 yuor specifically atate to read the results of the Princeton Pear papers.That is EXACTLY what I did. In other words I followed exactly the clues which you left any reader of the post that referred to the Princeton experiments, of which you left a link.

Now, if you can't find my quotes, then it is very obvious that you haven't read the link that you left. I find that rather pathetic. You can watch an elementary video, but not read a link, which you have posted, and still make statements saying that that link supports your comments.

If you haven't bothered to read your very own links, I see absolutely no reason to enlighten you. Why spoon fed someone who quotes from a link which they have not even read?

Stu

PS. Are you are upset because I didn't leave specific page markers for you? If you're grumbling about the PEAR website, remember that you left that very link for the rest of us to wade through. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

 

RE: Scientific evidence for dummies, posted on March 2, 2012 at 13:58:50
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 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

 

RE: In your link, posted on March 2, 2012 at 14:39:00
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 What's your problem? I provided a link to an entire web site to point you and others to a large body of work that they might find interesting. After you responded with a few isolated quotations, I then asked you to confirm, with a question that could be answered "yes or no", whether you were working off a specific article that I linked to. Rather than simply answering this question you responded with an ambiguous reference to "it" which could refer to either of the two links that I had previously posted. Perhaps you are not aware that many authors of scholarly papers tend to reuse words, phrases, and even paragraphs in various of their documents, so establishing context is not just a matter of a simple search. You should also appreciate there may be other people following the thread, and putting all of them "on the same page" is a useful courtesy.

I can not respond to quotations taken out of their context, which is why I posted the specific link and asked for confirmation. If you are an intelligent person you will appreciate the necessity of understanding words, sentences and paragraphs in their proper context. If you have common courtesy, you will also appreciate the importance of providing useful links and politely answering simple questions.

You will hear no further discussion from me until you accord me the common courtesy of answering my simple "yes or no" question.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Scientific evidence for dummies, posted on March 2, 2012 at 14:39:32
geoffkait
 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

 

C'mon, posted on March 2, 2012 at 14:51:55
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Tony....I specifically referred to Princeton. How many websites did you list which referred to Princeton?

Actually I will not bother to answer as it would be nice that you do NOT reply. After all if you don't bother to even read the websites you link to, what is the purpose of holding any discussion.

Stu

 

Scientific evidence, posted on March 2, 2012 at 14:59:04
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 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

 

RE: C'mon, posted on March 2, 2012 at 15:05:40
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You appear to display a lack of common politeness as well as ignorance of scholarly citation. When one cites to a book one provides page numbers or, at least, chapter numbers. The same goes when providing hyperlinks. Providing a link to an entire web site when talking about a specific sentence is only slightly better than telling someone to go to the Firestone Library at Princeton University.

You might not realize it, but it has been years since I read all of the material on the PEAR web site. And decades since I met some of the researchers involved, who were friendly, polite, intelligent and educated, unlike some of the inmates here.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Scientific evidence, posted on March 2, 2012 at 15:23:32
geoffkait
 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

 

Your, posted on March 2, 2012 at 16:40:35
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Statement from the above quoted email says it all: "You may not realize it, but it has been years since I read all the material..."

So you are in the habit of referring us to material to which you have not kept up with? That displays a distinct lack of politeness to the readership,at least in my book. And to top it off it is your hyperlink to the website which I read, and from which I made reference to. If you don't remember what you have read, and the obvious deviations from the conclusions which you have reached, then maybe you ought to really reread the entire website again.

And, at this point, since it is obvious that you have not read the entire website, I see no further use of answering your obviously uninformed emails.

Stu

 

Consciousness Is A Powerful Thing, posted on March 24, 2012 at 15:34:37
Dynobot
 Most of humanity has no idea how consciousness actually creates their reality.

For that matter most people don't even have a clue what consciousness is...That is the Observer which is here yet not here at all, which sees but can not be seen, which knows but can not be known.

 

I have always loved this conundrum, but in the larger reality, we can just go on. nt, posted on April 22, 2012 at 07:40:49
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

 

Proof by the scientific method is ALMOST non existent for anything. Theory/Hypothesis ... no problem~nT, posted on October 27, 2012 at 12:31:26
Cleantimestream
Audiophile

Posts: 7550
Location: Kentucky
Joined: June 30, 2005
 ~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.

 

RE: Proof by the scientific method is ALMOST non existent for anything. Theory/Hypothesis ... no problem~nT, posted on November 13, 2013 at 13:53:45
gbehappy2
Audiophile

Posts: 152
Joined: January 27, 2010
 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

 

Page processed in 0.027 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]