babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Does quantum mechanics explain extra sensory perception?

MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

If you can change the properties of a particle by observing it, does that not mean that perception informs physical reality? If thoughts are a series of electrical impulses, without conductors and capacitors what's to constrain them? Discuss.


Comments

Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Experience should tell us that perception most definitely informs reality in many instances.  Most of us are unqualified with respect to the properties of quantum mechanics, let alone its ability to correlate effects with ESP, the very existence of which we know even less about,


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I wouldn't assume so, without an demonstrated link.

For me, ESP is a sort of open question, and I know that according to quantum mechanics things are in more than one place at the same time, though on a subatomic level. I also know that the model explains how all kinds of energy systems, including those which make many of our modern devices possible, work.

But I don't ascribe to "what the bleep" explanations as a catchall for things which we simply do not yet understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

 

 


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Quantum entanglement has gone beyond theoretical physics to proven fact. In computer science it's been proven that if you embed particles with information and send them to a destination, with an observation point along the way, the difference at the end of the destination is measurable. ESP is probably a clumsy way of saying that there are ways of sending and receiving information that we don't yet understand. I'm not talking about the completely debunked woo woo stuff that gets peddled on TV and at psychic fairs, but rather the fairly banal anomalies we experience every day.


KenS
Online
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Agree on one thing: that various forms of human communication [and humans with other beings] that we know happen with a certain regularity, and with typical patterns, but do not understand the 'mechanics' in the least.... that the mechanics are 'knowable', at least in principle.

But I see no reason to think that there even clues in or derived from quantum mechanics. And as goofy as the woo-hoo psychic stuff looks, it may be closer to the clues. Possibly, a LOT closer.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

There doesn't appear to be an end to the stuff we don't know about, or don't know enough about in order to render qualified opinions.  I suppose the same might apply to much of the stuff posted hereabouts.  Such as where all of the rubble and torn apart mass of suns, planets and galaxies go when they’re devoured by black holes?  Does it all disappear from existence entirely, or if not, into what reality does the material emerge into?  In terms of different realities from one body to another, someone's experience and reality may be remembered quite differently by another person that has observed the same life being spoken about.  And so the true reflection or recording of someone’s life may be marked on other people’s consciousness in a slightly altered manner which bends or warps the reality of the life being spoken about.  If we were to conclude that most people would prefer that only the best moments of their lives are recounted during their funeral service, and final instructions are given to this effect by the deceased prior to their passing, this is the only means of transmission that we know of whereby some of the contents of one’s brain is transmitted to another, and then onward into other memories.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Here is an article that poses the same question as RW did to start this thread. I think that some people do indeed "know" when close friends or relatives experience trauma although they are physically great distances away. The problem is trying to make sense of sub atomic phenomena using a complex organism like the brain that is made up of almost innumerably atoms. Or to put it another way I have given this some thought and read various articles and books about it but it is always just beyond my comprehension and tends to give me a headache.

Quote:

Albert Einstein called the theory of quantum entanglement, "Spooky action at a distance." Quantum entanglement basically says that any two particles that have interacted before are bound to each other regardless of distance, and affects the other one. Quantum entanglement theory may be a scientific explanation of ESP in that people who exhibit these tendencies, interact with information on a sub-atomic level. Someone who is perceptive to extra sensory material may be tuned into this type of linking much like we can tune into a radio station.

When one particle, which was once linked to another, can affect its distant partner instantly than this could explain telepathy. Science has shown us how two particles can somehow interact on different sides of the universe without a signal passing between them. If you take quantum entanglement one step further, it could explain ESP as well.

http://imgreencat.hubpages.com/hub/canextrasensoryperceptionbeexplainedt...


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

It's because of the vast amount of information that we're not aware of that it makes no sense to take an absolutist position, which has to apply to a vast assortment of positions given, taken, or adapted to from within our collection of knowledge.  To even consider oneself a hard core atheist implies a 100% certainty derived from a portion of the small amount of accumulated knowledge which exists for us.  Who is to say emphatically for instance that as the essence of quantum particle migration throughout our universe left its trace within our cell structures, that this was not the original mark that compelled our distant ancestors to begin studying the sky once they had sufficiently evolved?  If such characteristics are present in quantum mechanics, might there be others?


Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001
Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim a 100% certainty there is no god - you're building a straw atheist. I think you'd have to show some evidence that extra sensory perception exists beyond the level of random chance in a large enough sample before you could even begin to explore whether quantum physics has any intersection. Not that it has stopped shysters like Chopra and innumerable other from quantuming it up all over the place.

Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

There's no need to build anything in that regard. Evidence is always the key point when moving on from original theories that no longer suffice for explanations. Deleuze showed with his fixation on insects that other worlds exist, which for the most part share in a mutual obliviousness with ourselves of the other, right under our feet and within our own reality. The microscope revealed entire worlds that all previous knowledge had overlooked, but which effected all living things, often in very direct ways. In the context of quantum entanglement, curiously the ancients sometimes spoke of entanglements with spirits that regulated behaviour and well being.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Timebandit wrote:
I think you'd have to show some evidence that extra sensory perception exists beyond the level of random chance in a large enough sample before you could even begin to explore whether quantum physics has any intersection. Not that it has stopped shysters like Chopra and innumerable other from quantuming it up all over the place.

Better than chance would allow for - Jessica Utts, Ph.D.


Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001
.....aaaaaaaaand cue Fidel's collection of whack jobs!

KenS
Online
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Timebandit wrote:
I think you'd have to show some evidence that extra sensory perception exists beyond the level of random chance in a large enough sample before you could even begin to explore whether quantum physics has any intersection.

It would be a hell of a lot easier to show compelling evidence that "ESP" exists- however you want to specify/describe that- than to explore where quantum mechanics fits in, if at all in any meaningful sense.

Establishing that some phenomena exists, and degree of consensus on a description, is not the same thing as working out why and how.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

It's certainly an area of study requiring caution because of the tendency for well established extrapolations to abound.


KenS
Online
Joined: Aug 6 2001

As noted, the implications of quantum mechanics are no longer just plausible theory. We can test and observe that particles effect each other that are removed in a space-time continuum as we have always understood it. The theory of relativity LONG ago pretty much proved that our notions of the space-time continuum are inadequate and faulty, at least in principle. But we still have nothing else to go on for testing and observing at least 99.999% of what we enquire into. We test and observe according to the 'rules' of the space and time as we experience... because for all but a small slice of phenomena, we have nothing else to go on. And, we do it because it works: we get and accrue hard and sustainable knowledge that way.

Anyway. So now we know that two sub-atomic particles effect each other across space and/or time.

We also know that what gets called "ESP" exists. Radical skepiticism that it's existence at all is 'unproven' is as credible as climate change skepticism. Call 99% of it bunk, and the remaining 1% defies explanation according to current consensus understandings of how it can happen.

Do these two things have anything to do with each other? Plausibly.

Is knowledge in one field [quantum mechanics] likely to inform understanding of how "ESP" happens? 

A huge amount has to happen to 'scale' quantum mechanics past the sub atomic level, at all. Let alone to having anything practical to offer in the understanding of our brains, which is in its own right an enquiry hugely complex and speculative in countless directions.

 

I suggest that the main influence of quantum mechanics here is inspirational. It obvioulsy helps a lot of people approach ESP without being put off by the mystical mumbo jumbo and grossly inflated claims.

But there is nothing new about that. People have been taking a matter of fact and 'pedestrian enquiry' approach to ESP for decades. And that includes a lot of practitioners of some kind of psychic art. They have not got far yet. I don't watch this, but I assume we would hear about it if there was evidence out there widely seen as compelling, of being able to more or less randomly reproduce and direct things that get called ESP.

But I would still put my money on the descriptive and pedestrian science approach- lets see what works and what doesnt- over figuring out anything by building up [or over] via quantum mechanics. 


had enough
Offline
Joined: Mar 6 2013

Rebecca West wrote:
If you can change the properties of a particle by observing it, does that not mean that perception informs physical reality? If thoughts are a series of electrical impulses, without conductors and capacitors what's to constrain them? Discuss.

 

Changing the properties of a particle in quantum mechanics refers to the fact that in order to observe a particle at that level, which means defining it's position in this case, you have to intract with it with relatively large forces that will change it's position. It's not changing the particle itself, just it's trajectory. So if you used a jet of air to measure the speed of a ping pong ball vs a basketball, the obvious physical realities mean the air would likely affect the ping pong balls trajectory much more than the basketball, but the balls aren't changed. So, if in order to see a tree, our eyes put out rays that burn the tree, perceiving the world changes it.

And, the electrical impulse in the nerves is a chemical process that occurs across the cell membrane of a nerve cell. It's not like in a wire, although it could be thought of as many short wires that span the cell membrane, rather than along it. Any fields associated with them due to "thoughts" and/or physical asymmetries would be the sum of all the smaller ones, which is a function of instantaneous physical condition.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

KenS wrote:

Do these two things have anything to do with each other? Plausibly.

Possibly. I'd have to see an argument from a physicist making that connection before I'd consider it plausible.

And it is a lot less plausible when we consider that other things that are perfectly normal at the subatomic level - matter constantly popping in and out of existence  - do not happen to people, chainsaws and cars with the same regularity. Nor do we see things which can happen in high energy states - like the reversal of time - in our corner of the universe.

I don't take three different paths every day to work, though some might claim I am doing just that in three different dimensions. But we don't have any evidence of those dimensions, and when we see it in photosynthesis, it is all happening right here.

Sure, it's possible, but I don't see any plausible connection, given the complex nature of some ESP stories. When a test is done with Zener cards the symbols don't change on the paper to fit the image in the mind of the subject. While it might be an interesting thing to consider, I think  subatomic physics has been a bit overused in this department, with not enough consideration for how different the two realms are.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Timebandit wrote:
.....aaaaaaaaand cue Fidel's collection of whack jobs!

By comparison Utts has a Ph.D, has written text books on statistics, and she uses her real name online.

Who's more credible in this case,  someone who goes by 'Timebandit' or Jessica Utts who's "done the math"?

Sorry to undermine your babble cred like this, but someone had to say something.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

6079_Smith_W wrote:

KenS wrote:

Do these two things have anything to do with each other? Plausibly.

Possibly. I'd have to see an argument from a physicist making that connection before I'd consider it plausible.

The Paranormal: The Evidence and Its Implications for Consciousness

That guy's a physicist, and she's just a Ph.D. and not coming off anywhere near as credible as Timebandit's solid argument against the hokus pocus noted above.

Some interesting quotes of people speaking in haste at the time:

"We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates

“Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.

“A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.

“Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

“There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

“Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.

"I believe anything is possible. I'm a sucker for quantum theories explaining everything from consciousness to ice cream." - Fidelio

 


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

From your article, Fidel:

Quote:

These proposals are extremely speculative.

What do those quotes that have to do with anything I said?  Never mind that we could just as easily look at what some people expected was going to happen a decade ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ywMnbef6Y

I'm just saying that physical principles that apply at the subatomic level and in high energy states don't translate so well to the stable environment necessary to support our existence. I also wouldn't look at a waterbug and assume I could take a stroll across the pacific ocean.  And speculation notwithstanding, there aren't any solid links.

As for the paranormal, I already said that I consider it an open question, so I am not sure who you are arguing with. That doesn't mean I ascribe to all the ideas that are justified by pseudoscience, for instance stuff along the lines of "the secret". The dark side of that belief is that people who suffer illness, misfortune or violence are secretly asking for it and drawing it on themselves through the law of attraction.

 

 

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I'm just saying that physical principles that apply at the subatomic level and in high energy states don't translate so well to the stable environment necessary to support our existence.

Why do you think scientists are studying particle physics if it's as disconnected from reality, human biology, grammar and punctuation as youve implied?

They are studing power physics and subatomic matter because quantum physicists believe that the sub-atomic is a miniature model of the universe, where we came from and what made us etc. We are a part of the whole not separate and distinct from it or nature and all of the littlest things in it. We are all star dust, outsourced by a perfectly symmetrical singularity, infinitely dense, colossally small and pretty hot ball of whatever at a time when there was no such thing as time-space, and a heckuva long time ago, too!

Winston Smith wrote:
I also wouldn't look at a waterbug and assume I could take a stroll across the pacific ocean.  And speculation notwithstanding, there aren't any solid links.

They use insects all the time to test theories about human biology. We could learn a lot from a fruit fly, for example.

Smith wrote:
As for the paranormal, I already said that I consider it an open question, so I am not sure who you are arguing with. That doesn't mean I ascribe to all the ideas that are justified by pseudoscience, for instance stuff along the lines of "the secret". The dark side of that belief is that people who suffer illness, misfortune or violence are secretly asking for it and drawing it on themselves through the law of attraction.

 Yes we should be wary of pseudo-scientists and other charlatans? Is that what you're saying?

ETA:

I'll see your excellent 2001 vid and up you one rebel rebel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U16Xg_rQZkA


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Fidel wrote:

Why do you think scientists are studying particle physics if it's as disconnected from reality, human biology, grammar and punctuation as youve implied?

Well to my understanding the grail they are looking for is a unified field theory.

Also, a lot of it does have practical applications, from stuff as mundane as sausage casings, to replacing the work of making isotopes that we currently need reactors for.

I expect janfromthebruce knows a lot more about that than I do.

As for that other stuff, I'm not saying that no connection is possible. On the other hand, it's not good science just leap to an assumption and then go looking for stuff that fits your model. And that goes double for quantum theory, which has been way over used and abused as an excuse for stuff that likely has nothing at all to do with what it is really about.

There's plenty of stuff I think might exist for which I have no explanation. But until such time as an explanation or a refutation happens, I prefer to keep it simple.

 

 


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001
6079_Smith_W wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why do you think scientists are studying particle physics if it's as disconnected from reality, human biology, grammar and punctuation as youve implied?

Well to my understanding the grail they are looking for is a unified field theory.

Also, a lot of it does have practical applications, from stuff as mundane as sausage casings, to replacing the work of making isotopes that we currently need reactors for.

I expect janfromthebruce knows a lot more about that than I do.

As for that other stuff, I'm not saying that no connection is possible. On the other hand, it's not good science just leap to an assumption and then go looking for stuff that fits your model. And that goes double for quantum theory, which has been way over used and abused as an excuse for stuff that likely has nothing at all to do with what it is really about.

There's plenty of stuff I think might exist for which I have no explanation. But until such time as an explanation or a refutation happens, I prefer to keep it simple.

 

 

They already have the math behind unified field theory and it seems to be supported by tests with the most powerful particle colliders we have now, but there simply isn't enough power yet to get subatomic particles close enough to definitively prove UFT. Even so, there's enough data to strongly suggest that the various fields are unified in strength at a subatomic level. Just because you don't yet have the capability to prove something does not mean it's untrue. Merely untested. There have been studies that strongly suggest that the electrical impulses we call thoughts can be transmitted and received. Proof of ESP? Not nearly. But it's enough to create a compelling argument for the possibility that our thoughts are not necessarily confined within our grey matter. I'm not talking about crystal balls, tarot cards or The Amazing Kreskin. What science suggests is that simple thoughts and emotions can be transmitted between people without any visual cues. There isn't so much evidence in humans (hey, who needs ESP when you have Facebook), but other animals show us that information gets passed between them all the time (migratory patterns, group behaviors, etc.). So why not us?

KenS
Online
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Actually we do have evidence for between humans.

It just doesnt happen routinely as with other animals.

The minimum: countless documented cases of people knowing a loved one has died or is in serious distress. Do the math, and there is essentially zero probability that all the investigated cases are just undiscovered hoaxes and/or cases where people wittingly or not hid how they otherwise knew. This will never amount to 'proof' to dogmatic skeptics because there is never going to be an intsitution with a stake in cataloguing and verifying information.

It isnt only simple thoughts that are transmitted between people. It is just that it so episodically happens that it isnt really feasible to set up the kind of testing that comes easily. Seems to me it would take data crunching rooted in data gathering and the design and execution od sophisticated probabilistic enquiries... a more modest version of what it took to try out the theories of partcicles so that there would be some idea of what to look for.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ Rebecca

Actually I agree with you that there is a body of evidence, at least anecdotal, to support some of this.

Never mind the claims that acupuncture is nonsense, I had a conversation about a week ago with a doctor who said that putting needles in a plastic model could be more effective than putting them in the body of the subject. I don't have personal experience with it, and I have no idea how it might work, but I do accept the claim that the subject felt relief after it was done.


jas
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2005

Rebecca West wrote:
Just because you don't yet have the capability to prove something does not mean it's untrue. Merely untested. There have been studies that strongly suggest that the electrical impulses we call thoughts can be transmitted and received. Proof of ESP? Not nearly. But it's enough to create a compelling argument for the possibility that our thoughts are not necessarily confined within our grey matter. I'm not talking about crystal balls, tarot cards or The Amazing Kreskin. What science suggests is that simple thoughts and emotions can be transmitted between people without any visual cues. There isn't so much evidence in humans (hey, who needs ESP when you have Facebook), but other animals show us that information gets passed between them all the time (migratory patterns, group behaviors, etc.). So why not us?

Personally I don't understand the constant caveats and apologies that attend these conversations. ESP simply means extra-sensory perception, meaning the ability to perceive something beyond the normal capacity of what we traditionally accept as our five physical senses. Of course this exists. And of course phenomena exist outside of our sensory ability to perceive it. Perhaps most phenomena in the universe, in fact. Why would we assume the contrary? That would be idiotic, given the limitations of our physiology.

I don't understand why anyone would argue against this. What possible interest or stake could they (one) have in such an argument?

Now, as for possible connections to quantum theory, I have no idea. I'm still trying to figure out relativity. Smile

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I think there is such a thing as militant atheism, militant skepticism  or a kind of modern day inquisition sans the torture and drawing and quartering and so on. I think Brian Josephson has been the target of not so fast types like Randi, a former TV clown now a full-time skeptic. I have a hard time appreciating him and his pseudo-scientific skepticism.

At the same time, most scientists want nothing to do with modern day witch hunts because they view science as an open-ended pursuit of truth. They don't like it much when those with the courage to challenge mainstream ideas are smeared in similar manner that court jesters and spies for the imperialist regime attacked free thinkers centuries ago. I think it prevents scientists from veering very far from the mainstream, which is currently at a loss to explain very many things, like a theory of everything in order to tie the study of the very small (quantum mechanics) with theories measuring large scale (relativity). Human consciousness is just another relatively unexplored frontier as far as science goes.

I think if we want to talk about pseudo-science run amok, Ralph Nader has written some scathing critiques on that topic. There are two kinds of science today. There is basic research, and then there is corporate science, and they are not the same thing.

Ralph Nader wrote:
Corporate science puts profit before the public interest. Corporate science is often secretive, not peer-reviewed, laden with lobbying power, and driven by profit-seeking strategies.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Fidel wrote:
 There are two kinds of science today. There is basic research, and then there is corporate science, and they are not the same thing.

The problem is that its almost always difficult to tell them apart, but you're right to suggest that it's about the uses science is dedicated toward in Capitalist societies for example, and their influence upon research. Take Psychology for instance, a peer reviewed, scientific sounding field of inquiry, studied, evaluated, and fine tuned in practice and in the universities. We already know from this society that universities are geared toward the production of managers, technologists, and theorists for Capitalism. They're not in the business of growing revolutionaries on trees. The observation here is that Psychology, as a product of the institutions of learning, attempts to treat the individual so as to better adapt to society, and not the other way around. Correspondingly, almost any scientific field we can think of, geology, biology, genetics, etc, are continuously adapting everything imaginable to the economy. As biological forms ourselves, we're almost entirely subsumed by it, and thus our expectations of science are already preconceived, pre-packaged in shrink wrapping if you will. Instead of shutting the door on everything as a result of such challenges to science, its better to leave it open a crack, if only to facilitate an escape route for the truth across the threshold of scepticism.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
 There are two kinds of science today. There is basic research, and then there is corporate science, and they are not the same thing.

The problem is that its almost always difficult to tell them apart, but you're right to suggest that it's about the uses science is dedicated toward in Capitalist societies for example, and their influence upon research. Take Psychology for instance, a peer reviewed, scientific sounding field of inquiry, studied, evaluated, and fine tuned in practice and in the universities. We already know from this society that universities are geared toward the production of managers, technologists, and theorists for Capitalism. They're not in the business of growing revolutionaries on trees.

I know what you mean. I also think that there is a surprising number of left-leaning to left wing theorists and academics in North American universities today. Take, for example, the last month of my studies in educational foundations here at Queen's. Our prof for this part of the course is Rosa Bruno-Jofre. She lived through the U.S.-backed military dictatorship years in Argentina and is exposing the kids here to some fairly revolutionary ideas with Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed and more. Of course, she has to balance the theory with some other theorists, like John Dewey. Of course, even he was critical of the education system.

Observe Ted Kaczynski, the unabomber. He was paranoid and thought that UCal and American universities in general are infested with socialists at every turn. And they still teach Marx and Marxian-Hegelian thought in university programs just not economics. As Canadian William Khrem said about it, over the last 30-35 years there has been a kind of Stalinization of economic theory in Canada and USA with Chicago schools for economics and finance influencing think tanks and governments alike. Marx & Keynes was dumped for Hayek and Friedman. And, of course, the neoliberals and neoclassico economists since then are not so sure of their neo-theories now but are still trumpeted on Wall St and Bay St and right wing think tanks in Vanccouver, Toronto, Washington etc.

Slumberjack wrote:
The observation here is that Psychology, as a product of the institutions of learning, attempts to treat the individual so as to better adapt to society, and not the other way around. Correspondingly, almost any scientific field we can think of, geology, biology, genetics, etc, are continuously adapting everything imaginable to the economy. As biological forms ourselves, we're almost entirely subsumed by it, and thus our expectations of science are already preconceived, pre-packaged in shrink wrapping if you will. Instead of shutting the door on everything as a result of such challenges to science, its better to leave it open a crack, if only to facilitate an escape route for the truth across the threshold of scepticism.

I think youre right. And I think, too, that the various disciplines of study have had to conform to the new liberal financial regime and its diktats for money/debt constraints. What we need is revolutionary economics and democracy. Paulo Freire wanted us to encourage kids to think critically by dialog and inquiry which was lacking for a long time in schools and still today. For sure we want post-secondary institutes to be incubators of independent thought as Ralph Nader says should be the purpose for higher ed. How can the kids know that they are free and living in a democracy if they can't think critically or learn  question things? I am trying to learn how to question the kids through Socratic dialog as but one approach, but for sure the academic teachers need to do their part as well. I see some older teachers of my age and a bit older who remind me too much of teachers in my day who came to school to put in their three or four hours and then leg it to the parking lot in a hurry.  I am only in tech ed, but I think I will manage to insert a little left wing thought for the kids' sake when and where I am able to. ;-

Like Freire and Marx were optimists, I too will remain optimistic about the future. Kids are the future. Nothing is written in stone.  The one percent have it all their way now. And their only hope may well be our worst nightmare, but our only hope is their worst nightmare. Scientific and technological breakthroughs will continue to be a double-edged sword and work both for or against us. According to scientists themselves, or at least the ones who still are unbiased and unsullied by political influences, they tell us that the next 100 years will be the most critical time in human development. Kids and their children are going to have a lot on their plates in the very near future, and they must be prepared for it. I will play a very small but necessary part for the future and hope for the best. And the future may unfold completely different to what we expect here in the present past.

Viva la revolucion!


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

"The minimum: countless documented cases of people knowing a loved one has died or is in serious distress."

I've actually had such an experience.  I was asleep on the couch in the living room.  I woke up for no reason I could discern, and looked right at the telephone on the coffee table. 

It started to ring.  It was 3:30 AM.

The person calling though unrelated by blood was nonetheless close to me, but living 200km away in Toronto.  She was in a great deal of distress.  Not life threatening, but in a very distressfull situation.

We dealt with the problem, and about a week later I asked her if she had called a number of times.  My thinking was that she had called and got the answering machine before I actually woke up.  I sleep deep.  It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that her first calls brought me out of sleep, and I was only fully awake for the second call.

She said I picked up on the first ring.

I'm sure Fidel would describe me as a militant atheist and skeptic.  I am okay with that.  Rebecca West and I discuss ESP and quantuum stuff from time to time.  We don't agree.  I think it's a big stretch to say that somehow that person from the erie phone call and I somehow exchanged sub atomic particles and then "spooky action at a distance" set particles "spinning" in a fashion that is interpreted as alarum in the human brain.

Because if you are invoking quatuum stuff, this is what you are saying must be happening, if we are to restrain ourselves to what is known. (and if not, then anything can be true, so what's the point of all this conversation then?)

I was nearly 50 when that happened.  Think of that.  The one truly "wierd" event in my life that I can't explain.

What's wierd about that, really, is that in half a century of living, don't you think I should have MORE wierd experiences?

What happened was a coincidence.  Remarkable?  Maybe, but they happen and that's what happened there.  One wierd coincidence in 50 years is not really remarkable.

There are also times when I've felt anxious, felt something was wrong with my three daughters from my first marriage who live in Toronto, and called them.  They were fine and dandy.  There were times when bad-- really bad things-- happened to them when they lived close by here in London, and I had no inkling, no "feeling" that something was wrong.

 We remember the "hits" and forget the "misses". It's probably a valuable tool for survival-- pattern recognition.  I think we are so good at it, we often see patterns where none exist.

 


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

"The minimum: countless documented cases of people knowing a loved one has died or is in serious distress."

I've actually had such an experience.  I was asleep on the couch in the living room.  I woke up for no reason I could discern, and looked right at the telephone on the coffee table. 

It started to ring.  It was 3:30 AM.

The person calling though unrelated by blood was nonetheless close to me, but living 200km away in Toronto.  She was in a great deal of distress.  Not life threatening, but in a very distressfull situation.

We dealt with the problem, and about a week later I asked her if she had called a number of times.  My thinking was that she had called and got the answering machine before I actually woke up.  I sleep deep.  It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that her first calls brought me out of sleep, and I was only fully awake for the second call.

She said I picked up on the first ring.

I'm sure Fidel would describe me as a militant atheist and skeptic.  I am okay with that.  Rebecca West and I discuss ESP and quantuum stuff from time to time.  We don't agree.  I think it's a big stretch to say that somehow that person from the erie phone call and I somehow exchanged sub atomic particles and then "spooky action at a distance" set particles "spinning" in a fashion that is interpreted as alarum in the human brain.

Because if you are invoking quatuum stuff, this is what you are saying must be happening, if we are to restrain ourselves to what is known. (and if not, then anything can be true, so what's the point of all this conversation then?)

I was nearly 50 when that happened.  Think of that.  The one truly "wierd" event in my life that I can't explain.

What's wierd about that, really, is that in half a century of living, don't you think I should have MORE wierd experiences?

What happened was a coincidence.  Remarkable?  Maybe, but they happen and that's what happened there.  One wierd coincidence in 50 years is not really remarkable.

There are also times when I've felt anxious, felt something was wrong with my three daughters from my first marriage who live in Toronto, and called them.  They were fine and dandy.  There were times when bad-- really bad things-- happened to them when they lived close by here in London, and I had no inkling, no "feeling" that something was wrong.

 We remember the "hits" and forget the "misses". It's probably a valuable tool for survival-- pattern recognition.  I think we are so good at it, we often see patterns where none exist.

 


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments