🚀 go-pugleaf

Summary:


In article <403@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg) writes:
> . . .
>Your research is unscientific.  You might protest that scientific reasoning
>is only a Western bias, so I'll explain myself.  By unscientific I mean
>inconclusive, imprecise, uncontrolled, and unconvincing.

	I never claimed to be presenting scientific data.  However,
you clearly did not read my posting carefully.  I have a lot more
anecdotal personal experience which could convince even you, Greg.
If you could suspend your disbelief.  However I have little hope for that.
I simply did not feel that it would be appropriate to post such
personal experience publicly; I simply wanted to put out a couple
representative examples.

>>For example, a few weeks ago I called
>>her, but she wasn't home, so I left a message.  A couple hours later
.>I suddenly had a burst of ecstasy...I thought to myself,
>>"maybe she's just got home and got my message."...
>>
>>	That not good enough for you?  How about the time we had
>>the same dream, but she was in San Diego and I was in LA?
>
>It's very easy to take all of the experiences in your life, select the
>coincidences, and then declare that they are more than coincidences.  It's also
>easy to edit your own memory to have it fit your preconceived notions of the
>world.  Recollections of dreams and feeling are especially easy to change.

	You are becoming rather offensive here, Greg.  Stating the
obvious and then accusing me of overlooking it is a rather weak
counter-argument.  Of course the above possibility has occurred to me,
however after three years of this kind of "coincidence" occurring
regularly (one particular series of events I calculated as having
approximately a 1 in 10^15 chance of occurring randomly.  This
experience was SO strange that I will keep it to myself at the
risk of sounding like a lunatic.  It was not specifically
related to telepathy, however it was completely outside the
realm of known physics) I had to finally concede to myself that
something definitely unexpected was going on.  Believe me, it came
as a surprise to find that these effects were REAL, and they
could happen to ME.  Of course, I hadn't made the a priori
assumption (which you seem to have made) that these phenomena
are impossible, therefore forcing the conclusion that every
single experience was a "coincidence."

	(I would venture to give you a little advice if you are
to have a fruitful career in academic discourse.  First of all,
it is rather bad practice to always patronize your interlocutor, even if
you feel (as you always do, I've noticed) that he is at an
intellectual disadvantage (which you seem to find true of anyone
who disagrees with you.)  You may not be able to overcome this
character fault (since you obviously emulate W. Buckley), however,
since you are the type (folks, this is a private message between Greg and
I so you may skip this paragraph if you wish; however, I feel
like publicly criticizing Greg's netiquette today, sorry) who
seems to feel that you have already come to a precise understanding
of what is fundamentally the correct way to view the Universe
and how to explore it intellectually.  Unfortunately, Greg, since
I happen to consider myself your intellectual equal (or better),
(you may disagree with this assessment :-) and I also have
seen your reasoning process, I have to let you know that you
process of thinking, although quite valid, is certainly not
the Be All and End All.  If your interlocutor does not lay out
all of his evidence and all of his arguments, perhaps it is not
because he is confused and thinking vaguely, but that there is
something more to his position than you perceive.  Just . . . maybe.
In my case, in fact, there is.  Quite a lot more, and you most
likely, unfortunately, will never be able to appreciate this.)

>>	Yes, I am a senior in physics (a pretty good physics student,
>>too, in my opinion :-), and I realize that there is no plausible
>>mechanism that could have transmitted this kind of information.
>
>Boy, you must be pretty smart.

	No comment :-).

>
>If you feel that there is no plausible mechanism, or in other words, no
>plausible explanation (for a mechanism is no more than that), then your
>theories are inherently implausible.
>
>What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you
>describe.  In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the
>biggest enigma in all of physics.  It should be presented as the great
>counterexample in all physics courses.  Other paradoxes in physics are
>presented in this fashion, so why not yours?  Maybe there is something wrong
>with your experiments...

	Yes, I mean to imply that these kind of experiences could provide
source material for a new intellectual investigation into a
particular phenomenon, as electrical and magnetic phenomena
did in the 19th century.

	However, obviously since these kinds of phenomena are difficult
to reproduce (since they involve very complex biological systems)
they certainly could not be presented as "the great counterexample".
Few people can even admit to their plausibility unless they have
also come into contact with similar phenomena.  In my case it seems
to happen very frequently, particularly with my girlfriend, to such a
degree that I cannot just toss it off as my own wishful thinking.
(In fact, it has rather serious consequences in that I have to
be responsible for the well-being of not only myself but of her
as well.  This is something that you would not understand, Greg,
perhaps you shall never understand.  I hope, however, that you will
someday have such a connection with someone.)  I do not know
why this happens to us.  It may be related to my training in
the Japanese martial arts.

					-Mitsu