# Science and the nonphysical/What are the practical applications of the nonphysical

    "There has been significant scientific effort put into detecting such things, but the objective evidence to support the existence of such things has not been found" <- Write down a word and you will HAVE a material proof that you were thinking on it. But how to directly provide an *objective* evidence of what is *subjective*? Can someone capture a radio wave with a fishing rod? Some time in the future (if there will be the INTEREST) science will research how to detect much higher wavelengths than cosmic rays and possibly begin to *interpret* as psychic (or psychologic) most of their patterns and variations. Probably, their main sources will be found around human bodies. "I think there can be a science of creation, but such a science cannot be built on doctrines, revelations or any other unverifiable claims." <- Creationists are exactly verifying those claims - because those claims are the ONLY ones we traditionally have throughout our world cultures that INFORM how all things came to exist. WOW! Why not to investigate them?? The refuse to do it normally has a motivation not easily admittable: because then I may have to follow morals from scriptures and priests - and I hate them. "Make a power plant that is fueled by the "nonphysical"" <- Do you mean a physical power plant?... "or provide some other reproducible demonstration of the "nonphysical" and then we can make a science out of it." <- Our thoughts are not physical - or there was not till today any scientific evidence they are physical. So we may write down or speak them JUST to demonstrate they exist. Skytel 17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
       doctrines, revelations <- "Creationists are exactly verifying those claims" <-- using what methods? "Our thoughts are not physical - or there was not till today any scientific evidence they are physical" <-- Yet we already have many physical means to alter thought patterns and a robust theory of how physical brain processes produce thought. Scientists who are interested in thought continue to make progress in their studies using physical approaches. Can the same be said for those who have proposed that thought is non-physical? --JWSchmidt 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
          "...using what methods?" <- repeatable and testable experiments. "Yet we already have many physical means to alter thought patterns" <- Sure, but if we can alter the light in a room by managing the window, could it be scientifically correct to conclude that the window is the creator of the light? "and a robust theory of how physical brain processes produce thought." <- What theory? "Scientists who are interested in thought continue to make progress in their studies using physical approaches. Can the same be said for those who have proposed that thought is non-physical?" <- Yes and for centuries. Only in recent years have neurology been able to stimulate particular areas of the brain in order to manage specific thought or mind effects. However this will be not qualitatively more conclusive than smashing ones head to prove the physical origination of consciousness. Does pricking ones leg makes conclusive that the sensation is in the leg? Thats why managing the brain will never never be conclusive that mind is produced by it, because the logic of the quest will be the same. Nevertheless the problem here isn't that, but WHY one suddenly begin trying to disprove an ALREADY known information, which is that the mind is psychic, or nonphysical. If one was totally ignorant about the sun, we could understand why he would be interested to find out how the light is produced by the window. But if he was INFORMED about the sun, why should he *insist* in the window? Why not follow the advice and look beyond? How MANY yoga or meditation practitioners have reported that mind is something ORIGINALLY not physical. WHY someone prefer to not even begin practicing it? WHY he *insist* that "maybe" spiritual reports are made up by expected results? WHY is he AGAINST even to the slightest possibility of being the mind nonphysical? Many questions to one simple answer that however is not easy to admit, because its reason is not scientifical, but political. Skytel 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
             "ALREADY known information, which is that the mind is psychic, or nonphysical" <-- I'm not sure that "nonphysical" is a coherent concept. What utility arises from the idea that mind is non-physical? I perceive much more progress within standard neuroscience and studies of the physical basis of mind than I do within attempts to demonstrate psychic phenomena. Science is always open to new discoveries, but such discoveries have to involve methods that allow others to independently confirm reported phenomena. I'm not aware of any verifiable evidence to support the analogy between mind/brain and a window with a greater reality beyond. It would be exciting to find such a greater reality and many people have tried and continue to try. Personally, I am very interested in the idea that such efforts can be conducted in a scientific way, but very few people who claim to be interested in "psychic phenomena" seem willing to do the hard work required for valid scientific research. --JWSchmidt 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
       "I'm not sure that "nonphysical" is a coherent concept" <- It is not if you expect it to be coherent with what is physical. "What utility arises from the idea that mind is non-physical?" <- It may be able to survive physical death, what could be useful. "I perceive much more progress within standard neuroscience and studies of the physical basis of mind than I do within attempts to demonstrate psychic phenomena." <- You cannot exceed your own judgment and are the only responsible for its results (which are ALWAYS unavoidable). "I'm not aware of any verifiable evidence to support the analogy between mind/brain and a window with a greater reality beyond." <- Analogies are verifiable by our intelligence. If you refuse to even suppose mind phenomena as possibly existing ALSO beyond the brain, the analogy fails for you. "It would be exciting to find such a greater reality and many people have tried and continue to try." <- 'Many people' normally excludes who prefer not trying by himself. No need to ask why. "very few people who claim to be interested in "psychic phenomena" seem willing to do the hard work required for valid scientific research." <- Not fair to reproach them as "few" while being scientific research not ready to test them. Or should we expect to capture psychic energy with some ultimate encephalography device? Please tell how can nowadays science prove whether psychic reality is a fact or not. Also please respond to what is the robust theory you told before. Or maybe you are ready to scientifically explain WHY should Wikiversity classify creationism as pseudoscience. Skytel 05:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
          I think much of this discussion can be fruitfully continued at learning projects for Science, Protoscience and Pseudoscience. "how can nowadays science prove whether psychic reality is a fact or not" <-- Proof is just an argument that other people accept. Within science, arguments are based upon observations and verifiable evidence. Science is a social process within which observations are first reported then tested, challenged, questioned and occasionally verified by others. In order to be part of the social process of science, claims about psychic phenomena must be reported in detail and then verified and reproduced by others, including skeptics. If your claim is that skeptics cannot independently verify psychic phenomena, then you are removing psychic phenomena from the domain of science. In the case of "creationism", the advocates of creationism have generally not adopted the methods of science. There have been attempts to portray creationism as science without first adopting the methods of science. That combination of actions places most efforts to establish "scientific creationism" under the heading of pseudoscience. There has been some scientific study of claims about the "supernatural" and "intelligent design". I think it is fruitful to categorize such studies as protoscientific. Fields of study such as Exobiology use the scientific method but they are protoscientific until there is evidence that actual data are available, in this case, evidence for life off of Earth. Anyone who wants to study creationism by using the scientific method is free to do so. You just have to participate in the social process of reporting your data and letting skeptics test your data against their own independent observations. When creationists try to take short-cuts and label their theological conclusions as scientific before they have applied the methods of science then they earn the label of being psuedocientific. --JWSchmidt 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
       "In order to be part of the social process of science, claims about psychic phenomena must be reported in detail and then verified and reproduced by others, including skeptics." <- But what I'm saying is that psychic phenomena are NOT part of nowadays science, because there still exist no scientifical provision to even identify its existence - much less to work with it. Skeptics are fully free to believe it doesn't exist, but should not fallaciously use the absence of scientific work about to support their belief. A not found treasure is not the same as a not existing treasure. --Skytel 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          There are many things that can be imagined and yet are not part of science. There has been scientific work on psychic phenomena. Scientific studies have been done and they did not produce positive results (for example see The mind machine: a mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extra-sensory perception). Until there is objectively verifiable evidence for "psychic phenomena", I am forced to make myself comfortable with the hypothesis that "psychic phenomena" are imagined phenomena with no reality outside of subjective brain-generated experience. This view has so far won by default, but I'd be thrilled to see objective demonstrations for "psychic phenomena" as something existing beyond subjective experience. People are free to continue to search for ways to objectively measure "psychic phenomena", but such a research program is an uphill battle against the history of past failed efforts and continuous steady growth in knowledge of how physical brains account for thought. I'm not impressed by claims that belief determines the outcome of scientific studies. Science has the power to provide evidence that provides a foundation for belief. The history of science is a story of people being forced away from their old beliefs by verifiable evidence. Yes, individual scientists are guided by their personal beliefs in the choice of questions they investigate. Yes, entire "schools of thought" with thousands of adherents can be blinded by their pre-conceived notions. But in the end, all it takes is one person asking the right question and getting reproducible results and the tide will shift; old ideas can be replaced by new ideas, if the data support the new ideas. If you want there to be more scientific study of "psychic phenomena" it is up to you to lead the way in that direction. --JWSchmidt 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
             That is exactly what I am doing, but science should be not something we must cope with as commercial or political competition. Should one establish some creationist scientific party, for maybe one day we had a law to help scientific minorities? Science should be fully fair by itself, just for its aiming to the truth, no matter what. Any and all scientific claim should have GOOD WILL acceptance for FAIR analysis, not needing to pass some inquisition first: this is religious featuring, not scientific. This thread at WV may be exactly a sample of what future will recognize as nowadays kind of inquisition, making hard (quite impossible) to defend minorities from A PRIORI labellings. --Skytel 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
                Any claim that supernatural phenomena can be brought within science will by met with skepticism and demands for verifiable evidence. This skepticism about supernatural phenomena is a perfectly natural social phenomenon that arose from a long history of past experience with claims about supernatural phenomena. Anyone who feels that this situation is unfair need only collect and present evidence for supernatural phenomena in a way that allows others to replicate the results. This is the way science works. I'm not sure it is constructive to call the scientific method "inquisition". New discoveries and ideas continually find their way into science. It is not part of the scientific process to keep out new ideas. It can be a long and slow process for new branches of science to become established, but is if verifiable data are there, eventually the data win. Sometimes "minorities" earn the labels that are applied to them. --JWSchmidt 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
       "This skepticism about supernatural phenomena is a perfectly natural social phenomenon that arose from a long history of past experience with claims about supernatural phenomena." <- How many attempts have been necessary for science and technology to reach acceptable levels of insurance? Do those numerous failures constitute any hindrance to get along and strive for the success of its aims? WHY to have a different attitude about psychic phenomena? Why to desist of the hypothesis that our minds are actually (AS SEEM TO BE) of psychic nature just because there are numerous false claims, or because it was just not lab bench proven to be so YET? Remember some argument from ignorance? From where thus came the ideia that it should be given scientific preference to the materialistic version? I am sternly asking for any scientific reason to do so, because if science have such social influence that leads it to disrespect its own method, then this is a recognition of unreliability.
       "Anyone who feels that this situation is unfair need only collect and present evidence for supernatural phenomena in a way that allows others to replicate the results." <- For the same curiousness above, the acceptable "way" means: materialistic proof of what is claimed to be not material. Does this makes any sense to you?
       "I'm not sure it is constructive to call the scientific method "inquisition"." <- Constructive? Would you construct even more over a known barely founded structure? What about a SCIENCE that without any previous proof starts to ignore the spirit just because it is not material? Well, it never was said to be material! So WHY insisting it must be materially tested in order to SCIENCE admit its existence?? Again, from WHERE came the idea that reality is just and only material, and so the only desirable and worthy to spend the time of scientific research? Why scientists are not searching for ways to study the psychic side of life, AS MUCH? Why, in order to possibly come to do so, science asks first for exactly what only science could discover? Could it be this is some kind of revenge for HOW religious questioned scientists to be accepted (keep alive) in the past? Oh no... :-)
       "New discoveries and ideas continually find their way into science." <- ...given they are NOT spiritual...
       "Sometimes "minorities" earn the labels that are applied to them." <-You forgot to add: ...according to the scientific method, because it can tell what is true even much before raising any proof about, be it pro or contra. --Skytel 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
          "WHY to have a different attitude about psychic phenomena?" <-- It is informative to compare discoveries of phenomena such as radioactive decay to the lack of progress in demonstrating psychic phenomena. Phenomena that are good topics for scientific study are easily verified. It is only natural to remain skeptical about psychic phenomena and any other claimed phenomena that resist verification. "Why to desist of the hypothesis that our minds are actually (AS SEEM TO BE) of psychic nature" <-- Within science, what counts is that independent observers can function within a community where multiple people can independently verify claims and reproduce results. Study of how brains produce minds allows for scientific progress. "materislistic proof of what is claimed to be not material. Does this makes any sense to you?" <-- I'm not sure that "supernatural" or "non-material" or "non-physical" are coherent concepts. Proof that they are has to come from those who want to make a science to study these kinds of things. "What about a SCIENCE that without any previous proof starts to ignore the spirit just because it is not material?" <-- This seems natural and expected to me. If we lack methods to generate objectively verifiable data for "spirit" then science will turn to more productive topics. "So WHY insisting it must be materialy tested in order to SCIENCE admit its existence??" <-- Nobody has provided methods to produce verifiable data for non-material phenomena. Scientific methods that deal with physical phenomena are all we have. "from WHERE came the ideia that reality is just and only material" <-- The basic idea is that material brains can produce thoughts that are about imagined things. Just because we can imagine supernatural or non-physical phenomena does not mean that such things really exist outside of our imaginations. "Why scientists are not searching for ways to study the psychic side of life, AS MUCH?" <-- Some have tried and not had any luck. Scientists naturally move towards topics of study where progress is made. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
       "It is only natural to remain skeptical about psychic phenomena and any other claimed phenomena that resist verification." <-- This answer simply gets back to what I have questioned. I understand all your other comments in the paragraph do the same, as any reader can attest. Your answers do not explain the scientific reason for giving absolute preference for physical stuff, if not just because they are touchable (easy to deal with) and psychic are not. Remember that physical study DID evidenced energetic phenomena, which are very unlogical to be called "physical", indeed having not been proven to BE physical, but just related to physical activity. In fact, "energy" is alreadly broadly admited as what makes possible any activity. If I call it "divine force", all what science (not some opinion) have been able to do about is to ultimately acknowledge its entirely abstract and unfounded existence, although not admiting such a term for political reasons.
       This one is just oportune: "I'm not sure that "supernatural" or "non-material" or "non-physical" are coherent concepts" <- Probably because they SEEM to be not coherent to you (as for quite the whole humanity). That's why these historically raised concepts should be studied (by the scientific method) from their cultural origins, in order to possibly find out how to begin their studies. MUCH useful (practical) information to be found. All if not just trowing them aside every time when finding spiritual vocabulary. "Proof that they are has to come from those who want to make a science to study these kinds of things" <-What brings us exactly to the same problem: Their attempts are badly labeled and letting practically no chance to have attention - how less some good will peer review. --Skytel 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          "what is the robust theory" <-- If you are interested in how physical brain processes produce thought you need only study the published literature of neurobiology. We have many physical means for modulating the physical brain processes that generate thoughts; these can generally be classified as surgical, chemical and electromagnetic methods. Natural "experiments" also present themselves for study when there are genetic variations in brain structure and when disease processes alter brain structure with resulting alterations in thought patterns. Based on the results obtained from past scientific study of effects thought patterns resulting from physical alterations in brains, neurobiological theory is often capable of predicting the effects of chemicals, surgery and electromagnetic stimuli on thought patterns in human subjects. This robust body of neurobiological theory is used daily to guide medical treatments and also within on-going biomedical research aimed at increasing the depth and scope of such knowledge. --JWSchmidt 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
       This is not robust because, as I already have experience with this issue, I know that a long discussion about would end with the question of what is the *nature* of nuclear and electromagnetic "forces" whose interactions make the chemical bonds that supports nervous activity. The ultimate scientific response to that are concepts that are as abstract and causeless as the spiritual ones praised by religions much time BEFORE. Ancient jewish and hindu traditions tells about subsequent layers of subtle (psychic) energy that overinteract from the most elevated spiritual levels down to the most dense which organizes matter. What could better support them than what science tells about what "force" is? --Skytel 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          When people want a bridge built or a broken bone mended they can rely on "subtle (psychic) energy" to deal with the problem or they can turn to scientific engineering and medical treatments that have been tested and shown to be effective. I'd rather view the cup of science as half full than half empty. Science is still relatively new and expanding. Maybe after a thousand more years scientific progress will halt, mysteries will still remain, and people will have nothing to turn to but "subtle (psychic) energy". Maybe next week someone will find a way to reproducibly measure "subtle (psychic) energy". Until then, each scientist must make their best estimation of how to make progress in exploring the unknown, and I suspect they will continue moving in the same general direction this week as last week. --JWSchmidt 01:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)