New book, "Heavens on Earth", by Michael Shermer

Yeah, I probably agree if I understand you correctly, that it's just how we understand things, there is no reason to accept that's how things really are. And yet reality really is like that for us, but the things (laws we make up) that fit in between our observations, they are just tricks we use to stick the observations together.

But where I struggle, is that even though I accept this as the case, I'm still stuck without any better way to understand nature than the way I've been taught. Even though I think deeply about things, and have found some quite different ways to view the world (what causes what, and how it might be joined up differently), they only make small adjustments to my subjective view of nature. Where-as things like soap, antibiotics really make a difference, they may be symbols for something else, and be joined up with things in some other way... but I don't know what that way is that could make any difference... so I'm stuck with the soap, and the antibiotics.

Assuming that Yoichiro Saka's experimental results at the ESPER labs at Sony are real, and I really do believe they are. Both he and Sony appear to have discovered that some type of anomalous effect is real. But because of the way it works, it's been impossible for them to find a way of exploiting the effect. The way it works, already seems to be exploited in the form of brands, advertising, propaganda etc.

The only thing I've found that looks potentially interesting and might have some effect are Sigel's - whereby you decide on some outcome you want to happen in the form of a sentence, then write down the letters from the words of that sentence, one on top of each other (I think excluding the vowels?) to form a complex unique pattern. Then place the pattern in a place that you can concentrate on it, thinking about what you want, whilst becoming very coherent (emotional/feelings). I see some people have suggested during sex - drawing a pattern on the forehead of their partner - not so sure. But the suggestion is that you've now increased the likelihood of getting to that outcome over time. I mean this might be something that was believed to work in the past, and because of that it has some legacy to draw on allowing it to still work today (rather like pharmaceutical tablet colours have some placebo effect).

I can see a way to make such seemingly different things as Sony's ESPER work, Sigels, brands/propaganda, belief, and experiments on the adaption of E.Coli fit together into a theory, but have found it difficult to find a way of testing it. Also the idea of fiddling around with things like Sigel's - letting them in to my head (Belief) makes me worry I might be treading into areas that fuck with ones mental health/reality! Anyway, I haven't had the motivation to do anything about it yet.

I think we're on the same page pretty much. I've spent years now wondering about these things, slowly moving on from my initial more mechanistic assumptions about reality.

I also have thought to myself, "Why so shy, Psi?" - there seems to be a certain difficulty in getting anything out of what Psi is. Perhaps that's because the underlying nature of Psi is disconnectedness from the present flesh, making it an evolutionary disadvantage for most? Maybe it's as the Hermeticists/Neoplatonists say and our Soul is the descent of the One into base matter? Maybe it's something to do with quantum biology and the oddness of that low level of reality?

With regard to soap and antibiotics, I agree the applicability of reality's regularity has proven itself time and time again - it's one of the most mysterious/wondrous things about Nature even if it's easy to forget in the day to day.

I've tried using sigils (I think we're spelling it differently but speaking of the same things) though it's hard to say how effective they are. Whenever I have cause to turn to sigils it usually means I'm neck deep in some crap and am using every mundane resource in my hands as well. :-)

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/dr...-379.4147/

I thought the interview was quite entertaining. Alex seemed in a good mood too.

After listening to it on the net, not on the Skeptiko forum, I think Alex missed an opportunity. He didn't seem to have his wits about him when Shermer came at him with his usual crap.

Shermer :

No one saw the targets (in the Aware study) ..not one, why not ? if people can really float out of their bodies ? Why not ? (summary)

Alex : long pause ,,,bit stumped.

What Alex (he surely knows) should have said is that no one had an out of body experience in an area with a board fitted (research area). End of Shermer's point.

Shermer :

C'mon man, if heaven is real, why is it always reported differently ? It's because it's not heaven of course (summary from memory)

Alex : Well we can't say that.....(summary)

What he should have said is that 10 different people visiting a foreign country may report 10 different characteristics, so what ?   

Shermer :

How can the mind that is produced by neurons leave them behind and float around a room ? That's impossible, c'mon, Alex tell me how ?  (summary)

Alex : Something like "I don't think we need to go there ....."

What Alex should have said was. We have no idea what consciousness is or how the interaction of chemicals and electricity can produce the mind, our sense of self, our thoughts etc. Furthermore, this is what the patients report and we have hundreds of veridical OBE's that support the reality of this. Are you going to tell these people that they're all deluded ?

Here, Shermer would probably have then appealed to the trusty old "Aliens and Big Foot," red herrings. He's not a sceptic at all, he's a closed minded showman.      

I thought Alex started off well, though.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/dr...-379.4147/

I thought the interview was quite entertaining. Alex seemed in a good mood too.

Ugh. Alex really shows how little he understands the practice of science. And neither of them are well read with respect to the research. I don’t understand why Shermer thinks he’s knowledgeable on the subject, but whatever.

What’s interesting to me is that nobody talks about the (unseen) targets in Penny Sartori’s study. Maybe that should be my litmus test as to whether or not somebody is actually well-informed with respect to the research.

Linda

Ugh. Alex really shows how little he understands the practice of science. And neither of them are well read with respect to the research. I don’t understand why Shermer thinks he’s knowledgeable on the subject, but whatever.

Linda

Alex pulled his favourite trick of conflating some of his guests’ personal conjectures with the actual findings of their studies... is that what you are referring to? I thought Shermer made some fair points (and concessions). I messaged him to see if he’ll join the show thread. I very much doubt he will.

Alex pulled his favourite trick of conflating some of his guests’ personal conjectures with the actual findings of their studies... is that what you are referring to? I thought Shermer made some fair points (and concessions). I messaged him to see if he’ll join the show thread. I very much doubt he will.

That’s partly it. I think he sincerely believes that someone’s conjecture is scientifically sacrosanct if it has been “peer-reviewed” and it is on his side. But he seems to have no clue about expertise or scientific criticism or validity, nevermind evidence.

I don’t know why I even brought this up. There’s nothing new here. 

I guess Shermer was even less useful than I thought he might be, and much of what he said (or his approach) I disagree with.

Ugh. Alex really shows how little he understands the practice of science. And neither of them are well read with respect to the research. I don’t understand why Shermer thinks he’s knowledgeable on the subject, but whatever.

What’s interesting to me is that nobody talks about the (unseen) targets in Penny Sartori’s study. Maybe that should be my litmus test as to whether or not somebody is actually well-informed with respect to the research.

Linda

"What’s interesting to me is that nobody talks about the (unseen) targets in Penny Sartori’s study."

I'm very happy to talk about it, Madam. There was only one patient (10) in Penny's study who had an opportunity to possibly see her (Penny's) target which was a bright pink/red luminescent card on top of the monitor (or some machine) at the back of his bed.

The patient said he didn't twist his head back that way. He did however describe the scene perfectly when he was comatose.

Kinda surprised and disappointed that Alex didn't seem to have some basic rebuttals to some of things Shermer said, or at least doesn't seem to in that excerpt.

I mean the guy has interviewed theologians, parapsychologists, philosophers, practitioners from across the spectrum ...he's had Sheldrake on *how many* times...

Kinda surprised and disappointed that Alex didn't seem to have some basic rebuttals to some of things Shermer said, or at least doesn't seem to in that excerpt.

I mean the guy has interviewed theologians, parapsychologists, philosophers, practitioners from across the spectrum ...he's had Sheldrake on *how many* times...

Yes. The usual special pleadings weren’t flowing as smoothly as usual