But the sort of mystisism that this seems to be about involves a strange leap of faith: JakeS:
1994: Awarded an Ig Nobel Prize for his experimental conclusion from a rigorous scientific study, published in the peer review journal "Social Indicators Reserarch", that found that 4,000 practicitioners of the TM-Sidhi program who gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Summer, caused a 23.3 percent decrease in crime in that city during an 8 week period.
Okay, how does that work? What is the method of action where by this gathering of people caused a drop of crime in the area in which the collected? Because if none can be proposed one would be inclined to think it was coincidental. But what is really not convincing is a bunch of drivel about energy fields or cognitive synergy or whatever. Really, one has to do more than mimicry of the language of science to be scientific.
From above: emilmoller:
The way this thread develops to me is an important pointer as to why our world community is in the lamentable state it is in. Jake cs uses the proper tools for the material and intellectual domain. For the spiritual domain other tools are required. When tools for domains are confused, threads like this and other non life serving phenomena appear. 'models' are tools from the intellectual domain. These can be used to give hints of results of investigations in the spiritual domain, but no more 'spiritual' = the domain where all esoteric traditions refer to as being the common ground for all and everything
Jake cs uses the proper tools for the material and intellectual domain. For the spiritual domain other tools are required. When tools for domains are confused, threads like this and other non life serving phenomena appear.
'models' are tools from the intellectual domain. These can be used to give hints of results of investigations in the spiritual domain, but no more
'spiritual' = the domain where all esoteric traditions refer to as being the common ground for all and everything
I don't understand how we need the spiritual to solve the problems of the world. Unless: BruceMcF:
Yes, technology, so while engineering is a ... part of it, its only a part. Much of the trickiest aspects of technological change will be in the social arrangements that are complements of the engineering.
And we do have to defend science from the kind of intrusions that uses the language of science and claim to be scientific, and are anything but. Or someone will convince us that all we need to do is meditate for an hour a day, and the collected energy-consiousness field will make everything great. No need for actual action in the world, no need for actual reduction in driving. Just meditating will suck the carbon right out of the air!
So, to sum up: meditation as mental training: just fine, no problem. The link Fran provides, its about measurable changes in the brain due to meditation. Seems scientific and believable. (I haven't looked in detail)
Meditation as some kind of mystical link to spiritual whatever... Either this is religious, has no bearing on material reality and I don't care, or else you have a lot of work to do to show a link to the real world. And, no, "try it and have faith" doesn't cut it. Now we are back to religious nonsense again, no different from all the other lies being peddled by other faits!
Okay, how does that work? What is the method of action where by this gathering of people caused a drop of crime in the area in which the collected?
There are experiments going on on this topic and others. I don't know how serious they can be taken. But I consider it a good thing that they are done, at least they might help to clarify the next step.
If you are interested, there is a site where you can participate in some of the experiments.
THE LARGEST MIND OVER MATTER EXPERIMENT IN HISTORY
The Intention Experiment is a series of scientifically controlled, web-based experiments testing the power of intention to change the physical world. Thousands of volunteers from 30 countries around the world have participated in Intention Experiments thus far.
I am curious about the outcome - and just want to stay open minded. To many things I didn't believe in or even smirk about when I was younger, just to find out that there might be more to them and have experienced them myself. :-)
There are experiments going on on this topic and others. I don't know how serious they can be taken.
They generally can't. I don't exactly have in-depth knowledge of the field (it's a bit - ah - esoteric for my taste), but my impression is that they completely lack a viable model for what they claim to be looking for. They get a lot of anomalies (especially when their controls are (deliberately) sloppy), but there's anomalies in any data set, and you can always fit some non-trivial function to any kind of noise. Without a model to fit against, that tells you less than nothing.
But I consider it a good thing that they are done, at least they might help to clarify the next step.
Well, they take up space in the university basement. And funding. And they aren't exactly doing wonders for the good names of the universities in question. So it's not entirely without costs. And as long as they don't have a plausible model for what they think is supposed to be going on, it's hard to see how they can prepare for any next steps... But sure, let's give it a shot - after all, it's not my university's funds they're siphoning.
<blockqoute>If you are interested, there is a site where you can participate in some of the experiments.</blockqoute>
From what I can read of their website, they're associated with Princeton's ICRL project, which is an off-shoot of the PEAR project - a poster child for precisely the failures that I lambast such projects for above (AFAIK, PEAR was closed down recently for failure to produce results, but that's another story).
Also, they're shilling for a book, which is usually A Bad Sign.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The mini-Gaia project. An ecosphere with an artificially raised temperature - a little like global warming. Can we lower the temperature with our thoughts?
To impede our current trajectory of increase in atmospheric temperature due to heat trapping due to increased concentrations of, among other gases, CO2, we need to do a bit more than sit around going "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can". Can we please have some serious approaches to solve serious problems? This is like the other (new-age mysticism) side of the reckless optimism coin that hope for groundbreaking technological progress so that we may live the easy life. Not so different that the free-marketistas and their endless faith in 'innovation' and 'spontaneous' technological 'evolution'.
As far as I can tell, the only difference between these people and the Governor of Georgia's approach to problem solving is that the latter puts Jesus in the mix: Georgia governor leads prayer for rain - Los Angeles Times
Bowing his head outside the Georgia Capitol on Tuesday, Gov. Sonny Perdue cut a newly repentant figure as he publicly prayed for rain to end the region's historic drought."Oh father, we acknowledge our wastefulness," Perdue said. "But we're doing better. And I thought it was time to acknowledge that to the creator, the provider of water and land, and to tell him that we will do better."
I don't smirk in disbelief when I read this. I bonk my head against my desk in frustration, and bury my face in my hands in despair.
