Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Noetic Science?

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does anybody have any information about whether or not this is actually really? I found a website that claims to be conducting scientifically rigorous test on the impacts of intentions on the world, and I also have heard that negativity can influence how ice crystals are arranged when they are frozen.
thett3
Posts: 14,366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:11:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
can you explain what the premise of noetic science is? Wont lie,I have no idea what the OP is talking about
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:25:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:11:27 PM, thett3 wrote:
can you explain what the premise of noetic science is? Wont lie,I have no idea what the OP is talking about
Tsar of DDO
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:33:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've heard the same thing with the ice crystals. I don't really know anything about it, but I would think that IF humans could do that, so could any other animal.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:29:14 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Basically from what I understand, Noetic science revolves around the idea that the human mind can influence reality.

I find it doubtful. Where's a link to studies/proof?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:36:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No.

http://skeptico.blogs.com...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:36:29 PM, Oryus wrote:
No.

http://skeptico.blogs.com...

I'm not sure I understand the attack on the ice crystal study. Why does the fact that it wasn't double blind matter at all if he's measuring the impact of the intention?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:47:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would be cool if there was truth to it, but i dont put much stock in it myself.

The ice crystal experiment you referred to was one done by Masaru Emoto. It was highly criticized, and independent studies that attempted to recreate the effects of the original experiment failed.

In other words, as Oryus so eloquently put it, no.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:54:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:10:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Does anybody have any information about whether or not this is actually really? I found a website that claims to be conducting scientifically rigorous test on the impacts of intentions on the world, and I also have heard that negativity can influence how ice crystals are arranged when they are frozen.

The folks at IONS get criticized for being too new agey and different, but I think they represent some really smart people coming together to investigate regions of being that are presumed to exist without their nature being known, so you need to approach it with an open mind or not at all. That said, the meaning of the message is dependent on a wider context of interpretation that must be viewed dynamically and relationally, they are pushing the envelope but there is nothing wrong with that. Edgar Mitchell had a view from the top so to speak, it fundamentally changed his perspective and I think he"s trying to change our perspective for the better. You find what you look for, so it"s important to be careful when choosing what you look for, I like what they are looking for.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:36:29 PM, Oryus wrote:
No.

http://skeptico.blogs.com...

I'm not sure I understand the attack on the ice crystal study. Why does the fact that it wasn't double blind matter at all if he's measuring the impact of the intention?

Because the whole point to the experiment was to show that negatice or positive thought would alter the ice crystals appearance to be uglier or more beautiful respectively.

The double blind is crucial because it ensures nobody participating actually knows what the experiment is about, thus removing bias on the matter.

The original experiment and certain others have also been criticized not only for not being double blind, but far too prone to human error as well, or to put it a better way, there was a lack of control in said experiments.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 10:12:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:56:44 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:36:29 PM, Oryus wrote:
No.

http://skeptico.blogs.com...

I'm not sure I understand the attack on the ice crystal study. Why does the fact that it wasn't double blind matter at all if he's measuring the impact of the intention?

Because the whole point to the experiment was to show that negatice or positive thought would alter the ice crystals appearance to be uglier or more beautiful respectively.

The double blind is crucial because it ensures nobody participating actually knows what the experiment is about, thus removing bias on the matter.

The original experiment and certain others have also been criticized not only for not being double blind, but far too prone to human error as well, or to put it a better way, there was a lack of control in said experiments.

I see. So someone else should have interpreted the data then?

This experiment doesn't seem too difficult to set up. I might try it on my own.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 10:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I don't expect it to be real. I just think it would be really nice if it was . . .
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 10:57:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 10:13:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I don't expect it to be real. I just think it would be really nice if it was . . .

I feel much the same way, it would be pretty cool if true
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 1:56:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The observations of noetic science are the results of inherent issues in our abilities of perception.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 8:49:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

Consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?

Who is in charge of determining what science is allowed to study?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 9:45:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

On what basis? They're studying conscience.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:02:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 9:45:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

On what basis? They're studying conscience.

On the basis that the metaphysical is unmeasurable and unobservable.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:04:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:49:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

Consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?

Is that what I said? Did I say the consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry or did I say metaphysical mechanisms can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:25:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:04:55 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:49:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

Consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?

Is that what I said? Did I say the consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry or did I say metaphysical mechanisms can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?

Is a non-sequitur an answer, an explanation, or both?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:30:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:25:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:04:55 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:49:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

Consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?

Is that what I said? Did I say the consciousness can't be the subject of scientific inquiry or did I say metaphysical mechanisms can't be the subject of scientific inquiry?

Is a non-sequitur an answer, an explanation, or both?

Looks like someone doesn't know what a non-sequitur is.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:56:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:02:31 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 9:45:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:42:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/25/2013 6:22:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:13:17 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:04:46 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/24/2013 10:03:39 PM, Polaris wrote:
It borders on pseudoscience.

Borders?

I was feeling generous.

What makes you say it is pseudoscience?

Are you familiar with their methodologiy ? Do you think their application of the scientific method in inadequate? Or is it the areas of study, do you think that consciousness and subjective experiences are not valid areas of scientific inquiry?

The metaphysical mechanisms (or spiritual energies) supposed by Noetic "sciences" are well outside the scope of scientific methodology.

On what basis? They're studying conscience.

On the basis that the metaphysical is unmeasurable and unobservable.

That's just an assertion. They can measure effects of the conscience.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:12:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:56:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
That's just an assertion. They can measure effects of the conscience.

Sounds like Bullsh*t to me! :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:15:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:56:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:02:31 PM, Polaris wrote:
On the basis that the metaphysical is unmeasurable and unobservable.

That's just an assertion. They can measure effects of the conscience.

I can measure the effect of objects falling down, doesn't mean invisible fairies are pushing everything down. You have to establish causality. There is no scientific way to establish causality between the metaphysical and the physical, because the metaphysical cannot be measured or observed.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:46:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 8:15:45 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:56:49 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:02:31 PM, Polaris wrote:
On the basis that the metaphysical is unmeasurable and unobservable.

That's just an assertion. They can measure effects of the conscience.

I can measure the effect of objects falling down, doesn't mean invisible fairies are pushing everything down. You have to establish causality. There is no scientific way to establish causality between the metaphysical and the physical, because the metaphysical cannot be measured or observed.

Your argument is that consciousness is metaphysical?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater