So, I just finished reading "The Lost Symbol" by Dan Brown and am fascinated with the concept of Noetic Science.

I know I may be late to the party here, but I would like to start a discussion here with some of you who may be better versed in the concept.

Noetic Science is basically the study of the power of human conscience. Without summarizing to much, it hypothesizes that thoughts, negative/positive thinking, etc...have quantifiable properties. It says, basically, that energy can be generated from the mind and affect the physical environment.

I am sure there some strong opinions here and Id like to hear them.

2/1/2010 10:28:44 AM

Quote :

"the power of human conscience"

wow. are you really that stupid?

2/1/2010 10:35:04 AM

evidently. I meant consciousness. I wont edit so everyone can laugh at me.

I still want to talk about the topic though. It would be a nice break from the politics. There are a lot of really bright people that post here.

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2010 10:38:55 AM

Quote :

"Noetic Science is basically the study of the power of human conscience. Without summarizing to much, it hypothesizes that thoughts, negative/positive thinking, etc...have quantifiable properties."

This, to some extent, could be true...but maybe not in the way that the creators of "Noetic Science" were thinking. There's definitely something with humans that I would refer to as "in the zone." In other words, you're so comfortable with an action (or set of actions), and are so confident in performing those actions, that it manifests through seemingly increased expertise. When you are "in the zone," all it takes is thinking about whether or not you're in the zone to throw your momentum off. It's not really "positive" or "negative" thinking, it's just maintaining a high level of concentration on a single task.

Quote :

"It says, basically, that energy can be generated from the mind and affect the physical environment. "

This is where it gets hard for me to believe. Sure, the mind can affect the environment, in that it can send signals to body parts (or equipment), but I've never seen any evidence that the brain itself can influence the environment.

2/1/2010 10:41:40 AM

you know that the experiments they talk about aren't real, right?

2/1/2010 10:42:05 AM

I thought that 7 grams experiment was real.... Not sure how legitimate or rigorous it was though.

2/1/2010 10:51:58 AM

maybe i should have said "loosely based on reality." there was an experiment in the early 1900's but it wasn't anything accurate or repeatable.

2/1/2010 11:24:43 AM

Quote :

"It says, basically, that energy can be generated from the mind and affect the physical environment. "

How about people who claim to be able to affect a random string of 1s and 0s being generated by a computer? They claim they can produce significantly more 1s than 0s (or vice versa).

I remember reading in a reputable parapsychology journal a decade ago about some 'mentalist' who claimed to have such a power and they tested him in some university lab. The chance of the ratio of 1s to 0s that came out on the screen was 1 in 8,000 if it were to happen by chance.

2/1/2010 12:04:12 PM

i just finished that book too.

ive been trying to change things with my thoughts but it isn't working.

the weight of the soul experiment is real but i think most of the rest is horseshit.

2/1/2010 12:19:57 PM

the whole thing just seems like an interesting marriage between faith and science.

I have always had a problem with "faith." Maybe thats why I find it so interesting.

2/1/2010 12:23:46 PM

After doing some research, it appears that what I was referring to earlier has been conceptualized by others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology). I tend think of this in terms of gaming or sports.

2/1/2010 12:25:15 PM

You should read about NDEs (near-death experiences). There's scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after death.

2/1/2010 1:10:00 PM

That depends entirely on how you define death. I doubt there's any evidence of consciousness past the point of brain tissue decomposing.

2/1/2010 1:26:28 PM

what about vampires?

2/1/2010 2:58:53 PM

Is this about the (debunked) experiment with the water drops under a microscope?

If there were any meaningful evidence that the mind could affect the environment in the way that's being discussed (like the 1/0s thing for example) it would be one of the most researched ideas in HISTORY.

That would be such an amazing discovery, that there's no way it would stay relegated to crank science publications.

There is no real evidence that this type of thing is possible, and it's such an easy thing to test, that there would be evidence if it was real. But there's not. Therefore it's not real.

The effect of positive thinking though is very real, but it deals more with changing your personal perceptions, that affecting the outside world. If you're "thinking positively" you're more likely to see out new experiences or adventures or opportunities, or make new friends, etc., which is going to have a good effect on your life.

THis is essentially what religion does (any religion). It gives people an organized framework for thinking positively, versus telling someone to think positively. It has its obvious "side effects" but what doesn't?

Several years ago, I think it was actually John Stossel, when he worked for 20/20, did a report on "luck" that discussed this type of thing.

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2010 4:30:48 PM

The Noetic movement was covered in a documentary called "What the Bleep Do We Know!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

By and large it is a bastardization of the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I did not buy it and I believe it is regarded by the field as pseudoscience.

2/1/2010 5:34:55 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0846789/

Personally, I'm on the fence about this. It's hard to measure the cumulative effect of groups of people because it's hard to get people to think the same. It's also hard to separate their thoughts alone from actions influenced by their thoughts.

Examples of this that I like to think of mostly have to do with nationalism and such. Like... America's collective will to just absolutely dominate World War II. "Manifest Destiny" is also an interesting concept to consider when thinking about this.

I think the collective will of a large number of people can alter reality physically. But like I said before, it's hard to separate the physical actions of people from simply their will changing things.

But I 100% believe in the collective conscience of people changing the perception of reality. Maybe not true reality though. Like Watergate (fuck politics here, it's just an example). The perception of reality was different than true reality because no one knew about it when it happened. However, as the story broke and people became aware of what happened, the perception of reality changed greatly. Does the huge shift in the perception of reality in so many people actually cause physical change? I don't know. I'm not even sure if this relates to what you're talking about, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

2/1/2010 8:07:56 PM

Quote :

"wow. are you really that stupid?"

I hope, for his sake, Solinari was no referring to your misspelling, but instead referring to the New Age bullshit you're spewing, or at least apparently buying into after reading a fictional novel.

Quote :

"Without summarizing to much, it hypothesizes that thoughts, negative/positive thinking, etc...have quantifiable properties."

This. Is. Baloney!

You are college educated people living in the 21st century, and you're going to start believing in what amounts to no more than Middle Ages sorcery? Jesus, people....

2/1/2010 8:17:44 PM

I think it's mildly ignorant to completely dismiss it even though there's no real proof of it. There are still lots and lots of things of which we have no understanding. It's unlikely, but possible that something like this exists in some form or another and we don't understand it and don't really have a way to understand it.

2/1/2010 8:23:10 PM

Quote :

"I think it's mildly ignorant to completely dismiss it even though there's no real proof of it."

why should I not dismiss it until there is a modicum of evidence to support it? Every experiment thus far has either shown no statistical effect, or have been so poorly conducted (not blinded, small samples, no controls, etc) their results are worthless.

Of course, not to mention there is no reasonable or plausible explanation offered for how it would or could work, regardless of the experimental outcomes thus far

2/1/2010 8:32:24 PM

Quote :

"You are college educated people living in the 21st century, and you're going to start believing in what amounts to no more than Middle Ages sorcery? Jesus, people...."

I think this is a slightly different case. Quantum Mechanics, even to a well educated person, can sound a lot like mysticism in its own right. This is allegedly an application of a very difficult and dense theory, so it's probably more forgivable for an educated person to be hoodwinked by it.

2/1/2010 8:42:26 PM

Quote :

"This. Is. Baloney! You are college educated people living in the 21st century, and you're going to start believing in what amounts to no more than Middle Ages sorcery? Jesus, people...."

Wouldn't the placebo effect be an example of this? I honestly don't know, because until this thread I've never heard of "noetic science".

2/1/2010 8:43:37 PM

^^ if you're using "quantum mechanics" as an excuse for pseudoscientific bullshit, you're the one that's being hoodwinked. There are plenty of crazy things quantum mechanics can and will explain, but "collective consciences" isn't one of them.


^ The placebo effect is well documented and understood. There's no doubt that the mind can effect the body (the mind is part of the body, after all), but more importantly, the mind can effect one's perception of your own body and how it feels. Has nothing to do with flipping bits on a computer screen or collectively determining the outcome of the lottery or whatever

2/1/2010 9:05:12 PM

Quote :

"^^ if you're using "quantum mechanics" as an excuse for pseudoscientific bullshit, you're the one that's being hoodwinked. There are plenty of crazy things quantum mechanics can and will explain, but "collective consciences" isn't one of them. "

I agree that Noetic Science is garbage and what they are pushing in no way follows from QM. I was just saying I can understand how someone who doesn't understand the theory, might be taken in by an alleged application of the theory, because the theory itself is so dense and strange. That is all.

2/1/2010 9:18:38 PM

yes I agree. I don't even pretend to understand how QM works or what its ramifications will eventually mean.

However, the word "quantum" has basically been hijacked by pseudoscience peddlers and bullshit artists. It has been invoked to describe (and sell) everything from homeopathy to faster-than-light travel making it possible for alien visits to earth, to the "power of prayer" and collective consciousness. Einstein called quantum effects "spooky action at a distance," but I don't think this is what he had in mind...

2/1/2010 9:26:17 PM

Quote :

"The Noetic movement was covered in a documentary called "What the Bleep Do We Know!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F "

I knew this sounded familiar…

I rented this move at blockbuster a few years ago, not knowing what it was. It was the first movie i had EVER stopped watching part way through because it was so blatantly full of bullshit. I actually remember the exact scene that made me turn it off… it was the one where they said the native americans LITERALLY could not see the boats the europeans sailed in on because they didn’t exist, to their brains.

2/1/2010 11:19:16 PM

Quote :

"Examples of this that I like to think of mostly have to do with nationalism and such. Like... America's collective will to just absolutely dominate World War II. "Manifest Destiny" is also an interesting concept to consider when thinking about this. I think the collective will of a large number of people can alter reality physically. But like I said before, it's hard to separate the physical actions of people from simply their will changing things. But I 100% believe in the collective conscience of people changing the perception of reality. Maybe not true reality though. Like Watergate (fuck politics here, it's just an example). The perception of reality was different than true reality because no one knew about it when it happened. However, as the story broke and people became aware of what happened, the perception of reality changed greatly. Does the huge shift in the perception of reality in so many people actually cause physical change? I don't know. I'm not even sure if this relates to what you're talking about, but I find it interesting nonetheless. "

Nothing you have described comes close to demonstrating that mere will causes changes. You’re arguing that if a group of people of equivalent sized to the population of the US were locked in chambers, and told to “think” something, then another group of people who were isolated from all current events were released from their isolation, the group of people locked in chambers “thinking” something will have a meaningful effect? That’s absurd.

Of course though, a society of people where one idea is prevalent will work towards that idea. This isn’t any type of psychic energy or shared consciousness. THis is simple society. It’s the basis of nationalism, religion, sports fanaticism, or any other group activity that people rally around.

2/1/2010 11:25:17 PM

Quote :

"I rented this move at blockbuster a few years ago, not knowing what it was. It was the first movie i had EVER stopped watching part way through because it was so blatantly full of bullshit. I actually remember the exact scene that made me turn it off… it was the one where they said the native americans LITERALLY could not see the boats the europeans sailed in on because they didn’t exist, to their brains."

That is really funny, because I had the exact same experience. The movie up to that point had many groan and wince inducing scenes, but that particular instance pushed me over the edge. I will watch almost anything if it's labeled as a "documentary" too. Also, I believe this is near the portion where they try to transition from microscopic quantum uncertainty => macroscopic consciousness controls reality. Yikes.

2/1/2010 11:48:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTcOpMVX6PM&feature=related

2/2/2010 3:34:54 AM

Quote :

"I hope, for his sake, Solinari was no referring to your misspelling, but instead referring to the New Age bullshit you're spewing, or at least apparently buying into after reading a fictional novel."

never said I believed it. I said it was interesting. Up until recently, I had never heard of it.

I am not pretending like I understand it nor am I preaching it as gospel. I thought it would be an interesting topic to distract (if only for a moment) from the endless, pointless political bickering.

chill.

2/2/2010 9:02:42 AM

Quote :

"Of course though, a society of people where one idea is prevalent will work towards that idea. This isn’t any type of psychic energy or shared consciousness. THis is simple society. It’s the basis of nationalism, religion, sports fanaticism, or any other group activity that people rally around."

makes sense.

2/2/2010 9:03:52 AM

Aside from the science, the main problem with this is that if it were true, that positive thinking has causal potency, evolution would have made us all positive thinkers by now. If by merely thinking positively about something could influence it at a distance favorably for me, then surely those of us who were predisposed towards this mindset would be more likely to survive. Evolution would have by now weeded out the pessimists among us. We wouldn't have had to wait to discover QM and apply a mechanism to the power of positive thought in order to use it.

2/2/2010 10:02:07 AM

^^^ ok, well after your initial curiosity and inquiry, which is good, I hope that you have been swayed to the side of science and reality. We certainly don't need more people falling into the traps of snake-oil salesmen and New Age mysticism bullshitters.

2/2/2010 10:18:42 AM

Quote :

"Aside from the science, the main problem with this is that if it were true, that positive thinking has causal potency, evolution would have made us all positive thinkers by now. If by merely thinking positively about something could influence it at a distance favorably for me, then surely those of us who were predisposed towards this mindset would be more likely to survive. Evolution would have by now weeded out the pessimists among us. We wouldn't have had to wait to discover QM and apply a mechanism to the power of positive thought in order to use it."

interesting point, but negative thinking (evil) can also make you prosper. for example, a group of plundering cave men could wreak havoc on peaceful tribes.

2/2/2010 11:02:23 AM

From my standpoint, positive thinking (optimism) and negative thinking (pessimism) are both delusional states of mind. Hoping that things will be good, or presuming that things will be bad, has no effect on reality, other than the ways it can influence your behavior. Optimism can cause you to have a false sense of security, when you should be struggling to escape or improve a situation, and pessimism can cause you to become needlessly discouraged. Optimism and pessimism should both be rejected, and replaced with rational analysis.

I wouldn't confuse pessimism, or negative thinking, with evil. They're two entirely different concepts. A pirate, that makes his living by sailing the high seas and stealing from those that have legitimately obtained their possessions, may be considered evil, but he may also be an optimist, in that he could remain hopeful that his exploits will be a success and that he will evade or defeat any opponents. Of course, if he doesn't supplement his optimism with a healthy dose of realism, his career will undoubtedly be cut short.

2/2/2010 11:31:56 AM

Climate science -- BULLSHIT
"Noetic" science -- hay maybe

2/2/2010 11:49:26 AM

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

How many times do I have to link this on this forum?

If *ANYTHING* metaphysical was real, then someone would have passed this and we'd know about it. Noetic Science is horseshit and positive thinking doesn't cure cancer, let alone affect your environment in anyway whatsoever.

Oh wait, I've figured it out:

Quote :

" BASIC MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTION LEVEL — Annual gift of $55; $35 income sensitive rate (add $10 outside U.S. and Canada) MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION LEVELS - Partners: $10—$19/month ($120—$239/year) Allies: $20—$49/month ($240—$599/year) Pioneers: $50—$83/month ($600—$999/year) CIRCLE MEMBERS PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION LEVELS - $1,000 or more total per year"

http://www.noetic.org/membership/join.cfm

2/2/2010 12:11:56 PM

Quote :

"Aside from the science, the main problem with this is that if it were true, that positive thinking has causal potency, evolution would have made us all positive thinkers by now. If by merely thinking positively about something could influence it at a distance favorably for me, then surely those of us who were predisposed towards this mindset would be more likely to survive. Evolution would have by now weeded out the pessimists among us. We wouldn't have had to wait to discover QM and apply a mechanism to the power of positive thought in order to use it."

Maybe I'm just mean/jaded but I have to say...

If we're talking about someone delusional enough to believe the movie we're talking about here, then there's not a snowball's chance of hell of that person believing evolution in the scientifically accepted and rational format. For the predictable answers, look to religion. There are plenty of loop de loop theories you can find which will (supposedly) explain exactly why negative *anything* exists in the first place. For instance, evil and negative thoughts were put there to tempt us. Mystic religions have plenty of explanations of how our physical bodies are here only to advance the spirit existence from another dimension onto the next dimension. That may even form a temporarily self-consistent theory by postulating some natural flow of bad to good that's necessary for those 8th dimensional beings. It still won't work with evolution, cosmology, quantum physics, or anything else for that matter. But really....

You are wondering when delusional ESP beliefs will reveal how their theories fit into rational though that is substantiated by the real world. It's like waiting for when a magician will finally reveal where the rabbit in his hat came from...

----
In the domain of stuff that makes any sense, I agree with you. ESP simply doesn't fit into evolution. At all. In fact, evolution pretty much destroys the concept. So we're left with no option other than to conclude that ESP just... doesn't work with virtually every being that has ever lived up to this point unless the effects are so subtle to not ever observably affect anything.

While I find your disproof to be sufficient, I believe that other disproofs can also be formulated that are just as effective. In other words, this outcome seems extremely replicable and convincing. I guess the only problem is that few people care about this fact.

2/2/2010 12:13:35 PM

Quote :

"Aside from the science, the main problem with this is that if it were true, that positive thinking has causal potency, evolution would have made us all positive thinkers by now. If by merely thinking positively about something could influence it at a distance favorably for me, then surely those of us who were predisposed towards this mindset would be more likely to survive. Evolution would have by now weeded out the pessimists among us. We wouldn't have had to wait to discover QM and apply a mechanism to the power of positive thought in order to use it."

This is a pretty bad argument.

2/2/2010 12:43:02 PM

Quote :

"While I find your disproof to be sufficient, I believe that other disproofs can also be formulated that are just as effective. In other words, this outcome seems extremely replicable and convincing. I guess the only problem is that few people care about this fact."

I think most of us agree that this theory isn't sound for a variety of reasons and that those reasons probably won't persuade people who already think that Noetic science is true. However, perhaps the person who believes in mysticism via science, which is what this is trying to do, would listen to appeal from actual science. Perhaps not.

Quote :

"This is a pretty bad argument."

Mine was a broad statement. I didn't mean to imply that selective pressures would necessary favor causal potency of consciousness. I just meant to say that in the course of human evolution it seems likely that such a trait would be favored and that it would have been noticed before we developed a working theory of QM. We knew how to use gravity before discovering the relationship and mechanism.

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ,]

2/2/2010 1:33:17 PM

I think it's a rather good argument. Humans don't have a monopoly on cognitive ability. Even going back to the dinosaurs there should have been organisms that had significant brain activity going on. If brain activity leads to affecting the world around, then... those that affect the world around them in a way that favors their procreation will be golden. Evolution need not even require drastic effects - time and time again evolution has shown the ability to accentuate the slightest advantage over competitors. Beginning generations of ESPs would have abilities subtle beyond notice, but not subtle enough that it doesn't give an evolutionary advantage. ANY advantage at all would eventually lead to a prolific population of sorcerers.

It wouldn't give insight into QM or physical mechanisms, but the fact that we're not currently making junk fly around with our minds makes it an uphill battle to argue that people can. In fact, logical reasoning would lead one to suspect that it is patently impossible to do so with the machinery in the human body.

2/2/2010 1:45:15 PM

If I were to argue from the position of believing this psuedo-science/BS/whatever, I would argue that primitive humans (or whatever we descended from) just didn't have the knowledge to "unlock" their powers. Only now that we've advanced to this point can we begin to understand the true power of the human brain.

2/2/2010 1:48:59 PM

^I suppose punctuated equilibrium would make this possible too, but that is anything but a confirmed theory.

2/2/2010 1:52:58 PM

is this the shit that the whacked out book The Secret is about?

because people that read and believe that shit are doofs.

2/2/2010 1:59:02 PM

Quote :

"Climate science -- BULLSHIT "Noetic" science -- hay maybe"

LOL

well played

2/2/2010 2:21:46 PM

Quote :

"I think it's mildly ignorant to completely dismiss it even though there's no real proof of it."

in addition to what agentlion said above...

"Noetic science" is not the same thing as asking "does god exist?" or "are there extraterrestrial life forms elsewhere in the universe?"
There's a difference between not having real proof of it and having actual proof against it.
I can't prove aliens exist one way or the other. They might. I can't prove god exists one way or the other. He might.
But noetic science actually has real experiments that can be conducted, and real conclusions can be drawn from the experiments. And the conclusions are that there is no effect whatsoever. The true negative results from these experiments do not leave the question open.

2/2/2010 2:42:01 PM

Quote :

"If I were to argue from the position of believing this psuedo-science/BS/whatever, I would argue that primitive humans (or whatever we descended from) just didn't have the knowledge to "unlock" their powers. Only now that we've advanced to this point can we begin to understand the true power of the human brain."

That's presuming that the mechanism requires that someone realize that their positive thinking alone is what matters, and not merely thinking positive things.

2/2/2010 3:10:11 PM

so it is agreed that nothing exists the in form of quantifiable, credible evidence on Noetic Science...leaving it not a science at all....probably leaving it better described as a "religion" or following?

I thought for sure there would be one person here to defend it...I mean you can find people here to defend anything

2/2/2010 3:15:21 PM

Someone uses the "you can't disprove it therefore it is absolutely true" argument in every religion thread, so it seems appropriate here too.

2/2/2010 3:17:44 PM

Im just letting you know, going to influence the fate of this thread by my mind, Ill tell you what i made it do after the thread is over!

2/2/2010 4:27:07 PM