This is a follow up to my previous OP Is Cosmic Consciousness responsible for reality?
There seems to be some confusion regarding the causes of collapse of wave function(which seems to creates reality) whether a conscious observer can collapse the wave function ONLY or can a designed robot/computer perform the same role. Instead of pointing out the facts, I’d like “the seekers of truth” to do it for themselves. Since apparently ‘a picture is worth 1000 words’, I attach 2 videos that cover 2 breakthrough experiments in the understanding of well known double-slit experiment and the implications of collapse of wave function by an observer on the nature of reality…
Things to watch for in the second video: At 13 min and 15 min mark the experiment identifies the difference between robot/Linux systems and humans’ effect on the double-slit experiment. At 32 min mark we can see the implications of the experiments on reductive materialism and materialistic philosophy as well as why the obvious change is necessary that resisted by the scientific community…
Things to watch for in the first video: At 2:30 min mark it is explained what exactly causes the collapse of wave function. Does an act of observing alone cause the collapse of wave function? Or rather, does the knowledge of which path determined by a conscious observer or knower do that?
The last part of the second video talks about implications of the experiment that are so mind boggling that I’m going to leave them out for another OP. For those who have curious minds, please pay a close attention to “behavior” of 2 entangled particles which either involves their knowledge of the future or we fully do not understand the concept of time…
The support you’ve got here comes from a software guy and a Noetic ray guy. You want to call that science, fine, but as I said to mung, you should not be surprised at the ridicule that follows.
The word of who? I said the bible
Fmm and his beloved question-begs. You should think of starting a blog as The Question-Beg Master!
First blog:
It’s not begging the question it’s just starting from a different place. 😉
Just as it’s not question begging when I begin with the assumption that dazz and walto exist and they communicate with me despite their never having proved this to be the case.
peace
The Bible is the word of God.
I know this because God says so 😉
And not just in the Bible but directly as well. (It’s called the testimony of the Holy Spirit).
peace
Are you suggesting that no actual scientists believe that conscious observation is important in the collapse of the wave function?
FYI here is the sort of consensuses we see when it comes to quantum mechanics
peace
I’m really late to the party.
Are you claiming to have an objective criteria for determining who is an “actual” scientist?
peace
Never underestimate the power of prayer and quantum effects via the cosmic consciousness. It is so great it can effect outcomes 4-10 years in the past!
Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1450 (Published 22 December 2001)
Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:1450
Powerful stuff.
Oh wait. Might want to read this as well.
BMJ. 2004 Dec 18; 329(7480): 1444–1446.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1444
PMCID: PMC535973
PMID: 15604179
Retroactive prayer: lots of history, not much mystery, and no science
a snippet:
PeterP,
check this out
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/testing-prayer/201203/how-should-prayer-be-studied
peace
fmm, the first paragraph of your cite sums up prayer study results quite nicely:
thanks for the ‘review’ article, fmm.
All that circular shit is also a reason why my understanding is more valid than yours.
you’re welcome. Thank you for having an open mind and reading till the end 😉
peace
What circular s**t? I have no Idea what you are talking about.
God speaks to me in one way and lets me know that another medium contains his written words.
That is not circular that is how communication is done
Is it circular s**t to take your written testimony here as evidence that you actually exist and could communicate in other ways if you chose to?
The only evidence I have that dazz exists are the pixels I see on the screen in front of me from time to time.
I have absolutely no way of verifying that you actually exist or that what is purported to be your words are actually from you.
peace
Go back and read it.
I’ll answer for him here–Oh yeah. That’s the stuff.
Do you think it follows from the fact that you can sometimes (if only very occasionally) write something that is not circular that you never write anything that is? What you wrote above that dazz and I criticized was obviously question-begging. What you just wrote may not be, but so what?
The article was not about individual studies but about the overall methodology we should use.
How does it feel to be so closed minded that you miss the entire point that was being made?
peace
Why exactly ?? You need to be specific. What question am I begging?
peace
Sorry I just don’t have the time right now.
I will just have to assume that you either have a criteria that you won’t share now or that you don’t and you are just spouting off here.
peace
I’m Rocco Siffredi, you now have my written testimony
fmm, I didn’t miss anything in the article. I didn’t notice any outline of any methodology. Perhaps, as you suggest, I missed it. Why don’t you do a copy/paste of the ‘overall methodology’ that should be used.
I know you won’t because it doesn’t exist in the article you posted a link too. Perhaps you didn’t bother reading the article and you are just projecting your inadequacies onto me.
Of course the article based its claims on the references the author cited in the article. Why do you think the author bothered to cite references if not to bolster their argument.
I’ll take your response to mean that ‘No, PeterP, I did not bother to read any of the cited references. Not surprising in the least.
I’m confused
1) Do you consider that sort of thing circular s**t or just insufficient evidence for your claim?
2) Is the fact that you can possibly lie mean that I shouldn’t trust anything you say or even that you exist.
peace
Are you really this dense or are you just being argumentative for sport?
It was not about offering some new canonical methodology.
It was about the importance of paying attention to the methodology used in studies of this nature before we evaluate the results.
peace
geeze
The argument is only that in studies of this nature the results we see often depend on the methodology we use. That why the author offered studies that had seemingly conflicting results.
Relax, the world wont end if you let your atheist guard down for a second.
Just because it’s often difficult to impartially evaluate the effectiveness of prayer does not mean you have to get baptized. 😉
peace
that isn”t what you said, fmm. Perhaps you forgot:
So now you contradict your earlier claim (above) of yours about it not being about the individual studies and now you insist that it is about the individual studies which, of course, contains the references the blog author cited. Which apparently you haven’t read.
Get your story straight, fmm. You are contradicting yourself and then accusing me of being dense. At least I read a couple of the referenced articles, along with your blog post cite, to exam the methods used in those studies as well as the results and conclusions drawn from those results. Something you should try before you go and make yourself look foolish by accusing me of being dense.
Remember, fmm, I read the first two referenced articles. The conclusions were similar not conflicting. Try reading the studies instead of trying to bluff your way through this it will make the conversation much more productive.
It isn’t a question of atheism or theism it is a question of scientific rigor and what meaningful conclusions can be drawn from any study or group of studies. Try not to let your religious bias get in the way of this endeavor.
sure count the hits and ignore the misses. cold readers and other con artists, and their scams, depend on the type of gullibility you’ve just expressed.
So apparently you are being argumentative for sport.
There is no contradiction, Saying an article is about overall methodology does not entail that a canonical methodology must have been offered and defended.
at least not in the world most of us inhabit.
peace
geeze
I’m not counting hits or misses. Not everything is a contest.
Are you even paying attention??
Sometimes it’s more important to understand the process instead of always keeping score.
peace
Do you even read what you write???
peace
Right, fmm, no mention of any specific methodology or even a critique of the methods used in the referenced studies outside of some vague reference to ‘apples and oranges’ with no regard to specific criticisms of any of the cited study methods. Way to go, fith, top notch!
counting hits
1)
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c68/aaab0d5902cef43d1fcc015eb59305f1dd1f.pdf
now counting objections to the hit
1)
this could go on all day.
All we would ever really establish is that this stuff is difficult. and we should not jump to conclusions and be quick to keep score like Peter seems to be doing
peace
If you are assessing the strength and weaknesses of a study, or group of studies, then what else is that but a contest. If you are using methodology as your criteria then bad and flawed methods lose the contest while robust and well designed studies win. marginal ones get placed under further review. Don’t know how you read the scientific literature, on any topic, but this is how I, and most everyone I know does it. It is a contest.
first I am dense, then I am not paying attention. Bless your heart, fifth.
If your only point was that the methods section of an article contains key and critical information you’ve expressed yourself very poorly.
PeterP,
I’m on record as saying that I believe it is impossible to ever prove that any other minds even exist. Let alone prove that they listen and respond to our pleading.
That goes for everyday minds like you and me let alone minds that are as controversial as God.
My point is that it’s equally impossible to prove that minds don’t exist or respond to our pleading that goes for every day minds as well as God.
Peace
What do you think was difficult about assessing the credibility of the study you posted above?
What would be a well designed study to establish the existence of other minds?
What would be a well designed study to establish that a person pays attention to the request you make to her?
peace
Who is trying to prove that other minds don’t exist?
What does this attempt at special pleading have to do with evaluating the credibility, or lack thereof, of articles we read?
fifth:
walto:
He manages not only to beg the question, but to insult God in the same breath by blaming him for the Bible.
for starters many of the things the skeptic found to be objectionable are the very things that typify intercessory prayer as it is understood and practiced in the Christian community.
peace
God is another mind. in fact he is the prototypical mind.
Peter thinks that “prayer studies” somehow count as evidence against his existence.
peace
Yeah, what he said!
It’s not special pleading.
How can you hope to study God’s response or lack of response to requests made to him when you can’t even effectively evaluate those of another human.
The point is that any study of this sort dealing with consciousness/responsiveness is bound to be fraught with difficulty and making the sort of blanket statements like “hits and misses” is naive.
peace
If you ignore the, quite well established, placebo effect from conditioning exercises as outlined in the methods section, then you are only letting your religious bias interfere with an assessment of the study.
the criticisms made are quite valid and are similar to the ones that developed in my mind as I read the methodology of the study. The flaws are very obvious.
quote:
They want to believe, so they believe. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.
end quote:
peace
PeterP thinks that prayer studies reflect on the effects of prayer. A god or gods may exist and just not give a crap.
Maybe you are just projecting again and ‘prayer studies’ give you pause on the existence of a god.
Besides not panning out scientifically, intercessory prayer doesn’t even make theological sense.
An old OP on the topic:
What you call the placebo effect is actually a mental thing. Aren’t these studies trying to evaluate the effects of the mental on physical health?
By excluding the placebo effect you are only letting your materialist bias interfere with an assessment of the study.
Then there are other things like the laying on of hands that are not about the placebo effect but are actually about the importance of empathy and sharing in the suffering of those you pray for
Excluding those sorts of things means you are not evaluating prayer as it is illustrated in the bible and practiced in the Christian faith.
That is what is meant by apples and oranges
peace