StarGate presentation
Here's a video presentation of a piece of the history of the psi research program funded by the US government, code named StarGate, as told by the first director of that effort. Of particular interest is how that program dealt with incessant skepticism within the classified community, even in the face of repeatable, demonstrable successes.
I have a certain compassion for staunch skeptics today who find it impossible to believe that psi is real. I suspect that if I hadn't witnessed a portion of StarGate's history first hand, and if I hadn't worked with or known many of the individuals involved in that program, I'd be skeptical too.
I have a certain compassion for staunch skeptics today who find it impossible to believe that psi is real. I suspect that if I hadn't witnessed a portion of StarGate's history first hand, and if I hadn't worked with or known many of the individuals involved in that program, I'd be skeptical too.
Comments
For some reason the people who are likely real out there don't get nearly as much attention as the frauds. That is not only true with this topic, but ufology and many other esoteric topics.
I am also very interested in the 'associative remote viewing'. I would like to try that with investments and what-not. Are there any books or articles about that technique Dean?
When I click on your link, I am told I can't view it from the UK! Is there any chance of fixing this problem, as it sounds interesting!
http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/contact
Or, you can download this document
www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Bremseth.pdf
which provides much of the same history (in shorter form), written by a Navy SEAL commander in 2001.
For info on Associative Remote Viewing, if you Google that phrase you'll find lots of sites. One that provides a good outline is this
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/faq024.cfm
Here's another:
http://p-i-a.edu/Protocols/EDU/ARV_Background.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3h62r2
or anything here:
http://www.nemoseen.com/
Is there a youtube copy.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/psychology.html
All the best!
Greg
For example, if you read some of Martin Gardner's books and believe in Gardner's rhetoric, you'll end with a very negative view of researchers like Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. Gardner gives a picture of them as low-rate credulous scientists. He scoffs and debunk them with high-loaded rhetoric.
Recently, I talked with a well-known philosopher (I won't mention him), and when I asked him about psi research and its importance to philosophy, he said: "I don't have time to waste reading about it. Parapsychology have been discredited by decades of experimental fraud"
Obviously, he is misinformed. That a well respected intellectual think like that isn't excusable.
When I asked him for his sources or references, he replied: "Read the Skeptic's Handbook on parapsychology, and Martin Gardner's books"
I don't feel compassion by profesional skeptics, because many of they act with a intentional agenda to fool the public and academy (maybe there are exceptions). However, I feel compassion for intelligent scientists and thinkers who are misinformed by the skeptical propaganda.
If every college student were taught the history, philosophy and sociology of science, then except for the occasional super-egotist, I doubt that we'd see many more people willing to proudly call themselves professional skeptics.
Not viewable from Canada.
Is there a youtube copy.
I guess the moral from that, is that the video on remote viewing is not itself remote-viewable!
Gardner also tried to make David Bohm out to be a credulous, slack-thinking and fervent "believer". I look forward to the day when no attention is paid to this kind of smearing.
Slightly off-topic: Anyone read Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley's 'The Mind And The Brain'? Focuses primarily on neuroplasticity but is an excellent critique of the materialistic and Cartesian approaches to consciousness that is the starting point for the oft-referenced paradigm shift that seems to be on the horizon.
Dean: Agreed re skeptics. Though Randi, Wiseman and Shermer's efforts to debunk Rupert's dog work were so manifestly bogus as to nullify any comment. Same for Dawkins.
Gardner also tried to make David Bohm out to be a credulous, slack-thinking and fervent "believer". I look forward to the day when no attention is paid to this kind of smearing
I'd include "skeptic" Stephen Barrett:
http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html
I agree with Dean that professional skeptics see their position as self-evident; and as consequence, any person who present evidence to the contrary is incompetent or a fraud. (In skeptic's mind, you can't present evidence for a non-existent phenomenon)
But in my opinion, the above is one of the professional skeptic's motivation to spread misleading information about psi science. If they "know" that psi doesn't exist, then (in their mind) it seems justified to lie and debunk psi research and parapsychologists (e.g. Dawkins, Wolpert, Shermer, Wiseman, Randi's lies about Sheldrake's research; or Barrett about alternative medicine)
Also, I think it's correct to teach college students about philosophy, sociology and history of science. They'd learn about paradigms and how novel discoveries are received by mainstream science. Henry Bauer has good books about it.
Bharat, maybe you have interest in the following paper (about quantum mechanics and consciousness) written by Jeffrey Schwartz, Mario Beauregard and Henry Stapp:
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf
The best book I've read about a non-materialistic neuroscience is Mario Beauregard's "The Spiritual Brain". It contains a good summary of psi evidence too.
Zetetic_Chick: Yes, I've read the Stapp, Schwartz, Beauregard paper before as I am a very big fan of Stapp and Schwartz. However, what you have alerted me to that I had absolutely no idea about was that Beauregard is interested in psi. I will be checking this out, thank you!
I'm interested in exploring ways to develop sensitivity and/or proficiency (not sure of the right way to put it) to/with extrasensory experiences. For example, I think I recall reading (perhaps in The Conscious Universe) about how researchers in this area would sometimes provide people with some instruction or training to maximize the chances of positive effects...? Are there recommended books, CDs, websites, or other resources with instructions, meditation guides, exercises, a training regimen, or whatever else, designed specifically with the goal of enhancing one's extrasensory experiences?
I came across Learning to Use Extrasensory Perception by Charles T. Tart on Amazon, but I'd rather have some scientifically minded people here point me in the right direction on this topic.
I didn’t change my mind because I suddenly became a seasoned and mature scientist, ready to join the scientific community and contribute to well-informed research. I changed my mind because of anomalous experiences that under my current circumstances I feel compelled to conceal from anyone I might chose to work with. I’m sure there must be others out there like me. Hopefully one day it will be possible not only for scientists to investigate the existence and mechanisms of psi without losing credibility, but it may even be socially acceptable for a scientist to admit to unusual experiences that could possibly be explained by such phenomenon.
I think that if more senior figures came out with their experiences, this might help. Anyone remember AJ Ayer's NDE and the opprobrium he incurred? I think the situation might be somewhat different today.
Publications like 'Entangled Minds', Schwartz's 'The Mind And Brain', Stapp's 'The Mindful Universe', Beuregard's 'The Spiritual Brain' etc. are extremely important and bode well.
Sandy, have you heard of the Scientific and Medical Network? That's a place for scientists to freely discuss such ideas without fear: www.scimednet.org
Thank you for the link. I checked it out and was interested in some of the subsequent links to information about NDEs. They were very helpful. It is nice to think that what’s wrong with me may not be entirely my fault after all.
I found Dr Radin’s book, Entangled Minds, similarly comforting.
Rick, maybe the next paper of Beauregard titled "Mind does really matter: Evidence from neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and placebo effect" be of your interest:
http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/beauregm/Beauregard2007_Progress.pdf
Publications like 'Entangled Minds', Schwartz's 'The Mind And Brain', Stapp's 'The Mindful Universe', Beuregard's 'The Spiritual Brain' etc. are extremely important and bode well
Apart of those excellent books (all of them a must read), I'd recommend (for a study of philosophy, history and sociology of science) the following:
-Henry Bauer's book Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method.
-Henry Bauer's Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science
-Jeremy Northcote's The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account (I think Dean commented about it in another post)
Sandy, have you heard of the Scientific and Medical Network? That's a place for scientists to freely discuss such ideas without fear
I think we also should give active support and credit to the Journal of Scientific Exploration:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts.php
All the previous issues can be downloaded there.
Maybe, that is the only serious scientific journal dealing with controversial and unorthodox topics from a rigurous and scientific point of view.
If more professional scientists (and other academics) subscribe themselves to that Journal, it would be very positive to stimulate the scientific study and interest by Academia for those topics.
ZC
Here is a link to what I assume is the same video, but visible without a country restriction:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1410385325&channel=1378401810
http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/
Here's an afternoon session that features Schwartz, Stapp and Beauregard that mentions psi research in a positive light (remember, this is a huge UN symposium) around the 1hr 27 min mark:
http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/audio/morning_panel.mp3
Any thoughts, Dean? (and all others, of course)
I was recommended to be one of the speakers at this conference by Mario Beauregard. I later learned I was not invited due (I gather) to at least one of the organizers wanting to avoid bringing up the controversial hot topic of psi. Seems they couldn't avoid it entirely!
The social hyper-sensitivity to psi is an ongoing problem in US academia. It is far less of a problem in other countries.
Unfortunately, the science media has begun something of a furore over this issue:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html?DCMP=ILC-tabCom&nsref=mg20026793.000
So many non-sequiturs, strawmen and the usual assortment of biases and dismissive undertones that I'm not sure the article even merits comment.
That article, the author writes: "They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul"
Cartesian dualism haven't been dead; it's only not fashionable in mainstream academia. Materialism have been adopted as a default position.
Recently, materialist philosopher of mind William Lycan conceded that: I have been a materialist about the mind for forty years, since first I considered the mind-body issue. In all that time I have seen exactly one argument for mind-body dualism that I thought even prima facie convincing.<1>. And like many other materialists, I have often quickly cited standard objections to dualism that are widely taken to be fatal<2>—notoriously the dread Interaction Problem. My materialism has never wavered. Nor is it about to waver now; I cannot take dualism very seriously.
Being a philosopher, of course I would like to think that my stance is rational, held not just instinctively and scientistically and in the mainstream but because the arguments do indeed favor materialism over dualism. But I do not think that, though I used to. My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it: Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism. And the standard objections to dualism are not very convincing; if one really manages to be a dualist in the first place, one should not be much impressed by them. My purpose in this paper is to hold my own feet to the fire and admit that I do not proportion my belief to the evidence
So, if arguments for materialism fails too, why do materialists accept their view as a proven fact? Are they being rational?
The evidence of neuroscience is consistent both with materialism and dualism:
http://www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com/Does-consciousness.pdf
The adventage of dualism is that it offers room to explain phenomena like psi and other scientific anomalies (e.g. the veridical cases of NDEs). Materialists can only repeat ad nausseam "there is no evidence", or cry fraud.
Also, the inconsistences of materialism makes it a position very hard to defend:
http://xoomer.alice.it/fedeescienza/brainandmind.html
ZC
Hmm, a new TV show: When Materialists Attack!
I think what we're really looking at here is the final death rattle of reductionism. I've always seen it as a grossly oversimplistic way of regarding the cosmos. In the history of science, the simple, neat solution has almost always been superseded in time by something far more subtle and complex, as with Newtonian physics leading to relativity leading to QM. The impulse to wrap everything up in a neat package (such as with the futile, I believe, pursuit of a theory of everything) is one of science's uglier and more damaging tendencies, leaving a scorched path of unconventional ideas in its wake.
Book-surgeon: Likewise. I should say that I don't actually mind the reductionist *method*, it's been astonishingly useful. What I do mind is adopting it as a worldview that brooks no dissent.
The wonderful Noam Chomsky was on a Humanist radio show a little while ago and gave a little critique of evolutionary psychology (he's done so in greater detail elsewhere) and when asked about free will, he outlined the three levels of confidence one can have in a phenomena (as originally formulated by Russell), highest to lowest:
1/ One's own personal experience.
2/ The personal experience of another.
3/ What science makes of these phenomena.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Also, book_surgeon, regarding a theory of everything, Bernard Carr and Sir Roger Penrose have both expressed an uncomfortability with a ToE (if there is one) that doesn't include consciousness.
Plus, I recommend Paul Davies's last book, 'The Goldilocks Enigma' where he outlines a vague model of how the verification of Wheeler's 'delayed choice' experiments could permit a form of subtle teleology. Briefly, he is with David Deutsch on the possibility of the universe being omniscient and being saturated with mind in the future (I think this is to do with the quantum theory of computation which - as far as I can tell - is based on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM) which could thus affect the past permitting a subtle teleology. I like this because it seems to be in keeping with the philosophies of those who have studied consciousness (Hindus, Buddhists etc.) for centuries who say similar things but also because if such a view is expanded, then psi might be viewed as being not just ordinary, but actually rather mundane and predictable.
Courage! (As Dean said)
You can read it here:
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Du.htm
ZC
Thanks for the interesting link to William Lycan's paper.
It is strange how he seems wedded to materialism while demolishing some/most of the arguments in its favour!
As far as I can see, the existence of a single Ψ phenomenon would more or less rule out a materialistic explanation of consciousness.
I also think people like Greyson and Newberg should get more air time. Both these are clear, consistent, grounded, convey the essence of these phenomena and are charismatic speakers that hold the audiences attention.
And some of the calmness of Stapp should merge with some of the fighting spirit of Schwartz and vice versa :D
There was a paper in Nature in 2005 called 'the mental universe' that emphasises the role of 'mind' in all of QM. In it, John Hopkins University physicist states: "The Universe is entirely mental" and that "The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."
Citation:
'The Mental Universe' by Richard Conn Henry
Nature 436, no. 29 (July 7, 2005)
Best wishes to all.
There was a paper in Nature in 2005 called 'the mental universe' that emphasises the role of 'mind' in all of QM. In it, John Hopkins University physicist states: "The Universe is entirely mental" and that "The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."
I can remember when Nature published that article.
I was a student doing my masters in physics at the time, and had just experienced the kind of emotional turmoil discussing mind and consciousness vs. QM generated amongst physicists. And then conservative Nature let Richard Conn Henry loose. I was flabbergasted and extremely inspired by that article.
About the symposium, there was a good point given as the afternoon panel debate ended.
Putting pictures below the roof so that patients having a NDE and an OBE could report these images when coming back won't necessarily work because of the radical different state of consciousness.
We don't seem to work the same way when we start to disconnect from our body. Even the different states of consciousness most of us are able to experience while we live our normal bodily lives should tell us that it is far from a straight forward assumption that anyone will notice those pictures.
That doesn't mean these kinds of studies shouldn't be done. But I wouldn't get my hopes high for a "final proof" of this being illusions or actual non-corporeal consciousness floating around, as Parnia seemed to think this can be. It won't prove or disprove anything about survival whatever the outcome. It will only add more data to the bucket. At best it can give additional evidence for clairvoyance or precognition, that as far as I am concerned, we already know exist.
Of course, what the NDE suggest as a phenomena in itself, is another issue that I think we should take very seriously.
I dislike that well documented and controlled anecdotal evidence has such little value in science today. Good cases, and especially in high numbers should count as real data. It's too easy to say it's just anecdotal so I don't need to consider it.
Another thing, Tor: Is there actually any difference in practical terms between Copenhagen and 'consciousness creates reality'? I know Copenhagen doesn't mention consciousness as such but in practical terms, surely there can't be that much of a difference?
Newberg mentioned some work with Brasilian mediums, either that took a lot of guts on his part or the UN crowd were seriously open-minded. Or both.
This is good.
"We don't seem to work the same way when we start to disconnect from our body."
Such a simple statement, but it sure hits home. No one ever warns you when wake up in the hospital after an NDE that this is an experience that goes way beyond that relatively short period of ‘disconnection’. Before my experience, I happily made a living as an artist and musician. After the NDE, I reinvented myself as a scientist. My then-husband accused me of being some sort of changeling; he remained convinced that his ‘real’ wife had died.
Such experiences are not uncommon, yet very few people seem to know this. I didn’t know about this myself until just over a week ago. Maybe we can’t demonstrate what exactly is going on during the NDE itself, but there must be some way to measure the before and after effects on the lives of the people who have them. There has to be some clue there as to what is actually going on when we disconnect.
Perhaps this is just hitting too close to home for me to be objective. Fifteen years later, I’m still wondering if I’m ever going to completely ‘reconnect’.
Is there actually any difference in practical terms between Copenhagen and 'consciousness creates reality'? I know Copenhagen doesn't mention consciousness as such but in practical terms, surely there can't be that much of a difference?
The way I see it, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't rule out such a view. So in practical terms I agree with you bharat. The funny thing about all these interpretations is that they themselves are all being interpreted.
The Copenhagen interpretation needs something to do the famous "collapse of the wavefunction". Many physicists today get uncomfortable when consciousness is introduced to do the collapse, so they avoid this at all costs.
From my understanding of the issue though, I can't see how our mind/consciousness can be left out of QM.
Henry Stapp has shown that something that is not described in the equations is needed to make QM work . And he argues quite convincingly that this something seems to have to do with our mind/consciousness.
The leap between the need for a something to make things work, and to say that this final something is consciousness, is in the end a pure leap of faith if you only think about the theory. But I do not think it is a big and unreasonable leap.
Luckily for us, we have people like Dean Radin that has done some experimental work also to test the QM vs. consciousness/mind connection. Having read through this I'd say consciousness is something quite fundamental.
I've never had an NDE myself, but a few years ago I had an experience that I think is the same as "meeting the light" that so many NDErs talk about.
It sounds a bit cliche, but I experienced unconditional love, and it totally blew away my earlier notion of this. I know I can't describe to people what really happened then since words don't do it. This is something that needs to be experienced.
I had a positive high the next two days, and then the feeling gradually normalized itself. But the memory of this experience still remains strong. I has been the most most powerful experience of my life so far.
Part 1:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1410385325&channel=1378401810
Part 2:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1416618503&channel=1378401810
Hope this works.
There is a book by Euan Squires titled The Mystery of the Quantum World.
It's a very interesting book about quantum mechanics, and its interpretations.
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/
Get the popcorn out.