Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News0 min ago
More To Mind Than Brain?
.... plus a lot more. Rupert Sheldrake asks some interesting questions.
If you would like ammunition to attack him, I'll give you a helping hand; https:/
If you would like ammunition to attack him, I'll give you a helping hand; https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"if this was true, then the CERN data might have been true at that moment of the experiment"
It might have been, but since it was later found that the experiment had forgotten to account properly for the length of a particular wire, marginally less likely!
I know that Occam's razor isn't very popular around here, but that's only because it's often misunderstood. It's best seen as a guide to what you should start by looking at: the simpler explanations are not necessarily the correct ones, but they are certainly far easier to test, and then confirm or rule out as needed. In this case it is also useful: a model that claims, in essence, that constants vary in a completely unpredictable and irreplicable way, is by definition unfalsifiable. At least the "dogma" of insisting that scientific laws are the same everywhere has the advantage that it can be tested. So far, it has stood up to that test far more robustly than Sheldrake claims.
It is, incidentally, also worth noting that it's possible to put the statement "laws of nature are the same throughout the universe" on a fairly solid mathematical footing. It is, then, not just a dogma stated in words, but also a guide to what equations should look like, and what predictions they can therefore make. Again, it stands up to reasoned scrutiny.
It might have been, but since it was later found that the experiment had forgotten to account properly for the length of a particular wire, marginally less likely!
I know that Occam's razor isn't very popular around here, but that's only because it's often misunderstood. It's best seen as a guide to what you should start by looking at: the simpler explanations are not necessarily the correct ones, but they are certainly far easier to test, and then confirm or rule out as needed. In this case it is also useful: a model that claims, in essence, that constants vary in a completely unpredictable and irreplicable way, is by definition unfalsifiable. At least the "dogma" of insisting that scientific laws are the same everywhere has the advantage that it can be tested. So far, it has stood up to that test far more robustly than Sheldrake claims.
It is, incidentally, also worth noting that it's possible to put the statement "laws of nature are the same throughout the universe" on a fairly solid mathematical footing. It is, then, not just a dogma stated in words, but also a guide to what equations should look like, and what predictions they can therefore make. Again, it stands up to reasoned scrutiny.
Jim, //I'm surprised, to say the least, that you would take Sheldrake's discussion of the constants as seriously as you seem to.//
How seriously did I take it?
//No experiment is ever perfect, and as a result of you would of course expect that measuring fundamental constants might give different answers, either because of changes in technique, or different groups, or any number of other factors. Hence all the averaging, because it's sensible to try and remove and correct for these experimental errors.//
^What’s not to be sceptical about?
How seriously did I take it?
//No experiment is ever perfect, and as a result of you would of course expect that measuring fundamental constants might give different answers, either because of changes in technique, or different groups, or any number of other factors. Hence all the averaging, because it's sensible to try and remove and correct for these experimental errors.//
^What’s not to be sceptical about?
"Excellent. A man after my own heart... Rupert Sheldrake echoes my thoughts ..."
Fairly seriously, based on the quotes above. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I thought that at least you had some level of agreement with what he was saying.
As to your second comment, there's always good sense in having a healthy level of scepticism. But experiment is at the heart of scientific endeavour, and how to control for its errors is well-understood. The question then becomes whether you are sceptical about individual results, and if so why, or whether you have an even more extreme scepticism. Rather than speculate on what that may be, and risking unfairly misrepresenting you, is it OK to ask you to elaborate on your previous post?
Fairly seriously, based on the quotes above. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I thought that at least you had some level of agreement with what he was saying.
As to your second comment, there's always good sense in having a healthy level of scepticism. But experiment is at the heart of scientific endeavour, and how to control for its errors is well-understood. The question then becomes whether you are sceptical about individual results, and if so why, or whether you have an even more extreme scepticism. Rather than speculate on what that may be, and risking unfairly misrepresenting you, is it OK to ask you to elaborate on your previous post?
In my earlier posts I outlined why I thought his scepticism was misplaced and why his arguments were flawed. I'm asking you to elaborate on why, in spite of that, you appear to agree with him.
So, no, your post doesn't say it all. What prompts your scepticism, and how would you respond to the rebuttals that the scientific community offers?
So, no, your post doesn't say it all. What prompts your scepticism, and how would you respond to the rebuttals that the scientific community offers?
Jim, what prompts my scepticism? At 11:58 I posted a chunk from one of your posts here. May I suggest you read it and ask yourself why explanations like that shouldn’t prompt scepticism? My answer to the scientific community would be the same.
I don’t think this topic was the purpose of Khandro’s question so best we get back to the fundamental subject before the reader is bored to death and this thread is derailed completely.
I don’t think this topic was the purpose of Khandro’s question so best we get back to the fundamental subject before the reader is bored to death and this thread is derailed completely.
I don't think it should prompt scepticism because it's a well-understood and well-documented source of systematic error. It's not difficult to account for. Measurements of values vary because the Universe is difficult to measure. Why should the alternative explanation offered -- which is, in effect, that the Universe is easy to measure but completely random -- be preferable?
OK, let me rephrase that -- I don't think it should prompt the sort of scepticism that leads you to conclude that actually the experiment was perfect, and that the Universe really does care whether you're performing an experiment on a Tuesday or a Thursday.
Put another way, there is a great deal more to understanding experimental techniques than this guy thinks -- and, by extension, anyone who agrees with him has more research to do.
Put another way, there is a great deal more to understanding experimental techniques than this guy thinks -- and, by extension, anyone who agrees with him has more research to do.
Jim, //I don't think it should prompt the sort of scepticism that leads you to conclude that actually the experiment was perfect, and that the Universe really does care whether you're performing an experiment on a Tuesday or a Thursday.//
I know you don't - and that wasn't my conclusion.
Now can we move on?
I know you don't - and that wasn't my conclusion.
Now can we move on?
Given that the observer seems to be integral to what is observed, I believe the mind is completely separate from the brain, also for reasons you can guess coming from me.
But great discussion from Jim and Naomi.
I just wish these two folk would bring their considerable talents to an honest and forensic evaluation of evolution with its numerous assumptions.
But great discussion from Jim and Naomi.
I just wish these two folk would bring their considerable talents to an honest and forensic evaluation of evolution with its numerous assumptions.
n //.... so best we get back to the fundamental subject.....//
In that vein, my (gorgeous) dog is a Hungarian sheep dog, the breed from which the English Border Collie and the similar Australian ones were bred. She has a most uncanny knack of turning and spotting other animals, usually cats, watching her from long distances.
I have many times looked up at a window for no reason I'm aware of, to see someone looking down on me.
One evening a few nights ago, driving with my wife, neither of us having said anything for several minutes, I was thinking to myself, I wish I was in England, I could just enjoy some fish and chips, (and mushy peas) - a thought I suppose neither of us have probably had for months, and she said, "wouldn't it be nice to be able to go to an English chippy and get some fish and chips?"
These kind of things happen all the time, and I believe can't be put down to mere coincidence?
In that vein, my (gorgeous) dog is a Hungarian sheep dog, the breed from which the English Border Collie and the similar Australian ones were bred. She has a most uncanny knack of turning and spotting other animals, usually cats, watching her from long distances.
I have many times looked up at a window for no reason I'm aware of, to see someone looking down on me.
One evening a few nights ago, driving with my wife, neither of us having said anything for several minutes, I was thinking to myself, I wish I was in England, I could just enjoy some fish and chips, (and mushy peas) - a thought I suppose neither of us have probably had for months, and she said, "wouldn't it be nice to be able to go to an English chippy and get some fish and chips?"
These kind of things happen all the time, and I believe can't be put down to mere coincidence?
Can't they? Coincidence is a funny thing. It's very difficult to measure anyway, partly because we only tend to remember the times it *does* happen, rather than when it doesn't. Since coincidences don't happen more frequently than they do, it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that it's a selection bias.
That's not to say that there is definitely nothing funny happening, but it's far more rational to at least start from the idea that it's a selection bias, and make every effort possible to rule this out, before seeking a more exotic explanation.
That's not to say that there is definitely nothing funny happening, but it's far more rational to at least start from the idea that it's a selection bias, and make every effort possible to rule this out, before seeking a more exotic explanation.
Khandro, my husband and I do that all the time - although we'd forego the mushy peas. Mushy peas! Perlease! You'll be telling me you like chips with your curry next! What a Sassenach you are! ;o)
Theland, //I believe the mind is completely separate from the brain//
I don’t think that can be strictly true because, in my opinion, that which materialises in the mind emanates from activity in the brain. In the case of Mr & Mrs Khandro expressing simultaneously their longing for fish and chips, whether the brain is capable of detecting another’s thoughts is something to consider. I think it’s possible.
Theland, //I believe the mind is completely separate from the brain//
I don’t think that can be strictly true because, in my opinion, that which materialises in the mind emanates from activity in the brain. In the case of Mr & Mrs Khandro expressing simultaneously their longing for fish and chips, whether the brain is capable of detecting another’s thoughts is something to consider. I think it’s possible.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Technology28 mins ago
