 sj |
||
|
||
Where were the *psychics* on 9/11?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding Date: 02 Sep 02 - 05:51 PM Hmmmmmm, well spoken Harvey. My criterion has always been: If someone has a 'gift' or belief, and no apparent alterior motive, I'll listen very carefully to what they have to say. The moment that either finances or "duty to convince" enter the picture, I become like you, very skeptical. Strictly from a secular point of view (safer that way)...many thousands of people believed that Uri Geller was an actual psychic even AFTER he'd been thoroughly exposed as a fraud (along with his little accomplice Shippi) I, on the other hand believe that playing a six string F chord is the ONLY way to true happiness! Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 02 Sep 02 - 05:54 PM Well, Harvey, I appreciate your clear-eyed integrity a great deal. My only argument is that we need to keep our minds -- as well as our eyes -- open for insights into those phenomena we have no decent paradigm for. I am sure you'll find plemty of anecdotal evidence indicating that "the first event correctly predicted" has happened a large number of times; the question is of course what is simple extrapolation, and what, if anything transcends those bounds. I agree completely with the gullibility of humans in general, and the problenm is made more difficult by the ready plasticity of the mind to create impressions of perceptions it wants to perceive, rather than being clear about what it has perceived, and when. These things are complications to a difficult field, but I do think it would be an error to try to jam the phenomenology of psychic events into a material framework when seeking proof. There have been documented cases under strict research conditions of remote viewing, and the remote influence by intention of buried sensors (see the Puthoff and Targ series of experiments conducted at Stanford Research using various subjects including Ingo Swann, 1979-1984 if memory serves). To do so would be similar to rejecting physical evidence of planetary orbits because ti didn't jive with someone's version of the divine revealed truth; it is a serious fallacy to mis-sort data into the wrong classes. Very best regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: DougR Date: 02 Sep 02 - 06:07 PM Taliesn: Just a word of friendly advice should you ever again find yourself in our neighborhood. Never hint that Scottsdale is a part of Phoenix. That is a very good way to get a very short haircut out here. In the old days they called it, "scalping." :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 02 Sep 02 - 07:22 PM Harvey, try reading about quantum physics sometime. Contemporary scientists have pretty near agreed upon the odd and sobering fact that time and matter simply may not exist as we have always thought they did... The idea that something must yield itself to a quantified "proof" in order to be accepted as true is problematic, to say the least. For example, one of the main arguments against the efficacy of herbal remedies is that they have not and in some cases cannot be "proven" to be effective (and so remain unregulated by the FDA), but ONLY because the scientific testing grounds, set up for synthetic drugs and those manufactured in a laboratory, cannot encompass the many variables inherent in botanical substances. This includes differing concentrations of various chemical constituents which vary from crop to crop, given variations in weather, climate, soil, growing conditions, harvesting, drying and preservation tachniques, etc. But just because science cannot effectively measure the effectiveness of these substances in ways that suit their methods, doesn't mean they don't work...Ask anyone who has used chamomile to sleep, guarana to be more alert, willow bark for a headache, raspberry leaves for menstrual cramps, fennel for an upset stomach... In much the same way, psychic phenomena are unquantifiablle according to standardized methods of measurement or testing...and so, in many cases, will remain "unproven." This makes them no less real. I find it hard to believe that any human being could be on the planet for any length of time and not have accepted that a whole lot happens to us that we simply don't have a cut and dried explanation for...
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 02 Sep 02 - 07:37 PM Hard to believe, Peg? Think about filters for a minute -- the constructs we use to keep out information we can't align according to our current preferred assumptions and our comfort zones. Ask a baseball-addicted flag-waving patriot about the beuaty of the Koran, and see what the process returns. Ask a vehement Muslim about the beauties of the American social experiment, an anti-abortion acitivist about the transcendant power of choice, or a pro-life activist about the transcendant sanctity of living forms. Selective denial is part of our makeup. Everyone uses blackout curtains in some of the rooms of their mansion. Well -- almost everyone, maybe. Everyone I know does, including myself and some of the most intelligent, aware, curious people I've ever met. You can be someone who chooses to filter out phenomena that hasn't met material protocols of proof, as a way to reduce the pain and confusion of a universe too wildly random to face. You can be someone who chooses to filter out the existence of people who don't (or 'can't') allow in phenomena they can't readily explain. It's the same black swamp-paint being used on a different window, is all... luv, A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Sep 02 - 07:53 PM "Ask a vehement Muslim about the beauties of the American social experiment" - the fact that someone is a Muslim and vehement doesn't in itself tell you what they think about the American social experiment.
I'm sure you could find Muslims who would wax enthusiastically about the beauties of the American social experiment, just as you can found Christians who feel the same. And they'd probably point to ways in which some of its underlying principles reflect the values expressed in their Holy Book. (And in both cases the wisest among them might then go on to lament the ways in which it has been undermined and distorted and betrayed.)
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 02 - 12:19 AM Excuse me, Kevin -- I was shorthanding -- p'raps even stereotyping -- to make a point. Perhaps I should have said a rabid Muslim extemist? Of course, any human capable of rational discourse would incline as you describe, regardless of his metaphysics. I wa smaking a different point altogether, but I am sorry I used a stereotype in my hurry. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 03 Sep 02 - 02:20 AM good points all, Amos, and I agree that denial is one of the emotional building blocks of contemporary society, but I feel compelled to point out that "anti-abortion" and "Pro-life" have the same meaning for those in this movement...I know you knew that and mistyped, just wanted to put that thought form out there... Peg |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Sep 02 - 06:10 AM I took it that Amos was using the term pro-life there to point the inherent contradiction of those who claim to be pro-life but who support the death penalty. (Analogous to the contradiction of those who oppose the death penalty but have no problems with abortion.) |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 03 Sep 02 - 07:28 AM I just wanted to point out that just because something is seen as outside of the conventional scientific wisdom, that doesn't mean that it is not amenable to scientific study. Psychic phenomena are being studied scientifically at a number of universities, including Edinburgh. One famous psychology experiment, which I believe has been replicated a number of times, shows that those who believe in paranormal phenomena actually perform better in tests of psychic abilities, performing slightly above chance levels. This suggests that there is something in what they believe, and that psychic experiments should take into account the beliefs of the subjects. Peg said "For example, one of the main arguments against the efficacy of herbal remedies is that they have not and in some cases cannot be "proven" to be effective (and so remain unregulated by the FDA), but ONLY because the scientific testing grounds, set up for synthetic drugs and those manufactured in a laboratory, cannot encompass the many variables inherent in botanical substances. This includes differing concentrations of various chemical constituents which vary from crop to crop, given variations in weather, climate, soil, growing conditions, harvesting, drying and preservation tachniques, etc. But just because science cannot effectively measure the effectiveness of these substances in ways that suit their methods, doesn't mean they don't work...Ask anyone who has used chamomile to sleep, guarana to be more alert, willow bark for a headache, raspberry leaves for menstrual cramps, fennel for an upset stomach... " If the variables you mention would have so much of an effect that the substance tested did not show a clear effect in experiments, that is a sign that ordinary people taking these herbs might have a similarly inconsistent experience. If it is the case that a particular way of growing/drying/preserving etc is important in the effect the herb has, then that is the form of the herb that should be tested - and then surely a significant advantage (over placebo) would be shown for these substances if they are in fact beneficial. Its not that science cannot effectively measure the effectiveness, but that trials to date have not taken into account all the variables they need to control. That is a fault with scientists, not with the scientific method. Bagpuss
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Date: 03 Sep 02 - 07:41 AM Nicked from a parapsychology website - experiments which have shown positive results for psychic abilities: 1) The SHEEP/GOATS effect. 'Sheep' are people who are relatively open-minded and are ready to at least accept the possibility of something new, and 'goats' are those who dig their heels in. The 'sheep' score significantly higher in card guessing experiments. (2) The DECLINE effect. If you ask a person to guess 100 packs of Zener cards, their scores decline as they get bored until, nearing the end of the task, their scores improve again. Prof. Roy showed how the graph of scores differed from chance results. (3) The HELMUT SCHMIDT effect. An arrangement of nine lights lit up randomly, driven by the radioactive decay of Strontium-90. People were asked to guess which lamp would light up next. A follow-up experiment with nine lights in a circle showed that people could force the lamps to light in a clockwise sequence, an example of psycho-kinesis or P.K. (4) The GANZFELD experiment, developed by the late Charles Honorton, has been improved by the Koestler Unit in Edinburgh. People in a daydream existence, their senses diminished by diffuse light and sound, attempt to describe pictures which are being viewed in another room. Results of 36% compare with 25% expected by chance. Over many studies, this represents a chance of one in ten million.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: harvey andrews Date: 03 Sep 02 - 07:48 AM Peg, my mind is open. I'm naturally curious. I would love to believe, believe me! I accept totally that there are things we cannot explain, I just don't find it easy to accept current explanations!As a student I did the old Ouija board experiment. Blidfolded i felt a glass whiz around under my finger. It spelled out that we had apparantly got in touch with William Shakespeare. We were English students at a Coventry college and it was Will's birthday week. I came off the glass, my friends were blindfolded and I watched the glass whiz around to spell out that he didn't write "Corialanus". Now some of us believed we'd got in touch with Will, some of us believed we hadn't and it was all fake, but I think our controls were good enough that it wasn't fake and I can't explain it. I don't believe it was Will, but it might have been the will-power of those of us in the room. My Grandmother in New Zealand dreamed she saw my father fall down the stairs of a bus and lie inert on the floor just after my mother in England was told he was probably dying. She telegramed my mother to ask if all was okay. Unexplainable.They tell me the human brain uses but a small part of itself as yet, but it uses a lot more than it did a million years ago. Maybe the brain is like the Titanic, a series of compartments set to give way and flood under pressure of time and knowledge leading to new super powers for the human race. Who Knows? I just don't feel excited by the so-called proofs of all these so-called phenomena that are placed before us at the moment. I think when the real thing happens we'll all know very quickly that something outside the norm has taken place. Until then I watch, wait, listen and, like Rick respect scepticism. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 03 Sep 02 - 08:05 AM I'm glad this thread has come back now to serious discussion. The question in the title of the thread is legitimate, same as for instance a question like 'why has God not prevented this?' can be discussed seriously. Kat has given one possible though not very convincing answer (to the first question), namely those who did know didn't talk about it openly. One of the most unexpected aspects of this thread was Amos making fun of psychic 'predictions' in a truly skeptical way. I really loved reading these posts, Amos. However, I also saw what I consider a double-standard of argumentation re scientific proof. I know it from too many public and private discussions. In this thread, it is clearest in Amos' posts: the psyche completely disobeys the unidirectionalnature of time on which physical proof methods depend There have been documented cases under strict research conditions of remote viewing, and the remote influence by intention of buried sensors (see the Puthoff and Targ series of experiments conducted at Stanford Research...) Now, what Targ and Puthoff did was experimenting under (presumably) controlled conditions, they counted successes and compared the number with chance level, they used a 'physical proof' method and published in 'Nature'. Why do you cite research you consider supportive, Amos, if you think that the psyche completely disobeys laws that are assumed to hold by those using physical proof methods? If that thought is correct you are right in not accepting research evidence to the nonexistence but at the same time there is no use in citing supportive evidence for it should be as irrelevant as unsupportive is in your thinking. I encounter this double-standard very often. A person I met cited evidence for the effect of some herbs. The evidence was completely in the physical proof tradition: The number of successes was counted and compared with a control. When it was pointed out to her that the research cited has some flaws and the controls were not adequate and that other reasearch had not found any positive effect, she quickly fell back into the 'well it has real effects, but by the poor methods of so called science can't show them'. Cite scientific research that is supportive and claim that the phenomenon is inaccessible for science when unsupportive evidence is mentioned. That's the way I have encountered too often to be fooled by it.
Just for the record: Wolfgang
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 03 Sep 02 - 09:06 AM Wolfgang: I never said anything about it "supporting meaphysical claims." I was speaking about the theories that have to do with the mutable and insubstantial nature of time, and space.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 02 - 09:22 AM Wolfgang: I appreciate your point about double standards, I guess I have slipped into it sometimes. I was not asserting that the psyche cannot be tested; I was asserting that it is stupid to constrain such tests as though complete replicability, such as occurs in a simple physics experiment, were to be expected. The tests that examine ability are in particular on a slippery footing because -- well, because ability is not a particle. It varies with attention, intention, tolerance, and relevance to the being. The testing framework has to somehow take these factors into account. As for Targ and Puthoff, I suggest Randi has an axe to grind; he made his name asserting that anything paranormal had to be a parlor stunt. I have read Swann's descriptions of the test conditions and while they are probably not 100% bulletproof against attack, I think they can be said to demonstrate reliable psi activity with real effects and/or perceptions being observed. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:16 AM The GANZFELD experiment, developed by the late Charles Honorton, has been improved by the Koestler Unit in Edinburgh... Results of 36% compare with 25% expected by chance. (GUEST, 07:41 AM has copied this from the International Survivalist Society website)
That's a typical example how research becomes folklore in interested circles. Read here a 1999 abstract about the research on ganzfeld experiments from a research assistent of the Koestler Unit. It starts: Similar points can easily be made for the other points. The actual data and procedures by which they are gathered are much less convincing and clear-cut than parapsychology researchers would wish. Amos, I have cited Randi for the effect, but the actual case for the incompetence of Targ and Puthoff has been made by serious researchers (Marks, Kammann and some others). While I have only read small parts of Swann's description I have read all I could get about the Geller experiments in the SRI. That has convinced me that I don't trust these two (Targ and Puthoff) to perform a well controlled experiment in that field. Wolfgang
|
|
Subject: RE: Quantum metaphysique' From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:35 AM (quote) "......modern quantum physics is supportive of metaphysical claims ....." "Victor J. Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology, 1995. Well , atleast for me , this path of convergence was first formally described by one Fritjof Capra ( Ph.D Theoratical Physics,Vienna) and his classic "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of he Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism"" first published in 1975. Ofcourse one can always add in the works of Tailhard de Chardin and Carl Jung , of a generation earlier , in defining where individual mind taps into and, draws from, a larger living *sphere of conciousness* . I mean ,this is more than familiar ground for we artistic/creative folk because *we* are all working from what I prefer to refer to as *creative intuition*. Being a right-brained south pawed artist I know of this because I've been playing and working from this resource all my life and I ain't quite through with yet. The key term here is *intuition* which can *not* , as yet , be quantified , but exists as a documented experience and used as a tool / guide nonetheless. Thus I find an amusing , perhaps unintended , combination of words arising from within the title of the book cited by Wolfgang: "The Unconscious _*Quantum: Metaphysics*_in Modern Physics and Cosmology* I'm suggesting that somewhere suggested in that combination of words we will see the "formal" convergence of the disciplines of what is *physically measureable* and the *intuitively knowable*. Ofcourse how it wil be applied is *the* moral dilemna which will define *our* 21st Century experience. Yep we're living in "interesting times" in the Chinese meaning so fasten your seatbelts folks.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Date: 03 Sep 02 - 12:51 PM Harvey Andrews said, "They tell me the human brain uses but a small part of itself as yet, but it uses a lot more than it did a million years ago." There are those of us who believe there are abilities of the human brain which have fallen into disuse due to various factors, incluidng witch-burning and other persecutions carried out over the centuries, punishing anyone who might have been a little "different" esp. by showing any of those ancient abilities. As Peg said, I agree that everyone has the ability; they've just never developed it or aren't open to it, or have been scared into denying it, etc. Proving the power of the mind is not an easy thing to do and I would never try to prove anything about it to anyone on here. We've had too many discussions which proved to me that most of the naysayers have made up their minds. For myself, I've studied an ancient discipline which includes experiments which prove to my satisfaction that I am on the right path, psychic and all. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 03 Sep 02 - 02:30 PM (quote) "incluidng witch-burning and other persecutions carried out over the centuries, punishing anyone who might have been a little "different" esp. by showing any of those ancient abilities." Yeah , the Europeans sure have quite a history on that front and as robust as is their history of elites & commoner alike delving into the Occult for , shall we say , *unclean* purposes driven by the usual "human" desires one need not list here seeking amplification. That is why care in the perfction of one's own human spirit by effective communing with one's higher spirit is always stressed otherwise it can be as miss-used a tool as any. And I am *not* one of those who subscribe to the quaint idea that "tools are neutral". We become what we think and then the tools we chose there from. Unfortunately the *psychic* realm can no less be a source of exposure to corruption of the human spirit as any simply because "humans" practice it and unless one is "immune" to the short-comings of that human spirit the same flaws can become amplified. (quote) "For myself, I've studied an ancient discipline which includes experiments which prove to my satisfaction that I am on the right path, psychic and all. " It's *all* Intuitive vision tapping into what always is and one need not have studied *ancient disciplines* to experience it. I mean it's a *gift* .
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Date: 03 Sep 02 - 05:55 PM The worst part of reading this thread is to realize how many idiots there are here on mudcat who believe this idiotic hogwash. And worse yet to realize that they may reproduce. If that is the case, the IQ of the human race is rapidly heading towards zero. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding Date: 03 Sep 02 - 06:34 PM Better get this in before my IQ reaches the point where I spell EVERYTHING as badly as "Shipi" (thanks Wolfgang) I've often found that discussions like this (and ohhhh brother have I had a few, 'cause they're fun) tend to inevitably break down when the folks arguing strictly from personal experience run out of evidence. After all, how many times can you say "I'VE never seen a ghost"..."I'VE never caused objects to move"...."I'VE never had a vision of someone doing something a thousand miles away"....etc. On the other hand, someone can go on all night citing studies, papers, books, anecdotal evidence, even movies for Heaven's sake, all proving (to them) that psychic stuff DOES happen. So, I'm in the category of never having had any of that good stuff happen to me......But, I HAVE seen, heard and read since I was a young teenager, thousands of instances where people take money from others by claiming that THEY have information that others don't. I DID however spend an evening (in a concert hall) where a man bent spoons (with myself and ten or so others watching from three feet away), stopped and started several watches, and told several folks in the audience amazing personal things about themselves. He wasn't psychic...just a damn good magician (like Geller) named James (The Amazing) Randi Fun thread. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Date: 03 Sep 02 - 06:35 PM I am not really clear on what you are trying to say, Taliesn, but what I meant was simply that all have innate abilities, which some I would consider gifts, and which most never tap into or "unwrap" to keep the gift analogy going. I didn't say I had to study an ancient discipline. I said the experiments therein proved things to my satisfaction. I do not accept things on blind faith and also learn better through doing things, rather than observation. Certainly, there are many paths; one need not follow and I would never presume to say so. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 03 Sep 02 - 06:48 PM Wow!! It happened again!! I must really be psychic. I'm sure of it, because my premonition about asswipes posting on this thread has come true TWICE!!! TWICE!! This is REALLY amazing. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 03 Sep 02 - 09:39 PM My personal attitude toward things psychic is one of open-minded skepticism. Having said that, here's a true story: About a week before last September 11, a close friend had a dream in which a jetliner crashed into a skyscraper. The dream was disturbing enough to him that he told his wife about it, something he claims to rarely do, and she has verified to me that such a dream did occur and that it occurred several days before 09/11/01. My friend is a physicist and is as skeptical about psychic phemomena as I am. He makes no claim that his dream was precognitive, nor do I. Yet, it makes one wonder if his dream was an isolated instance, or if there are thousands of other people who may have had similar dreams during the same time period. A handful of such dreams could be accounted for by coincidence - it's hard to imagine anything so bizarre that it has not occurred in somebody's dream. Thousands of people having similar dreams, though, speaks of something outside of coincidence. BWL |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM Taliesn: One heck of a party ya' got ragin' here, my friend. Heck, if I knew you were throwin' it, I'd a shown earlier, brought my reso and done my famous " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" for the folks. But, hey, better late than never... Sorry about the litter gettin' scratched on ya' but, afterall, it is the Catbox, afterall... Oh, and about the psychics. They're all workin' for the tabloids these days. More money and paid vacations... The Ornery Reverand Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:18 PM psychics... ya right... And Doug Henning, when he ran for PM of Canada, was gonna defend our borders with "Squadrons of tantric flyers"
Talk New-Age all ya want May as well believe in ghosts and goblins, and wishing wells, and horoscopes... For that matter, while yer at it, mail me 2 dollars and I'll tall you the secret to EVERYTHING...
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:55 AM Oh, CLinton, stop it!! You're such a Mugwump!! Bite your tongue!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Hey, Rev Bobert From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 04 Sep 02 - 02:56 AM (quote) "Taliesn: One heck of a party ya' got ragin' here, my friend. Heck, if I knew you were throwin' it, I'd a shown earlier, brought my reso and done my famous " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" for the folks. " Was wondering when y'all would weigh in here. I originally meant this thread with half a mind for folks to join in and contribute ideas for lines for a semi-humorous song along the lines of the "Sign of the Times Blues", but y'all can see what happened. Talk about the law of unintended consequences ,but "spiritied" discussion is healthy nonetheless. I *love* the idea of " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" . Kinda comes under a varaition of the time-worn phrase " there oughta be a law " otherwise known as "there oughta be a song". Anyway glad you came. A "lively" thread just ain't quite the same without a visit from the Right Rev Bobert. Much oblidged Rev. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:40 AM BWL, just to give you an idea, how many dreams there must have been not to call it coincidence: There are very roughly 250,000,000 US-Americans. Assume that each of them only once per life dreams about a plane crashing into a building. Assume that the average American lives 25,000 days (roughly 69 years) to make it easier. Then per chance alone, each night about 10,000 Americans have a dream about a plane crashing into a building. Well, some may never have such a dream (that would make my 10,000 estimation too high), but a dream of that type a couple of day before it happened would still be called a coincidence (that would make my 10,000 estimation too low). Whatever the correct number is, it is in the region of several thousands. Therefore, even with several thousand of such dreams there would still be no need for any other explanation than simple statistical coincidence. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: C'mon Wolfgang From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:56 AM (quote) "Therefore, even with several thousand of such dreams there would still be no need for any other explanation than simple statistical coincidence. " What an amusing statistician's fantasy equation. I just love all of these "what if this were so because of this number and , thus, this means that" .*Spseculative* equations , at best , of a statistically-minded *imagination*. Trying to quantify the qualitative is like trying to explain the French in Chinese. If it can't be quantified ,it becomes incomprehensible. How much of quantum mechanics is *probability* mapping? Nice try ,Wolfgang , but you hit a dry hole. Which calls to mind the wise saying : "The map is *not* the territory" |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:56 AM There is some evidence that those who believe in paranormal phenomena are also more likely to have pooer understanding of coincidences and random events. The famous experiment is one where subjects are asked to generate a pseudo random string of numbers - as if they were tossing a die, 100 hundred times in a row. Those with paranormal beliefs are more likely to produce a string which is non random in particulr ways. They have fewer than expected "co-incidence" substrings, eg 2two sixes occurring consecutively, or 1 followed by 2 followed by 3. This suggests that part of the reason for paranormal beliefs may be that people misunderstand how likely an event to occur by chance, so that when they see a number of co-incidences, they believe that there must be something behind it and it can't be down to chance. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Ringer Date: 04 Sep 02 - 09:50 AM 3) The HELMUT SCHMIDT effect.... experiment with nine lights in a circle showed that people could force the lamps to light in a clockwise sequence, an example of psycho-kinesis or P.K. (from up above) I'm being lazy here: rather than doing my own Google search I want to know about this, and would like Wolfgang's (whose opinions in this area I trust - mainly, I suspect, because I share them (but, I regret, not his scholarship)) take on it. At the moment, if it's based on radioactive decay, I don't believe it. And why the H/S effect? Wasn't he German Chancellor 2 or 3 ago? |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:06 AM Helmut Schmidt is the name of the experimenter famous for conducting these experiments. I'm going to look up some balanced views of his work, if nobody beats me to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM Uh oh, GUEST, Taliesn, you're outta your league. Ringer, here's a seat by me, want some popcorn? |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM Danged, didn't realize I was gonna need my Wes Ginny slide rule at this party.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:31 AM Normally, (and that includes up to now) I stay far away from discussions of this type. But I do have one comment. Wolfgang, thanks for trying to bring some sense to this whole affair. You are, of course, completely correct. But I don't think I'd have your courage to try to bring truth to this group, because you'll always run into people like Taliesn (and others) who are simply too ignorant to understand. Anyway, my compliments to you, Wolfgang!! Keep up the good work. Lyle PS Maybe we should send some of the "lesser lights" a subscription to The Skeptical Inquirer!!" |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:35 AM Same name, (very) different persons, Ringer. Schmidt (and also Jahn) made quite ingenious experiments on PK (psychokinesis). The details differed from experiment to experiment, but mostly their subjects sat in front of a display and 'willed' the lamps to go clockwise/counterclockwise. They had novel features which made these experiments immune to several lines of critique applicable to older experiments: - the randomiser was based on radioactive decay (that's where radioactivity came into it): such a randomiser is better than random number tables or randomiser used in cumputers for those are not truly random but only random for some tests of randomness - the counting procedure was (as all of the experiment) computer controlled without any interference by humans: No (easy) bias in evaluation possible - They ran clever control experiments like e.g. letting the apparatus run all night without a human trying to influence it before it: that excludes a 'drift' in the apparatus (nothing as bad as a subject 'willing' the lights to turn clockwise when the apparatus has a clockwise drift/bias) as explanation. For the same reason they had the subjects 'willing' a clockwise movement just as often as a counterclockwise. Everybody I have read (or heard) believes the researchers to be completely honest. None of the usual counterexplanations that come easily to mind (bias in evaluation, trickery by subjects, wrong randomisation) holds here. Well, one of them could be true, in principle, but the researchers have taken all precautions against so it is not very probable. There are some minor technical points that could hint to a normal explanation, but none of them has been convincing to me. The main problem mainstream scientists have with the results is the tiny effect size. Jahn has reported a hit rate of 50.2 % (50.0 being chance) across experiments. That's highly significant with milions of trials, but it actually means that there is one extra clockwise movement among 500 trials. For me personally, the most probable explanation here is some not yet detected error. For such a small extra-chance effect, even a very minor error suffices. It is not chance operating here, so much is sure. One camp, you may guess which, thinks the paranormal explanation is the only left, the other camp bets on a yet not detected minor flaw. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:03 PM Well of course, it's probably fair to assume that, following September 11, the number of Americans and others who will now in the course of their lifetimes have had dreams about aeroplanes crashing into skyscrapers will have risen considerably. I don't know what that would do to Wolfgang's statistics.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:10 PM Ho-hum. It is still unfortunate that we have these discussions, yet they can never really be open to full discussion of what people who believe have experienced, without being bullied and told how stupid they are. Is it at all possible for one group to let the other group alone and just let them compare notes? I know, I know...don't tell me...I can *see* that it will never come to pass. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Catherine Jayne Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:14 PM I agree with Katlaughing. If someone believes that they are psychic let them believe. They do not deserve to be put down and slagged off about it. In an ideal world people would respect each other's belief's. But as you can see from this thread it is not an ideal world and ot everyone respects others beleifs. Cat |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:17 PM Taliesn may well be out of his league, Mary; but he is pointing to a very strong point. Counting and statistics depend for their validity on certain mechanisms of space and time which make repeatability of mechanical processes workable and countable. Quality of and in itself is not countable, although you can dream up ways to attach metrics to it indirectly. If you put six apples in a bag it is easy to say they are six, but in doing so you are roundly ignoring the myriad differences between them, since they come from diferent places, have differences in hue and shape and flavor and chemistry. You have to ignore the distinctions in order to count the "samenesses", and you are also relying on the time-space mechanisms of separation, unidirectionality, spatial continuity and homogeneity, and so on. There is no guarantee that consciousness itself operates within those mechanisms and constraints. Imagination certainly does not, and there is some experimental indication that time-reversal is much more normal in the realm of consciousness and its effects on material systems, than it is in any material system. If, on the other hand, you assume as your initial premise that consciousness is a byproduct of complexity in material systems only, the "thought is all in the brain" school of thought, whose loudest proponents are people like B.F. Skinner, the father of stimulus-response psychology, and Francis Crick, then the whole debate is meaningless and the meatheads carry the day based on that premise. But personally, I think it is a dangerous premise riddled with inconsistencies. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Sep 02 - 03:02 PM Amos, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot superimpose objectivity on quality, (didn't Pirsig allude to the fact that we can go crazy doing this?), but I don't think the above discussion (number of people having dreams) is an incidence of quantifying a quality. Now if we were quatifying the substance/content of the dreams... "I rate this one a 10..." (Even in cases where this is used as a tool, the investigators (or people involved) understand the ground rules.) It's when we try to communicate (one of your favorite concepts *G*) and we don't all agree on the meanings of the words we use... (I'm still waiting for a song on this one.) |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 03:18 PM Oh, I concur that Wolfgang's analysis-by-numbers is sharp as hell. I am not sure why we would assume anyone should have a dream about a jet crashing into a building particularly -- I don't know anyone who related one to me before July 2001. I know several people who had and related them betweene July and September. Not even counting that lieutenant of Osama's who claimed to have had one although he wasn't in on the top secret plan. So his statistical analysis has a premise in it which is set up to prove its own worth, not that he insists on the premise. Even if there were a distribution of people having such dreams evenly distributed across space and time, I would think that the number of incidences related to a given event would be more significant the closer to the event, because the time-thread including the event was becoming more and more probable. I'd actually expect that such dream-counts would go up before the actual event in a significant pattern, if all the incidents were known. But it is impossible for all the incidents to be known, since very large numbers of people don't have clear memory across the dream/real state boundary and couldn't say if they'd had such a dream or not. Let alone the questions of whether there are different kinds of communications, experiences, extrapolations, and such going on in dreaming states. It is pretty much wholly terra incognita, I think. So I think the picture Wolfgang paints, while very sharp mathematically, lacks real meaning. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM I think we still agree, but are talking about many different things here. One, (I can't speak for Wolfgang...and won't...but...) the explanation directed to BWL was simply that, one explanation, with a lot of roooooom in the numbers. Two, if you were to attempt a meaningful study of people and planes, you would have to somehow take into account other factors such as proximity to the event, possibly an estimation of unknown events, some kind of weighting of the importance of these factors...and even then your "conclusions" would only be meaningful in an appropriate arena with everyone using the same vocabulary. I don't think this is what the original discussion was. I'm reminded of the attempts to quantify economic laws. You can get some pretty wild conclusions when you try to oversimplify a complex situation and talk about it in the press. But there is nevertheless value in making a model, studying it and trying to understand things. Three, oops...gotta go. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Paul Mitchell Date: 04 Sep 02 - 05:30 PM Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. Paul |
|
Subject: RE: *Pagan newslist*?? From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:13 PM (quote) "Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. " Oh ya just gotta looove this: an *unwitch hunt". Pagan Prosecutor: "Have you now ,or have you ever posted on a "Pagan newslist"? Accused: " Uhmm, no, your paganess ,sir . Actually I've never harbored any interest for a start..... " Pagan Prosecutor: " Silence. Then how do you explain the use of the same name on atleast one Pagan newslist we've been able to confirm? " Accused: " Gee, d'ya mind producing this alledged circumstancial evidence or is that *priviledged info*? You better have some hard evidence to produce publically there , Sparky , before this goes any further than it already has because I can already *intuitively* sense that a cyber-lynching is brewing here , with much "busy-ness" of hands & much muttering thorugh back-channels ,with a false accusation supplying the "warp & woof "for a kind of a paranormal paranoia most unbecoming begetting a cyber-vigilnate-ism most unclean . For shame you don't just ask *up front*. Make your case in the open then, I say . S'matter , 'fraid of the *light* Arthur Miller would get a kick out of this. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 11:42 PM :>) From the p-eople who brought you the Uncola, Non-U, and Uncoolness in a Jar... A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:22 AM Preparing for the Equinox celebrations they were - occupied with more important matters. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:28 AM Bobert's "My Crystal Ball Is Stuck in the Pawnshop Blues"
I done sold my incense, All yers, Bobert!! Get ahold of Tweed and knock 'em out on a disc, and you're on your way to the top of the charts!! LOL!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:51 AM hmm, GUEST Taliesn seems awful defensive 'bout sumthin'... other than that, this discussion still seems concerned with arguing about the methodology of proving psychic phenomena...I thought it had been established that such phenomena cannot BE proven by the traditional criteria? For reasons already stated? Yes? And I agree, kat, it's frustrating that people just slag off what they probably just don't understand. Or they lump everything into some lowest-common denominator sort of box. "Like, gee, paranormal stuff? Oh, that must mean they've watched too many episodes of The X-Files! Dummies!" I do not think it is true across the board that people who believe in psychic phenomena are of lower intelligence. Quite the opposite, I'd say. I am certainly of above-average intelligence and I fully accept that there is a wide range of psychological and psychical human experience that cannot be fuly explained by traditional scientific proofs. I think that makes me open-minded, not naive. I would agree stupider-than-usual people are the ones who get addicted to psychic hotlines etc. but haven't we established most of those so-called professionals are charlatans and scam artists? I DO find it funny that the majority of posts moaning about how "stupid" it is to believe in psychic phenomena are full of bad grammar and mispellings...or maybe that's just me.
|
| Share Thread: |