Journal of Scientific Exploration

The JSE archives are free to download here:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html

There looks to be some interesting topics. The mission of the Society for Scientific Exploration is as follows:

"The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, unidentified aerial phenomena, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology."

"An Exploration of Degree of Meditation Attainment in Relation to Psychic Awareness with Tibetan Buddhists"

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_roney-dougal.pdf

The researchers find a positive correlation between years of meditation and instances of clairvoyance and precognition, though the finding depends on significant psi-missing (that is, hit rates that are below what is expected by chance). Psi-missing itself is an interesting phenomenon and seems to be correlated with "extrinsic" psychological variables, such as mood of the study participant.

Interesting. Lots of people I know reports this kind of stuff increases with meditation practice. Maybe it just comes from being more in tune with how things are. Who knows. I was playing a game with some friends last year where we would take turns setting something out as a target object and then everyone else would try to guess what it was. There were more hits than I'd expect, but plenty of misses, too. Either way it was fun.

I think the psi-missing phenomenon is fascinating. I've heard it described that people with strong feelings either way about the existence of psi score significantly on tests, with disbelievers scoring below chance and believers scoring above chance, reliably. Fascinating!

Ever notice how people often have a really good "gut reaction" but then second guess themselves, spend an hour overthinking things and worrying if it's the right choice?

Also, going back to the science, I don't think we're quite fully in the know as yet about how thing really work, and when experimental physicists are proving that there are indeed such things as action at a distance and quantum entanglement, then, well.... who knows?

-cmarti

Yeah, there have been a lot of attempts to theoretically tie non-local physical phenomena to parapsychological phenomena, primarily because they both seem to operate acausally, i.e. not under the influence of linear time. Carl Jung tries this, proposing the idea of "psychoid" which characterizes the collective unconscious. The psychoid is the organizing principle of the unconscious and has both psychological and physical properties. Jung proposed this because of the number of synchronicities he observed throughout his life, especially those instances of psychokinesis Ervin Laszlo more recently also attempts a "theory of everything" using the "zero-point field", which supposedly is under consideration in physics. Unfortunately, Laszlo's work is arcane for the uninitiated in physics. I couldn't follow most of it nor form an opinion whether it was bogus or not. The Japanese philosopher Yuasa Yasuo also attempts this, using qi-energy as a "third term" that mediates the psychological and physical domains in living phenomena. Motoyama has done some interesting experiments, which demonstrate the transformation of psi-energy at a chakra into qi-energy. This would tie Yuasa's contention with parapsychological phenomena, which operate non-locally. This is because qi-energy has been shown in experiments to be deliminted by time and space, confined to a six meter radius around the human body. If I remember correctly, the experiments involved qigong masters emitted qi externally.

Who knows. You never know what the future holds. Jung's contention was very preliminary. The jumping-off point. Laszlo fleshes out Jung's theory with research in physics, but unfortunately I can't follow it. Yuasa's theory builds on Jung's as well, but from a more philosophical perspective. Yuasa is proposing a holistic philosophy, bringing back teleology, that helps repair the schism between mind and body upheld since Descartes. It is also a jumping off point I think to help bring about a change in perspective that brings the "why" back into the discussion of reality, rather than just the "how" and "what" which are the domain of modern-day science. Yuasa has three books translated into English. I've read his most recent one, "Overcoming Modernity", maybe 5 times. It's dense and chock-full of very interesting insights, especially since Yuasa brings a momentous amount of knowledge to the table.

19th century physics may have come to relativity and QM much sooner if there hadn't been metaphysical resistance to the notion of aether (space as textured) and metaphysical commitment to pure, absolute empty space. The notion that space itself may have texture and substance is exactly what Einstein and Plank come back to, right? But from the point of view of the mainstream metaphysics of 19th century physics, this was an inadmissable hypotheses. It just didn't make sense within the context of the mainstream's metaphysical assumptions about space, light, and time. The anomalies had to add up to a breaking point-- and even then, according to Kuhn's research, a whole generation of scientists who were emotionally committed to Newtonian absolute space and time had to retire and even die before new ideas could find a place in scientific discourse.

It would be really cool if as part of science education there could be a philosophical training aimed at creating a culture in science that is capable of thinking deeply and openly about these background assumptions. Kuhn points out that science education is targeted at producing a bunch of "normal science" practitioners-- technicians, basically. It seems like an artifact of earlier social structures more than anything to me: a few leaders are allowed to think deeply and direct research, while the masses are just following procedures and recording observations. It seems very rigid and aristocratic to me.

I think a lot of the persistent anomalous data in parapsychology and other fringe sciences may well be pointing to the limits of the current background paradigm in physical science; but these background assumptions are not falsifiable, per se. They just either seem reasonable or not depending on your metaphysical commitments. Concrete research projects are conceived and executed within the parameters set by the background, and just as in most subcultures, the background in science is "taboo". There are irrationally applied social costs to questioning it, just like there are irrationally applied social costs to backing same sex marriage for example. The fact that materialist reductionism isn't an empirical belief, but rather a metaphysic with a definite and clear historical provenance, which is adhered to for socio-cultural reasons rather than rational ones, is what much philosophy and social science of the twentieth century is pointing at. That this message hasn't sunk in to the physical sciences is expressed every time a physicist presents a new "theory of everything" in equation format, which is meant to explain literally everything, but which at best would integrate QM and relativity. Really? So "everything" excludes pretty much everything that matters to humans and other sentient beings in their lived experience? It's kind of funny how transparent it is. This philosophical naivete is why Heidegger was so hard on scientists I think.

Chris, I'm sure climate science is a great example of many things... but of what in particular in this case?




eta: I'm probably just being dense this morning. It's been known to happen

Ever notice how people often have a really good "gut reaction" but then second guess themselves, spend an hour overthinking things and worrying if it's the right choice?


-ona

I'd like to make a new years resolution to stop doing this. Unfortunately, several years ago, having noticed my tendency to ignore new years resolutions, I made a new years resolution to stop making new years resolutions. It's the only one that's stuck.

Ona,

I thought you in particular might like this article:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_rock_2.pdf

It's a study of how mediums experience "spirits." This is the short-and-sweet list the authors come up with based on their study of medium reports:

1. Multi-modal ‘‘sensory’’ impressions pertaining to the discarnate.

2. Visual images of the discarnate in the medium's ‘‘mind's eye.’’

3. ‘‘Hearing’’ information from the discarnate in the medium's ‘‘mind's ear.’’

4. Feeling discarnates' ailments/cause of death.

5. Experience of fragrances associated with the discarnate prior to his or her

bodily death.

6. Alteration of affect.

7. Empathy.

@sunyata - nifty! Never saw anyone survey mediums to compare how they perceive spirits. Among the many mediums I've know there seems to be a tendency to have particular strengths - that is, some people tend to get a lot of visual or auditory stuff, others a lot more of the multi-modal or empathetic stuff. I fall more in the latter category, though it seems to depend a bit on the spirit. Certain ones tend to manifest very much as me/in my body, others I tend to see visually and chat with as if they are another person in the room. Some just generate a feeling of love or quiet or fiery energy without any "personality" aspect to it. Thanks for the link!

Chris, I get the climate science example, completely. It's funny how the label continues to change over time; e.g. global warming, climate change, climate disturbance, etc. The original hypothesis (the earth becoming increasingly warmer due to increasing human-caused carbon emissions) has not been reliably supported. So, "climate change" became the term, emphasizing that it's not just "warming" that results, but other phenomena as well. The theory keeps changing with the empirical data, which is just the kind of science that many (if not most) good scientists try to avoid.







And I can see how a similar process occurs when studying phenomena of the psi variety. I'm not an outright denier of psi phenomena. But, the science I've had a chance to review hasn't been all too convincing, for the most part. I've heard there's some good research out there, but I haven't read it.



The first step seems to be establishing that some kind of psi actually happens. The phenomena have to be observed before they can be tested further, for obvious reasons. If the phenomena are demonstrated and observed, then hypotheses regarding how they happen can be tested, and either supported or unsupported.



Since I'm a psych-nerd, and most of my exposure to research is in the realm of evidence-based treatments for psychological suffering, one of my favorite types of studies are the dismantling kind. I've already brought this up regarding Jake2's thread about EFT (emotional freedom technique). Although some studies show the relative efficacy of EFT for reducing some forms of anxiety, there may be little to no evidence supporting the theory on which it is based. It might work simply because it includes aspects that are similar to other already-supported treatments. I bring this up because I wonder how this type of study could be employed when dealing with psi phenomena. Just a thought.

Did anyone ever watch the bad reality tv show called "America's Next Top Psychic" or similar? It was the usual format. Each week the self-proclaimed psychics had a different task, such as being set loose in an abandoned mental hospital and having to locate the live person hiding in one of the rooms; or telling a person hiding behind a screen things about their life and what they were wearing and so on. I was not terribly impressed with the results. But it was entertaining.

I guess I thought that was obvious based on your comment. Climate science is not so much considered a science these days as it is politics. The general perception seems to be "the scientists had a position and they set out to prove it."
How's that?



-cmarti

Yes, my hypotheses that I am extraordinarily dull this morning has been confirmed hahaha.

...one of my favorite types of studies are the dismantling kind.... I wonder how this type of study could be employed when dealing with psi phenomena.

-awouldbehipster

There's an example of this in the article I posted about the phenomenology of medium's experiences. The authors state that if the phenomenological characteristics of a medium's experience in communicating with a "spirit" is different from phenomenological characteristics of a telepathic experience with a living person, then the hypothesis that these experiences arise out of an universal "psychic resevoir" that holds all experiences may be called into question. Instead, the authors claim this would provide support to the survival of consciousness theory. Apparently, there are anecdotal reports that the communion with a "spirit" and the telepathic apprehension of knowledge are phenomenologically different.

This is not technically a dismantling study, but it has the spirit of one.

P.S. Phenomenonology is a terrible word to spell.

@jake: I came across a Jung quotation that reminded me of what you were saying before re: the conduct of "normal science":

"The irrational fulness of life has taught me never to discard anything, even when it goes against all our theories (so short-lived at best) or otherwise admits of no immediate explanation. It is of course disquieting, and one is not certain whether the compass is pointing true or not; but security, certitude, and peace do not lead to discoveries."

Talk about synchronicity--I clicked on this right after posting:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_2_jahn.pdf



Change the Rules!

Abstract—Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time. Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved. If science, by its

most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates. The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a ‘‘Science of the Subjective’’ are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.

@Jake2: great Jung quote. That definitely speaks to the point. Kuhn points out that the culture of science education encourages a "we figured it all out; maybe a few details to fill in if that" sort of mentality, which is fine for producing technicians who can follow instructions and keep records, but not very good at all for dealing with anomalous data. And it seems to me that there is no philosophically justifiable position which assumes it possible for there to at some point no longer be "anomalous data" for the reasons Jung mentions. Universe, in its nature, is "knowable" to humans through gnosis in which we realize we are part of universe and share its nature; but in its details, there will always be infinitely more to learn I think. At least this outlook helps prevent closed mindedness.