CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 01:15 PM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(04-10-2013 10:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Two words for you Luminon, just two words:

false positive.



You do not even admit of the possibility that you are in error. That is not rational inquiry.
You know how do I call that? An unclear communication. Please, first tell me what do you think is in your opinion 'considering a null hypothesis.' How does one do that? It was about 10 years since I had so few observations that I considered the null hypothesis seriously, and I could use a second opinion if I did it right back then. But you'll have to tell me, because it's been so long and I don't remember it that well anymore. Meanwhile I'll read the Wikipedia pages on null hypothesis and false positive.

Since then I have been through some weird shit and actual interpersonal experimental demonstrations (random, blind, casual), so the null hypothesis became more and more unlikely, and today I don't know what would it take to disprove this all. Something big, probably. To you it seems that I arrived at a conclusion instantaneously, but to me it's like I've had thousands of days of observations. So I think and act with certainty and arrogance of thousands of days of observations.
I scoured all medical descriptions, synaesthesia was my first guess. Actually I found a positive match, there is a medical condition that might be the case, the problem is, it's weird enough in itself. Just look, even the academic community took interest in this. I didn't get to all these books, it's a whole new different area (psychology, neurology). I find physics more empirical, closer to technical demonstrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini_syndrome

Please, especially focus on how might I even formulate a null hypothesis. "It's all in my head" is not good enough. Not sciencey enough. Synaesthesia doesn't fit. Only the KS fits almost completely, but it has no listed cause. So how can I consider a null hypothesis, if I can't even formulate it?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(04-10-2013 12:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You know how do I call that? An unclear communication. Please, first tell me what do you think is in your opinion 'considering a null hypothesis.' How does one do that? It was about 10 years since I had so few observations that I considered the null hypothesis seriously, and I could use a second opinion if I did it right back then. But you'll have to tell me, because it's been so long and I don't remember it that well anymore. Meanwhile I'll read the Wikipedia page on null hypothesis.

Null hypothesis - your theory is wrong. There is no correlation.

Falsifiability is a prerequisite to being taken seriously.

(04-10-2013 12:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Since then I have been through some weird shit and actual interpersonal experimental demonstrations, so the null hypothesis became more and more unlikely, and today I don't know what would it take to disprove this all. Something big, probably. To you it seems that I arrived at a conclusion instantaneously, but to me it's like I've had thousands of days of observations.

More observations does not change the nature of observations.

If I repeat an experiment with bad methodology many times, I will amass considerable data.

Volume of data is not validity of data.

(04-10-2013 12:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I scoured all medical descriptions, synaesthesia was my first guess. Actually I found a positive match, there is a medical condition that might be the case, the problem is, it's weird enough in itself. Just look, even the academic community took interest in this. I didn't get to all these books, it's a whole new different area (psychology, neurology). I find physics more empirical, closer to technical demonstrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini_syndrome

That wikipedia article is so full of holes you could drive a truck through it.

It makes no positive definite empirical testable or falsifiable claims. The references are extensive but extraordinarily repetitive (a handful of unreviewed books by the same authors). One scientific article is cited.

Which I guess makes it yet another part of the alleged vast conspiracy to hide the truth... Dodgy

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
04-10-2013, 01:38 PM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 01:41 PM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(04-10-2013 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Null hypothesis - your theory is wrong. There is no correlation.

Falsifiability is a prerequisite to being taken seriously.
No correlation between my observations and... what?
What falsification do I need, if the beginning point was an empirical observation? I remember making the observations related to the Kundalini syndrome in the age of 4 years or so. I had no idea what it was, but it certainly wasn't nothing. If it was, I wouldn't notice anything, right?

(04-10-2013 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  More observations does not change the nature of observations.

If I repeat an experiment with bad methodology many times, I will amass considerable data.

Volume of data is not validity of data.
Ah! That means I am still at the pre-experimental stage. I haven't begun really experimenting yet. Hell, I've just recently made some breakthroughs at formulating a hypothesis. Or I would, if you guys were more constructive. So, I must say, there were many experimental confirmations, but they were utterly random, unpredictable.
This is the reason why I am so sure they were not false positives or wishful thinking, but also the reason why I am unable to repeat them.

(04-10-2013 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That wikipedia article is so full of holes you could drive a truck through it.

It makes no positive definite empirical testable or falsifiable claims. The references are extensive but extraordinarily repetitive (a handful of unreviewed books by the same authors). One scientific article is cited.

Which I guess makes it yet another part of the alleged vast conspiracy to hide the truth... Dodgy
No, this article is in the same stage as me - pre-scientific. Still busy gathering information and formulating a testable hypothesis. What it describes is rather fitting to my condition, but very difficult to test.

What we're facing are basically technical difficulties. We are facing a new form of matter, differently arranged at sub-atomic level. That much I'm sure of. So the technical difficulty is truly fundamental, conventional instruments made of conventional matter are not good enough, unless we know exactly what to look for, where and when. The only instrument made of both conventional and non-conventional matter is a living human body and it's notoriously non-standardized. You have to understand the peculiarity of it - people can routinely experience the KS, without understanding it or being able to prove it or demonstrate it externally. It's a wonderful example of dog ate my homework, or the argument that I am feeling a pain, inside my head and I can't prove it to get the painkillers.
So what we have is essentially a statistical, sociological or even cultural phenomenon and we are just beginning to explore it impersonally, empirically.
There are two sides of this approach, one is neurological and one is physical.

I think the physical one has better chances to provide a simple external demonstration, that's why I picked it first. I don't know much about the neurological approach.
But I guess what I want from you is a help at formulating a hypothesis, not a help at shooting it down. There is nothing to shoot down yet, yet you enjoy immensely shooting down the nothing. Well, duh! First we must speculate, yet I can't even speculate properly. Do you ever speculate?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
You say things like "new form of matter" and so forth, but you freely admit that you don't know much about standard physics. So how do you conclude that it's a new form of matter ? You simply can't make a claim like that unless you know enough to back it up.

And even top level physicists would hesitate to make a claim like that. They wouldn't declare some bold new paradigm in a ground-breaking paper, they'd put forward a wild hypothesis together with their reasoning for it and say something like "we're fucked if we can tell what's going on here" - like those jokers who thought they'd done a faster than light experiment about a year ago. They didn't suddenly announce "oh by the way chaps, all physics to date is nonsense and you guys are clinging to an antiquated paradigm" they *said* "erm... please help us with this 'cos we're really getting some screwy results and we don't know what's wrong". True science is *all about* shredding your ideas down to the bone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(04-10-2013 01:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No, this article is in the same stage as me - pre-scientific. Still busy gathering information and formulating a testable hypothesis. What it describes is rather fitting to my condition, but very difficult to test.

What we're facing are basically technical difficulties. We are facing a new form of matter, differently arranged at sub-atomic level. That much I'm sure of.

First problem: Presuppostion. New form of matter? You don't know anything of the kind. That is a hypothesis.
Your first testable hypothesis must concern whether there is anything other than your sensory system involved; whether there is, in fact, anything outside of you.

Quote:So the technical difficulty is truly fundamental, conventional instruments made of conventional matter are not good enough, unless we know exactly what to look for, where and when. The only instrument made of both conventional and non-conventional matter is a living human body and it's notoriously non-standardized. You have to understand the peculiarity of it - people can routinely experience the KS, without understanding it or being able to prove it or demonstrate it externally. It's a wonderful example of dog ate my homework, or the argument that I am feeling a pain, inside my head and I can't prove it to get the painkillers.

And that is what you need to address. Whatever it is that you think you perceive has some effect on the world? Demonstrate it.

Quote:So what we have is essentially a statistical, sociological or even cultural phenomenon and we are just beginning to explore it impersonally, empirically.
There are two sides of this approach, one is neurological and one is physical.

Sociological? Cultural? It is either physical, neurological, or psychological.

Quote:I think the physical one has better chances to provide a simple external demonstration, that's why I picked it first. I don't know much about the neurological approach.
But I guess what I want from you is a help at formulating a hypothesis, not a help at shooting it down. There is nothing to shoot down yet, yet you enjoy immensely shooting down the nothing. Well, duh! First we must speculate, yet I can't even speculate properly. Do you ever speculate?

To form the testable hypothesis, you need to find a cause and effect that is demonstrable to an unbiased observer. Without that, you've got nothing.

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
06-10-2013, 04:33 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 10:37 AM by Luminon.)
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(04-10-2013 02:27 PM)morondog Wrote:  You say things like "new form of matter" and so forth, but you freely admit that you don't know much about standard physics. So how do you conclude that it's a new form of matter ? You simply can't make a claim like that unless you know enough to back it up.
I know enough to back it up to myself. I happen to have a lifetime experience with conventional matter, just like you do. And I happen to have a lifetime experience with a non-conventional matter. And I can tell a huge difference between the two. I have come to a conclusion that the latter comes in form of plasma and treats all the other space around and vacuum, including the space that is filled with solid matter. First I thought vaguely that it reminds me of liquid crystal behavior, but learning more, it really behaves like a plasma in electric field. The field being my own biofield. So I am absolutely sure they possess a charge of some kind.
It does not deny standard physics, only the plasma dynamics are very counter-intuitive. It may very well be the supersymmetric particles, that's my preliminary guess. And it is a valid guess. I can not be wrong in my observations, only in choosing the wrong term, which is easily corrected. I changed my mind from "liquid crystals under voltage" to "plasma in a field", simply because my everyday empirical observations fit this version more.

I could perhaps express it in a better way, if I met someone who has a more constructive approach, who can respect that I am in a hypothesis-forming phase. Someone who can say "what you say does not make sense, but it would be possible if you say it that way instead. Such and such people already speculated along these lines."

(04-10-2013 02:27 PM)morondog Wrote:  And even top level physicists would hesitate to make a claim like that. They wouldn't declare some bold new paradigm in a ground-breaking paper, they'd put forward a wild hypothesis together with their reasoning for it and say something like "we're fucked if we can tell what's going on here" - like those jokers who thought they'd done a faster than light experiment about a year ago. They didn't suddenly announce "oh by the way chaps, all physics to date is nonsense and you guys are clinging to an antiquated paradigm" they *said* "erm... please help us with this 'cos we're really getting some screwy results and we don't know what's wrong". True science is *all about* shredding your ideas down to the bone.
Well, I started at the bone. Or at the nerve system, precisely. For years I had no idea at all. I could form lots of ideas, but none of them fit, the standard human anatomy and the standard Christianity. So I could wait, it took another 10 years to get me some ideas. And the next 5 years made me confident about some of these ideas.

I don't know how much of the old paradigm is salvageable, probably almost everything, but the inter-disciplinary borders would get rewritten. I think the model of supersymmetric particles is sufficient to explain this. What is new, is however their great involvement in biologic and neurological processes. This would bring a revolution in biology and medicine, not just physics and cosmology. We'd see many new inter-disciplines.

(04-10-2013 02:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  First problem: Presuppostion. New form of matter? You don't know anything of the kind. That is a hypothesis.
Your first testable hypothesis must concern whether there is anything other than your sensory system involved; whether there is, in fact, anything outside of you.
As I said, I have been through events impossible any other way than unless this is something outside me. But these events were rare and I didn't have control over them. Mostly I'm out there for myself, without equipment.

(04-10-2013 02:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  And that is what you need to address. Whatever it is that you think you perceive has some effect on the world? Demonstrate it.
You don't understand. The "subtle" matter and "dense" matter are very different. The main difficulty is getting the "subtle" matter have any measurable effect on the "dense" matter, because all the measuring equipment is made of the "dense" matter. It would be like trying to catch a 120 MHz radio broadcast with a radio firmly tuned to 80 MHz. No matter how strong the 120 MHz broadcast is, you won't detect much signal, except perhaps some faint echoes with frequency lowered through red shift. (I know that's unlikely in practice, but I want to point out that we are dealing here with a metaphorically "frequency-like" properties of matter that make it harder to detect)

The main kind of "dense" matter instrument that is readily responding to the "subtle" matter is the human body and nerve system, because it is a symbiotic life form, made of both "dense" matter body and "subtle" matter body. There is some mysterious but very intense interplay between "dense" nerve system and its "subtle" counterpart. This is the instrument I use. Easiest to use, the most difficult to demonstrate.

We have to disregard people as instruments for now. There are other kinds of instruments, that also react to the "subtle" matter in an objective way, and these are the instruments that I link in the letter to the editor that I wrote. I used my own sensitivity to find objective technologies bearing the most similarity to what I perceive and I link them together.

(04-10-2013 02:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Sociological? Cultural? It is either physical, neurological, or psychological.
Psychological on mass scale across history and various civilizations, that might be sociological too. Such widespread phenomenon is unlikely without direct neurological effect caused by some universal physical phenomenon.

(04-10-2013 02:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  To form the testable hypothesis, you need to find a cause and effect that is demonstrable to an unbiased observer. Without that, you've got nothing.
Well, I had put together people who have done just that. Now someone needs to check them out.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
I'm not waiting any longer. Letter sent. I will publish any replies I get.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
30-10-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(30-10-2013 01:48 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm not waiting any longer. Letter sent. I will publish any replies I get.

I'm sure this is a first for CSICOP. They will say, "Wow, it's an email from someone that claims to have a revolutionary discovery. We must take it seriously since it is from someone with an internet connection."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 11:50 PM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
Hey, give him a chance. CSICOP gets a bad rap from a lot of the fringe-science people but he's willing to put his stuff up for examination - unlike most fringe science people who in my experience are very good at finding reasons why experiment X didn't work *but* belief Y is still true e.g. "Astrology doesn't work in the presence of skeptics". I'm really hoping someone over there will take it seriously enough to not just send a form response.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 12:10 AM
RE: CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis
(30-10-2013 11:50 PM)morondog Wrote:  Hey, give him a chance. CSICOP gets a bad rap from a lot of the fringe-science people but he's willing to put his stuff up for examination

There is no such thing as "fringe-science", there is science and pseudoscience. That is pseudoscience.

His "stuff" is nothing more than reports of his subjective experiences regarding things which he claims have an objective existence. Chas posted pretty much what I was going to post. Read Chas' post carefully. No one is going to mount an investigation on the basis of nothing more than some phenomenological descriptions, some instrospections.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: