wtf are noetics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 03:19 AM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 03:34 AM by Dee.)
RE: wtf are noetics?
(09-07-2014 10:40 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I keep seeing questions about whatever....these are here and there.

[Image: enhanced-17067-1391576868-1.jpg]

but, wtf are they exactly? Wikipedia is not very helpful.

I believe what the question on the board the woman is holding must be related to what is called "noetic Science" Maybe she is a Noetic Scientist.


"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."

Hmm, a subjective science? Dodgy

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 04:00 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(10-07-2014 04:11 AM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Essentially Noetics is a dead pseudoscience is based on the myth of "we only use 10% of our brain".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_o...c_Sciences

Its kinda like "the secret"

It sounds "New age"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 05:10 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(10-07-2014 07:42 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 09:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  That's quite muddled. Consider

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old and minds may have only existed for a couple hundred thousand years, then ... ?

Then the universe is 13.7 billion years old because we came along with a mind to confirm and achnowledge it. But, if the mind does not exist, nothing matters and therefor we must assume nothing exists.

So despite the fact that it has existed before us, since existence as we know it IS our consiousness, any argument that it does exist before us is pointless as we would never had known it existed previously to begin with in the first place because of our consiousness. Therefore we must assume that if Humanity never existed in the first place, neither would the universe because without perceiving it to begin with.
Nothing matters and therefore nothing exists.

I had a long discussion trying to explain this so someone who was not getting it. They were not arguing that it was wrong, just that they didn't understand fully.

One last time, If we never existed to begin with. Nothing matters, Never did matter, never did we ever explore the universe to find that it existed before us. There for since we never existed. Neither does anything else.

Go outside, look for a person who does not exist and ask them if the universe exists and you will get a good idea of what I mean.

That is incredibly anthropocentric.
It matters a great deal to all the other organisms that are, ever were, or ever will be.

Mind is a product of existence, not the other way around.

Quote:On Topic:

So if this noetics thing is so dead, why do people still mention it?

Why do people still mention astrology? Fortune telling? Psychic powers?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-07-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(11-07-2014 04:00 AM)BillHicksWorshipper Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 04:11 AM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Essentially Noetics is a dead pseudoscience is based on the myth of "we only use 10% of our brain".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_o...c_Sciences

Its kinda like "the secret"

It sounds "New age"

Noetics is a pseudointellectual term for "Read this bullshit the same way I read this bullshit, so that you can't outright dismiss it as bullshit."

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 06:44 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(11-07-2014 05:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 07:42 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Then the universe is 13.7 billion years old because we came along with a mind to confirm and achnowledge it. But, if the mind does not exist, nothing matters and therefor we must assume nothing exists.
...
One last time, If we never existed to begin with. Nothing matters, Never did matter, never did we ever explore the universe to find that it existed before us. There for since we never existed. Neither does anything else.
Go outside, look for a person who does not exist and ask them if the universe exists and you will get a good idea of what I mean.
That is incredibly anthropocentric.
It matters a great deal to all the other organisms that are, ever were, or ever will be.
Mind is a product of existence, not the other way around.

Though there is an interesting solution to the problem of how a universe could exist that created life. One productive branch of possible answers is to assume there are many universes, but let's take the other branch of only a single universe. Is it just very likely to have come up with life? Is it essentially guaranteed that life will emerge from the kind of universe that emerged? ... or maybe we just got lucky and the anthropic principle kicks in: We happen to exist so asking why we exist without knowing the underlying principles of universe creation is difficult to assess.

Yet another solution is a subtle variant of those options. Consider the possibility that all possible universes existed in some quantum sense until the wave function collapsed into the macro universe we exist in today... and consider also the possibility that a concious mind is in some way necessary for that collapse and has a collapsing effect into the past and future. Maybe the quantum state that produced the earliest conciousness locked in the nature of the universe we comprehend today. It might have been us or might have been some previous species on some distant world... but perhaps at that moment the universe's constants were set and by the nature of that process were set in a way that made life possible.

It's still unprovable woo of course, but not a completely crazy notion. There is no evidence for it and there is good cause to think consciousness is not required to collapse quantum superpositions based on quantum eraser experiments. Although. You know. Eventually a human conciousness is involved in the interpretation of those experiments.

As for Noetics: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noetic_science
It's basically what Luminon is always bullshitting about.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 06:49 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(13-07-2014 06:44 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 05:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is incredibly anthropocentric.
It matters a great deal to all the other organisms that are, ever were, or ever will be.
Mind is a product of existence, not the other way around.

Though there is an interesting solution to the problem of how a universe could exist that created life. One productive branch of possible answers is to assume there are many universes, but let's take the other branch of only a single universe. Is it just very likely to have come up with life? Is it essentially guaranteed that life will emerge from the kind of universe that emerged? ... or maybe we just got lucky and the anthropic principle kicks in: We happen to exist so asking why we exist without knowing the underlying principles of universe creation is difficult to assess.

Yet another solution is a subtle variant of those options. Consider the possibility that all possible universes existed in some quantum sense until the wave function collapsed into the macro universe we exist in today... and consider also the possibility that a concious mind is in some way necessary for that collapse and has a collapsing effect into the past and future. Maybe the quantum state that produced the earliest conciousness locked in the nature of the universe we comprehend today. It might have been us or might have been some previous species on some distant world... but perhaps at that moment the universe's constants were set and by the nature of that process were set in a way that made life possible.

It's still unprovable woo of course, but not a completely crazy notion. There is no evidence for it and there is good cause to think consciousness is not required to collapse quantum superpositions based on quantum eraser experiments. Although. You know. Eventually a human conciousness is involved in the interpretation of those experiments.

As for Noetics: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noetic_science
It's basically what Luminon is always bullshitting about.

Actually, mind "causing the collapse of the wave function" is an entirely crazy idea that comes from a misunderstanding of terms.
The "collapse of the wave function" is not a physical event , it is a mathematical notion of replacing uncertainty with certainty.
The state of reality is what it is, the only collapse is the ignorance of it.

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
13-07-2014, 07:53 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(13-07-2014 06:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, mind "causing the collapse of the wave function" is an entirely crazy idea that comes from a misunderstanding of terms.

I've always assumed that was due to a misunderstanding of the term "observation".

The woo train long ago left the station on that one, unfortunately.

(13-07-2014 06:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The "collapse of the wave function" is not a physical event , it is a mathematical notion of replacing uncertainty with certainty.
The state of reality is what it is, the only collapse is the ignorance of it.

But it is! Our best guess is that physical phenomena really do exist as waveforms and wave packets. Thus, measurement precipitates the collapse in the measurement basis (with a corresponding increase in uncertainty in conjugate bases).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 05:49 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(13-07-2014 07:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-07-2014 06:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, mind "causing the collapse of the wave function" is an entirely crazy idea that comes from a misunderstanding of terms.

I've always assumed that was due to a misunderstanding of the term "observation".

The woo train long ago left the station on that one, unfortunately.

(13-07-2014 06:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  The "collapse of the wave function" is not a physical event , it is a mathematical notion of replacing uncertainty with certainty.
The state of reality is what it is, the only collapse is the ignorance of it.

But it is! Our best guess is that physical phenomena really do exist as waveforms and wave packets. Thus, measurement precipitates the collapse in the measurement basis (with a corresponding increase in uncertainty in conjugate bases).

Measurement, yes. Observation, no.
Measurement is active, observation is passive.

This is where many get confused. Measurement affects that which is measured.
It has nothing to do with the existence or presence of consciousness.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-07-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(14-07-2014 05:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Measurement, yes. Observation, no.
Measurement is active, observation is passive.

This is where many get confused. Measurement affects that which is measured.
It has nothing to do with the existence or presence of consciousness.

Observation necessitates interaction. There's no meaningful phenomenological difference; "passive" is not a coherent term at a quantum level.

But yeah, observation as a term is deprecated precisely due to that history of misunderstanding. Interaction is clearer (with measurement being a subset of controlled interaction).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: wtf are noetics?
(14-07-2014 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 05:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Measurement, yes. Observation, no.
Measurement is active, observation is passive.

This is where many get confused. Measurement affects that which is measured.
It has nothing to do with the existence or presence of consciousness.

Observation necessitates interaction. There's no meaningful phenomenological difference; "passive" is not a coherent term at a quantum level.

But yeah, observation as a term is deprecated precisely due to that history of misunderstanding. Interaction is clearer (with measurement being a subset of controlled interaction).

If I am observing a planet, I am seeing it by reflected light. That is observing, not measuring. My observation has no effect on the planet.

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: