Experts? Doesn't there have to be a 'what' for skill prevelance?
You dont know what nlp or cold reading is then?
The subjective data is significant in your example. The objective data is not and that's the data that really matters.
It's unclear what the subjective and objectivity quantities of the experiment are (as you see them), in a broader context objectivity and subjectivity can often be interchangable. Can you clear this up?
Psi experiments have collected lots of evidence for human behavior... not Psi. That's the way it is.
No crunchy as i said there's a whole host of people working in psychology who absolutely disagree with this assesment. Your call to absolute authority on this is neither accurate nor makes any sense other than a piece of opinionating.
Don't you find it odd that Psi claims are phenomena that should be self-evidence yet there is nobody who can demonstrate this self-evidentness?
Ive seen quite a few people accurately demonstrate their ability.
On the basis of the psychology behind this claim and the same pattern that is found in all claimers of this type clearly shows every claimer is lying.
Not when the claimer gets 'hits' far beyond what is possible via cold-reading, nlp methods.
If there are I have not met any of them and NONE of them are on psipog. They should really go and get a quick mil from Randi.
The last thing we need is to bring quacks like Randi into all this.
I think you need to get a video camera and show the 'what' rather than rely on agreements of people who make alot of money.
Well youre strawmanning my position here somewhat (whehter intentionally or non-intentionally).
My view is assembled from an incredibly broad spectrum of disciplines, first hand experience, second hand accounts and experimentation.
I imploy what someone like Ken Wilber would call integral science, rather than an over-simplified dogmatic form of empiricism (narrow science).
Show me a claim with a self-evident objective performance and we'll critique away.
What on earth does 'self-evident' mean in this instance?
You're just invoking vauge non-specific notions simply so we can side-step all the pesky statistically significant data and move straight onto evidence that appeals or
appears self-evident to you.
You're simply being devicive and uping the stakes by increasing the vaguarity of your demands with each successive post.
So this is not the case. C is the maximum distance that a photon can travel in 1 second in a pure vaccum. In a non-pure vaccum that speed can be tripled or higher (it's been done over and over again). That's information travelling faster than C.
From what i understand there is some controversy over this, but it isnt really central to the argument either way so im not unduly concerned.
Now lets talk about information transfer vs. a relationship. In information transfer you have two (or more) repositories and the information from one travels to the other over a distance. In the particle relationship that I described there is only one repository shared by both particles (rather than each particle having it's own and copying information from one to the other).
Where does this 'repository' exist if it is 'shared'? is it physical? if it is physical where is it located?
Can you ultimately describe what a repository materially or nonmaterially actually represents in this instance?
You have to be really really specific about these sorts of things - we're trying to understand the
mechanics of the situation (hence - quantum mechanics). So you can't really rely on turns of phrase to make the problem go away which, i sort of feel is what youre trying to do.
However if youre trying to say that there's a spacial point where both particle co-exist (thus eliminating the information exhange problem) then yes that may well be a possibility, and i can definitely buy into that.
Reality would be something more akin to Bohm's ''undivided wholeness" than the seperated events that we commonly percieve it as being composed of.
It's not a layman view. Ask a known professional physacist on the board if quantum entaglement is a result of information transfer or a relationship (ex. James R).
You certainly wont find any quantum physicist saying that particles mearly share a relationship and thats all there is too it.
Yes you 'might' find them using that as a turn of phrase, to make things linguistically easier - but the key difference is quantum physicists
know that that's all it is, whereas im not sure you do.
You're really trying to turn science into over-simplified dogma, quautum mechanics interpretations arnt nearly as cut and dry as youd believe, there are many different theories knocking around that atempt to explain action at a distance.
Whatever theory you
do buy into though, you wont find anyone saying 'they share a relationship and thats it, nothing to see move along now please'.
That would be taking the 'mechanics' out of quantum mechanics, completely pointless. We're trying to explain phenomena, not explain them away.
A little on hidden variable theory, to demonstrate that information exhange at a distance isnt just something that ive considered, its a recognised part of quantum theorising.
Some advocates of the hidden variables idea prefer to accept the opinion that experiments have ruled out local hidden variables. They are ready to give up locality, explaining the violation of Bell's inequality by means of a "non-local" hidden variable theory, in which the particles exchange information about their states. This is the basis of the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.
It is however, requiring for example, that all particles in the universe be able to instantaneously exchange information with all others.
As for philosophy, I don't put much stock into it for understanding reality.
I think youd be suprised if you knew how much of modern rationalism and empiricism is actually derived from enlightenment era philosophy. Its pretty important.
You're welcome to bring some hard objective evidence to the table for some specific claim.
I think ive cited enough for now, although if i think it will be helpful to cite anymore i certainly will yes.