CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2013, 04:54 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2013 05:13 AM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(23-09-2013 08:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are getting your information of CSI (as it is now known) from biased, out-of-date sources.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/dr._bearden_vacuum_energy

http://www.csicop.org/.../hard_pseudo_sc...e_machine/

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/treatise_o...le_beings/
I hope I am, I hope my info is as outdated as possible. I see Gardner is dead for 3 years, I hope nobody there cares about him. I hope there is a whole new generation in the CSICOP crew. Because all the crap against Reich is based on Gardner's work and he based his opinion on merely one source: Joel Carlinsky. If Carlinsky is a proven fraud and slanderer, then Gardner is guilty of misinforming a whole generation of scientists and it will damage his reputation and expose him for what he is, an armchair skeptic. Now, the question is, are there people at CSICOP who would protect Gardner's reputation, or would lose their job if they didn't? If he's dead, how many of his friends still work there? Something is telling me we are going to find out. I think I have selected an overwhelming evidence that Reich's and JDM's work is not an anomaly, it's just one of many such independent confirmations of the same phenomena: weakly interacting bio-plasma physics.

As for the treatise on the invisible beings, this is precisely the thing I don't like about skeptics. It's armchair skepticism. It's not a good work, it's full of false dichotomies, it does not explore all possibilities. It makes many irrelevant points - such as historical frauds.
It is obvious that we can dismiss "non-material" or "extra-dimensional" beings out of hand, for there can be no interaction between us. If I was the one writing it, I would
focus on material world, but exotic forms of matter. Or rather, our matter is exotic, I would focus on the invisible matter that seems to form most of the universe.
I'd explain to readers, what makes an atom reflect light, any light, visible or invisible, and if a matter can possibly have a configuration that reflects only specific forms of light.
I'd write about the physics of supersymmetric particles, of weakly interacting massive particles. There is even a theoretically possible form of matter, an atom with its electron detached up to several centimeters away! It is hypothesized as one of explanation of ball lightning. (I can't think of the name right now) I would investigate a possibility of dark matter plasma, hot plasma, but weakly interacting, so it does not burn out, nor does it produce light in visible spectrum, unless specifically excited by electric fields.
I would wonder why Reich's anomalous plasma is invisible, but under certain circumstances (presence of living matter, etc) can be excited electrically into a visible, blue glow like Cherenkov radiation. I would wonder at the modern Korotkov's electric excitation of this very thing into visible colors.

I am not a physicist, but if I was, I'd ask many more questions than the article asks. Hence, armchair skepticism and my mistrust.

However, I am willing to try to "slip under the radar" - avoiding controversy, if I get any kind of sign that is not a wasted effort. I don't want to go against a lobbyist group that knows precisely what to ignore, that picks only easy battles. I haven't seen anyone actually go and investigate anything in the field. I do not want Carlinsky's crap regurgitated back to me.


(23-09-2013 08:53 PM)I Am Wrote:  I won't pretend to understand all of what you're talking about in here.

The part that sounds familiar to me is your description of your experience, seeing auras and such, especially with living things.

I've read of one other person who had similar experiences. He saw colors wafting off trees, people, and I think roads, maybe other things as well. He spoke with a neurologist, and underwent an extensive set of experiential tests.

He was diagnosed with smell->sight synesthesia, an uncommon type of an uncommon sensory modality (more "common" is seeing sound, or assigning personality traits to symbols). The colors and auras he saw corresponded with odors, even odors he was not attending to directly.

Now, I know you're a very smart guy, and have probably heard of synesthesia before. Do you think it's possible that your experience has a neuro-sensory explanation? If it could, then parsimony would suggest ruling out that possibility before inferring that the experiences are direct sensing of little-known universal properties.

This page links to a couple of assessments that might indicate whether it's worth asking an expert in person.

Like I said, I know little about the rest. Wilhelm Reich's name is familiar from History of Psychology, and some socialist readings.

If you do decide to send this letter, I hope you get the result you're looking for. Smile
Well, after many years of observations I can definitely rule out synaesthesia. I have seen no correlation between my anomalous observations and common sensory observations. There has not been a match like when I hear a sound or see a color, I feel my chakras fire up, or whatever.

Synaesthesia is, when one feeling happens, another feeling happens. With me it is always "one feeling happens" and it can be in great detail. Up to the details like feeling exact energy-lines on the body and their accupuncture points. Lines that I did not know about before, but which are described in literature.
This is not a blending of senses, I'm sure. It 95% matches Theosophy, Traditional Chinese medicine Laya Yoga and much other religious symbolics. I am in fact convinced that there were always people like me (or even more so) and they created most of the religious symbolics. But you can only understand the symbolics it if you have the experience, so it is a great tool for selecting out people into inner circles of mystery religions. However due to historical circumstances, the outer circles were taken over by political power and the inner circles were eventually lost to dogmatism and literalism and many other interpretations. So we have modern movements like Theosophy, which focuses solely on the original inner circle symbolics, that has direct connection to psychological and neurological processes.

But I understand neurologic investigations are difficult. I might try one here on my own, but here I try an alternative approach. I used my observations to select a possibly scientific, physical demonstrations of the same phenomena. There is so much crap and supernatural claims out there, that a normal skeptic does not see any difference between them. So I used my sensory observations, which are fairly focused (I don't see or hear any things, it's 95 % touch sense) and very reliable (hasn't been a single day of my life when it didn't work) to look for similar phenomena on the net. I selected those that seem most technically under control and provable.
And I want someone to look at the science behind it. I think that is a reasonable proposal.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(24-09-2013 04:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd explain to readers, what makes an atom reflect light, any light, visible or invisible, and if a matter can possibly have a configuration that reflects only specific forms of light.

All known matter (we might say "traditional" matter) interacts with light (electromagnetism). It either absorbs or reflects. Either process is extremely simple to observe and test.

(24-09-2013 04:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd write about the physics of supersymmetric particles, of weakly interacting massive particles. There is even a theoretically possible form of matter, an atom with its electron detached up to several centimeters away! It is hypothesized as one of explanation of ball lightning. (I can't think of the name right now)

Since you're not a physicist (cf your later sentence: "I am not a physicist..."), then I, and I do mean this as politely as possible, must tell you you do not understand esoteric particle theories. An atom and its electron(s) have nothing to do with weak interaction.

(24-09-2013 04:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I would investigate a possibility of dark matter plasma, hot plasma, but weakly interacting, so it does not burn out, nor does it produce light in visible spectrum, unless specifically excited by electric fields.

Consider dark matter - it cannot be a plasma. That is an electromagnetic state. It cannot be excited by electric fields. That is an electromagnetic interaction. Dark matter is defined as not experiencing electromagnetic interaction. Consider "weakly interacting": do you mean low-strength interactions? That is not what it means in the context of WIMPs. It means weak-force interactions.

(24-09-2013 04:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I would wonder why Reich's anomalous plasma is invisible, but under certain circumstances (presence of living matter, etc) can be excited electrically into a visible, blue glow like Cherenkov radiation.

Cherenkov radiation occurs when a charged particle moving at velocity v enters a medium in which the speed of light c is less than v. It is well-understood. (fun bonus fact: Cherenkov radiation occurs within the vitreous while in deep space, due to cosmic rays)

Incidentally and perhaps related: Cherenkov radiation is named for Cherenkov who first observed it in the 50s. It was first predicted by Heaviside, who was both one of the most brilliant mathematicians and electrical theorists ever and abrasive and crazy enough that the scientific establishment really didn't care for him. He was the one who distilled Maxwell's mess of equations into the beautiful four vector calculus equations we know them as today. And his craziness did not affect his science - his work was considered, the true parts (almost all of it - he was rather brilliant) were accepted, and have been standard for over a century. That's how science works. Say it with me: papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded.

You simply do not know enough physics in order to express yourself coherently in physical terms. I'm afraid I have to say that bluntly. We've been around this a couple times. Being open-minded is great. Being willing to investigate is great. Part of that requires forming a consistent positive hypothesis.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
24-09-2013, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2013 06:59 PM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(24-09-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  All known matter (we might say "traditional" matter) interacts with light (electromagnetism). It either absorbs or reflects. Either process is extremely simple to observe and test.

Since you're not a physicist (cf your later sentence: "I am not a physicist..."), then I, and I do mean this as politely as possible, must tell you you do not understand esoteric particle theories. An atom and its electron(s) have nothing to do with weak interaction.
There is a thing that I do and you don't. You don't use your mind creatively. I present to you all these phenomena and you don't care. You do your best to trivialize them and find any excuse that makes them lead nowhere by default. That is not a constructive approach. The job of a scientist is not only to imagine why something may be unreal, but why something may be real. Mindwork comes cheap, do it more.
The very first question is, what circumstances (in terms of physics, such as particle properties) would make this real?
Only the second question should be, are these circumstances possible?
Third question, if not, under what circumstances would these circumstances be possible? This is where I draw a line.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable approach, as long as it is grounded in empirical observations, which happens to be my case. I always proceed from empirical observations.

(24-09-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Consider dark matter - it cannot be a plasma. That is an electromagnetic state. It cannot be excited by electric fields. That is an electromagnetic interaction. Dark matter is defined as not experiencing electromagnetic interaction. Consider "weakly interacting": do you mean low-strength interactions? That is not what it means in the context of WIMPs. It means weak-force interactions.
Ah! Makes sense. Now, I don't know enough about the weak-force interactions, but it is obviously a quantum phenomenon. I'd continue thinking on any possible circumstances in which quantum phenomena can reach macroscopic scale. And I know that Korotkov spoke about it, his advanced Kirlian photography is basically outlining of quantum scale fields, IIRC. I'll have to look at the interview again.

(24-09-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Cherenkov radiation occurs when a charged particle moving at velocity v enters a medium in which the speed of light c is less than v. It is well-understood. (fun bonus fact: Cherenkov radiation occurs within the vitreous while in deep space, due to cosmic rays)

Incidentally and perhaps related: Cherenkov radiation is named for Cherenkov who first observed it in the 50s. It was first predicted by Heaviside, who was both one of the most brilliant mathematicians and electrical theorists ever and abrasive and crazy enough that the scientific establishment really didn't care for him. He was the one who distilled Maxwell's mess of equations into the beautiful four vector calculus equations we know them as today. And his craziness did not affect his science - his work was considered, the true parts (almost all of it - he was rather brilliant) were accepted, and have been standard for over a century. That's how science works. Say it with me: papers marked "it's a conspiracy" will not be graded.
Well, conspiracy is my staple food! I am after all a student of sociology and public administration! And occultism.
You know science, but I know market, history and politics. No matter how clean science is, that unholy trinity is extremely messy and guess what, both are ruled by human beings. There is enough private interests to mess up everything even without any intentional conspiracy.

If you know so much about Cherenkov radiation, why don't you wonder why Reich and DeMeo report so much of blue glow among clearly non-radioactive devices, and even on microscopic scale in biologic samples? I don't say this is truth, I say it is interesting. Under what conditions it might be real?
What do you find interesting? What do you ever wonder about?

My sociological gut feels ambivalent towards science. I would replace my government with meritocracy of scientists any day in a week, but my sociological gut does not like this arrangement of journals, skeptics and academic community. None of this is foolproof, it can get corrupt like any other concentration of power and money. All social groups are corrupt, they resist change from the outside. Skeptics are no different. They change, but they don't like it. They are terribly afraid of being wrong and they avoid being proven wrong or ignorant at all costs. In my experience that is a huge warning sign of corruption. What they do is something between demagogy and sophistry. Always technically correct, but never going in depth, never saying anything new, never exploring all the possibilities, never taking a risk. Unfortunately, all this is still well within (im)possibilities of human consciousness, they may all think they do a legitimate work.
There is just one way to wisdom and they don't follow it. This way is to be wrong, to feel and look stupid, to be wrong very many times, but always about a different thing. To be mistaken about each thing only once.

My preliminary hypothesis is, that as a rule, they never investigate anything, they're just armchair skeptics who cater to a wide audience of denialists and dismissers who get their kicks out of ridiculing people who actually do some laboratory work on their own without government funding. The less they investigate, the more money they can split, I suppose.
I want to write such a letter to CSICOP that their reply (or lack of thereof) will test their trustworthiness. Do you have any suggestions? So far, I have these:
- be nicer, more inviting (perhaps respectful as well)
- avoid any mentions of Reich as a person, Carlinsky and Gardner

What do you expect in a reply? What kind of reply would uphold or lower your confidence in CSICOP?

(24-09-2013 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You simply do not know enough physics in order to express yourself coherently in physical terms. I'm afraid I have to say that bluntly. We've been around this a couple times. Being open-minded is great. Being willing to investigate is great. Part of that requires forming a consistent positive hypothesis.
Good. Why don't you do it? This is not me shifting the burden of proof. This is me wondering when I last saw you having an idea or getting inspired. You can be a good scientist with consistency, but only inspiration will make you a great scientist. A great thinker of any kind lives in three worlds at the same time, the world of what is, what might be and what should be.

God damn it. If I was a billionaire, I'd hire a physicist to listen to my ramblings, divine meaning from them or explain me with endless patience why are they incoherent. 10 years later the number of physicists and madmen in the vicinity would be the same, only our roles would exchange Tongue

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:03 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is a thing that I do and you don't. You don't use your mind creatively. I present to you all these phenomena and you don't even flip a neuron about them.

Uh... wild ad hominem, but thanks anyway.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You do your best to trivialize them and find any excuse that makes them lead nowhere by default. That is not a constructive approach. The job of a scientist is not to imagine why something may be unreal, but why something may be real.
The very first question is, what circumstances (in terms of physics, such as particle properties) would make this real?
Only the second question should be, are these circumstances possible?
Third question, if not, under what circumstances would these circumstances be possible? This is where I draw a line.

An incoherent premise need not be investigated.

I am critiquing the explanations you have attempted. They are not consistent. They are not scientifically literate. As a consequence I can't tell what you're talking about. It's that simple. Until you present something coherent, it cannot be investigated. You are using scientific terms in contexts in which their meanings are not relevant.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think this is a perfectly reasonable approach, as long as it is grounded in empirical observations, which happens to be my case. I always proceed from empirical observations.

Sure. As I said, that is a very good attitude.

However, one must always consider the null hypothesis, which I have not seen you mention: that you are experiencing a quirk of your own brain chemistry, and that the reason it is not reproducible in the large majority of the population is that it is only a quirk of your brain chemistry, and not any external effect. That determined belief may indeed convince otherwise intelligent people of incredibly outlandish conceits (cf creationism, anti-vaccination, etc).

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Ah! Makes sense. Now, I don't know enough about the weak-force interactions, but it is obviously a quantum phenomenon. I'd continue thinking on any possible circumstances in which quantum phenomena can reach macroscopic scale. And I know that Korotkov spoke about it, his advanced Kirlian photography is basically outlining of quantum scale fields, IIRC.

I highly encourage you to do further research. The qualitative basics of quantum mechanics can be understood from any general-audience text. The detailed analysis, however, would generally require several semesters of university-level work. I really hope you do not take it the wrong way when I say you don't know what you're talking about.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, conspiracy is my staple food! I am after all a student of sociology and public administration! And occultism.
You know science, but I know market, history and politics. No matter how clean science is, that unholy trinity is extremely messy and guess what, both are ruled by human beings. There is enough private interests to mess up everything even without any intentional conspiracy.

Science is not monolithic. And yet it is universal... This was perhaps most obviously demonstrated during the Cold War, when all the ideology and gunpoint-conviction in the world could not produce results from bad theories.

Consider for a moment the tens of millions of scientists, right now, working in every country on Earth for almost every government and corporation. Do you suppose there is an unconscious bias, let alone a conscious and conspiratorial one, common to all of them?

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If you know so much about Cherenkov radiation, why don't you wonder why Reich and DeMeo report so much of blue glow among clearly non-radioactive devices, and even on microscopic scale in biologic samples? I don't say this is truth, I say it is interesting. Under what conditions it might be real?
What do you find interesting? What do you ever wonder about?

Possibly of interest, Cherenkov radiation isn't blue! It appears blue in the most common context (nuclear reactors) because the reactor cores are in water (n~1.33) and because of the speed of emitted particles; the peak frequency is ultraviolet, and thus invisible to the eye - but easily visible to appropriate instrumentation!

There are literally too many possible causes to begin speculating without further data.

I wonder about dark matter a lot. It tends to come up in many classes, because at a graduate level we inevitably bump up against the limits of current knowledge. I attended a special lecture on dark matter just the other day. There are dark-matter detection experiments being run in my university by my professors.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  My sociological gut feels ambivalent towards science. I would replace my government with meritocracy of scientists any day in a week, but my sociological gut does not like this arrangement of journals, skeptics and academic community. None of this is foolproof, it can get corrupt like any other concentration of power and money.

I reiterate: it is the furthest possible thing from monolithic. By design.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  My preliminary hypothesis is, that as a rule, they never investigate anything, they're just armchair skeptics who cater to a wide audience of denialists and dismissers who get their kicks out of ridiculing people who actually do some laboratory work on their own without government funding. The less they investigate, the more money they can split, I suppose.

I'm sorry, but frankly that's insulting. You impugn the conscience and motivation of every practicing scientist.

I invite you to consider several examples. The health effects of smoking. The existence of global climate change. The fact of evolution. I need only say that in these cases the big money is/was most assuredly not on the side of the scientific consensus. And yet...

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I want to write such a letter to CSICOP that their reply (or lack of thereof) will test their trustworthiness. Do you have any suggestions? So far, I have these:
- be nicer, more inviting (perhaps respectful as well)
- avoid any mentions of Reich as a person, Carlinsky and Gardner

What do you expect in a reply? What kind of reply would uphold or lower your confidence in CSICOP?

I would endeavour to be far more polite. Your presupposition is that something is true and that they are ignoring it on purpose. Regardless of whether that is true (and it is very unlikely to be) it is not at attitude which will provoke a positive response. An accusatory and dismissive tone is not productive.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Good. Why don't you do it? This is not me shifting the burden of proof. This is me wondering when I last saw you having an idea or getting inspired. You can be a good scientist with consistency, but only inspiration will make you a great scientist.

To be honest I have neither the time nor the equipment nor the inclination. I have finite supplies of all of those; I have my own work which I am already responsible for, and that takes up most of each of them.

(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  God damn it. If I was a billionaire, I'd hire a physicist to listen to my ramblings, divine meaning from them or explain me with endless patience why are they incoherent. 10 years later the number of physicists and madmen in the vicinity would be the same, only our roles would exchange Tongue

If you were a billionaire looking to hire a physicist I would submit my resume in a heartbeat.
Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Relevant?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/rogue-s...thod,1976/

Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(24-09-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The very first question is, what circumstances (in terms of physics, such as particle properties) would make this real?
Only the second question should be, are these circumstances possible?
Third question, if not, under what circumstances would these circumstances be possible? This is where I draw a line.

I can't believe that you still don't fucking get it.

You keep missing the actual first question:
Do these phenomena exist outside of Luminon's mind?

You need to demonstrate that there is anything at all that needs investigation, other than your perception.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh... wild ad hominem, but thanks anyway.
I am worried that you think I might want to use ad hominem. I'd like to make you think "how do I look from this person's perspective? Can this person see ways I could improve myself? What are these ways?" What you think of instead is ad hominem No So this is my lesson to think, "how can I improve my personal relations? How do other people view me? How can I alter my behavior so that they get the message I intended? How can I express all this without writing so much?" The hell I know.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  An incoherent premise need not be investigated.

I am critiquing the explanations you have attempted. They are not consistent. They are not scientifically literate. As a consequence I can't tell what you're talking about. It's that simple. Until you present something coherent, it cannot be investigated. You are using scientific terms in contexts in which their meanings are not relevant.
Not consistent and scientifically illiterate are two different things. Reality is not science. Accounts of reality can be quite consistent, even if all familiar words would be replaced with Chinese symbols or other unfamiliar terms. If you saw a physics textbook with all scientific terminology replaced with symbols, you could decipher it. All you need is consistency in the unknown symbols and methods of empirical testing if you are not sure.

So you can only tell if I am consistent, if you learn to think in my own terms - or I in yours.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure. As I said, that is a very good attitude.

However, one must always consider the null hypothesis, which I have not seen you mention: that you are experiencing a quirk of your own brain chemistry, and that the reason it is not reproducible in the large majority of the population is that it is only a quirk of your brain chemistry, and not any external effect. That determined belief may indeed convince otherwise intelligent people of incredibly outlandish conceits (cf creationism, anti-vaccination, etc).
I maintained the null hypothesis until I got some independent, unexpected outside confirmations that what I observe is an external phenomenon. Then I became unable to imagine anything that could falsify my worldview. If I saw anything falsifying, I'd know it, but it would have to be something entirely new to me.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I highly encourage you to do further research. The qualitative basics of quantum mechanics can be understood from any general-audience text. The detailed analysis, however, would generally require several semesters of university-level work. I really hope you do not take it the wrong way when I say you don't know what you're talking about.
The problem is, I don't observe on the scale of quantum mechanics. I observe on the human-sized scale, let's say hairline to man-sized objects scale. I can only guess what happens on microscopic scale, and this is where all the interaction occurs. Which mean I can't test anything I learn about quantum physics. I can very easily test an orgone accumulator box, because it's man-sized or bigger and it gathers the kind of energy I am apparently sensitive to. So I'm interested in orgone accumulators, not in quantum scale objects.

If a physicist could analyze my talk about macroscopic phenomena and translate it into terms of possible microscopic interactions, he could form hypotheses. And it would be much faster than if I'd learn quantum physics just for that. It's called division of labor.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Science is not monolithic. And yet it is universal... This was perhaps most obviously demonstrated during the Cold War, when all the ideology and gunpoint-conviction in the world could not produce results from bad theories.
I am aware of this nature of science, in fact, Jacque Fresco uses it to divide and safely disable all political power and decision-making. But I am concerned about a less formal division of science, especially on people who are not engaged in active research. Who are the bureaucrats, budget managers, journal editors, committee members, media presentation groups and so on? I don't think they use the scientific method.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Consider for a moment the tens of millions of scientists, right now, working in every country on Earth for almost every government and corporation. Do you suppose there is an unconscious bias, let alone a conscious and conspiratorial one, common to all of them?
Of course! They all share the great memetic infestations we mistakenly call civilization and culture. If scientists were civilized, they would refuse to design weapons. Their rationality is restricted to a very narrow range of problems within their field of expertise. Then they go home and wave national flags and cheer for their home team like everyone else. You know the joke, but let's say it in a reverse way: the Christians are like scientists, they're just irrational in one more area Tongue

So there are people who are conservative, tribalistic, rigid, prejudiced, attached to their position, not interested in change, and yet they think they are intelligent, open-minded and at the peak of human knowledge.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Possibly of interest, Cherenkov radiation isn't blue! It appears blue in the most common context (nuclear reactors) because the reactor cores are in water (n~1.33) and because of the speed of emitted particles; the peak frequency is ultraviolet, and thus invisible to the eye - but easily visible to appropriate instrumentation!

There are literally too many possible causes to begin speculating without further data.
Damn, that complicates things a little, but only more reason to let some experts investigate. I really wonder at the blue glow of astronauts, Earth, treetops, cells and so on. The etheric body is said to be silvery-blue, light blue to gray. I don't know why, I don't see such things properly. I just feel them by touch.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I wonder about dark matter a lot. It tends to come up in many classes, because at a graduate level we inevitably bump up against the limits of current knowledge. I attended a special lecture on dark matter just the other day. There are dark-matter detection experiments being run in my university by my professors.
OK. But consider, that maybe dark matter isn't monolithic either, what if it's just a broad class of particles? What if they are really most attracted to living, complex materials? I think searching for dark matter in empty and lifeless chambers is a mistake.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I reiterate: it is the furthest possible thing from monolithic. By design.
So science is not monolithic, but what about the people who don't actually do the science? How monolithic are they? I mean, people like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett seem pretty much in cahoots with each other, not like it's a bad thing.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm sorry, but frankly that's insulting. You impugn the conscience and motivation of every practicing scientist.

I invite you to consider several examples. The health effects of smoking. The existence of global climate change. The fact of evolution. I need only say that in these cases the big money is/was most assuredly not on the side of the scientific consensus. And yet...
I'm not concerned about the practicing scientists, but about the non-practicing, yet talking ones. A practicing scientist talks through his research.

(24-09-2013 07:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I would endeavour to be far more polite. Your presupposition is that something is true and that they are ignoring it on purpose. Regardless of whether that is true (and it is very unlikely to be) it is not at attitude which will provoke a positive response. An accusatory and dismissive tone is not productive.
OK. Here's the version 2. Any changes or I can send it to the editor?

Dear CSICOP editors,

I am an amateur enthusiast in fringe science.

My motivation is personal, but not belief-based. I am physically, through my senses, aware of the "energies", "meridians", "chakras" and my "aura". I had such sensations as a small child, sooner than I had any idea as for what they are or why they are not normal. As an owner of such sensations, I am obliged to search for what they are and so far the only source providing any information to the point were the more occult, esoteric sources. And some fringe science research. I selected this research because it matches my empirical observations of the anomalous sensations. But even if you do not accept this research, my sensations will probably continue as they did so far under all conditions for more than 20 years. So I am asking for clarification. I want to do the duty I have to my skeptical friends, to honesty and to science. They suggested I ask someone with greater expertise.

Therefore, I shall publish this letter on a forum of Atheists and Skeptics - and your reply as well. Some of the skeptics are more on the layman side, some are scientists or teachers, but too busy with their own work. You are presented as their higher instance to handle extraordinary claims.
This open letter will be a basis of a forum thread, where my suggestions and your examinations will be discussed. This is where I would post any updates in your examination of the presented claims.

Please note, that part of the claims concerns a laboratory in Oregon (see further) and it might be wise to send a copy to a CSICOP fellow in Oregon.

So let's begin.
The proposal says, that there is a subtle world, consisting of matter/energy of such an unusual configuration that it interacts only weakly, but it is a basis of life and consciousness, even participates on many natural and physical phenomena.
It was given many names during history, by individuals trained and sensitive enough to perceive it, or equipped with the right technology. Chi, prana, aether, orgone.
This proposal contains references to a few independent researchers who discovered something like this independently.

I propose this charged, energetic substance belongs to the broad cathegory of weakly interacting matter, called "dark matter". However, it does react through
- electro-static charge
- electric force
- electro-magnetic force
- presence of layered materials with capacitor-like properties
- presence of water or metallic surface and moving water, etc.

However, it is NOT a static charge or any other commonly known kind of energy. I can only speculate that it is some kind or sum of supersymmetric particles or dark matter.

If we project an electric field of a given intensity, then this field is dampened by proximity of vital objects and the intensity decreases. Vitality of this object is then in inverse proportion to the field's intensity.
This decrease does not respond to conventional electrically charged objects.

This effect was first discovered by Wilhelm Reich and further studied by professor James DeMeo.
http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ylemeter.htm

The theory currently says, that this mysterious medium is plasma of some kind, electrically charged, present in atmosphere, Sun, solar system. Its atomic or particle nature is unknown, yet. Because it is electrically charged, it reacts to highly structured matter, with many layers of various conductivity, it reacts to capacitors. (and living matter) The basic experiment set up involves building a big room with walls of metal and plastic or paper layers, which is, essentially, a capacitor. However, this mysterious plasma does not charge the capacitor, it gets caught inside the room. Which suggests the capacitor walls do have some innate charge that is inimical to this plasma - perhaps counteracting its own electric charge, thus slowing it down when it blows in like solar wind, and slowing it down even more when it wants to fly out, thus creating a local concentration of this unidentified plasma. A higher local concentration allows for experimental demonstrations.

This concentration does alter physical parameters of living things, water, metals, and measuring instruments. Most notably, it altered the function of a standard neutron detector, which has an isolated chamber similar to the capacitor room. It made it react strongly to these things:

Passive neutron counts like reactor values.
http://www.orgonelab.org/Report2003.htm

Which would in my layman mind suggest that this plasma is atomic in nature and does contain neutrons, or perhaps neutrons hold it in the atomic core of common matter, without our knowledge. The latter would correlate with some other research.

Anomalous readings on the charged neutron counter, reacting highly to people, other concentration of plasma, thunderstorms and so on.
http://www.orgonelab.org/Report2006.htm

Neutron counter and sunspots correlation
http://www.orgonelab.org/OBRLNewsletter/...er2011.pdf

In author's own words, "There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers. Most all of the orgonomic journals, including Reich's original ones, were peer-reviewed. See the on-line Bibliography on Orgonomy, and my own publications list for details:"
http://www.orgonelab.org/bibliog.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm

You will all the research gathered in this paper, all sorts of evidence in favor of this theory.
http://www.waterjournal.org/uploads/vol3...-DeMeo.pdf
You can find more evidence which JDM or WR did not know about, at http://www.miroslavprovod.com

The observed Reich's and DeMeo's phenomenon has
- electric, or electro-static properties and behavior corresponding to plasma dynamics. (see
http://www.miroslavprovod.com/ )
I don't believe it is purely electro-static, there seems to be a new order of matter involved, but I would go as far as claiming that it is impossible to understand fully the physics of electrostatic charge without knowing the role of this plasmatic matter.

- deep affinity with living organisms, (due to mentioned reasons) and with some natural structures, like river meanders, underground water streams, atmosphere, weather and so on, obviously because of their isolative, capacitive and perhaps even indirectly inductive properties, that induce more electric charge with ambient magnetic fields.

- potentially great historical, cultural and religious implications.

http://www.darkplasmatheory.blogspot.cz/
Jay Alfred's Dark Plasma Theory is a comprehensive cross-checking and comparison of all subtle-material, plasmatic phenomena in nature, human body and culture. He makes the image stand out, how the supposedly supernatural claims of history are easily explainable in terms of plasma dynamics. His website needs to be compared to a video of plasma dynamics in practice, in this Italian device, which one of attempts at cold fusion through focusing plasma in a way that resembles chakras both in appearance and function. Keep always in mind, that the two lateral chakra vortexes seen on Alfred's website are attempts at establishing a several full torus fields around a lateral axis, and one greater field of the vertical axis. The lateral vortexes are merely a pre-mature stage.
Here is the plasma focusing device, an "artificial chakra", so to speak.
http://youtu.be/yhKB-VxJWpg?t=10m57s

Furthermore, the evidence above is supported by the work of doctor Harry Oldfield (http://www.electrocrystal.com) and Konstantin Korotkov. Both have independently developed aura imaging technologies that are testable and practically applicable. I would have you examine their research in the light of other research already mentioned.
Some suggestions:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug3/korotkov.htm
http://www.esotericonline.net/m/blogpost...t%3A424024

Korotkov developed an extremely advanced form of Kirlian photography. Far from being a mere coronal discharge, this photography excites the "subtle fields" into a visible, measurable phenomenon.
http://korotkov.org/


I hope for an independent scientific investigation that will remove all the plentiful misconceptions and New Age rumors that surround such topics.
( http://www.orgonelab.org/orgonenonsense.htm )
Neither I propose to investigate all that the authors claim, I submit only that which my personal observations seem to confirm. That is, physical, easily measurable interactions with common equipment and materials.

This is nearly all that I could find of physical evidence to support and explain my sensory observations. I would like you to read through the provided materials and websites and compare the information to each other and to someone's expertise in physics. I believe you will see a common pattern, a set of various research independently describing the same family of phenomena, all measurable and testable. Perhaps this variety together with deep cultural controversy surrounding this topic is the reason why this field has gone unnoticed. This comparison has the potential to bring the light of reason into areas occupied by practitioners of alternative medicine, operating without scientific evidence.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

***********

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Lumi, good on ya for going with this.

Quote:Please note, that part of the claims concerns a laboratory in Oregon (see further) and it might be wise if you decide to perform this investigation to send a copy to a CSICOP fellow in Oregon.

If they do undertake to do it, the investigation will require a significant investment of their time... just... don't be surprised if they decline Wink I do hope that they will reply.

But ya gotta start somewhere and like cjlr says, good on you for stepping up and actually getting as far as trying to get this scientifically tested. From my observations, most fringe science types are pretty good at finding reasons why their science shouldn't be subject to rigorous test, but yet should be accepted as true. (Excuses like "Oh, the research is too expensive, oh, there's no one who could be interested because it'd be career suicide to investigate something as far out as this").

Even if they reply in the negative, what this letter has done is forced you to distill some of your ideas about this orgone stuff and so on. So now *you* are better equipped to follow your own interest and read more productively yourself, regardless.

Nice one Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:42 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(25-09-2013 06:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I can't believe that you still don't fucking get it.

You keep missing the actual first question:
Do these phenomena exist outside of Luminon's mind?

You need to demonstrate that there is anything at all that needs investigation, other than your perception.
I can't demonstrate anything by myself, I don't have the equipment. But I can point at a bunch of people, who can or claim to be able to demonstrate what I say.

Anyway, it becomes obvious that such phenomena exist independently in lots of people's minds. Either there is something extra to human nature, or lots of people including me are suffering from a massive case of phantom limb, a whole phantom body Smile

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 05:14 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(02-10-2013 02:42 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 06:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  I can't believe that you still don't fucking get it.

You keep missing the actual first question:
Do these phenomena exist outside of Luminon's mind?

You need to demonstrate that there is anything at all that needs investigation, other than your perception.
I can't demonstrate anything by myself, I don't have the equipment. But I can point at a bunch of people, who can or claim to be able to demonstrate what I say.

Anyway, it becomes obvious that such phenomena exist independently in lots of people's minds. Either there is something extra to human nature, or lots of people including me are suffering from a massive case of phantom limb, a whole phantom body Smile

What equipment do you need? Simply show cause and effect of something that cannot be explained by current understanding.

You know, sharpen some razor blades under a pyramid, charge a crystal with energy, transform some water into an effective medicine, and so on.

If the things you perceive exist and have an effect, simply show the effect. You need ideas and time - not equipment. Come up with testable hypotheses that show the existence of something.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: