Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books,
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!halsoft.com!netcomsv!kiki.icd.teradyne.com!beaux!pnorton
From: pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
Organization: none
References: <JMC.94Oct23231211@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <39drsi$7nl@crl10.crl.com> <39m0di$b69@onramp.arc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 18:56:04 GMT
Lines: 60
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:99750 sci.skeptic:94854 sci.psychology:29431 comp.ai.philosophy:21897 sci.bio:22999 sci.philosophy.meta:14643

lamaster@viking.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster -- RCS) writes:
>dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen) writes:
>
>|> I find ideas (and Penrose is not alone in them) that tie "mind" to
>|> quarks and other strange subparticle structures to be fascinating.
>
>Subatomic particles are indeed fascinating.

Yes, because they are not 'particles'.

>
>|> Given some strange connections indicated by physics,  such connections
>|> could even explain such controversial events as esp.  
>
>In order to do that, you would have to find some "esp" phenomena
>which are subject to replication by scientists, rather than
>replication by stage magicians, as they are now.  So far, there

Pounding the old round peg into the old square hole, again are we?
Haven't we learned yet that not all of Nature's phenomena don't fit the
neat little prescription of being 'quantifiable, repeatable, and independent
of observer'?

I guess not.

>has never been a single successful ESP experiment which has been
>successfully replicated elsewhere under scientific conditions.

Which only proves that standard science is not suitable for all phenomena.

It is worth reading up a little on the phenomenon of 'synchronicity',
to see how it is, by definition, 'immune' to scientific investigation,
being neither repeatable, quantifiable, nor independent of observer.

>Not one.  That makes it rather problematic for scientists to deal
>with.  

Oh my.  How inconvenient.  So why do they bother?

>If ESP phenomena could be shown to exist, they would 
>certainly be interesting to study.  All the "successful" experiments
>have been shown to be frauds or statistically incorrect.  People 
>have, after the fact, found weak correlations between various data,
>but such correlations are always present given enough random
>variables, so unless someone can put together successful predictive 
>experiments, ESP is just an idea, not a real phenomenon.

Non sequitur. Does not follow.  Dogma.  Mistaking language for reality. 
Throwing out baby with bathwater.

Cheers

----
"There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in scientism."
-Sheikh Yerbooti

"One sleeps much more soundly at night, if one does not think too hard
 about the theory of the I Ching and synchronicity."
-Carl Jung

