Do you think noetic science is a real possibility?

Dan Brown is a fiction writer.

No.

I don’t know what noetic science is. My answer is based on seeing the name “Dan Brown” in your question.

(I) The RNG thing is likely to be a function of publication bias (that is, folks who find correlation, publish, those who don’t move on).

(II) Wishing doesn’t make it so, sorry Sinatra.

@Snarp But he, in the beginning of his book stated that all tech., sciences, ets. are real.. :( which is the very reason I asked this question…

@grumpyfish Oh, I see… On your ssecond point, my only response is a small chuckle.. :)

@frigate1985 He said that about other books too, and he may have believed it, but if so he was wrong. I wouldn’t believe anything that came out of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, nor would I trust Brown’s ability to accurately portray science.

Yes, I do tend to believe that there is some basis for noetics. Ever since the Aspect experiments discovered that information transferrence can be instantanious at the quantum level ( thus side-stepping lightspeed as the upper limit in the universe ), I have thought that what some call prayer or meditation has a quantum-level effect since it seems to work ( especially in healing ) instantaneously. I realize that many will scoff at this, but I remember a time when almost every recent advance in science was scoffed at too. There is far, far more to the universe than is drempt of in ANYONE’S philosophy.

@Snarp Hmm.. yeah he DOES make some very weird stuff seem true… :)
@CaptainHarley Indeed.. I think that the idea that humans are using only 2% of their brain is true no? That could mean a lot of things could be hidden under our consciousness.. who knows? Maybe we could use telekinesis or sth.. :)

@frigate1985 =) As was the intention!

@CaptainHarley Ansibles don’t work, at least as far as we understand the physics so far: Quantum Entanglement can’t transmit real information faster than light…

@frigate1985 Humans use all of their brain. That 2% thing was just made up.

@ Frigate… yes, that’s true. The human brain is marvelously complex, but every part serves a necessary function. Real-time brain scans display use of brain matter under varying conditions, and far more than 2% can be in use at any given time, depending upon task.

@Snarp Seriously? Aw, man… and here I was, thinking about all the things mankind could do…

@CaptainHarley Mmm yea it would be a shame to be only able to use 2% of my brain to solve the incredibly difficult trig questions my teacher forces us to solve :)

Calling him Vin Laden kind of confused me. I like it.

Vinny.

The results of my study show with 99% certainty (P=0.01) that it’s a load of crap.

@Jacket Mmm.. VInny, sounds affectionate… for someone who leads a group of anti-social terrorists, I think Vinny is rather inappropriate :)

@pdworkin Hmm? Do you study noetic science? Or do you study psychology? Just curious you know..it would be great to hear some expert opinion on this :)

I am a student of human nature.

@pdworkin Oh, I see. Well, I suppose I’ll have to believe ya :) If the universities and colleges say so, I ain’t arguing…

I do, but I’m basing that belief on this book.

I think Dan Brown’s work, while riveting, is a tool for misdirection when it comes to the divulging of that sort of info and “secrets.”

Your bin Laden example is a poor one. Many regard him as a hero. Others believe he is a red herring and is/was a CIA asset.

That bin Laden “chant,” if you will, has certainly allowed us to wipe bunch of Muslim men, women, and children off the face of the earth, so I suppose it’s working on some level.

The idea certainly puts mass media in a new perspective, doesn’t it?

@CaptainHarley Just to say, the aspect experiments (i assume you mean bell experiments on quantum entaglement? If not, sorry), have not proven that any useful information can be transmitted, as Pdworkin said. Einstein has yet to be proven wrong in that regard. While the bell experiments do show that quantum states can alter each other, this alteration is not able to be used as information. The problem being that the quantum states detected on one end are random, when taken by themselves. The only way to show they are non-random is to compare to the data of the first particle. At this point, it is shown to be non-random. However, you’ve now brought that data via normal methods, and so you have not had information travel faster then light.

At least, that’s how I understand it.

On your second point, It’s hightly debatable as to whether prayer can be shown to have any effect. A few trials have said so, but most of those are considered highly flawed (non-normalized data, non-double blind, etc). Four notable ones, carried out by the Mayo Clinic, Duke University, and two others published by the American Heart Journal, show that there is either no correlation, or even a decrease in health when the patients know they are being prayed for (perhaps a form of ‘performance anxiety’). Wiki for source.

Also, while again there have been some studies that have shown positive effects, most of these can be attributed to the placedo effect. That is, a patient may feel better/happier when knowing someone is praying for them, and this increase in morale has well studied effects on health, and doesn’t have to invoke any funny business with FTL travel.

Breaking it down. (way down)....our bodies have transmitters and receivers throughout,
constantly talking to one another. Run with that in thought and see where it takes you.

@ BhacSsylan… Did you read the last statement in my answer? At this point, we have NO idea what is and is not possible. The human race is still in its infancy and the discoveries of the next century will make the discoveries of the last look like the babblings of a toddler.

BTW: http://roxanne.roxanne.org/epr/experiment.html

@JessicaisinLove You mean vocal chords, ears, and nerves? That’s sort of like the difference between a wired phone and a cell phone….

@CaptainHarley However, you can’t just say that “because we are in our infancy, EVERYTHING is possible!” We can say “There is no currently known mechanism” or “All current studies are at the limit of detection” or more pessimistically, “All well-done studies are indistinguishable from random.” In some ways, your argument is along the lines of the “God of the gaps” arguments: things we don’t know are magic.

@grumpyfish The question was, “Do you think Noetic science is a real possibility.” My answer was yes because the current level of research leaves open the possibility, and because some findings on the leading edges of science indicate it as a possibility, not because I believe in “magic” or “the God of the gaps.” In my universe, science and belief are only apparently at odds because we simply don’t know enough, or because of the risidual effects of the Cartesian divide.

@CaptainHarley Good rebuttal! I now understand your position. Thanks =)

@grumpyfish… Thank you. : ))

Looks like somebody just got Dan Browned.

@CaptainHarley Sorry, I did read your answer all the way through. Here’s the thing, though. Your answer is perfectly acceptable, we obviously do not know all the answers. However, your facts do not back up your conclusions. We have no evidence of FTL information transmission being possible, neither do we have strong evidence that prayer can influence healing in any way other then a placebo effect. Scientifically, there is no reason for us to believe that either is possible. This is not to say that they are not possible. I’m simply showing that the evidence, currently, does not agree with your assertions.

I’m a scientist, by trade. I go with what the evidence shows. You give me hard, or even decent, evidence that either is possible, I will agree that it is a distinct possibility. But no evidence means it’s unfounded. Action at a distance, and FTL information, are both refuted by some of the most highly reputable theories of today. Is it possible they’re wrong? Certainty. They are ‘theories’ after all. But you have to show me a reason for thinking so first.