I am very curious as to a skeptical analysis of these ideas.

I would encourage the science minded to please read and comment. There is a lot to agree with, and some surprising thoughts.

The Most Basic Science

WWGSD..

How do you feel any of this "supports" spirits?

I believe that it supports theories of the existance of spirits.

"The evolution of the meaning of energy illustrates the departure of scientific ideas from the strictly material premise"

"Traditionally, mass and energy have not been assigned to a named category. Because there are only two of them, it is easy enough to identify them simply as mass, energy, or mass/energy. Nevertheless, it is useful to categorize these quantities as "principles," corresponding to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)"

The easiest way to put it is that you cant see energy per se, yet it has an effect on its surroundings.

So in my opinion the ideas of Watson, can support other theories of spiritual, paranormal, and other ideas.

Did you enjoy the paper? Did you read it all? What did you think of the ideas?

WWGSD..

I believe that it supports theories of the existance of spirits.

"The evolution of the meaning of energy illustrates the departure of scientific ideas from the strictly material premise"

"Traditionally, mass and energy have not been assigned to a named category. Because there are only two of them, it is easy enough to identify them simply as mass, energy, or mass/energy. Nevertheless, it is useful to categorize these quantities as "principles," corresponding to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)"

The easiest way to put it is that you cant see energy per se, yet it has an effect on its surroundings.

So in my opinion the ideas of Watson, can support other theories of spiritual, paranormal, and other ideas.

Did you enjoy the paper? Did you read it all? What did you think of the ideas?

WWGSD..

As a philosophical and scientific materialist, I'm not down with "holistic systemics," nor am I comfortable around metaphysics, or the use of QM to somehow explain metaphysics. Whenever I see "spooky action at a distance" quoted, I know what's coming, an attempt to shoehorn paranormal phenomena into a discussion about QM, and I don't think it belongs there.

Arthur Koestler and Gary Shwartz are cited; the former a mystic, the latter an "enabler" when it comes to psychics. Einstein is cited as well, though his name shouldn't be uttered with these others.

In other words, I'm skeptical, go figure.

Please don't mistake my interests with a personally held belief system. I am skeptical also. I found the writing very interesting, and supportive of the ideas of spiritualism, from the standpoints I mentioned.

While I guess it could be considered "Shoehorning" but in my opinion its just a presentation of ideas that provoke further thought.

WWGSD..