Why was "Transpersonal Psychology" closed?

[Michael Mooney]

In my last post in the TP thread, I agreed that it was going nowhere, but I also stated my intent to do further research on the subject of intention and consciousness studies and eventually share whatever might be of interest to the forum.

Specifically:

The debate around "consciousness studies" (see the journal of that title) is ongoing, and I am optimistic that experiments like those published in "The Intention Experiment" will eventually be refined and detailed and published in respected science journals. Many already treat them with scientific respect.

I may go back through my issues of the "Journal of Consciousness Studies" and see what I can find that might interest this forum.

But Boerseun locked it down, in keeping with his brutal attacks on me as a spokesman for TP in general and intention experiments, consciousness as an active force, and mystic experiences in particular. (Read no "self pity" into the above.)

Does this mean that all the above are no longer allowed as topics/subjects of discussion in this forum?

I am very concerned about this kind of censorship here driven by such intolerance as Boerseun displays.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

This is a formal protest. Please respond.

Michael

[lemit]

So, you weren't prescient enough to see this coming? I feel bad that it's closed. I didn't know you'd got into pseudoscience, which I spent several years studying. I think I could have explained in a way you'd have understood why science requires the proofs it requires. Too bad. I'd have loved to know more about your research, but your last post sure looks like, well, a last post. You kind of thank all the people who had been responsible for your success and gracefully said good-bye to the thread which, according to you, had come to an end.

 

It's surprising to see you taking back what you'd already said (and left) in the thread. We all have to learn to let go of things we love. You did that, you did it very well, and I hope you can muster the dignity to follow through.

 

Good luck. You know you always have me as a kindred spirit.

 

--lemit

[GAHD]

when you actually get your new stuff you're always free to link back to the original :smilingsun:

[Boerseun]

Specifically:

 

But Boerseun locked it down, in keeping with his brutal attacks on me as a spokesman for TP in general and intention experiments, consciousness as an active force, and mystic experiences in particular. (Read no "self pity" into the above.)

Michael, you're at a Science Forum. You made claims regarding about having been involved in "mind-reading" experiments with your father, when you were at a very young age. This in itself is pretty remarkable, but it needs scientific validation in a repeat experiment to validate it. You refused to acknowledge the possibility that your memory of that particular incident could have been in error. You refused to acknowledge the possibility of any other theory presented to explain this phenomenon. You discounted a proposed test by the Randi Foundation by saying the "negative energy" will make the test impossible. You refused to own up to designing an experiment for testing for this proposed "negative energy", an element that you introduced into the equation. If it can have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the experiment, then it must be possible to test for that. You basically discounted each and every scientifically valid proposed method for validating your claims. You expected the discussion to go ahead without any critical tests to validate anything you say - we should merely take your word for it and go on, regardless.

 

That, unfortunately, is NOT how science works. We cannot take your word for anything that follows from a premise, if we're not allowed to challenge the premise. If we do challenge the premise (which is perfectly scientific) and you refuse to defend your premise by subjecting it to rigorously designed testing, then it is not science, and we will have very little to discuss of any worth.

 

You make the claim that the world is going to undergo a massive, global "enlightenment" episode in the year 2014 - based solely on a "vision" that you had. You do, of course, understand that "visions" might be symptomatic of a neurological malfunction of sorts, like hallucinations. Hallucinations are completely subjective - two hallucinating people will never experience the same hallucination. Thus, following from that, there is no way that any sort of "vision", together with the valid proposition that this "vision" might be nothing more than an hallucination, can be taken as "evidence" in any shape, way or form. In order to remove the "hallucination" possibility from your "vision" is entirely up to you. If you cannot discount that possibility, then it is not allowable evidence with which to support any premise of any kind from which to build a further hypothesis.

 

I'm not "brutally attacking" you in any way, Mike. I'm just trying to maintain the scientific integrity of the discussion by pointing out failures of logic on your part, and filtering claims out of the equation so that any conclusion reached could very well be termed "science". You call it a "brutal attack", fine - I call it "peer review". It sucks and it hurts. But it is necessary in order to divide the fluff from the science. And what you present here is based on failed assumptions, failed logic etc. But we do propose a mechanism for you to validate your claims, and that is rigorous testing under controlled circumstances with a proper methodology in place so that we can proceed. If you cannot come up with the goods, it certainly isn't my fault.

 

Let's say you've designed an awesome looking steam turbine that runs on the heat generated by fermenting blue cheese. Everything is in place - the pistons, the steam valves, the piping, heck - even the little governor on the exhaust valve is turning very beautifully. This entire machine is brilliantly designed, the steam pipe leading into the turbine is polished stainless steel of a grade high enough to withstand the terrible pressures it's expected to operate upon. Everything's awesome.

 

But there's one problem.

 

Fermenting blue cheese doesn't generate the required amount of heat to boil water to make your turbine run.

 

In other words, your entire enterprise above is rendered useless, null and void, because you didn't validate your premise. Much like religion where nobody bothers to validate their premise - they keep themselves busy with installing bigger and better steam pipes, ever fancier governor valves, removing, honing and polishing the turbine blades, but never checking to see whether the blue cheese will ever actually generate the amount of heat required. They all sit and wait in anticipation of the boiler suddenly starting to deliver steam to the turbine without ever checking the cheese.

 

The above is not science, however brightly the steam pipes are polished.

 

Call it a brutal attack, if you will. But them's the breaks, Mike.

Does this mean that all the above are no longer allowed as topics/subjects of discussion in this forum?

Certainly not. Create new threads and post away. But don't expect the treatment thereof as any less harsh if you can't come up with the goods and don't stick to the rules of evidence as to what is allowable as scientific proof, and what is not.

I am very concerned about this kind of censorship here driven by such intolerance as Boerseun displays.

Michael

Call it "brutal attacks" or even "intolerance". I really don't care - nor should I. But in order to attach any value whatsoever to your theories or visions or TP in general, you should understand the process which it must go through. You should also understand why TP is not taken very seriously by Science. They simply cannot come up with the goods.

 

But this shouldn't stop you from coming up with the goods, and it certainly shouldn't stop you from understanding why the "brutal attacks" and "intolerance" is merely "science in action".

 

But remember - fermenting blue cheese doesn't boil water. This has been tested, and proved beyond any doubt. And it can be repeated in any laboratory anywhere on earth.

[lemit]

Wait!

 

What's this about using blue cheese as a potential energy source?

 

I want to hear more. I think anything we can do to lessen our dependence on foreign oil is . . . uh, you're a foreigner, aren't you? I don't think I trust it after all.

 

--lemit

[Larv]

What's this about using blue cheese as a potential energy source?

It’s not such a bad idea. Didn’t Einstein show us that E = mc²?

 

I think a pound of blue cheese could boil water to drive a turbine if it were adequately bombarded with neutrons.

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun,

I see you simply must have the last word of ridicule on my threads which you close.

 

Michael, you're at a Science Forum. You made claims regarding about having been involved in "mind-reading" experiments with your father, when you were at a very young age. This in itself is pretty remarkable, but it needs scientific validation in a repeat experiment to validate it. You refused to acknowledge the possibility that your memory of that particular incident could have been in error. You refused to acknowledge the possibility of any other theory presented to explain this phenomenon. You discounted a proposed test by the Randi Foundation by saying the "negative energy" will make the test impossible. You refused to own up to designing an experiment for testing for this proposed "negative energy", an element that you introduced into the equation. If it can have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the experiment, then it must be possible to test for that. You basically discounted each and every scientifically valid proposed method for validating your claims. You expected the discussion to go ahead without any critical tests to validate anything you say - we should merely take your word for it and go on, regardless.

 

Yes, I know this is a science forum. I " refused to acknowledge the possibility that (my) memory of that particular incident could have been in error" because my mother and brother remember it all exactly as I presented it and we have all the records of all "runs of ten" most of which were ten out of ten "hits."

 

I "refused to acknowledge the possibility (that) any other theory (could) explain this phenomenon" because our controls were impeccable, as I explained, and there is no statistical possibility that, given the range of all possible images, Dad would get all ten correct (clearly, without question) over and over again.

 

I "discounted a proposed test by the Randi Foundation by saying the "negative energy" will make the test impossible" because, as I explained, these are not radio or TV broadcasts but a much more subtle form of energy... consciousness itself, and it does have a "valence" which can be and is negated by such negativity as yours and Randi's.

We did "test" for this effect in hypnosis demonstrations by acknowleging that the hypnotic trance was always disrupted when a heckler in the crowd... well... heckled, and the trance was effective when hecklers were evicted. Randi is an extremely effective "heckler" and I'm sure his million dollar challenge is a safe bet because of it.

Another factor is the required depth of relationship between participants and the rarity of the "gift" that runs in our family between father and son. It isn't like science can herd people in off the street and test for telepathy and effective hypnosis.

 

That, unfortunately, is NOT how science works. We cannot take your word for anything that follows from a premise, if we're not allowed to challenge the premise. If we do challenge the premise (which is perfectly scientific) and you refuse to defend your premise by subjecting it to rigorously designed testing, then it is not science, and we will have very little to discuss of any worth.

 

I did quit the thread because, unless you take my word for it, there is no benefit in continuing. This does not, however, invalidate our results. And we can not now " subject.. it to rigorously designed testing" because my dad died in '87.

 

My detection of my son's ulcer was an isolated incident, but there is no way it was "by chance" given the circumstances already presented. It is another case of "believe it or not," and you (and this forum) choose "not." So there is nothing left to say about it.

 

Likewise, I thought many of the experiments in "The Intention Experiment" were very well done science, and I do expect to see many of them published in respected journals if they are not already. I have not yet combed through my old Journals of Consciousness Studies, but they may already be published there, since my subscription lapsed over three years ago.

Leaving that door open would have been a good thing. Will start a new thread on it when/if I find confirmation that is well received by the scientific community beyond the Institute of Noetic Science and other such research groups.

 

You make the claim that the world is going to undergo a massive, global "enlightenment" episode in the year 2014 - based solely on a "vision" that you had. You do, of course, understand that "visions" might be symptomatic of a neurological malfunction of sorts, like hallucinations. Hallucinations are completely subjective - two hallucinating people will never experience the same hallucination. Thus, following from that, there is no way that any sort of "vision", together with the valid proposition that this "vision" might be nothing more than an hallucination, can be taken as "evidence" in any shape, way or form. In order to remove the "hallucination" possibility from your "vision" is entirely up to you. If you cannot discount that possibility, then it is not allowable evidence with which to support any premise of any kind from which to build a further hypothesis.

 

I did not make the above claim in this forum. It was your inappropriate disclosure of my website for the purpose of character assassination, here continuing, which introduced this admittedly non-scientific information. We will all know by early '14 whether it is "bullshit" or not. (Your word for all that I've presented in the TP thread... which constitutes what I call a "brutal and intolerant attack."

Since you are not a mystic and have never had a "vision," you have *no information* on the difference between them and either imagination or hallucination. Yet you present yourself here as an expert on the subject. Totally bogus of you.

 

Your "steam turbine" metaphor is totally irrelevant and off the wall.

Repeatedly getting ten hits out of ten in telepathy experiments is not blue cheese (which admittedly can not boil water... unless it were made to 'go nuclear' somehow.) Neither is accurately detecting a first time ulcer(with no history of it in the family) from many miles away by pure and obvious empathy-at-a-distance.

Any reasonable person would either grant both points or must believe that I am lying. Your obviously bigoted animosity toward mysticism in general and the validity of the above phenomena in particular precludes you from the category of "reasonable people" vis-s-vis this subject matter.

Michael

[modest]

Michael,

 

I'm not going to debate you, so don't bother disagreeing with and attacking me.

 

Your post above is unnecessarily rude. Rather than simply asking why your thread was closed, you attack a well-meaning and well-respected moderator. Boerseun gave 2 weeks notice before closing the thread during which time no one objected or even made a post. That was after you made what can only be described as a closing post followed by the closing posts of the thread's two other main participants. No better example of a proper thread closure could be found.

 

The only two relevant questions of this thread have now been answered. 1)Why was the thread closed, and 2)Can you open another on a similar topic? The answer to the first is that beneficial discussion came to an end and the thread lacked scientific content under which circumstances threads are typically closed. The answer to the second is yes.

 

~modest

[TheBigDog]

I am closing the thread about closing the thread.