Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <885@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 13:08:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.885
Posted: Fri Jul 20 13:08:23 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 03:56:15 EDT
References: brl-vgr.507 <569@ihuxj.UUCP>, <93@mouton.UUCP>, <1135@rti-sel.UUCP> <3328@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1556@sun.uucp>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 38

> Our "physics" once explained how the sun orbited
> the earth.  It doesn't yet explain everything. 

It's true, scientists once believed that the sun orbited the earth.  Then
evidence was uncovered that provided a better model of reality.  Does your
intended analogy with PSI still hold?  Is there similar evidence for PSI that
explains something the physical model cannot account for?

> PSI phenomena do exist, and
> obviously some form of "energy" is involved in the process.  

Oh?  Apparently you can show us the aforementioned evidence?

> Go back to your physics lab.  There is no life outside of it.  Physicists
> have ALL the answers.  And the only useful definitions of words.  Dream on...

Part of the process of scientific involves defining specific terms clearly so
that people cannot simply make wild statements using terms like "energy",
"power". etc. in a serious scientific context.  Another part of the process
involves removing variables such as personal bias and distortions created
within the human brain ("I experienced something, I remember it *this* way,
thus this is what happened!").  It is very fashionable to make such remarks
as "Go back to your physics lab, you silly scientist who knows nothing of
the real world.  Your serious study denies certain possibilities just because
there's no evidence for them, but *I* know them to be true, and I will prove
it to you, ha ha, no need to be as rigorous as with your so-called scientific
method.  What do you mean you saw a wire?  Aha, you didn't believe!!  If you
had believed, you wouldn't have cared about the wire, and it would have been
real!!"  When in reality, the reasons for the objections to real scientific
inquiry are solely because real scrutiny would show no evidence (or
counterevidence) for their positions.

"I believe that the emperor has clothes on.  Since not believing might lead
to examination that could show him not to be wearing any clothes, we must
believe in order for the clothes to be there."
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr