Mod+ Can you make a cloud disappear? An informal Skeptiko experiment.

#21
This isn't the science section. Nor is it a section for opinions. It's explore and implement. If you aren't doing either please respect those posting here who are. Thanks.
 
#22
This is a mod+ thread. There can be no suggestion that people are not bursting clouds with their minds here. By suggesting controls you are suggesting that they may not be accurately interpreting their experiences and that is also off limits here.
 
#23
Worthwhile looking at some time lapse films of clouds... perhaps like this one... to see what clouds actually do...


Clearly they are never static. Without me doing the slightest bit of research, I guess you would need to consider what is happening during the short period of time whilst you select a cloud. Would there have been sufficient time during the selection process for you to unconsciously sense whether the cloud was getting smaller or bigger?

I like to think about the tiny movements we see in another's face, from which we can sense their emotions. I'm often unconscious of the actual detail of the movements they are making, yet I can sense their emotion.

Staring at clouds might be rather like bringing a powerful unconscious process that perhaps deals with similar tiny movements (size and trajectory etc.) into your awareness. Over time I guess you could get quite good at sensing these underlying processes and learning to bring them into your awareness.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#24
I'll answer assuming your question is well-meant. No . .of course not. But critical has many different meanings. Examining one's/others results as a means to devise ways to enhance the actual exploring/doing is encouraged. Critical as used the common "science" approaches it is inappropriate in this section. Part of doing and exploring in these areas is moving beyond the limitation of relying solely or primarily on intellect to expand knowing.
I'm sorry, but the only thing I can glean from this remark is that enhancing exploration/doing must be protected from any suggestion that the exploratory methodology should be changed. Forget science. Forget intellect. Don't experimenters want to know how well they are doing at busting clouds with their minds?

~~ Paul
 
#25
.... Clearly they are never static. Without me doing the slightest bit of research, I guess you would need to consider what is happening during the short period of time whilst you select a cloud. Would there have been sufficient time during the selection process for you to unconsciously sense whether the cloud was getting smaller or bigger?

I like to think about the tiny movements we see in another's face, from which we can sense their emotions. I'm often unconscious of the actual detail of the movements they are making, yet I can sense their emotion.

Staring at clouds might be rather like bringing a powerful unconscious process that perhaps deals with similar tiny movements (size and trajectory etc.) into your awareness. Over time I guess you could get quite good at sensing these underlying processes and learning to bring them into your awareness.
Hi Max - your questions are perfectly reasonable. I gather you're trying to find a physicalist explanation - or perhaps just rule one out? Probably the former, methinks. (Paul A has also been offering alternative explanations).

I thought about using your video as a test case - do successive screen shots and follow all the small clouds - but we don't know what the time-compression is. It might be a useful experiment for somebody motivated to try to falsify my hypothesis, using a different video or making their own. As I stated earlier, when I do the experiment I watch all the clouds in the region - that is the control group.

Before I go any further, let me restate some stuff from the first paragraph introducing this thread: "I think many may find [this thread] interesting because it's something you can try yourself. If you do, please post your results - I'm genuinely curious about this. I'd be grateful if we could approach this with the agreement that, for our narrow purposes here, there is great deal of evidence that PK is real and we're just considering one possible example of that; if you believe PK is not real, that's a different discussion but please still consider doing the experiment."

So first, this is a do it yourself thread as emphasized by the first string of bold type in the above quote. If you do something useful, please tell us. I encourage you to follow up with action. If you want to come up with ways to falsify this hypothesis, by all means try them and post your results. But, as emphasized by the second string of bold type, if you're a devoted physicalist and want to discuss that, that's perfectly reasonable but this is not the place. Please?
 
#27
you gotta tune into the Mod+ thing a little better. pls don't post further in this thread.
Listen everyone: if you don't like what people are posting, try the new ignore feature: it's wonderful: the usual suspects simply disappear, even their quotes in other people's posts. Just click on the offender's name and then select "ignore". Hey presto! they're gone and are deprived of oxygen.
 
#28
I'm sorry, but the only thing I can glean from this remark is that enhancing exploration/doing must be protected from any suggestion that the exploratory methodology should be changed. Forget science. Forget intellect. Don't experimenters want to know how well they are doing at busting clouds with their minds?

~~ Paul
My growing amazement is genuine. I mean . you really don't get it. You say "exploratory methodology" but that is not what you are talking about. You are talking about the parameters and methodologies of "scientific" experimentation. You claim " Forget science. Forget intellect" but your very posting here is that and nothing else. There's a Consciousness and Science section . . . . please keep your intellectualizing there.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#29
Listen everyone: if you don't like what people are posting, try the new ignore feature: it's wonderful: the usual suspects simply disappear, even their quotes in other people's posts. Just click on the offender's name and then select "ignore". Hey presto! they're gone and are deprived of oxygen.
I think it's best if people are made to respect the rules - not encourage members to have to adopt tactics (like on the previous forum) to ignore rule-breakers.
 
#31
I think it's best if people are made to respect the rules - not encourage members to have to adopt tactics (like on the previous forum) to ignore rule-breakers.
Well Ian, it would be nice if certain people didn't get up to their old tricks, even in a Mod+ thread. I wasn't aware they were doing that on this thread because I had them on ignore, but was contacted privately by someone enquiring what to do about it. I agree it would be nice if the usual suspects learnt some manners, but I'm afraid they're incorrigible, and as they play dirty, what the heck, I screen them out and enjoy a more peaceful life.
 
Last edited:

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#32
Well Ian, it would be nice if certain people didn't get up to their old tricks, even in a Mod+ thread. I wasn't aware they were doing that on this thread because I had them on ignore, but was contacted privately by someone enquiring what to do about it. I agree it would be nice if the usual suspects learnt some manners, but I'm afraid they're incorrigible, and as they play dirty, what the heck, I screen them out and enjoy a more peaceful life.
Hi Michael,

I can understand you and other people choosing to do this. I did it too on the old forum. I would still rather, on the whole, that we try and get the rules applied since this is a new start and new members are coming on board - or old ones coming back. Alex just said on another thread he has no problem with being "bothered" by reporting posts that don't respect the rules. I think the mods are serious about the Mod+ concept. The evidence for it just on this thread is that Paul got a warning not to post further on it.

Btw, making positive posts about applying the rules is a really easy and cheap way to get your "like" tally up. :D
 
Last edited:
Top