Re: Magic 108 what science is not

[jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger)]

A pop quiz:

1.  Science is
  a.  a weapon for scoring points off people you think are dumber than you
  b.  a territory from which all but the elite should be excluded
  c.  the body of proven truths, unassailable
  d.  a way of approaching evidence to maximize the return of understanding

2.  When faced with a dissenting opinion, a good scientist
  a.  heaps abuse on the heretic, and tries to drive her from the public forum
  b.  chants, over and over, "That is nonsense, you are insane"
  c.  rises above it
  d.  keeps an open mind, and listens carefully for any rare new insight

3.  When faced with a novel experience, a good scientist
  a.  refers to the experts to see if it's okay to acknowledge
  b.  sweeps it under the rug with handwaving diminishment
  c.  chalks it up to neural misfiring
  d.  cherishes it as a doorway to infinite possibilities of new knowledge

4.  The proposition that human beings have as-yet-undiscovered sensory modes is
  a.  patent garbage
  b.  totally disproven
  c.  too unlikely to bother about
  d.  none of the above

5.  Quantum mechanics
  a.  is so complicated we have to accept what the experts tell us it means
  b.  is currently rather alarming, but will surely be tidied up before long
  c.  proves life is meaningless
  d.  seems to imply the possibility of extraordinary phenomena


Daniel S Riley (a reasonable man!) writes:
> [...] Our emotional state clearly has a profound effect
> on our own physical body, and, through our actions, affects those around
> us.  But you lose me when you try to objectify this, converting internal
> experience into external objects with some sort of corporeal existence
> beyond your self.  This externalization of your internal reality seems
> unecessary to me.  [...]
> How do you distinguish between your internal reaction to your own past
> actions and the associated experiences, and your reaction to this intangible
> "imprint"?

It's as different as the memory of a face, and a kodachrome!  One is 
experienced as in-the-mind, and the other is experienced as in-the-medium, 
in-the-world.  Part of Denialism is the shellgame argument that *everything*
can be dismissed equally as in-the-mind.  I assert an opposing hypothesis, 
that what *feels like* it's in-the-world should be assumed to *be* 
in-the-world, at least provisionally.

> This would be hard to prove, but the experiment to attempt to disprove it is
> fairly obvious--pick one Jorn's favorite cassettes, buy a bunch of copies,
> make a few copies, mix them up, and play them to Jorn in some random order.

I'm really not interested in this self-alienating B.S., either.  I expect to 
gain evidence gradually, by paying attention to my experiences.  But people 
who *begin* by *denying that it's possible* can't possibly notice the 
evidence, even when it *is* there.

This is so trivially obvious: *science demands that we look without 
preconceptions*.  What the hyenas are squawking, though, is that Science has 
already closed the book on what evidence will be admitted.  (Aside to hyenas: 
YOU ARE ASSHOLES.  YOU ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF SCIENTISTS.  *GET*  *A*  *HEART*.)

> By the way, Jorn, how is this imprint communicated back to you, the listener?
> Is it something in the sound, or is there some other channel?  If some other
> channel, what happens if you turn down the sound all the way?  If it is
> communicated by the sound, what happens if you turn the bass way down and
> the treble way up, or otherwise process it?

Interesting questions.  I'm just now going back to that tape again, and the 
effect, of course, has evaporated for now:  Your inner ears are open more at 
some times than others, you can't legislate this stuff to be heard on demand.  
(Why Gnostic Traditions Stay Underground ;^)

The hyenas of course will have to seize on this as an argument that the effect 
was never anywhere but in my mind.  This doesn't follow, but *they aren't 
really interested in whether stuff is logical or true, only whether they can 
exert territorial claims regarding it*.  (Image of billygoats fighting for a
hilltop, trampling all the tender sprouts ;^)

This is actually kind of important to consider: Dogmatic Science demands 
repeatability because more-fragile phenomena give them no advantage in the 
territorial game.  Dogmatic scientists might experience every sort of 
paranormal event, but choose to deny it because it wins them no advantage, 
even makes them *more* vulnerable to their competitors.

> "plausible in terms of what 'Known Science' should allow" is, IMHO,
> misleading.  Known science provides no mechanism for this kind of
> influence, nor does it provide any reliable evidence (that I am aware
> of) that such influence is a measurable effect.  But science is
> descriptive, not prescriptive--phenomena are consistent or incosistent
> with known science, not allowed or disallowed.  What Jorn is describing
> is not disallowed by known science, but it also is not within the province
> of phenomena described by known science.

Thank you.  You're a gentleman (for a materialist ;^)