Serious question about ESP (I don't mean psychic or anything silly)

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to this, I don't think I EVER waited to be sure the car was turning before I went but for whatever reason, I waited this time. Lo and behold, the car kept going straight. Had I done what I had always done, I'd have been T-boned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't I heard this story before, except it involved Michael J Fox and a Rolls Royce?

Oh wait, that was Back to the Future.

[turnipmonster]

whenever I bet the pot and my opponents roll their eyes upwards and look like they're calculating something, I put them on a draw. it seems like I am right a lot of the time. is that telloganda? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

--turnipmonster

[Festus22]

Alright, alright - enough with the wisecracks already.

Just think that if I had gotten T-boned and killed you wouldn't have read my story which took you a few seconds. Now when that runaway truck misses you by a few seconds instead of hitting you which is where you would have been if you hadn't read my story, you have me to thank for saving your life.

And if the truck hits you because you were a few seconds behind where you would have been if you hadn't read my story - oops, sorry!

[naphand]

Perhaps, if you were so *open-minded* about the subject you might have bothered to read Rupert Sheldrakes response to the study, and the clear and demonstrated flaws in their experimental protocol, and weak reasoning they used to dismis the positive results of the first trial:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/stare.html

You see - a balanced view requires just that - a balance. If all you ever read are articles debunking events, then you will begin to believe they are always false.

Now, I am not particularly interested in the staring phenomenon but, there is good science and bad science, and the protocols used by csicop for this particular example (which you link to) were plain bad. Their logic is weak, their protocol even more so, as is unavoidably obvious when you read Sheldrakes critique. The experiment was designed in such a way as to make any significant results much harder to detect. Which is, in fact, what you would expect from an organisation that wants to debunk, rather than investigate, on the other hand the investigators may simply have been incompetent....

Presumably, you will dismiss Sheldrakes results as he is a supporter of the idea? (just as anyone can also dismiss csicop's poor results of the grounds they are against the idea).

This is a complicated and subtle area of study, it may go against *common sense* but, then again, so does Quantum Physics. The fact that most scientific protocols are, and have been for over 200 years, based on *clearly observable events* in hard physical environments, may itself be an obstacle to accurately studying consciousness-related phenomena, let alone the entrenched ideas of the skeptics. OK, sure, there are plenty of mood-making whackos out there, but to try and dismiss ESP or whatever particular consciousness-based phenomena, out of hand due to its somewhat bizarre supporters, is also unscientific.

Everything you experience in your life is a funtion of your brain and your consciousness. Take a mind-altering drug and see if the world looks the same. This is an intriguing and fascinating area of study which gets to the heart of what it means to be human. So what if we cannot prove that A can tell if B is staring at them, the results that come out of such experimental approaches may yield far more useful, and potentially far-reaching implications than you or I can imagine. Science itself may need to change to accomodate the results - and this may in fact be the hardest thing to shift of all - far harder than any *mind-over-matter* spoon-bending experiment.

[naphand]

You sure you don't mean *acceptable to the scientists* rather than *scientifically acceptable*.

There is a considerable body of scientific evidence in support of a wide range of consciousness-based phenomena. If you even bothered to carry out even basic research in this area you would have come across it by now.

The problem is not one of lack of evidence, but of trying to make the evidence *fit* currently acceptable methods of scientific research, which in themselves may be an obstacle to its study. The other big problem is the entrenched attitudes of the much of the scientific community but, although probably the majority, an increasingly vocal minority are beginning to accept that the current world-view (or, more accurately, space-time-consciousness view) is not complete by a very long way. We may be about to see amother revolution in scientific thinking, akin to the one at the end of the 19th century (remember Einstein?).

Given the rate of development and vastly more subtle methods of scientific study available now, compared to even just 50 years ago, who is to say what will be discovered in the next 50-500 years? Science periodically undergoes massive and radical shake-ups when one theoretical basis is replaced by another. What is happening now is the replacement of the classical *hard* view of a mechanistic universe, with a far more fluid, indeterminate and plain wierd view based on quantum theory (which itself may be replaced by a more subtle theory). And a feature of the quantum viewpoint, in addition to its several-magnitude increase in accuracy over classical physics (which is about as far as most people get taught in schools - presumably yourself included), is the need to address the role of the *experimenter* in the experiment - that is, to understand the effects of observation (bit like the *staring* thing again) on the observed: in short, consciousness effects.

Call it ESP or call it what you want, physicists are now increasingly beginning to admit that consciousness may play a very significant part in the structure and nature of our universe. You think you can dismiss the body of research that has been created with your one-liner? You're a fool.

If you want to read a good text which deals with the evidence, try reading a publication from the team at Princeton University (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory): *Margins of Reality*. You want evidence? First of all stop looking the other way.

And yes I agree with you - it wont help your card play one bit. Best just concentrate on your A game.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[naphand]

I somehow doubt that anyone *waits* to hear your responses, Daryn. A bit like the *beagle* on Mars, they think it's there, but no-one is getting any useful information out of it.

[naphand]

Quite. An excellent answer.

And in support of it perhaps the mathenaticians can explain to people how some problems have more than one solution, some have none, and some have solutions that cannot be proven but which nonetheless are known to exist.

The whole *you're either with us, or against us* thing is just another exercise in intolerance.

[brad]

'you mentioned people look away while thing of a new idea. I do that too. Do you know why? '

when the visual field is full of complex objects (note that looking up 'clears' the field, think of looking at sky), not all of the visual 'ram' is available for mental computation. and note that vision is the primary sense in humans.

its pretty obvious the brain would 'share memory' (computer metaphor) between say imagination and visual processing.

my guess anyway heh

note that closing your eyes brings on a physical or perhaps conditioned response to relax which is not condusive to complex abstract thinking.

[naphand]

Indeed, the basis of your argument is, in fact, a definition of *intuition*. Intuition is not ESP, but is a result of precisely the process you describe - the subtle registering of body language (visual clues, possible aromas, sounds etc. plus past experience and current state of mind).

If people concentrated more on developing their observational skills, and tried to learn more from experience, they would find their *hunches* or *intuition*, increasingly correct.

[naphand]

If you cannot see the transparently flawed thinking behind these statements (from James *The Amazing* Randi - a man who specialises in misleading the public) then you are in no position to understand their implications either.

Life consists of many unique events. Much can be learned about gross and some subtle effects in laboratories, but the standard scientific approach - that of replication - is an extremely limited tool for the study of life. While personal testimony may not be a *scientific procedure* I have yet to see any experiment which proves the existence of dreams, or emotions such as love. Can these things be studied *under laboratory conditions*. No. There are many events which have occurred which can also, likewise, not be studied, such as the assassination of JFK. What science is very good at, is studying PARTS. But ask any biologist if any higher-level life form can be broken down into PARTS and the parts studied, and so the whole becomes understood. This is a false premise. Science is limited in what it can understand - powerful and highly successful, but limited nonetheless. Study of such things as *psychology* for example, are considered by many not to fall into the remit of *science* (that may not be the opinion of all, but it is widely held). Why is this? Because the human brain is not just a sum of its parts. There remain many areas of study, and the study of consciousness-based phenomena is just one, that lie outwith the remit of science. To claim total authority over the extent of knowledge about the universe/human condition on the basis of science, is a phallacy, and one the sicentific community recognises but refuses to admit. Application of Occams' Razor - we don't need it therefore we ignore it. What may happen in the near future is that the boundaries of science will be pushed back, or alternatively the limits of scientific endeavour will become better defined. Something has to give, as there is a body of research that demands it.

Randi and his organisation arrogantly assume that EVERYTHING worth consideration can be investigated by recognised scientific methods. This is complete nonsense, and one wonders exactly what he is trying to prove (maybe he had some kind of problem with religion when he was younger).

The whole fiasco of the scicop's handling of the Gauquelin data and the so-called *Mars Effect* should be enough to convince any impartial observer of the total lack of scientific credibility, and debunking-agenda of his organisation. When scicop comes across evidence they cannot refute - they bury it and refuse to discuss it, and worse. That this organisation has any credibility whatsoever, is a damning indictment of the nature of so-called *scientific progress* and the entrenched attitudes of the scientific community.

"if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accomodation need be made, then the simpler--the second--of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."

Yeah - I'm pretty sure Einstein ran into plenty of people with these kind of ideas.

Logic itself is limited in what it can deduce, as it follows a linear process that limits the ability of the thinking processs to make the necessarily complex constructs that most certainly will be required to explain more complicated natural behaviours (such as social interactions in higher life forms) and most certainly a huge panapoly of other biological phenomena as well.

Note that "more likely to be correct" does not "=BS" it just means "less likely". And in fact in just means "less likely from our present level of understanding". Scientific theories ("Laws") are constantly having to be re-written as science progresses, and while the simplest answers often provide elegant solutions, they are not the only solutions, and are often not enough in themselves. On the one hand you assert that science is progressing, on the other you talk of "having to suspend current laws". You cannot have it both ways. Either the laws are being re-written constantly as new data emerges (TRUE) or science knows everything there is to know are the laws are immutable (FALSE).

The "laws" you talk of are man-made laws, and probably incomplete (understatement). What are the "laws" anyway? and how do they affect the universe? where do they exist? how are they maintained? There are many questions (you may choose to call them philosophical) that science cannot answer, in fact it can be argued that science cannot answer the most important questions. Much of the "suspension" of the laws that Randi/scicop talk of is in fact a gross overstatment - there are no *hard* laws in the qunatum physics, just probabilities, and those probabilities can be overcome with tiny energetic variances at the subtle levels of creation. There is evidence that the human mind works at the quantum level (quantum effects have been observed in the brain), and if so, then the possiblities may be far wider-reaching than anything discussed on this forum or at scicop.

"one says that these basic physical laws have been suspended in this case--a unique event never before known in history"

Total arrogance. How can scicop POSSIBLY claim that an event has been "never before known in human history". What a totally arrogant and flawed statement that is - PROVE IT. they do not have access to all data since the big bang, so the statement is itself unprovable, and clearly something that deserves the utmost contempt. Does Randi even know what he means by "basic physical laws"? Because that sounds very much like classical "Newtonian" physics to me, just a couple of centuries behind the times, boys.

The "laws" of conservation of energy referred to, are not laws that apply in the quantum realm, where time and distance do not exist, and which contains an unlimited source of energy (there is more latent energy is 1 cubic inch of empty space, than tied up in all the known physical universe - suns, galaxies etc.). So talk of "transfer of energy" in classical terms is outdated.

This is not meant as some kind of blueprint for the explanation/acceptance of the paranormal, but scicops reliance on "classical" physics and "logic", and total failure to accept (?) that the human mind exists as anything other than an illusion (the standard skeptics view) should set alarm bells ringing in the minds of anyone familiar with the ideas of "New Physics".

And finally:

"I've read "Skeptical Inquirer" for years, and I haven't found any article that shows how an event can be replicated, and then concludes that the event could only have happened that way."

Really? Why then, is this Randi's standard approach to debunking so-called "paranormal" phenomena on his TV appearances? His particular relationship, and totally unscientific hatred, of Uri Geller is a case in point. While I find Geller "interesting" I am not in a position to confirm or refute his claims, though the fact he has made millions using his powers for the benefit of mining companies is itself a level of vindication (they would not have employed him if he could not supply the "goods"). But Randi uses a conjuring trick to bend spoons on TV in front of live audiences, and claims that, because he has duplicated Gellers "tricks" on TV, they are in fact also just conjuring tricks. This is his standard line - despite the fact that almost everyone who has seen Geller perform says that he does not hold the objects in his hand and just lightly touches them with his fingertip (I don't really want to get into this, its a subject on its own). Randi refutes the claims of Geller (and others), by using sleight of hand, then accuses the others of doing the same. Randi tried for years to debunk Geller, and failed to do so. What does this say for his "scientific approach" Very, very little. I cannot trust much Geller claims to be able to do, but I certainly don't trust a word that comes from Randi and his cohorts.