Neil de Grasse Tyson and Death

[Calm]

Quote

James Randi would have paid out a million dollars for 35 out of 40 

Only if it could be replicated as far as I understand.  A one off occurrence could be chance.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Calm

[Eek!]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Only if it could be replicated as far as I understand.  A one off occurrence could be chance.

Of course it would have to be done under test conditions that Randi approved of.  But unless I am mistaken, demonstrating an ability that has a less than one-in-a-million probability of being due to random chance would meet the requirements he laid down. 

There were to be two tests, as I recall, the first demonstrating the claimed ability to a vetted volunteer academic (actually I think the requirement was that two vetted volunteer academics be present) under conditions that met Randi's criteria (as adapted by the academics to that particular case).  The probability bar was not as high at this first stage, my recollection is 1 in 100,000.  If the person passed the first stage, then came the final test with the probability bar set higher, at one-in-a-million.  I do not think the person was required to pass the final test more than once. 

No one ever made it past the first stage.

My understanding is that probabilities multiply, so if the first stage probability is 1 in 100,000, and the second stage probability is 1 in 1,000,000, then the probability of a person passing BOTH stages due to random chance would be on the order of 1 in 100,000,000,000.   In English, that's one in one hundred billion. 

So that would call for at least 32 out of 40 "guesses" correct at the first stage, and then at least 35 out of 40 at the second stage.  The odds against such results being due to random chance would be greater than a hundred billion to one.  I realize such results don't seem so improbable at first glance, but that's what the math says. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Eek!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But its not consciousness that has affects matter directly, its the results of actions of conscious beings that has an affect.  You wouldn't say that two bricks are conscious would you?  They can't act.  Trump has to take action by posting on social media for it to have an impact on others all over the world.  

Humans can create autonomous systems that can execute orders that have an impact on the world.  Automated robots have an impact on those around them.  Your smart thermostat will have an impact on you when it heats your home within the parameters of its programming.  But have any of these sophisticated systems reached a level of consciousness?  

I don't think anything created by mankind up to this point could pass the Turing test, but when something does at some point in the future, will that thing be conscious?  Will that created thing be experiencing consciousness equivalent or even superior to how human's perceive consciousness?  These are all questions I have that may be difficult to answer in the future.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

 

I think this discussion is beyond the abilities of those here.

http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-6-issue-1-article-28.annotate

http://positivists.org/blog/archives/5425

This may help, I don't know.  Like "existence" "consciousness" means pretty much whatever you want it to mean.  You are being held captive to a picture of "consciousness" which doesn't "exist"

And this is kind of a capsule of what my way of thinking is.

This is kind of for you and is more generalized.  This is about philosophical problems not being in the world but in language and is the larger answer to these problems

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTgy3WCT0UU

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

On 3/7/2018 at 5:47 PM, Eek! said:

Imo this would set the bar unreasonably high, but I don't think you realized that.

 

I think you're missing the main point.

You have an understanding of the probabilities involved, but you want to make some allowance where "psychic abilities" are the logical answer.

The problem is that in the history of people making claims for psychic abilities, no one has ever been able to do it when probability and proper controls are taken into account.  It's either explained by the statistics, or the conditions of the feat were performed in such a way that other non-supernatural explanations are also applicable.

It's like asking "under what conditions would it be logical to assume that someone who claims to be able to defy gravity and fly like Superman actually can?"

 

The experiment with the photons and the "double split" seems especially useless on two accounts.

First, it is an unnecessarily complicated "test" for an indeterminate ability.  The complicated nature of the apparatus and measurement make it very suspicious.  At least in your hypothetical, the results are clear and the statistics easily verified and repeatable.  But your test could still be simplified (for example, just have the computer randomly generate a 0 or 1, and have the person guess if it's a 0 or 1.)

Second, it is investigating a theorized ability which is totally useless.  If I told you I have the ability to see objects at a great distance, but it only allows me to see rocks on the surface of Jupiter, and if you give me the coordinates for any point on the planet's surface, I can tell you how many rocks are in that square kilometer, you might be impressed, but you also might wonder why anyone should care?

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

On 3/7/2018 at 4:30 PM, Eek! said:

Suppose I got 23 right out of 40.  The odds of getting at least 23 out of 40 right are .2147925392 (the bottom-most readout), or a little bit higher than 2 in 10.   It would be up to me to decide whether that means anything (nope), and I would not expect my test to have any validity for anyone else, because I would be the only one who could possibly have confidence that there really was no cheating or cherry-picking of the data.  

It should also be pointed out that people convince themselves that they have psychic powers all the time.  Designing a test, then testing yourself and being the judge of the results is probably the worst possible way to test for supernatural abilities.

Also, if anyone is interested in psychic tests and some of the blind spots or pitfalls that can be missed, I highly recommend learning about James Randi's "Project Alpha", where he had two magicians participate in telekinesis testing (unbeknownst to the testers).  You can guess how it turned out.

This seems especially relevant:

Quote

During one type of telepathy test, a subject would be given a sealed envelope containing a picture drawn from a target pool. Left alone with the envelope, the subject would subsequently surrender the envelope to the experimenter, who would examine it for signs of tampering. The subject would then announce his selection for the target pool. This series of tests was quite successful – though not overly so, because the boys realized that 100 percent might be suggestive of trickery. They purposely minimized their success. The method was easy. Since the envelope was “sealed” only with a few staples, they removed them, peeked, and then replaced the staples through the original holes! In one case, Michael lost two staples, and to cover this he opted to open the envelope himself upon confronting the experimenter. The breach of protocol was accepted. The subject had been allowed to shape the experiment.

You can imagine how effective a "self test" would be for someone who thought they were psychic!

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The experiment with the photons and the "double split" seems especially useless

First, it is an unnecessarily complicated "test" for an indeterminate ability.  The complicated nature of the apparatus and measurement make it very suspicious.  

Second, it is investigating a theorized ability which is totally useless.  

The double slit experiment is not a novel experiment.  It is pretty well accepted in the scientific community.  There was only a slight modification in the application of the experiment in this case, and is no more “complicated” then other well accepted double slit studies.

Second, I wouldn’t call the knowledge gained from this study as useless.  If valid, it creates all sorts of interesting possibilities in new research and potential discovery.  If it can be demonstrated that consciousness can indeed affect matter, the implications are HUGE for science!

Edited March 9, 2018 by pogi

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Just now, pogi said:

If valid, it creates all sorts of interesting possibilities in new research and potential discovery

Okay, but our first step is to define consciousness. For me consciousness is simply our spirit. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

  If it can be demonstrated that consciousness can indeed affect matter, the implications are HUGE for science!

Pogi, scientists need priorities because money and time are limited.  Scientists can't investigate all possibilities. 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, but our first step is to define consciousness. For me consciousness is simply our spirit. 

Pogi, scientists need priorities because money and time are limited.  Scientists can't investigate all possibilities. 

If meditation can affect the path of photons, it doesn’t matter how you define consciousness, the results would still have huge implications for science.

To your second point, who are you to tell scientists what their priority should be?  Some scientists devote all their energies to the study of dung beetles or ants...  priority is in the eye of the beholder.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

To your second point, who are you to tell scientists what their priority should be?  Some scientists devote all their energies to the study of dung beetles or ants...  priority is in the eye of the beholder.

For sure Pogi, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince them.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

If meditation can affect the path of photons, it doesn’t matter how you define consciousness, the results would still have huge implications for science.

It may be just our perception Pogi . The Biocentric Universe theory offers another explanation, but I admit is is just an idea. It is very easy to think of new ideas

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For sure Pogi, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince them.

It may be just our perception Pogi.

There are obviously interested scientists or the studies wouldn’t have been performed in the first place.

Everything is a matter of perception, but what are you talking about exactly?  What might be “just our perception”?  The study results?  Is that your way of dismissing scientific studies?  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is that your way of dismissing scientific studies?  

What studies?  Do you mean research studies concluding that meditation affects matter? I would like some references please.

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Everything is a matter of perception, but what are you talking about exactly?

Your "Meditation affects matter" Theory is no more scientific than my Biocentric Universe theory. There are a lot of different ideas that haven't been proven.

Edited March 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

What studies?  Do you mean research studies concluding that meditation affects matter? I would like some references please.

Your "Meditation affects matter" Theory is no more scientific than my Biocentric Universe theory. There are a lot of different ideas that haven't been proven.

Follow along please.  It’s already been given.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 3/7/2018 at 7:45 PM, pogi said:

I believe that these are the studies he referenced in the video.  In the video he gives the names of the scientists who have independently replicated the results and have published their results as well.  I don't know where to find those. 

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2012doubleslit.pdf

Pogi, did you check the impact factor of the Physics Essays Journal? In 2013 Physics Essays only had an impact factor of 0.245. You are a smart guy Pogi, you should know better.

Edited March 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Pogi, did you check the impact factor of the Physics Essays Journal? In 2013 Physics Essays only had an impact factor of 0.245. You are a smart guy Pogi, you should know better.

I am smarter than to dismiss evidence outright because the journal it was published in has a lower impact.

See: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/hate-journal-impact-factors-new-study-gives-you-one-more-reason

What you are telling me is that you can’t refute the evidence (and probably haven’t even read the studies) and instead you will wrongly dismiss evidence outright because it was published in a lower impact journal. 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am smarter than to dismiss evidence outright because the journal it was published in has a lower impact.

I am not dismissing anything Pogi, but scientific studies are written for other trained scientists. You don't have the training to analyze a physics paper Pogi. We shouldn't dismiss interesting possibilities, but we must be very careful. If you have studies published in better known Journals please let us know. It is more about "Who or what can we trust"?

Your article reports, "But that number is easily misinterpreted. For example, if the citation counts of articles were like the heights of people, then the average number would be informative. Men are taller than women, on average, and indeed you can do better than random at predicting the height of people knowing nothing more than their sex. But for the articles published in any given journal, the distribution of citations is highly skewed. A small fraction of influential papers get most of the citations, whereas the vast majority of papers get few or none at all. So the average number of citations is often highly misleadin"

Pogi, the height of people is a bad analogy because  0.245 is very very low. 0.245 is lower than the impact factor of DeNovo Journal of Science, a journal that published papers on  Nessie the Loch Ness Monster.

Edited March 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The double slit experiment is not a novel experiment.  It is pretty well accepted in the scientific community.  There was only a slight modification in the application of the experiment in this case, and is no more “complicated” then other well accepted double slit studies.

Second, I wouldn’t call the knowledge gained from this study as useless.  If valid, it creates all sorts of interesting possibilities in new research and potential discovery.  If it can be demonstrated that consciousness can indeed affect matter, the implications are HUGE for science!

The problem is that when it comes to quantum physics and hokum, we need to be more vigilant, not less.  Anytime we hear someone make a claim and try to tie it back to "quantum physics", we need to ask if it could be "quantum woo."

Quote

Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics. Buzzwords like "energy field", "probability wave", or "wave-particle duality" are used to magically turn thoughts into something tangible in order to directly affect the universe. This results in such foolishness as the Law of Attraction or quantum healing. Some have turned quantum woo into a career, such as Deepak Chopra, who often presents ill-defined concepts of quantum physics as proof for God and other magical thinking.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that when it comes to quantum physics and hokum, we need to be more vigilant, not less.  Anytime we hear someone make a claim and try to tie it back to "quantum physics", we need to ask if it could be "quantum woo."

I’m not sure I understand your concern here.  How is this double slit study “less vigilant” then other double slit studies?

Quantum woo?  There is no “obfuscatory reference” to quantum mechanics in this study.  There is no empty claim here.  These are actual studies with actual results, which people are free to evaluate, critique, and replicate independently (which has been done). What exactly makes these studie invalid and unsatisfactorily vigilant?

Edited March 10, 2018 by pogi

[Eek!]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

You have an understanding of the probabilities involved

Thank you for acknowledging that.

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

but you want to make some allowance where "psychic abilities" are the logical answer.

Nope.  I do not want the deck stacked either way.  If you decide in advance that psychic abilities cannot exist, that stacks the deck one way, because you will probably tend to ignore evidence that they do.  If I decide in advance that psychic abilities do exist, that stacks the deck the other way, because I will probably tend to ignore evidence that they do not.

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's like asking "under what conditions would it be logical to assume that someone who claims to be able to defy gravity and fly like Superman actually can?"

I'm asking about testing for the existence of an ability.  If it doesn't exist, a useful test should fail to find evidence of its existence.  If it does exist, a useful test should succeed in finding evidence of its possible existence.  And there may be an in-between range of results that we'd call "inconclusive." 

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that in the history of people making claims for psychic abilities, no one has ever been able to do it when probability and proper controls are taken into account.  It's either explained by the statistics, or the conditions of the feat were performed in such a way that other non-supernatural explanations are also applicable.

I don't have the energy to go looking for evidence that you have already dismissed in advance.  I am not an expert on the history of psychic claims, so that would take me a lot more time than I want to spend.  Just for the record, I will concede that by far most people would agree with you.

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

At least in your hypothetical, the results are clear and the statistics easily verified and repeatable.  But your test could still be simplified (for example, just have the computer randomly generate a 0 or 1, and have the person guess if it's a 0 or 1.)

Thank you.  

I won't bore you with the details, but my understanding of the way the "randomize timer" function works in Basic led me to construct the test the way I did.  Actually I ran one randomizer and used the result to seed the second one... oops, sorry, that was boring.

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

...it is investigating a theorized ability which is totally useless.  If I told you I have the ability to see objects at a great distance, but it only allows me to see rocks on the surface of Jupiter, and if you give me the coordinates for any point on the planet's surface, I can tell you how many rocks are in that square kilometer, you might be impressed, but you also might wonder why anyone should care?

AGREED!  Useless facts are utterly useless!!

But the principle(s) used to discover otherwise hidden useless facts just might be useful.  However your example of rocks on Jupiter is about something that cannot be verified, so it would be useless to you if used as a test, and irrelevant to me.

The results of each guess on my computer program are verifiable by me, so the results are potentially useful to me.  And irrelevant to anyone else because I would be the only one who could have confidence that I didn't cheat or cherry-pick my data. 

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

It should also be pointed out that people convince themselves that they have psychic powers all the time.  Designing a test, then testing yourself and being the judge of the results is probably the worst possible way to test for supernatural abilities.

That is why I asked Physics Guy to critique my test. 

Perhaps a bit more background would clear things up a bit.  I read a book by Matthew Fox and Rupert Sheldrake entitled "Natural Grace".  In the book the authors refer to several different types of controlled testing done under rigorous laboratory conditions, with seemingly competent analysis of the results (including probabilities where applicable), which seemed to indicate the existence of what we could broadly call "psychic abilities".  I had never heard of anything like this before.  There were controlled double-blind tests of prayer being conducted!!  It had never occurred to me that something like prayer could be tested in a controlled laboratory environment and actually give statistically significant results.  I looked up some of the sources cited and they existed and made the claims the book attributed to them, which only indicated that the authors of my book weren't manufacturing sources - it gave no indication as to whether the results reported by the sources were genuine.  But this certainly piqued my interest.

So here were my four choices: 

1.  Dismiss the claims because, well, there's just no way. 

2.  Classify the claims as "maybe" and put them in my mental junk closet and move on.

3.  Accept the claims as probably valid.

4.  Test the claims for myself. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Eek!

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I am smarter than to dismiss evidence outright because the journal it was published in has a lower impact.

See: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/hate-journal-impact-factors-new-study-gives-you-one-more-reason

What you are telling me is that you can’t refute the evidence (and probably haven’t even read the studies) and instead you will wrongly dismiss evidence outright because it was published in a lower impact journal. 

 

I just want to clarify. The  journal impact factor shouldn't be used by reviewers, but a low number is a good reason to more careful. Just because a journal has a low number doesn't mean it publishes nonsense, it only means the journal not well known.  There are many predatory journals online and we have to be careful.

Edited March 10, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Eek! said:

4.  Test the claims for myself. 

Just curious about your test.  Not saying that there is anything wrong with your methods, but couldnt You get the same results by flipping a coin?  If you could get the same results with high volume coin tosses, say 1,000 coin tosses or more, that would be seriously impressive!  Because larger volume attempts are more likely to average around 50%, and leave less room for chance outlier results.  That’s seems like an easy enough, fail proof test to perform.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not dismissing anything Pogi

Ok good, because when you said this, "You are a smart guy Pogi, you should know better"  I thought you were blindly dismissing and judging the study (and me) without even reading it. I am glad to see that you have come around. 

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You don't have the training to analyze a physics paper Pogi. 

How do you know what my training is?  Are you professing psychic ability...spooky!  By the way, the way you keep using my name (pogi) to rub things in comes off as demeaning for some reason. I am well trained in analyzing scientific papers (medical mostly).  I have to keep up to date with medical journals in my profession. I don't need to know physics very well to analyze the methods, procedure, and results in this study.  It is not much different from medical papers. 

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

We shouldn't dismiss interesting possibilities, but we must be very careful. If you have studies published in better known Journals please let us know. It is more about "Who or what can we trust"?

Why does it sound like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth?  "we should dismiss it, but unless you have references to better journals, I am going to pretty much dismiss it."

I am not asking anyone to accept this as proof of anything.  I certainly don't accept this as a closed case, but I found it compelling enough to warrant further research and to keep an open mind.  The fact that it has been independently replicated by two other scientists is even more compelling.

Edited March 10, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I just want to clarify. The  journal impact factor shouldn't be used by reviewers, but a low number is a good reason to more careful. Just because a journal has a low number doesn't mean it publishes nonsense, it only means the journal not well known.  There are many predatory journals online and we have to be careful.

Glad to see you are coming around.  Yes, caution is always warranted.  Now, do you have anything to contribute to our discussion about these particular studies?

[Eek!]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Just curious about your test.  Not saying that there is anything wrong with your methods, but couldn't you get the same results by flipping a coin?

In theory perhaps.   I posted this ramble on page 2: 

"At first I was thinking of just tossing a coin.  I read about that, and apparently whichever side is up when the person begins the toss is very slightly more likely to be the side that's up when the coin lands.  And my coordination is poor, so some tosses would be really bad, but should those then be excluded?  I also considered rolling dice, shaking dice in a cup, and shaking a coin in a cup.  Of course I would see which side was up to start with, and I think that side would have a very slightly higher probability of being the one that ends up being up, and that thought in and of itself could skew my guesses.   I think that the "randomize timer" function in Basic probably comes closer to being truly random than any of these, and having a computer program keep track of the score would give me one less mistake to make."

18 hours ago, pogi said:

If you could get the same results with high volume coin tosses, say 1,000 coin tosses or more, that would be seriously impressive!  Because larger volume attempts are more likely to average around 50%, and leave less room for chance outlier results.  That’s seems like an easy enough, fail proof test to perform.

Totally valid, but I don't have a long enough attention span for a thousand trials. 

My recollection from my college statistics class is that thirty-something trials of this sort ("binomial") would be enough for statistically valid results.  I think the number was 36 or 37, but no longer remember how the number was determined.  My recollection is that "confidence" passed a certain threshold given a sufficient number of trials, the word "confidence" having a specific meaning in statistics that refers to a calculated percentage value.

This might be of interest:  https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Java/Html/BinHist.htm

It's a binomial distribution calculator.  "n" is the number of trials (40 in my case), and "p" is the probability of success in each trial (.50, or "50-50").  The graph will then show you how probable the different outcomes are.  The graph communicates the probability of a given outcome better than expressing the probability as a number. 

If you enter 40 for the number of trials ("n"), you will see that 10 or less correct, and 30 or more correct, are fairly improbable outcomes.   Though the fraction of correct answers is the same, the probability of 3 out of 4 correct is far higher than the probability of 30 out of 40 correct.  That trend continues - take a look at where 300 out of 400 falls on the probability distribution curve. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Eek!

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Eek! said:

In theory perhaps.   I posted this ramble on page 2: 

Ah yes, my bad! 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Ok good, because when you said this, "You are a smart guy Pogi, you should know better"  I thought you were blindly dismissing and judging the study (and me) without even reading it. I am glad to see that you have come around.

It is possible. Radin could be a modern Einstein.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 I am well trained in analyzing scientific papers (medical mostly).  I have to keep up to date with medical journals in my profession. I don't need to know physics very well to analyze the methods, procedure, and results in this study.  It is not much different from medical papers.

How are you going to analyze the methods and the results without knowing Physics?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Why does it sound like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth?  "we should dismiss it, but unless you have references to better journals, I am going to pretty much dismiss it."

I am not asking anyone to accept this as proof of anything.  I certainly don't accept this as a closed case, but I found it compelling enough to warrant further research and to keep an open mind.  The fact that it has been independently replicated by two other scientists is even more compelling.

I don't dismiss it as a possibility, but I won't believe it until I see references to better journals. If you were a betting man would you put all of your money on Physics Essays or on a journal with a much higher JIF number?

Edited March 10, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite