The Noetic Sciences

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've recently discovered The Noetic Sciences and have been looking into it.

Please Google it if you would like to learn more since I have no wish to influence anyone in a specific direction.

Now I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of Noetics, studied it or researched it, and what you think of it.

This thread is in Elliquiy U and not the PROC so free and open discussion is expected.  I'll ask you to leave if you try anything else.  You may offer your opinions and ask questions but not attack the opinions of others.

Thank you.

[Jude]

There are several ways we can know the world around us. Science focuses on external observation and is grounded in objective evaluation, measurement, and experimentation. This is useful in increasing objectivity and reducing bias and inaccuracy as we interpret what we observe. But another way of knowing is subjective or internal, including gut feelings, intuition, and hunches—the way you know you love your children, for example, or experiences you have that cannot be explained or proven “rationally” but feel absolutely real. This way of knowing is what we call noetic.

(Source: http://noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/)

"The Noetic Sciences" are therefore explicitly psuedoscentific. They don't hide this fact at all, it's right there and yet they choose to co-opt the name "science" in their title for some reason?

Most of the practices defended under the banner of the "Noetic Sciences" have clearly failed formal scientific scrutiny, and have been reconstituted therein in an attempt to move the standard of evidence to rescue them from the flames of Scientific Inquiry.

Any discussion about whether or not they're bunk is ultimately going to go down the rabbit hole of dualist philosophy and spiritualist religion.

Personally, I'm not really interested in hashing out that familiar ground again, but I'll state my opinion for the record: the Noetic Sciences are anti-intellectual, rigidly unsupported, philosophically ancient (and I don't mean that in a good way).

Take a look at the quote above: is loving your children an exercise in knowledge, or is this an emotional smokescreen? Do experiences actually exist that cannot be rationally explained, or are the explanations simply not palatable to mystery mongering and new age thinking? Are intuitions a matter of supernatural insight or merely coincidence pared with confirmation bias? Does something feeling real actually make it real, or should we default to the more obvious explanation, the imperfection of observation and the human element?

I think a bit of critical thinking goes a long way here.

One last thing as food for thought. Check out this quote from the same page:

The term noetic sciences was first coined in 1973 when the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who two years earlier became the sixth man to walk on the moon. Ironically, it was the trip back home that Mitchell recalls most, during which he felt a profound sense of universal connectedness—what he later described as a samadhi experience. In Mitchell’s own words, “The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes. . . .The knowledge came to me directly.”

There is a portion of the brain we can inhibit that actually makes people feel "one with the universe." It is the portion of the brain that drugs often mess with, coincidentally, as do sensory deprivation tanks. This portion of the brain governs our feelings of the boundaries of our body, and when hindered, we literally cannot tell where we begin and end.

This is not evidence of universal connection, this is evidence of the physically constructed nature of our experience of reality.

[Noelle]

To be honest, most of this sounds like a rehash of the non-overlapping magisteria conversation that's been ongoing. There is no area of human activity that is immune to objective evaluation. It looks like noetics simply attempts to romanticize things that may otherwise come across as 'cold' or hard to swallow; you can believe love is some kind of magic thing that blossoms out of the ether, or you can boil it down to some chemical reactions in the brain when you interact with other people who are also having chemical reactions in their brain. Your brain may be analyzing and making snap decisions just moments before you realize it, which can make hunches seem like they, too, come from some kind of mystical sixth sense. Regardless if you believe the former, the latter is still happening, and I suspect you can say the same for most of the things noetics attempts to make out to be its own special magisteria.

[Kythia]

I don't see how you've got pseudoscience from the quote you, errr, quoted Jude.

"There are several ways we can know the world around us. Science focuses on external observation and is grounded in objective evaluation, measurement, and experimentation. This is useful in increasing objectivity and reducing bias and inaccuracy as we interpret what we observe. But another way of knowing is subjective or internal, including gut feelings, intuition, and hunches—the way you know you love your children, for example, or experiences you have that cannot be explained or proven “rationally” but feel absolutely real. This way of knowing is what we call noetic."

That just seems utterly reasonable to me.  It's the premise of "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell.  They've just called it "noetic" rather than "subconscious".

Meh, or at least thats how it sounds to me.  What did you find interesting about it BeMi, btw?

[Jude]

Psuedoscience is when something attempts to take on the trappings of science (such as calling itself a science) while also rejecting or failing to meet the premises of science. Pretty much everything in that quote is antithetical to science, "another way of knowing is subjective or internal, including gut feelings, intuition, and hunches—the way you know you love your children, for example, or experiences you have that cannot be explained or proven 'rationally' but feel absolutely real."

I can't get into it much more than that, but if you're interested in reading more about pseudoscience, I'd check out Massimo Pigliucci's book "Nonsense On Stilts."

EDIT: Upon research Blink some, I think there's a bit of confusion as to why the Noetic Sciences are. Blink seems entirely legit, the Noetic sciences deal with a different matter.

For instance, here's another quote where they endorse altmed woo: "Although great strides have been made in the study of complementary and alternative medicine, our health care system remains primarily disease-centered rather than focused on whole-person healing."

Think what you will of it, but science-based medicine has pretty thoroughly put the nail in comp & alt med's coffin. The NCAM is widely regarded as having been a vast waste of resources.

[Kythia]

Meh, I think you're reading more into it than is there.  Gut feelings, intuitions and hunches do definately exist and there are definately experiences people have that cannot (at least currently) be explained.  They are studying them.  They have called this study "noetics".  You seem to be making the assumption that they are studying them in a pseudoscientific manner when there's nothing in that quote to suggest they are. 

I would imagine you're getting hung up on the "Science" in "Noetic Science".  I see it more as the "Science" in "Social Sciences" or "Political Science".

But yes, not a debate thread.  I'm reading through the site at the moment.

EDIT (to address Jude's edit): There's no distinction I can see in the quote you gave.  Sure, that one quote doesn't explain the entire field of noetics but it was all I had at the time of posting.

[Jude]

I edited more stuff into my last post to explain my point, sorry!

EDIT: Also, you're absolutely right, my initial quote probably didn't have enough information, and I appreciate you calling me out on it :)

[Kythia]

Heh, as did I.  We should stop editing now  ;D

[Jude]

...except I just edited!

[Kythia]

When will this madness end?  Won't someone think of the children?

Anyway.  It looks interesting, BeMi.  What were your thoughts on it?

[chaoslord29]

Meh, I think you're reading more into it than is there.  Gut feelings, intuitions and hunches do definitely exist and there are definitely experiences people have that cannot (at least currently) be explained.  They are studying them.  They have called this study "noetics".  You seem to be making the assumption that they are studying them in a pseudoscientific manner when there's nothing in that quote to suggest they are. 

I would imagine you're getting hung up on the "Science" in "Noetic Science".  I see it more as the "Science" in "Social Sciences" or "Political Science".

But yes, not a debate thread.  I'm reading through the site at the moment.

Speaking as someone who graduated in the field of Political Science (and Philosophy), and without trying to turn this into a debate thread, I would definitely resent the implication and comparison between our field and that of Noetics. In fact, our methodology course teaches exactly the opposite, debunking more or less the whole principle behind noetics. The "Science" in Social Sciences doesn't come from a subjective evaluation of feelings, intuitions, and gut-checks, it comes from quantifiable data obtained through research, objective analysis, and peer review, just as it does in the physical sciences.

The primary difference between Social Science and Physical Science is more a matter of complexity and practical limitations, and they both nominally operate within the same methodology (it's what makes them both Science, as opposed to whatever Noetics is). When a physicist wants to identify the cause of a particular physical phenomenon, they create an experiment to isolate various variables and draw logical conclusions from their findings. When I as a political scientist want to determine the cause of a particular political phenomenon, I do exactly the same thing, only because I'm dealing with large populations of people organized into governing bodies, I can't really recreate them in a lab for the purpose of isolating each potential variable (of which their might be thousands).

In other words, the only reason social sciences are considered 'soft' science and physical sciences 'hard' science, is a matter of practicality. The political scientist doesn't have the means to recreate the Egyptian Revolution in it's entirety in order to evaluate each individual factor and then compare it to say, the American Revolution. The physicists and chemists and whatnot have a much easier time of it. If there's anyone who we can readily relate to, it's the geologists, who are still a hard science, since they have equipment more readily able to evaluate their phenomena, but can't exactly induce a volcanic eruption every time they want to study the effects; or readily recreate tectonic shift over the course of a few hundred thousand years.

Noetics strikes me as basically just Neuropsychology or Psychiatry, without the science. You look at what and how people feel and instead of trying to find a quantifiable explanation, you just attribute it to something wholly personal and ultimately subjective.

[Shjade]

I'm pretty sure the Noetic Sciences have the full sponsorship and support of The Colbert Report.

"We are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart." - Stephen Colbert

I can't find a connection between them via Google, but I'd say they're working on the same wavelength. Or maybe "gutlength" would be more accurate. Not that accuracy is of paramount importance in this context.

Hunches, gut feelings, instincts, etc., these are all definitely things that exist. Some people get them more often or feel them more strongly than others, but they're around. That doesn't make them scientifically reliable, reproducible, measurable...

[DarklingAlice]

The noetic sciences are just another, disingenuous attempt to give the trappings of science to the noumenal world. It's nothing more than people seeking to give weight and validity to their subjective experiences and interject them in places they do not belong. Merely appending the word 'science' to your woo does not make it any more scientific.

EDIT: As an afterthought...why? I mean, this sort of behavior happens often enough that its tactics are well characterized, but I can never fathom why people aren't satisfied with letting their experiences of the world beyond reason remain personal, subjective, and irrational. Is it some kind of insecurity? Or a less well-meaning motive?

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've been intrigued by Noetics since I began reading about it for several reasons.  One correlates with something I've long pondered and that is current day discoveries are not as new as we would like to believe.  They were first discovered by the ancients or in some cases merely postulated.  Most of what we experiment on today was already thought up a long, long, long, loooooonnnnnggggg time ago.

Another aspect I ponder is that the immutable laws we hold matter to these days are not the end of it.  I believe there is more including the way each of us individually and many or all of us as a group can have an effect on matter.

Magical thinking I suppose but without intuition, without those unexplainable leaps of thought and perception, I wonder how far along the technological spectrum we would be right now.

[Shjade]

Following an intuitive leap related to science does not make the intuition itself science.

I'm sure there are unexplored depths with regard to the way the mind works (as in I am literally sure of it - we know that we don't know everything about how our heads are put together yet), but that doesn't mean in the meantime it makes sense to call the feelings we can't yet categorize as their own category of science. It just doesn't work that way.

I mean, if I were to look at the term "noetic science" as a legitimate science, I would expect it to be the study of these phenomena, not their use in experiencing the world. Driving a car isn't participating in physical science; the science is the study of how driving a car works. Yes?

[Kythia]

Yeah, from what BeMi has said it seems like we're getting a big hung up over whether the "science" strictly belongs there or not, rather than what they actually think.  Might be easier if we just called it "noetics".

[Vekseid]

Hunches, gut feelings, instincts, etc., these are all definitely things that exist. Some people get them more often or feel them more strongly than others, but they're around. That doesn't make them scientifically reliable, reproducible, measurable...

We have an entire field, known as psychology, covering the study of such things.

Thee might be something to be said for "What is the right and moral decision, here?" And to scientifically quantify this in various ways. Setting a woman on fire for her dowry is wrong. It's a gut feeling, but a rational one, and we can try to determine what our overall aim is, and act and judge accordingly, even if the logic and science has, as its basis "Doing right by what we have decided is right in large part based on our own feelings and emotions."

Noetics does not appear to have such rigor in its purpose.

I've been intrigued by Noetics since I began reading about it for several reasons.  One correlates with something I've long pondered and that is current day discoveries are not as new as we would like to believe.  They were first discovered by the ancients or in some cases merely postulated.  Most of what we experiment on today was already thought up a long, long, long, loooooonnnnnggggg time ago.

Very few things are 'new' anymore (nuclear physics in general comes to mind - and they're still called atoms for a reason). A lot of what is now considered possible is less a factor of knowing whether or not something is possible and more a factor of how much work has been done and the level of industry needed to support it. There's a reason no honest programmer supports the idea of software patents - ideas are not worth shit. The ability to implement them in a timely fashion is everything.

It's certainly 'possible' to build light-sails that could take us to-from Alpha Centauri within a current human lifespan. It's certainly eventually feasible. We certainly can't now.

It's certainly 'possible' to simulate a human brain. Right now, though, the best we can do is about the level of an ant. If we understood more, we could probably simulate a bee's brain on our own desktops. Now? Heck no.

Another aspect I ponder is that the immutable laws we hold matter to these days are not the end of it.  I believe there is more including the way each of us individually and many or all of us as a group can have an effect on matter.

Magical thinking I suppose but without intuition, without those unexplainable leaps of thought and perception, I wonder how far along the technological spectrum we would be right now.

This sort of discussion really belongs in PROC or Off Topic.

I will say, though, from my own perspective - our brains, our world, our universe is wonderful enough on its own without trying to actively invent more. Poke at your curiosities and they may show you something.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The point is we aren't inventing anything.  We are learning all the time about what has already been invented.  We use science to learn and explain.  Each step through the labyrinth takes us to new information.  In some ways we are relearning what people hundreds and thousands of years before us learned. 

I can't be content with the thought that there is nothing new and nothing more than what we think there is.  We don't know everything or even what the everything could be.  We constantly walk up to walls and tell ourselves we've reached the end instead of reaching out to touch the wall and seeing that it's only a beginning.

I think learning all there is to know is more important than locating just enough information to prove to yourself you are right.

[Jude]

I bet you'd like Thomas Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" BM. It talks about how science undergoes major changes and we develop new concepts, plus gives an explanatory framework to what you're talking about now in terms of science itself without the need for anything Noetic.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I bet you'd like Thomas Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" BM. It talks about how science undergoes major changes and we develop new concepts, plus gives an explanatory framework to what you're talking about now in terms of science itself without the need for anything Noetic.

You do a very good selling job until the last phrase. :-) 

[meikle]

I think learning all there is to know is more important than locating just enough information to prove to yourself you are right.

But isn't noetics basically just guessing instead of actually learning?  "I think that my thoughts have an affect on the physical realm."  "Can you prove it?"  "I believe it."

That's the realm of religion, not science.

[Beguile's Mistress]

But isn't noetics basically just guessing instead of actually learning?  "I think that my thoughts have an affect on the physical realm."  "Can you prove it?"  "I believe it."

That's the realm of religion, not science.

If you wish to call it that that is you prerogative. 

I don't wish to limit myself like that.

[meikle]

Limit yourself how?  To calling things by the words that describe them?

There is value in scientifically evaluating anything -- but there is less value in holding that those things are true even when they fail to keep their composure in light of rigorous study.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I see your point but I don't want it limited to any one aspect.

I didn't mention religion because that usually causes things to degenerate into something very unpleasant and this is not the forum for that.  Neither have I said anything about using Noetic Science as a defense of religion.

I haven't found anything like that yet but haven't read all that is available yet either. 

[Tamhansen]

I see your point but I don't want it limited to any one aspect.

I didn't mention religion because that usually causes things to degenerate into something very unpleasant and this is not the forum for that.  Neither have I said anything about using Noetic Science as a defense of religion.

I haven't found anything like that yet but haven't read all that is available yet either. 

What I'm reading from meikle, but please correct me if I understood you incorrectly, and what i feel myself is that Noetics isn't so much a defense of religion, but that it works along the same ways as religion, and by extent beliefs such as New age spiritualism.

'I believe something therefor it must be true. No matter whether empirical observation and testing has debunked it.'

Noetics has as much of a place in science as a cow does in a figure skating competition. That however goes for religion and spirituality as well. Still, over 75 percent of the worlds population is either religious or spiritual so they do have a place in our world. So maybe Noetics does as well.

[Beguile's Mistress]

What I'm reading from meikle, but please correct me if I understood you incorrectly, and what i feel myself is that Noetics isn't so much a defense of religion, but that it works along the same ways as religion, and by extent beliefs such as New age spiritualism.

'I believe something therefor it must be true. No matter whether empirical observation and testing has debunked it.'

Noetics has as much of a place in science as a cow does in a figure skating competition. That however goes for religion and spirituality as well. Still, over 75 percent of the worlds population is either religious or spiritual so they do have a place in our world. So maybe Noetics does as well.

I try to not comment on what other people mean or what I think they mean or what I interpret from what I think I hear when I try to figure out what I think they mean.  That way lies madness.

I also believe that everything should be investigated.  Including the possibility of figure skating cow competitions.  Hard science has limits that are expanding all the time but it does have limits imposed on it when some practitioners believe that the effects of science are finite.  We limit ourselves in the same way.  We look for something, find it and stop looking for anything else.  Those who make discoveries keep looking either through dogged determination, the strong belief that there is more or gut instincts that lead to realizations that two widely different phenomena are related.

As I said above I didn't bring religion into this and don't wish to.  The reason is that when people start talking about it or beliefs of that sort discussion degenerates into unpleasantness as usually happens when anyone with strong feelings about anything attempts to alter the course of a discussion.  I haven't read all there is to read about this subject and if I do find anything that makes me think they are selecting a religion or belief system and using their practices to defend it I'll admit that.

[meikle]

I try to not comment on what other people mean or what I think they mean or what I interpret from what I think I hear when I try to figure out what I think they mean.  That way lies madness.

Contrarily, clarity is integral to meaningful communication.  If you aren't sure what someone is trying to communicate, asking them and uncovering that is essential to having a discussion.

I said very clearly that noetic science exists in the same realm as religion, however; the fact that you don't like seeing it compared to religion isn't going to change what I meant.  The issue under discussion is very similar to the one you found yourself arguing in the free will thread, though: the existence of instinct, intuition, and determination are not what is under examination here.  The issue is proposing that these things somehow operate beyond the confines of observable universe.

You brought the discussion of noetics into the forum dedicated to questions regarding "science, technology, history, and other topics of an academic nature."  Colorful prose and motivational language does not make for a powerful argument in this setting.  When noetic science says it wants to study consciousness, that's awesome.  Consciousness is an exciting thing and it is incredibly deserving of study.  However, the "meeting of mind and spirit", to quote the Institute of Noetic Science, is less valid: what is 'spirit'?  What does it mean?  How do you measure it?  Until you can actually define what you're talking about and determine a way of empirically testing for it, it can't be science.

Now, there are experiments that are being conducted, have been, etc, that address topics of the sort, but to my knowledge, those that have been tested in a scientifically valid manner (ie, accounting for outside variables, consistent procedure, similar results after multiple experiments, etc) have never shown that consciousness has any way to affect the world as a force which is, as best I can gather, the core idea behind noetic science.

The reason is that when people start talking about it or beliefs of that sort discussion degenerates into unpleasantness as usually happens when anyone with strong feelings about anything attempts to alter the course of a discussion.

You asked:

Now I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of Noetics, studied it or researched it, and what you think of it.

I do not think it is very polite to accuse someone of trying to "alter the course of discussion" when they are merely answering your initial question.  "This is bullshit" is a totally legitimate answer to, "What do you think of this?"

[Beguile's Mistress]

meikle,

Thank you for your remarks.  They are appreciated and will be given all the consideration possible. 

OP

[meikle]

Beguile's Mistress,

Your passive aggressive manner is duly noted, and I will consider in the future that you are not interested in a serious examination of anything you bring to discussion.

meikle

[Beguile's Mistress]

Beguile's Mistress,

Your passive aggressive manner is duly noted, and I will consider in the future that you are not interested in a serious examination of anything you bring to discussion.

meikle

Replied via PM as is appropriate.

[chaoslord29]

Contrarily, clarity is integral to meaningful communication.  If you aren't sure what someone is trying to communicate, asking them and uncovering that is essential to having a discussion.

I said very clearly that noetic science exists in the same realm as religion, however; the fact that you don't like seeing it compared to religion isn't going to change what I meant.  The issue under discussion is very similar to the one you found yourself arguing in the free will thread, however: the existence of instinct, intuition, and determination are not what is under examination here.  The issue is proposing that these things somehow operate beyond the confines of observable universe.

You brought the discussion of noetics into the forum dedicated to questions regarding "science, technology, history, and other topics of an academic nature."  Colorful prose and motivational language does not make for a powerful argument in this setting.  When noetic science says it wants to study consciousness, that's awesome.  Consciousness is an exciting thing and it is incredibly deserving of study.  However, the "meeting of mind and spirit", to quote the Institute of Noetic Science, is less valid: what is 'spirit'?  What does it mean?  How do you measure it?  Until you can actually define what you're talking about and determine a way of empirically testing for it, it can't be science.

Now, there are experiments that are being conducted, have been, etc, that address topics of the sort, but to my knowledge, those that have been tested in a scientifically valid manner (ie, accounting for outside variables, consistent procedure, similar results after multiple experiments, etc) have never shown that consciousness has any way to affect the world as a force which is, as best I can gather, the core idea behind noetic science.
You asked:I do not think it is very polite to accuse someone of trying to "alter the course of discussion" when they are merely answering your initial question.  "This is bullshit" is a totally legitimate answer to, "What do you think of this?"

Seconded, all of this.

Cognitive Sciences are an intriguing field, and Noetics are examining many of the same phenomena, just without the assumption that they are reducible into anything that science can qualify or falsify. Noetics even goes a step further backwards than Philosophy of the Mind, which at least examines mental abstracts and theories in the light that they are logically reducible to an empirical basis. Noetics just tosses empirics out the window entirely, then uses nonetheless logical constructs to validate their claims in a circular fashion.

[Beguile's Mistress]

What are the Noetic Sciences?

    no•et•ic: From the Greek noēsis / noētikos, meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding.

    sci•ence: Systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena.

    no•et•ic sci•ences: A multidisciplinary field that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the full range of human experiences.

I dislike the attempt to equate something to religion in this case.  Many things in everyday life have the aspect of a religion but they aren't religions much to the dismay of Pittsburgh Steelers fans. 

I enjoy watching people reach beyond the limits they impose on their abilities and seek new knowledge and learning.  I try to open myself up to new things all the time rather than look for reasons to dismiss them.  I prefer to go into a new learning experience with an open mind rather that prejudice myself with preconceived notions.

You don't have to agree with me because that isn't important.  I only ask that you be open-minded and objective with your comments.

[meikle]

I read one of the experiments from the Institute of Noetic Science website that attempted to discover whether "mind-matter interaction" influenced events as they would occur in the future, as they occur in the present, or whether the active force of the human mind influences events after those events occur.  (Also, notice that it is already taken as accepted here that the mind will influence the results of a RNG, the question is "now, later, or before we think about it?"

They determined that human thought changes the likelihood of an event after that event occurs.

They came to this conclusion by running random number generator trials with a random number generator that would: randomly select a value between 0 and 1, then randomly select another value (80% of repeating the previous value, 20% of changing) twice (so results might look like 1-0-0, 0-0-0, 1-1-1, 1-0-1, and so on) and compared how often at each stage a button that somebody pressed matched the number that the random number generator put out.

Each experiment ran through this sequence 100 times.  They determined that the human mind makes it 5% more likely for a particular value to come up, backward in time.

So this... this is noetic science.

[Jude]

Ouch. That's a recipe for creating nonsensical results. Those operational definitions are horrible.

[chaoslord29]

 :o . . .

So basically they conducted this experiment on the assumptions that A) Human beings can influence the otherwise immutable physical laws of the universe, aka Mind-Matter Interaction; and B)That Human beings can effect events irrelevant of when those events take place in a time stream.

Now, I'm not a student of the physical sciences, but I'm pretty sure that both of those assumptions are %100 incongruous with everything else we know about the function of . . . well everything. It'd be something very different if they were questioning said assumptions, but instead they're opening with the inverse of what is supported by every other field of science.

The "experiment" itself is purely correlative. It presents no data to presume anything other than random chance in the results. There's no way to actually draw causal inferences from the recorded data.

[meikle]

The "experiment" itself is purely correlative. It presents no data to presume anything other than random chance in the results. There's no way to actually draw causal inferences from the recorded data.

http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/random_radin.pdf

In case anyone feels that my summary of the experiment was not generous or honest.  They did later on expand their three-course RNG to a ten-course RNG, so I guess that's something.  It is published by a journal that self-acknowledges that it works outside of "mainstream science," so there's that, too.  Other publications in volume 20 of the Journal of Scientific Exploration include "Organized Opposition to Plate Techtonics", "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether Detected", and "Ufology: What have we learned?"

Ufology is pretty cool, I used to love that stuff.

Edit: Also, they note that a significant number of the trials (69 incomplete sessions, 1800 trials) which showed negative correlation were scrapped because their computers crashed.  "Whether it is merely a coincidence that individuals doing poorly in this tested opted out 'by accident' is unknown."  I think it is funny that you can 'do poorly' on a 'guess whether this coin came up heads or tails' test.  Also, audio feedback on accurate guesses, and a number generator that is 80% likely to repeat the last result.

I'm pretty sure I could guess about 80% right too under those circumstances.

[chaoslord29]

http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/random_radin.pdf

In case anyone feels that my summary of the experiment was not generous or honest.  They did later on expand their three-course RNG to a ten-course RNG, so I guess that's something.  It is published by a journal that self-acknowledges that it works outside of "mainstream science," so there's that, too.  Other publications in volume 20 of the Journal of Scientific Exploration include "Organized Opposition to Plate Techtonics", "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether Detected", and "Ufology: What have we learned?"

Ufology is pretty cool, I used to love that stuff.

Edit: Also, they note that a significant number of the trials (69 incomplete sessions, 1800 trials) which showed negative correlation were scrapped because their computers crashed.  "Whether it is merely a coincidence that individuals doing poorly in this tested opted out 'by accident' is unknown."  I think it is funny that you can 'do poorly' on a 'guess whether this coin came up heads or tails' test.  Also, audio feedback on accurate guesses, and a number generator that is 80% likely to repeat the last result.

I'm pretty sure I could guess about 80% right too under those circumstances.

When your publication readily acknowledges that it's not "mainstream science" that's usually a pretty telling point right there.

I read that next part correctly, didn't I? Opposition to Plate Tectonics? As in the people who still believe that plate tectonics is all a big hoax? I usually lump them in with the flat earth society and the neo-geocentricists and the creationists.

I do like Ufology though, I mean, it's not exactly hard science, but it's the kind of thing that could relatively easily become hard science if the right breakthroughs were to occur. The rest of this stuff just seems stuck in the past.

[Kythia]

Ouch. That's a recipe for creating nonsensical results. Those operational definitions are horrible.

I edited my post of a couple of days ago to address this,

Nah, just dicking with you.  Of course I didn't.

[Vekseid]

The point is we aren't inventing anything.  We are learning all the time about what has already been invented.  We use science to learn and explain.  Each step through the labyrinth takes us to new information.  In some ways we are relearning what people hundreds and thousands of years before us learned. 

I think your definition of invention is a bit spurious.

In some ways we find out that, hundreds and thousands of years ago, one person out of millions had a particularly keen insight, and it spread. But to do this, we also have to sort the wheat from the chaff. That's what science does.

How are we communicating?

A thousand or so years ago, someone created something that could be called a battery. Nothing came of it, and nothing could come of it. It was weak even by the standards of batteries when they were 'reinvented'. To say nothing of the chemical research over the past century that has enabled modern mobile technology.

A thousand or so years before that, someone came up with a set of codified rules for logic. Other people, various elements of math. Newton built upon these, Gauss on them. Does that make the Fourier transform - the equation behind every single .jpg image you see on the Internet - any less inventive?

I can't be content with the thought that there is nothing new and nothing more than what we think there is.  We don't know everything or even what the everything could be.  We constantly walk up to walls and tell ourselves we've reached the end instead of reaching out to touch the wall and seeing that it's only a beginning.

You are confusing the palette with what can be painted with it.

And heck - what we have isn't exactly that, even. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are not our 'palette', per se, but rather descriptions that we can occasionally refine - we don't know Quantum Mechanics or Relativity the way we know 'red' and 'blue' are a certain range of wavelengths. Rather, we know them by how they bound our Universe. There are many potential ways by which this may be occurring, and there are some rather mind-boggling possibilities involved.

Their purview is not unlimited. Most obviously by the fact that they don't touch - there is something between them. We know this. We know there is another 'color' there. We see its effects in things such as black holes, and they are profound observations on their own.

And yet, at the same time, we don't. Throw too many particles into the equation (i.e. more than two) and the effects of these 'bounds' are ridiculously hard to compute.

I don't think I need to convince you that the complexity doesn't stop there. From this basic palette of fundamental universal equations and constants, we get others, such as orbital mechanics and chemistry.

And we're still studying Solar System formation. We're still doing chemical and materials research even on the most basic levels - I've heard metallurgists go on rants about how under-studied most types of steel are. Just steel. Forget every other alloy we can make. We do these studies because running the equations from basic quantum mechanical principles... just is not going to happen.

And then we go into biology. Millions of CPU hours go into analyzing a single millisecond of a single protein.

You said in another thread "I refuse to believe that I can be predicted with 100% accuracy."

There are groups of transhumanists who believe that such a thing as perfect brain uploading will one day be possible.

There is a reason people with more understanding of biochemistry, at their nicest, often think of said groups as naive.

All of these things, though - they're not what we've created. These are just discoveries. Poking at the Universe through every possible method we can think of, with every possible tool, to get a better description of it. So we can make better tools. And these are really our true creation - an ever-evolving toolbox with which we can paint and draw and write and sculpt and swim and dig and fly and...

There are so many colors for us to paint with. To create with.

You put your foot in the ground and, despite not wanting to paint with the overwhelming vast majority of colors currently known, or to discover ones in spaces where we haven't looked hard enough yet, you choose to believe in a completely different color, tangential to and outside of every color currently known.

I can't stop you from believing so, of course.

It is, however, a dead end. It's not a real color. There are no paintings to be made with it. No genuine creations to be made. Not even discovering new combinations of colors by combining it with something we already know.

It's sad, because there is so much to be made. To be painted, to be done, created. Humanity hasn't done a trillionth of what it is capable of.

It's sad, because however tiny any actual creation these days seems to be in the face of all that has already been done - every genuine addition is itself a beautiful thing.

It's sad, because so much of humanity seems to be in this very same rut. That they feel they can't actually add anything more.

The sum total of human achievement is a tower reaching brick by brick for the stars. Billions have been laid by those that came before me, each and every single one a labor of love by those who placed it. I realize that what I can add to this already colossal structure is insignificant in comparison to the grand whole.

This is fine. I can take pride enough in being a part of it, and craft and place my contributions as best I can, because they will have to support a great deal of weight.

In the mean time, though, I can certainly appreciate what others I can observe are doing.

I would like to see what you add to, if you choose to.

[Beguile's Mistress]

You put your foot in the ground and, despite not wanting to paint with the overwhelming vast majority of colors currently known, or to discover ones in spaces where we haven't looked hard enough yet, you choose to believe in a completely different color, tangential to and outside of every color currently known.

Even if you hand me the biggest box of colors that exists and I use every single one to color the entire world I'm still limited to only what you give me?  I don't believe that.  I want to look for new colors that aren't known.  I want to take the colors I have and make new ones out of them.  Then I want to know what others think when they look at those colors and how they make people feel and what they see.  I want to take the colors we can't see with our eyes yet and make them visible.

The sum total of human achievement is a tower reaching brick by brick for the stars. Billions have been laid by those that came before me, each and every single one a labor of love by those who placed it. I realize that what I can add to this already colossal structure is insignificant in comparison to the grand whole. 

This is fine. I can take pride enough in being a part of it, and craft and place my contributions as best I can, because they will have to support a great deal of weight.

In the mean time, though, I can certainly appreciate what others I can observe are doing.

Science and technology are on a learning curve that is nearly vertical now.  This is your tower.  There are those like me who believe that each contribution to that curve is just as important as the sum of all the contributions put together.  Nothing and no person is insignificant. 

We are where we are today because of people who asked some of the most important questions know to man.  Where else?  What else?  What if?


Some of us feel lost when we can't answer the questions and some of us feel lost when we're told that all the questions have been answered.  Phenomena exist and we've learned to measure them.  We've learned about our physical world.  Why should we limit ourselves to what lies within our horizons, though?  We're like the first man who stepped out his cave and followed the migratory birds out of curiosity.  Or the first hunter who followed his prey into unknown territory out of hunger. 

Some of us are happy to sit back and say I know how this works and feel a sense of accomplishment.  Some of us are happy to sit back and say I know how this works and feel curios.  We'll ask what else does it do?  What else can I make it do?  How can I change it, build on it or with it?  What more is there?

Do you think I don't appreciate what others have done?  I'm alive today only because of some of the people who laid some of those bricks.


Here is some of what I believe.

"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science."



We don't know what it is that we don't know or how much is left to be learned.  I'm on the side of those who believe that the tower you mention is tiny, a drop in the bucket so to speak, compared to all that is left for us to discover.  I'm right up there with those who know deep in their hearts that human beings are capable as individuals and as a group of so much more that what everyone else wants to believe.

[Kythia]

Beautifully written, Veks.

But - you knew that was coming didn't you.  There is nothing "magical" about the scientific method.  I know that sounds like a tautology but what I mean is that there is no fundamental law of the universe saying new knowledge must come about through ruthless hypotheis testing and application.  Sure, it's a good way of doing it.  Its a formal system that makes it easy to do (relatively) and easy to have confidence in what you've done.  I'd maybe go so far as to say its the best way.  But its not an exclusive way.

Poking about in odd corners, revisting some stuff "the ancients" did, looking at things in a new way, all the stuff that I get the impression Noetics is about could well reap dividends.  It's possible - and I can't decide if I believe this or not so Im just throwing it out there - that deliberately looking at certain things in a way opposed to the scientific method could reap certain rewards quicker: If it was easy to find using the standard methods then it would have been found already.  As I say, not convinced by my own argument, but meh.

The palette has loads of shizzle.  Sure.  And most good paintings follow a set of rules - complementary colours, formal persepctive etc etc etc.  But there is a chance that doing something entirely different will produce something good.  Sure, 99.999..carry on as long as you want... per cent of the paintings thus produced will be crap.  But whats the harm in trying?

[Vekseid]

Even if you hand me the biggest box of colors that exists and I use every single one to color the entire world I'm still limited to only what you give me?  I don't believe that.  I want to look for new colors that aren't known.  I want to take the colors I have and make new ones out of them.  Then I want to know what others think when they look at those colors and how they make people feel and what they see.  I want to take the colors we can't see with our eyes yet and make them visible.

If mixing the colors given to you counts as 'invention', then the past year alone brought more invention than the sum total of all human achievement up through a decent chunk of the 20th century. Of course you can mix the colors. That's the entire point. There's plenty to discover that's well within your reach.

Your own vision is limited to three primary colors, maybe four or five if you're a tetra or pentachromat - but in the latter case your vision would be still very close to a baseline human's. You could look up the UV receptors of say, a bee, and paint colors using that, and you could create additional colors by examining the far infrared spectrum. And of course you know the near infrared spectrum is there - there's a gap.

We know where gaps like that are - between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, in the nature of cold (i.e. not neutrinos) dark matter, etc. Around these phenomenon we build cages. "Is it this? No? Okay." Over and over again.

Millions of people have an interest in finding this stuff out, however. It's very exciting - but because these subjects are so elusive, well yes, it is pretty steep. Very smart people dedicate their life's research to this and get applauded for failing with dignity. You want to succeed where they've failed?

No seriously. If you think you're not capable of it, imagine you are. "How well will these new fundamental colors mix with any of those we have?"

Probing the energy levels involved in the Big Bang for example would require a particle accelerator with a circumference of some thirty light years if we're lucky and a few hundred if not, and the power of a small star.

Maybe that's worth doing. Sure. But that's bigger than you, me... bigger everyone who has ever lived on this planet combined.

And certainly, that's an extreme example - we will probably find new physics long before that became even remotely plausible as a civilization.

Science and technology are on a learning curve that is nearly vertical now.  This is your tower.  There are those like me who believe that each contribution to that curve is just as important as the sum of all the contributions put together.  Nothing and no person is insignificant. 

Some of it's pretty steep. A few years ago a high school student did a test of whether boiling water would freeze faster than colder water in the winter. A lot of prestigious stuff is pretty steep, by its very nature. On the other hand, these are pretty well-worn paths.

And it's not just science and tech, but also socially. Morally. These are no less important.

If you believe that each contribution is just as important as all of them together... while I don't agree with that logic I can agree that we are all made greater by each contribution.

We are where we are today because of people who asked some of the most important questions know to man.  Where else?  What else?  What if?

Some of us feel lost when we can't answer the questions and some of us feel lost when we're told that all the questions have been answered.  Phenomena exist and we've learned to measure them.  We've learned about our physical world.  Why should we limit ourselves to what lies within our horizons, though?  We're like the first man who stepped out his cave and followed the migratory birds out of curiosity.  Or the first hunter who followed his prey into unknown territory out of hunger. 

Then pick a horizon and cross it. Life's too short for dithering - even if you manage to live forever. Some of them are pretty far.

Some of us are happy to sit back and say I know how this works and feel a sense of accomplishment.  Some of us are happy to sit back and say I know how this works and feel curios.  We'll ask what else does it do?  What else can I make it do?  How can I change it, build on it or with it?  What more is there?

And we call the latter attitude science, engineering, arts.

Do you think I don't appreciate what others have done?  I'm alive today only because of some of the people who laid some of those bricks.

Do you think it's easy to hear "You/your friends/people you respect have done nothing of import!" a la your claim of no inventions above?

I'm proud of what little I've done, the few patterns I've made. They're built on older work, naturally, but they are new things in their own right. It's fine to call them paltry in comparison to the whole, but to imply that everything I've done might as well not be is not going to strike a positive chord.

Here is some of what I believe.

"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

What is an elemental law, and why is the scientific method insufficient for analyzing it?

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

How so, and why?

Intuition has led to many insights but is also the collection of our own biases, which lead to mistakes. Some of them quite horrific. Intuition has its place - when time for purely rational thought is denied - but it is not the superior.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science."

This is purple prose - an entirely subjective belief on your part, one not shared e.g. by those who aren't naturally curious and exploratory. I find such people boring, but that's a different discussion - they're still people.

We don't know what it is that we don't know or how much is left to be learned.  I'm on the side of those who believe that the tower you mention is tiny, a drop in the bucket so to speak, compared to all that is left for us to discover.  I'm right up there with those who know deep in their hearts that human beings are capable as individuals and as a group of so much more that what everyone else wants to believe.

None of which requires anything more than what we already have. There's no need to evoke any psychic, supernatural, or mystical phenomenon for humans to achieve greatness, to explain the Universe, to effect and be ready for whatever may be thrown its way. Appeals to them are not solutions - they are distractions, sometimes dangerously so.

The palette has loads of shizzle.  Sure.  And most good paintings follow a set of rules - complementary colours, formal persepctive etc etc etc.  But there is a chance that doing something entirely different will produce something good.  Sure, 99.999..carry on as long as you want... per cent of the paintings thus produced will be crap.  But whats the harm in trying?

When a friend of mine was taking optics (a Junior-level college course) everyone was required to take very careful, detailed notes, in case they found something new. "While, in all honesty, you probably won't find anything - this area isn't really well explored yet, so we want to be able to reproduce things on the off chance that you do find something." The tower isn't quite as high or steep as people make it out to be. "Really? No one's looked into that!?" "Nope. You're welcome to it." <- The following in the open source community often comes out as "Feel free to submit a patch." The very act of getting a Bachelor's or higher in any science degree is the expectation that, somehow, you advance your field.

Properly collating all of this is a challenge in and of itself.

The basics, though - electromagnetics, relativity, Newtonian/Galilean laws, etc - millions of people have tried to find more. It's been so thoroughly scoured that we have a partial picture of what we haven't found yet. Without a fundamental change to the Universe itself, for some reason, we're still going to be teaching Special Relativity a century from now just as we teach that the Earth is a slightly egg-shaped oblate spheroid in later courses even though the proper term for Earth's shape is "Geoid", even if we manage to find something more appropriate to describe our Universe with than General Relativity.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I believe that each and every person has merit and value and contributes to the life stream in their own way.  Each accomplishment of every person has an effect on all of us in some way.  Even the most heinous villain among us gives people the opportunity to practice compassion, understanding and hope.  To even suppose that I believe people don't contribute shows a lack of understanding who I am and try to be.

I believe that we should use the tools available to us to quantify our world and then go out and find more ways to measure and gauge and more things to measure and gauge.  We need to understand what is right in front of us and then look for more, push the boundaries and open new doors..

I believe it's wrong to limit myself because someone says I can't do something or something can't be done or believes there is nothing more because they can't see it.  How the hell do they even know?

The things that I posted that I believe are believed by others.  No one has to agree with them or me.  I read those quotes in lecture notes when I was in high school and they've been a sort of talisman for me since then. 

[meikle]

I believe that we should use the tools available to us to quantify our world and then go out and find more ways to measure and gauge and more things to measure and gauge.  We need to understand what is right in front of us and then look for more, push the boundaries and open new doors..

This sounds essentially core to basic, empirical science as well.  Learning as much as there is to learn is the end goal scientific work; the theory of everything is something of a holy grail end goal, and every experiment and discovery works toward that end goal -- the ability to predict everything.  It may never be achievable, but even the knowledge that it is truly unattainable would be significant.

I believe it's wrong to limit myself because someone says I can't do something or something can't be done or believes there is nothing more because they can't see it.  How the hell do they even know?

Who is limiting you?  Who wants to?  Why are you setting yourself apart, when this sort of thing is true of anyone who values knowledge?

[Cthonig]

    I looked over the link Jude provided to The Institute of Noetic Sciences.
    We do need to remain open to possibilities but not so open as to be gullible. The problem with The Institute of Noetic "Sciences" is they aren't doing science so they will end up tainting what they "study".
    As an example: Energy Psychology In Disaster Relief http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/S10_Feinstein_EnergyPsychologyInDisasterRelief_lr.pdf
    The idea proposes that tapping on acupuncture points will cause a relief in psychological trauma. It sounds like junk, the article is purely anecdotes and they do not study the phenomenon scientifically. Yet, there is something buried in the article.

"The man brought the trauma to mind, and though he never put the memory into words, his treatment began. Johnson tapped on specific acupuncture points that he identified using a simple physical test. He then instructed the man, through the interpreter, to do a number of eye movements and other simple activities. More tapping followed. Within fifteen minutes, according to Johnson, the man’s demeanor had changed completely. His face had relaxed; he no longer looked vicious. He was openly expressing joy and relief, initiating hugs with both Johnson and the physician."

Underline is mine and highlights a psychological tool that is being used (for a couple decades now) by some psychotherapists. I do not know the official term but the person is told to focus on the troubling thought/memory then follow the movement of an object with their eyes. The object is moved around in a random manner throughout the subject's forward visual field. After a short time – a half minute to a few minutes – there is a feeling of relief and the thought/memory is less distressing. It does work – my psychotherapist (at that time, a couple decades ago) used it on me. So it is likely not the tapping on acupuncture points that provides the relief, it is probably the dismissed "eye movements".
    Does the technique relate to REM sleep? Possibly. I only recently encountered mention of the technique again but have not researched it.
    But my point stands. By not doing a scientific analysis of the folk remedy, the IONS is going to bury the possibility of finding out that the Chinese may have developed the technique some time ago. Assuming someone didn't recently add the eye movements to the acupuncture tapping routine.

    Looking into unusual ideas is good. Being sloppy about studying those ideas doesn't help anyone.



Shjade, Colbert is a Poe. His show is an outrageous parody of a conservative/fundamentalist.

Poe's Law – Similar to Murphy's Law, Poe's Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.
    "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
    In other words, No matter how bizarre, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

[Shjade]

Shjade, Colbert is a Poe. His show is an outrageous parody of a conservative/fundamentalist.

Great Scott, are you serious? I never would have uncovered such a subtle act on my own! You, sir, have saved me from great public embarrassment.

>.>

[Hemingway]

It's possible - and I can't decide if I believe this or not so Im just throwing it out there - that deliberately looking at certain things in a way opposed to the scientific method could reap certain rewards quicker: If it was easy to find using the standard methods then it would have been found already.  As I say, not convinced by my own argument, but meh.

In most cases, though, this is simply going to lead to thinking something is right when it isn't, due to confirmation bias.

[Cthonig]

Great Scott, are you serious? I never would have uncovered such a subtle act on my own! You, sir, have saved me from great public embarrassment.

>.>

I did get that the above is sarcasm but I was not able to see anything in the earlier post which let me know you were playing along rather than expressing a genuine sentiment. I have encountered others who do think Colbert is genuine and not a Poe. Also, what does the ">.>" mean?

[Shjade]

It's a sideways glance, generally used to indicate something is either causing anxiety or uncertainty or similar.

In this case it's a way of indicating it seemed like I was responding to someone having said something silly.