J
Jamie
Guest
Winston wrote:
Jamie
cells is actually beneficial?
Jamie
W
Winston
Guest
Jamie wrote:
now did I?
--Winston<-- And I should know, too.
I didn't say *all* the changes our brains make are beneficial,
now did I?
--Winston<-- And I should know, too.
W
Winston
Guest
Ron Hubbard wrote:
taken the necessary time off his projects to get an EEG.
--Winston
I'll take your word for it, though I'm dubious that he would'veOn Apr 10, 11:50 am, Winston<Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
Ron Hubbard wrote:
(...)
the fact is, highly creative people like
Nikola Tesla as wll as many strongly psychic people such as Karl Jung
et al produce considerable amounts of theta activity.
Less now, though.
--Winston
Well, *did* anyway...
taken the necessary time off his projects to get an EEG.
--Winston
C
Chiron
Guest
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:16:53 -0700, Winston wrote:
*external* magnetic fields, *external* strobes, and an *external*
biofeedback machine. When I comment about changes to the brain typically
being damage, I was also referring to *external* causes of changes to the
brain, in particular an unnatural stimulus that would not have been
something the human brain would have had time to deal with through
evolution.
My comment about the (possible) brain damage was in reply to Ron's
wondering whether a person who used magnetic fields to attain
entrainment, would eventually be able to accomplish this without the
field.
I have no idea whether intense lights could result in any brain damage.
Since it sometimes happen that flashing lights trigger convulsions, the
possibility seems to exist; but I don't know of any experiments that
confirm this. However, I wasn't talking about LED's when I spoke of the
possible damage. I was referring specifically to the use of magnetic
fields.
My only comment about the LED's was that I don't see why they wouldn't be
just as effective as medical strobes, assuming sufficient brightness and
proper wavelength.
implies that a person could do this without the external field.
you are mistaken. In case I'm not clear: LED's are not natural,
internal devices. Biofeedback machines are not natural, internal
devices. ELF magnetic fields generated by IC's and copper wire are not
natural, internal devices. So, no, these are all changes imposed from
outside the brain.
Various *external* stimuli may affect the brain in different ways. One
possible way might be entrainment of brain waves, having them fall into a
particular pattern or frequency. This can apparently happen through
flashing lights, biofeedback, and magnetic fields. These would all be
*external* stimuli, not built in LED's, etc. Keep this in mind - we're
still talking *external* here.
Entrainment does not appear to have any deleterious effects. That is, as
far as I know, researchers do not find that when entrainment occurs, the
brain or other parts of the organism are damaged.
So far, so good. Now, work with me on this, Winston, and maybe you'll
understand.
I replied to Ron's post in order; that is, he spoke of three issues, and
I replied to them in the order he presented them. His first comment was
concerning photo-entrainment, which he said had a "threshold" effect and
LED's wouldn't be effective. I commented that LED's probably *would* be
effective, if you used enough of them, since there is nothing preventing
you from firing off dozens of them if you need higher intensity. Please
note that we're still talking about *external* stimulation here, LED's
that are *external* to the subject.
Ron's next comment was concerning biofeedback. Ron was talking about
*external* biofeedback, a $1200 machine in fact. I commented that a) I'd
tried it without much success; and b) I thought it might be possible to
build your own biofeedback machine (again, an *external* biofeedback
machine). Nothing much to all this, just kind of tossing out a
possibility.
Then I moved on the the magnetic stimulation, which is what Ron is
currently working on (and which is, again, an *external* device). Sorry
if I repeat myself, but I want to be very clear that we're talking about
*external* devices here. Moving right along...
Ron wondered whether a person who had undergone magnetic stimulation or
magnetically-induced entrainment, would eventually be able to attain that
frequency by himself, without an *external* device to help him accomplish
it. I expressed my doubts.
Now here's where we might get into the real confusing part. I did say
that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."' You correctly pointed
out that the brain, in order to function properly, *must* change. So my
statement, taken in isolation, was incorrect. The brain is always
changing, and must do so to remain healthy.
However, in the context of the discussion, I had assumed it would be
clear that I was referring to the specific situation in which changes to
the brain were imposed from an *external* source, that being the magnetic
field. This was, in fact, a hypothetical question to begin with, because
I don't know whether long-term entrainment would even cause any lasting
changes to the brain. What I meant was that *if* long-term (or repeated)
*externally* induced entrainment did result in lasting changes to the
brain, it is likely that those changes would be injurious.
In general, changes to the brain that don't result from its natural
functioning (that is, changes that result from *external* causes) are
considered damage.
where you get this whole thing about microwaves.
I'm not being snotty, but are you using the term "microwaves" correctly?
Are you referring to high-frequency (short wavelength) electromagnetic
radiation? Because Ron's experiment isn't using anything like that.
But perhaps what you intended to talk about were micro-power waves? In
that case then yes, maybe there is a risk of some sort. I don't know.
When it comes to messing with the brain, I feel that it is best to err on
the side of caution.
much damage.
--
Don't speak about Time, until you have spoken to him.
Chiron wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:28:30 -0700, Winston wrote:
Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
usually equivalent to "damage."
(...)
I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
changes that occur as a result of natural processes.
?
Chiron > Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.
Built-in, self grown LEDs? Doesn't sound too natural to me.
Could you point out to me where I spoke of "self grown LED's"?
exchange between me and Ron, you would see that he was talking about
*external* magnetic fields, *external* strobes, and an *external*
biofeedback machine. When I comment about changes to the brain typically
being damage, I was also referring to *external* causes of changes to the
brain, in particular an unnatural stimulus that would not have been
something the human brain would have had time to deal with through
evolution.
My comment about the (possible) brain damage was in reply to Ron's
wondering whether a person who used magnetic fields to attain
entrainment, would eventually be able to accomplish this without the
field.
I have no idea whether intense lights could result in any brain damage.
Since it sometimes happen that flashing lights trigger convulsions, the
possibility seems to exist; but I don't know of any experiments that
confirm this. However, I wasn't talking about LED's when I spoke of the
possible damage. I was referring specifically to the use of magnetic
fields.
My only comment about the LED's was that I don't see why they wouldn't be
just as effective as medical strobes, assuming sufficient brightness and
proper wavelength.
Kindly point out where I talked about a built-in biofeedback device.(...)
Chiron > I've tried biofeedback.
Built-in biofeedback device?
energy.
was Ron. I'm not sure how you got onto the subject.Chiron > OTOH, the magnetic device you are talking about is much
simpler...
Growing one naturally inside your brain will be problematic.
I would assume so. Of course, I wasn't talking about any such thing, nor
caused their brain waves to become "entrained." Nothing about this
implies that a person could do this without the external field.
natural processes. I don't know how you arrive at this conclusion, but
you are mistaken. In case I'm not clear: LED's are not natural,
internal devices. Biofeedback machines are not natural, internal
devices. ELF magnetic fields generated by IC's and copper wire are not
natural, internal devices. So, no, these are all changes imposed from
outside the brain.
Various *external* stimuli may affect the brain in different ways. One
possible way might be entrainment of brain waves, having them fall into a
particular pattern or frequency. This can apparently happen through
flashing lights, biofeedback, and magnetic fields. These would all be
*external* stimuli, not built in LED's, etc. Keep this in mind - we're
still talking *external* here.
Entrainment does not appear to have any deleterious effects. That is, as
far as I know, researchers do not find that when entrainment occurs, the
brain or other parts of the organism are damaged.
So far, so good. Now, work with me on this, Winston, and maybe you'll
understand.
I replied to Ron's post in order; that is, he spoke of three issues, and
I replied to them in the order he presented them. His first comment was
concerning photo-entrainment, which he said had a "threshold" effect and
LED's wouldn't be effective. I commented that LED's probably *would* be
effective, if you used enough of them, since there is nothing preventing
you from firing off dozens of them if you need higher intensity. Please
note that we're still talking about *external* stimulation here, LED's
that are *external* to the subject.
Ron's next comment was concerning biofeedback. Ron was talking about
*external* biofeedback, a $1200 machine in fact. I commented that a) I'd
tried it without much success; and b) I thought it might be possible to
build your own biofeedback machine (again, an *external* biofeedback
machine). Nothing much to all this, just kind of tossing out a
possibility.
Then I moved on the the magnetic stimulation, which is what Ron is
currently working on (and which is, again, an *external* device). Sorry
if I repeat myself, but I want to be very clear that we're talking about
*external* devices here. Moving right along...
Ron wondered whether a person who had undergone magnetic stimulation or
magnetically-induced entrainment, would eventually be able to attain that
frequency by himself, without an *external* device to help him accomplish
it. I expressed my doubts.
Now here's where we might get into the real confusing part. I did say
that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."' You correctly pointed
out that the brain, in order to function properly, *must* change. So my
statement, taken in isolation, was incorrect. The brain is always
changing, and must do so to remain healthy.
However, in the context of the discussion, I had assumed it would be
clear that I was referring to the specific situation in which changes to
the brain were imposed from an *external* source, that being the magnetic
field. This was, in fact, a hypothetical question to begin with, because
I don't know whether long-term entrainment would even cause any lasting
changes to the brain. What I meant was that *if* long-term (or repeated)
*externally* induced entrainment did result in lasting changes to the
brain, it is likely that those changes would be injurious.
In general, changes to the brain that don't result from its natural
functioning (that is, changes that result from *external* causes) are
considered damage.
I think we are getting somewhere.
We?
microwaves. The only one talking about microwaves is you. I don't know
where you get this whole thing about microwaves.
I'm not being snotty, but are you using the term "microwaves" correctly?
Are you referring to high-frequency (short wavelength) electromagnetic
radiation? Because Ron's experiment isn't using anything like that.
But perhaps what you intended to talk about were micro-power waves? In
that case then yes, maybe there is a risk of some sort. I don't know.
When it comes to messing with the brain, I feel that it is best to err on
the side of caution.
microwaves in the first place, or that their intensity is too low to do
much damage.
Well, why did you then keep referring to "internal" LED's, etc.?"I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
changes that occur as a result of natural processes."
But of course.
--
Don't speak about Time, until you have spoken to him.
C
Chiron
Guest
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:42 -0400, Jamie wrote:
with each drink, is incorrect. What happens is that when a person
drinks, especially if he drinks a lot, his brain shrinks. The assumption
was that the brain cells were killed. Mostly what happens is that the
cells lose a bit of water. Once a person stops drinking, the brain tends
to recover.
Of course, severe drinking does cause cell death, and prolonged abuse can
result in irreversible damage. But it's not quite as bad as we've been
told...
--
<liiwi> so, what's the official way to get buildd to retry a package? prod
it with a stick?
<Joey> prod neuro
<liiwi> with a stick?
<Joey> yes.
It turns out that the old "fact" that you destroy so many brain cells
with each drink, is incorrect. What happens is that when a person
drinks, especially if he drinks a lot, his brain shrinks. The assumption
was that the brain cells were killed. Mostly what happens is that the
cells lose a bit of water. Once a person stops drinking, the brain tends
to recover.
Of course, severe drinking does cause cell death, and prolonged abuse can
result in irreversible damage. But it's not quite as bad as we've been
told...
--
<liiwi> so, what's the official way to get buildd to retry a package? prod
it with a stick?
<Joey> prod neuro
<liiwi> with a stick?
<Joey> yes.
C
Chiron
Guest
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:46:51 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
cost, other than "more than I can afford." OK, I just checked on E-Bay.
They're around $100 and up; what I saw didn't allow flashes below 50
Hz... so maybe that wouldn't work out so well...
As for LED's - again, I see no reason why they wouldn't work just as
well. Maybe they wouldn't - but I haven't seen anything that says so.
Duration probably isn't an issue. The eye and nervous system have a
certain latency that is far longer than that of the strobe or LED.
assuming it wouldn't be a difficult project - it's worth giving it a
shot. So maybe I'll work on this little idea, see what I come up with.
But of course - how do I tell whether I'm getting an effect, or whether
it's just the placebo effect? OTOH, if I'm happy, does it matter??
instrumentation amplifiers with a CMRR of 120 dB, input impedances of
10^12 ohms, all kinds of neat stuff.
I'm not claiming the effort would be trivial. You still have to consider
filtering, amplification, shielding, and so on. But it's not as hard as
it used to be.
But I'm not convinced biofeedback is even useful for this sort of thing.
make it a sine. Not ideal, of course...
having their beliefs challenged, they try to suppress or ignore new ones,
and on and on and on. This isn't generally true.
For example, look at how the scientific community dealt with the news
that researchers had evidence that neutrinos were traveling faster than
the speed of light. This idea (faster-than-light speed) violates one of
science's basic tenets, the teachings of St. Albert. So what happened?
Other scientists sought to confirm the findings. No one tried to
suppress them. No one tried to cover it all up, or discredit the guys
who made the initial observations, or criticized them for heresy (or was
it blasphemy? I never can keep them straight). They said, in effect,
"OK, let's have a look. Probably nothing to it, but you never know... if
you're right, you've just helped rewrite physics (again)."
What is correct is that science won't *accept* new ideas, without
subjecting them to serious examination and testing. And this is where so
many would-be inventors and discoverers go wrong. They don't produce
results that are clear and that can be duplicated. Without that their
discoveries are not useful to science.
The problem isn't that there's no useful information out there. The
problem is that there is no way to distinguish useful information from
bullshit, once you leave the formal structure of science. It's hard
enough to do even within that structure - and there are always errors and
frauds being uncovered in science. Still, there are even more errors and
frauds committed outside of science.
or the brain. Our society still punishes mental illness and even
originality. We still don't know how to heal a person's psychological
illnesses or wounds, except to drug them. In my lifetime psychiatrists
thought that a good way to treat mental illness was to shove an ice pick
into the brain (called a lobotomy or leucotomy).
so most people don't show theta during waking hours - doesn't mean that
would be abnormal. And I'm not even convinced that theta would cause
night terrors or ADHD. For all we know, maybe theta is how the brain
tries to deal with these problems. We haven't yet begun to learn about
our minds and brains...
But I guess that's what you're trying to do.
--
Growing old isn't bad when you consider the alternatives.
-- Maurice Chevalier
I remember Melvin Powers. I had some of his books, back in the day...
them for photography, in discos, and other things. No clue how much they
cost, other than "more than I can afford." OK, I just checked on E-Bay.
They're around $100 and up; what I saw didn't allow flashes below 50
Hz... so maybe that wouldn't work out so well...
As for LED's - again, I see no reason why they wouldn't work just as
well. Maybe they wouldn't - but I haven't seen anything that says so.
Duration probably isn't an issue. The eye and nervous system have a
certain latency that is far longer than that of the strobe or LED.
afford, and if there's some chance that a project I make would work -
assuming it wouldn't be a difficult project - it's worth giving it a
shot. So maybe I'll work on this little idea, see what I come up with.
But of course - how do I tell whether I'm getting an effect, or whether
it's just the placebo effect? OTOH, if I'm happy, does it matter??
The technology has changed radically since then. There are
instrumentation amplifiers with a CMRR of 120 dB, input impedances of
10^12 ohms, all kinds of neat stuff.
I'm not claiming the effort would be trivial. You still have to consider
filtering, amplification, shielding, and so on. But it's not as hard as
it used to be.
But I'm not convinced biofeedback is even useful for this sort of thing.
always use a 555-type chip and filter the hell out of the square wave to
make it a sine. Not ideal, of course...
Hidebound establishment scientists, this notion goes, are afraid of
having their beliefs challenged, they try to suppress or ignore new ones,
and on and on and on. This isn't generally true.
For example, look at how the scientific community dealt with the news
that researchers had evidence that neutrinos were traveling faster than
the speed of light. This idea (faster-than-light speed) violates one of
science's basic tenets, the teachings of St. Albert. So what happened?
Other scientists sought to confirm the findings. No one tried to
suppress them. No one tried to cover it all up, or discredit the guys
who made the initial observations, or criticized them for heresy (or was
it blasphemy? I never can keep them straight). They said, in effect,
"OK, let's have a look. Probably nothing to it, but you never know... if
you're right, you've just helped rewrite physics (again)."
What is correct is that science won't *accept* new ideas, without
subjecting them to serious examination and testing. And this is where so
many would-be inventors and discoverers go wrong. They don't produce
results that are clear and that can be duplicated. Without that their
discoveries are not useful to science.
The problem isn't that there's no useful information out there. The
problem is that there is no way to distinguish useful information from
bullshit, once you leave the formal structure of science. It's hard
enough to do even within that structure - and there are always errors and
frauds being uncovered in science. Still, there are even more errors and
frauds committed outside of science.
I don't think we have any idea what's "normal" when it comes to the mindnight, but the current view that theta is an abnormal activity in
waking adults is wrong: the fact is, highly creative people like Nikola
Tesla as wll as many strongly psychic people such as Karl Jung et al
produce considerable amounts of theta activity. While it could
conceivably cause ADD/ADHD and night terrors in some, for the most part
the advantages far outweigh the few disadvantages in trms of healing,
learning, and psi potential (if you believe in that sort of thing).
or the brain. Our society still punishes mental illness and even
originality. We still don't know how to heal a person's psychological
illnesses or wounds, except to drug them. In my lifetime psychiatrists
thought that a good way to treat mental illness was to shove an ice pick
into the brain (called a lobotomy or leucotomy).
so most people don't show theta during waking hours - doesn't mean that
would be abnormal. And I'm not even convinced that theta would cause
night terrors or ADHD. For all we know, maybe theta is how the brain
tries to deal with these problems. We haven't yet begun to learn about
our minds and brains...
But I guess that's what you're trying to do.
--
Growing old isn't bad when you consider the alternatives.
-- Maurice Chevalier
C
Chiron
Guest
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:38:45 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
possible that Tesla could have had an eeg. However, there is nothing in
any of his biographies that I've read that suggest he ever had one.
--
Take it easy, we're in a hurry.
Electroencephalography was invented in 1924 by Hans Berger, so it's
possible that Tesla could have had an eeg. However, there is nothing in
any of his biographies that I've read that suggest he ever had one.
--
Take it easy, we're in a hurry.
W
Winston
Guest
Chiron wrote:
brain changes prompted by totally external stimuli could only be
considered harmless in your world view if they were instead the
result of completely internal, natural stimuli; that brain changes
that were the result of external stimuli were highly likely to be
damaging.
I was trying to envision what would have to be true in order for
all stimuli to be considered harmless, given the internal, natural
constraint we were discussing.
Obviously, my three examples were ridiculously incorrect.
No one yet grows LED's, biofeedback devices or inductors
organically in their noggin, to my knowledge, yet.
I provided a couple examples of things that complied with
your observation about dangerous external stimuli.
One, a physical LED at sufficient velocity could possibly cause
brain damage; I admitted that I had no data on the subject.
Two, that microwave radiation of correct power is an external
stimulus that is highly likely to be dangerous and indeed life-
threatening to any brain unfortunate enough to be targeted.
I admit I was thinking about the chemical and physical changes
brought about in the food cooking process to support that hypothesis.
I now understand you better after your clarification:
Chiron > I did say that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."'
Chiron > You correctly pointed out that the brain, in order to function
Chiron > properly, *must* change. So my statement, taken in isolation,
Chiron > was incorrect. The brain is always changing, and must do so
Chiron > to remain healthy.
That makes much more sense to me. It places an overwhelming majority
of external brain stimuli into the 'completely harmless and probably
highly edifying' category, which, IMHO is where they belong.
Thank you for clarifying that. I can stop eying my collection
of LEDs with such trepidation.
Second order effects come into play when you deny an animal
of the use of their brain and muscles. Damage does not have to
be limited to that directly caused by cooking brain tissue.
That is, power levels *exceeding* a threshold actually affected
his subjects far less than some of the *lower* power levels
he tried. I don't understand that, but then I don't understand
the basis of much of what he said either. I do understand the
larger picture, however.
in the June, July 1988 issue of _Byte Magazine_ is a good
example; was available in kit form IIRC. See _Computers
on the Brain_ Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, Volume 7
There are other examples, too.
http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/links-biopsy.html
found that carrier frequency was almost completely unimportant.
radiation:
http://ecee.colorado.edu/microwave/docs/publications/2004/MTT_JHfhWMrzZP_Mar04.pdf
--Winston
My comments were an attempt to understand howOn Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:16:53 -0700, Winston wrote:
Chiron wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:28:30 -0700, Winston wrote:
Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
usually equivalent to "damage."
(...)
I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
changes that occur as a result of natural processes.
?
Chiron> Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.
Built-in, self grown LEDs? Doesn't sound too natural to me.
Could you point out to me where I spoke of "self grown LED's"?
brain changes prompted by totally external stimuli could only be
considered harmless in your world view if they were instead the
result of completely internal, natural stimuli; that brain changes
that were the result of external stimuli were highly likely to be
damaging.
I was trying to envision what would have to be true in order for
all stimuli to be considered harmless, given the internal, natural
constraint we were discussing.
Obviously, my three examples were ridiculously incorrect.
No one yet grows LED's, biofeedback devices or inductors
organically in their noggin, to my knowledge, yet.
I provided a couple examples of things that complied with
your observation about dangerous external stimuli.
One, a physical LED at sufficient velocity could possibly cause
brain damage; I admitted that I had no data on the subject.
Two, that microwave radiation of correct power is an external
stimulus that is highly likely to be dangerous and indeed life-
threatening to any brain unfortunate enough to be targeted.
I admit I was thinking about the chemical and physical changes
brought about in the food cooking process to support that hypothesis.
I now understand you better after your clarification:
Chiron > I did say that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."'
Chiron > You correctly pointed out that the brain, in order to function
Chiron > properly, *must* change. So my statement, taken in isolation,
Chiron > was incorrect. The brain is always changing, and must do so
Chiron > to remain healthy.
That makes much more sense to me. It places an overwhelming majority
of external brain stimuli into the 'completely harmless and probably
highly edifying' category, which, IMHO is where they belong.
Thank you for clarifying that. I can stop eying my collection
of LEDs with such trepidation.
I agree. There's good science backing that up.
And other stimuli as well, yes.
Yes.
'Difficult to make that call based on no information however.
Second order effects come into play when you deny an animal
of the use of their brain and muscles. Damage does not have to
be limited to that directly caused by cooking brain tissue.
Here's hoping.
In Dr. Adey's work, he reveals a real stunner <G>.
That is, power levels *exceeding* a threshold actually affected
his subjects far less than some of the *lower* power levels
he tried. I don't understand that, but then I don't understand
the basis of much of what he said either. I do understand the
larger picture, however.
Indeed.
Sure! Steve Ciarcia's HAL EEG Brain-Wave Monitor published
in the June, July 1988 issue of _Byte Magazine_ is a good
example; was available in kit form IIRC. See _Computers
on the Brain_ Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, Volume 7
There are other examples, too.
http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/links-biopsy.html
I agree with your doubts.
Ah. Now I see.
Well, I thought I saw, anyway.
Yup. I figure around 900 MHz is the sweet spot, though Dr. Adey
found that carrier frequency was almost completely unimportant.
I get that. Near-field magnetism is just a carrier, too.
I agree with you. Many don't.
These guys want to power electronics using ambient microwave
radiation:
http://ecee.colorado.edu/microwave/docs/publications/2004/MTT_JHfhWMrzZP_Mar04.pdf
Perhaps we will see in time. (Probably not, though.)
--Winston
R
Ron Hubbard
Guest
On Apr 10, 3:59 pm, Winston <Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
as he himself acknowledged that he had a strange condition where he
would imagine something with such clarity that the imagined object
would stay in front of him and he could walk around it as if it was
his own personal hologram. Even Tesla knew this was abnormal and
wanted to know the whys and hows behind that phenomenon
Tesla was born July 10, 1856 and I was born July 6, 1956-- like
Michael Crichton who had a fascination for mysticism (he even learned
spoon bending / telekinesis) I'm pretty sure that if the science was
there, Tesla would have had a strong interest in anything that would
help him understand himself better and what the mind could do, and
espcially what *his* mind could do.
Ron
_________________
Pity Tesla died in 1943 before electroencehpalography (sp?) came aboutRon Hubbard wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:50 am, Winston<Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
Ron Hubbard wrote:
(...)
the fact is, highly creative people like
Nikola Tesla as wll as many strongly psychic people such as Karl Jung
et al produce considerable amounts of theta activity.
Less now, though.
--Winston
Well, *did* anyway...
I'll take your word for it, though I'm dubious that he would've
taken the necessary time off his projects to get an EEG.
--Winston
as he himself acknowledged that he had a strange condition where he
would imagine something with such clarity that the imagined object
would stay in front of him and he could walk around it as if it was
his own personal hologram. Even Tesla knew this was abnormal and
wanted to know the whys and hows behind that phenomenon
Tesla was born July 10, 1856 and I was born July 6, 1956-- like
Michael Crichton who had a fascination for mysticism (he even learned
spoon bending / telekinesis) I'm pretty sure that if the science was
there, Tesla would have had a strong interest in anything that would
help him understand himself better and what the mind could do, and
espcially what *his* mind could do.
Ron
_________________
C
Chiron
Guest
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:14:43 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
they've discovered some issues with the setup that might explain the
results. As I understand it, they're going to do some more experiments.
They would reject the idea that telepathy is FTL, mainly because there is
no convincing evidence that telepathy exists. Believe me, lots of
scientists would just LOVE to find out that telepathy did exist; it would
open up all sorts of new vistas. Unfortunately, the evidence does not
support the idea.
The most compelling evidence - or perhaps I should say, the least
inadequate evidence - is probably the work done by JB Rhine at Duke
University. He did thousands of experiments with Zener cards, dice, and
other things trying to ascertain the existence of clairvoyance,
telepathy, psychokinesis, precognition, anything. He had some intriguing
results.
Unfortunately, Rhine began to try to explain disappointing results with
various ad hoc ideas such as "subject fatigue." That meant that as a
subject repeated experiments, he'd become bored, unmotivated, and
eventually any psi talent he exhibited would fail. The problem with this
explanation is that there is nothing it offers, that isn't already
covered by the idea that the odds will tend to average out. You'll get
some streaks of hits, and some streaks of misses, and - barring some sort
of psychic ability - your results will average out. In other words,
Rhine was trying to find a psi explanation for why his results tended
towards average.
No one else has done any better in demonstrating the *existence* of
telepathy. Until that happens, there is no reason to try to establish
whether it's faster than light. In fact, I would suggest that since
we're talking about human response times and distances of far less than a
light second (about 40 msec if the subjects are on opposite sides of the
planet), it isn't possible to show that telepathy is FTL or
instantaneous. But that's a whole other issue.
I actually believe in psi phenomena; I've experienced them and seen them,
and after doing my very best to "explain them away" a very few resist any
such explanations. But that's not scientific evidence. It's not
repeatable, not quantifiable, and that's what science needs.
If psi phenomena are somewhat spiritual or non-material, then science may
not be an appropriate tool for examining them. Science deals with things
that can be measured in some way, quantified, weight, whatever. It
requires repeatable experiments or observations. Sometimes people
consider this a flaw of science. Not so. It's what makes it science; it
is the strength of science. But science doesn't cover everything.
Science can measure hormone levels, sexual responses, heart rates, etc. -
the physical manifestations of lust or love. But science cannot measure
love. In fact, science cannot even prove that such a thing exists.
Most scientists, despite their cold reputations, have experienced love,
so they believe in it even if they can't prove its existence
scientifically. Most scientist, however, have not experienced psi
phenomena. They don't believe in it, and nothing in their armamentarium
is useful for investigating psi. They have no reason to believe in psi.
It is unfortunately true that some scientists claim that whatever can't
be investigated with science doesn't exist. That's not true. What can't
be investigated with science, cannot be discussed scientifically, that's
all.
Understand, too, that anecdotal evidence is entirely useless to science.
No matter how many people see - or think they see, or *say* they see -
something, it doesn't come under the purview of scientific investigation
until there is some way to reliable witness the phenomenon.
Take Bigfoot for example. Thousands of sightings, hundreds or maybe
thousands of photos; videos, footprints, and so on. Some of these turned
out to be admitted hoaxes. Some were hoaxes that weren't admitted. Some
may have been mistakes - bears or humans at a distance. Maybe there is a
Bigfoot tribe out there somewhere. But until there is some way to
reliably see them - or to find bones, a living Bigfoot, something -
science can do nothing about it. It has no basis for investigating.
With psi things are even more muddled. Quite often, there are things
going on like selection bias, where you remember the rare hits and forget
the numerous misses. Many times someone will ask, "What are the odds?"
assuming they're rare; when in fact, they're not. Not to mention error,
wishful thinking, and fraud. Many of the stories I had heard as a kid,
that convinced me there was psi, turned out to be hoaxes. The Fox
sisters - a hoax. The Cottingley fairies - hoax. Many, many psychics
turned out to be hoaxers. Maybe they were driven to fakery when they
felt they *had* to produce results, but weren't able to. Maybe they
started out honestly and went bad. I don't know - but there were many
hoaxes, all the same.
Dr. Rhine's experiments have two strikes against them. First, Dr. Rhine
went astray with his ad hoc explanations for poor results. Eventually he
was trying to claim that above-average hits indicated psi; and below-
average hits also indicated psi, but that the person was unconsciously
but deliberately missing because he was bored.
Second, no one else has been able to duplicate the experiments.
Sure, it may very well be true that psi doesn't do well in a laboratory
setting. People would rarely fall in love under such conditions; perhaps
psi works the same way. That doesn't prove that psi exists. It only
explains why psi might not be a suitable subject for scientific
investigation.
Hmm... seems I've run on quite a bit.
--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to
biology?
--
Graduate life: It's not just a job. It's an indenture.
*investigated* it. The jury is still out about them, though apparently
they've discovered some issues with the setup that might explain the
results. As I understand it, they're going to do some more experiments.
They would reject the idea that telepathy is FTL, mainly because there is
no convincing evidence that telepathy exists. Believe me, lots of
scientists would just LOVE to find out that telepathy did exist; it would
open up all sorts of new vistas. Unfortunately, the evidence does not
support the idea.
The most compelling evidence - or perhaps I should say, the least
inadequate evidence - is probably the work done by JB Rhine at Duke
University. He did thousands of experiments with Zener cards, dice, and
other things trying to ascertain the existence of clairvoyance,
telepathy, psychokinesis, precognition, anything. He had some intriguing
results.
Unfortunately, Rhine began to try to explain disappointing results with
various ad hoc ideas such as "subject fatigue." That meant that as a
subject repeated experiments, he'd become bored, unmotivated, and
eventually any psi talent he exhibited would fail. The problem with this
explanation is that there is nothing it offers, that isn't already
covered by the idea that the odds will tend to average out. You'll get
some streaks of hits, and some streaks of misses, and - barring some sort
of psychic ability - your results will average out. In other words,
Rhine was trying to find a psi explanation for why his results tended
towards average.
No one else has done any better in demonstrating the *existence* of
telepathy. Until that happens, there is no reason to try to establish
whether it's faster than light. In fact, I would suggest that since
we're talking about human response times and distances of far less than a
light second (about 40 msec if the subjects are on opposite sides of the
planet), it isn't possible to show that telepathy is FTL or
instantaneous. But that's a whole other issue.
I actually believe in psi phenomena; I've experienced them and seen them,
and after doing my very best to "explain them away" a very few resist any
such explanations. But that's not scientific evidence. It's not
repeatable, not quantifiable, and that's what science needs.
If psi phenomena are somewhat spiritual or non-material, then science may
not be an appropriate tool for examining them. Science deals with things
that can be measured in some way, quantified, weight, whatever. It
requires repeatable experiments or observations. Sometimes people
consider this a flaw of science. Not so. It's what makes it science; it
is the strength of science. But science doesn't cover everything.
Science can measure hormone levels, sexual responses, heart rates, etc. -
the physical manifestations of lust or love. But science cannot measure
love. In fact, science cannot even prove that such a thing exists.
Most scientists, despite their cold reputations, have experienced love,
so they believe in it even if they can't prove its existence
scientifically. Most scientist, however, have not experienced psi
phenomena. They don't believe in it, and nothing in their armamentarium
is useful for investigating psi. They have no reason to believe in psi.
It is unfortunately true that some scientists claim that whatever can't
be investigated with science doesn't exist. That's not true. What can't
be investigated with science, cannot be discussed scientifically, that's
all.
Understand, too, that anecdotal evidence is entirely useless to science.
No matter how many people see - or think they see, or *say* they see -
something, it doesn't come under the purview of scientific investigation
until there is some way to reliable witness the phenomenon.
Take Bigfoot for example. Thousands of sightings, hundreds or maybe
thousands of photos; videos, footprints, and so on. Some of these turned
out to be admitted hoaxes. Some were hoaxes that weren't admitted. Some
may have been mistakes - bears or humans at a distance. Maybe there is a
Bigfoot tribe out there somewhere. But until there is some way to
reliably see them - or to find bones, a living Bigfoot, something -
science can do nothing about it. It has no basis for investigating.
With psi things are even more muddled. Quite often, there are things
going on like selection bias, where you remember the rare hits and forget
the numerous misses. Many times someone will ask, "What are the odds?"
assuming they're rare; when in fact, they're not. Not to mention error,
wishful thinking, and fraud. Many of the stories I had heard as a kid,
that convinced me there was psi, turned out to be hoaxes. The Fox
sisters - a hoax. The Cottingley fairies - hoax. Many, many psychics
turned out to be hoaxers. Maybe they were driven to fakery when they
felt they *had* to produce results, but weren't able to. Maybe they
started out honestly and went bad. I don't know - but there were many
hoaxes, all the same.
Dr. Rhine's experiments have two strikes against them. First, Dr. Rhine
went astray with his ad hoc explanations for poor results. Eventually he
was trying to claim that above-average hits indicated psi; and below-
average hits also indicated psi, but that the person was unconsciously
but deliberately missing because he was bored.
Second, no one else has been able to duplicate the experiments.
Sure, it may very well be true that psi doesn't do well in a laboratory
setting. People would rarely fall in love under such conditions; perhaps
psi works the same way. That doesn't prove that psi exists. It only
explains why psi might not be a suitable subject for scientific
investigation.
Hmm... seems I've run on quite a bit.
--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to
biology?
--
Graduate life: It's not just a job. It's an indenture.
R
Ron Hubbard
Guest
On Apr 10, 8:02 pm, Chiron
<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
Hmmm... yeah... they might accept an idea like FTL neutrinos but
roundly reject the idea that telepathy is faster than light (if not
instantaneous and traveling at / in Planck time) or the notion that
some people can move books and bend forks when angry or that pople
with prcognition win the lotteries over and over again... Some
scientists like Pauli, Harold Puthoff, and a few others think outside
of the box but far too many go along with the idea that thousands of
years of psychic phenomena and abilities has been nothing but myth
rather than changing science to fit the facts. Oy. That's why I so
love engineers far more than physicists, <g.>
Ron
__________________
Non-psionicists believed, then as now, that all psionics was fakery,
imagination, and crackpotism; that what actuality, if any, it had was
witchcraft and black magic and must be stamped out wherever and
whenever found.
E.E. Doc Smith (Subspace Encounters)
<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
Hmmm... yeah... they might accept an idea like FTL neutrinos but
roundly reject the idea that telepathy is faster than light (if not
instantaneous and traveling at / in Planck time) or the notion that
some people can move books and bend forks when angry or that pople
with prcognition win the lotteries over and over again... Some
scientists like Pauli, Harold Puthoff, and a few others think outside
of the box but far too many go along with the idea that thousands of
years of psychic phenomena and abilities has been nothing but myth
rather than changing science to fit the facts. Oy. That's why I so
love engineers far more than physicists, <g.>
Ron
__________________
Non-psionicists believed, then as now, that all psionics was fakery,
imagination, and crackpotism; that what actuality, if any, it had was
witchcraft and black magic and must be stamped out wherever and
whenever found.
E.E. Doc Smith (Subspace Encounters)
R
Ron Hubbard
Guest
..
bhavs th way popl have reported for th last couple thousands of years,
then there is a force or form of energy that violates established laws
for EM energy (travels faster than light, does not lose strength with
disatance, goes through everything with no known shielding, etc)--
which to many, if not most-- think is all there is.
The second bias is that psi is biological and as far as anyone knows,
can not be generated with batteries and elctronics or motors. If
telepathy or remote viewing was something *everybody* could do with a
little effort, thn medical scienc would have nailed it first and the
physical sciences would grudgingly follow behind. But when you are
dealing with a small (well, comparatively small-- say 12 to 15 per
cent of the world's population-- group of people, mostly undr crtain
cicumstances, it's easir to just dismiss psi phenomena and abilities
as rubbish. And it isn't only with psi but with any oddity or
anomalies that dosn't fit current theories, they get swept under the
rug. Why do fish and dead flesh suddenly fall out of somtimes clear
skies? Why do some people (as wll as cars and planes) suddenly
disappear, sometimes vn front of witnesses? Who really made
stonehenge and the 99 other stone circles throughout the UK? And why?
When there are no immediate answers, science ignores the questions--
unless somebody starts making money somehow, then there's immdiate
interest and people start saying "You know, I always believed in
[whatever]..." Yeah, sure.;
And of course that ***hole Randi doesn't help things by claiming
everybody from Nina Kulagina to Uri Gellar and everyone-- *everyone*--
ls are frauds. Yes, Santa, we know that not all of those folks on
Youtube are real, but some are. There are *some* pople who can control
telepathy, telekinesis, and the many of the other 75 or so known psi
gifts through either meditation, biofeedback, or just being freaks--
but Randi doesn't acknowldge the real people; to him, there are no
real psychic people and never have been . You have to wonder about a
guy who goes after a group of people with such burning hatred; it sure
isn't unbiased "debunking," it's personal. TV Tropes & Idioms says,
"Arbitrary Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific
phrase such as Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
to back up their dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the
goalposts. In reality, no claim requires 'extraordinary proof', just
sufficient proof. Unfortunately, too few understand that becaus there
is more than sufficient proof that psi exists.
Michael Crichton learned to bend spoons through TK because he had a
keen desire to understand. It's a pity he never made a video for
Youtube heh heh. Still... even when you can show the real frelling
thing it looks fake. Bummer.
Ron
________________
"Some success, some failure; but either way the gnawing hunger to know
is never sated, and the road to the Unknown continues to be dark and
strange."
Control Voice (The Outer Limits)
Mainstream science has a vry major bias because *if* psi is real and
bhavs th way popl have reported for th last couple thousands of years,
then there is a force or form of energy that violates established laws
for EM energy (travels faster than light, does not lose strength with
disatance, goes through everything with no known shielding, etc)--
which to many, if not most-- think is all there is.
The second bias is that psi is biological and as far as anyone knows,
can not be generated with batteries and elctronics or motors. If
telepathy or remote viewing was something *everybody* could do with a
little effort, thn medical scienc would have nailed it first and the
physical sciences would grudgingly follow behind. But when you are
dealing with a small (well, comparatively small-- say 12 to 15 per
cent of the world's population-- group of people, mostly undr crtain
cicumstances, it's easir to just dismiss psi phenomena and abilities
as rubbish. And it isn't only with psi but with any oddity or
anomalies that dosn't fit current theories, they get swept under the
rug. Why do fish and dead flesh suddenly fall out of somtimes clear
skies? Why do some people (as wll as cars and planes) suddenly
disappear, sometimes vn front of witnesses? Who really made
stonehenge and the 99 other stone circles throughout the UK? And why?
When there are no immediate answers, science ignores the questions--
unless somebody starts making money somehow, then there's immdiate
interest and people start saying "You know, I always believed in
[whatever]..." Yeah, sure.;
And of course that ***hole Randi doesn't help things by claiming
everybody from Nina Kulagina to Uri Gellar and everyone-- *everyone*--
ls are frauds. Yes, Santa, we know that not all of those folks on
Youtube are real, but some are. There are *some* pople who can control
telepathy, telekinesis, and the many of the other 75 or so known psi
gifts through either meditation, biofeedback, or just being freaks--
but Randi doesn't acknowldge the real people; to him, there are no
real psychic people and never have been . You have to wonder about a
guy who goes after a group of people with such burning hatred; it sure
isn't unbiased "debunking," it's personal. TV Tropes & Idioms says,
"Arbitrary Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific
phrase such as Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
to back up their dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the
goalposts. In reality, no claim requires 'extraordinary proof', just
sufficient proof. Unfortunately, too few understand that becaus there
is more than sufficient proof that psi exists.
Michael Crichton learned to bend spoons through TK because he had a
keen desire to understand. It's a pity he never made a video for
Youtube heh heh. Still... even when you can show the real frelling
thing it looks fake. Bummer.
Ron
________________
"Some success, some failure; but either way the gnawing hunger to know
is never sated, and the road to the Unknown continues to be dark and
strange."
Control Voice (The Outer Limits)
C
Chiron
Guest
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:04:51 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
they exist, are FTL. There is no way to measure such a thing because
you're relying on human reaction times. The greatest distance you can
separate two people (practically, at this time) is the diameter of the
earth. A light signal takes 40 msec to travel that distance, which is
shorter than our ability to respond to a stimulus. That being the case,
it is not possible to measure the speed of psi "signals" at the moment,
if they travel at or faster than the speed of light. We'd either need to
separate the two subjects by millions of miles, or find some physical
(that is, some mechanical or electronic) way to detect a psi "signal."
More to the point, there is no reason to think that psi phenomena has
anything to do with energy, movement, time, etc. If time and distance
are illusory - a claim made by many mystics and others who accept psi
phenomena - then there is no space for a signal to travel. It's all
"here," meaning our concepts of signal speed or distance are also
illusory. In fact, the notion that our various minds have location may
be illusory. And so on.
Trying to cram psi effects into the notions of current physics is
possibly futile. In fact, as I said, trying to use science to
investigate the phenomena may be futile, because of its reliance on
concepts that, in psi, simply might not apply.
love. Love is sufficiently common that people generally accept that it
exists, even if science can't demonstrate it. When an effect is only
perceived by a minority of people, the general tendency is to dismiss it
as not existing.
accepted theories. The reason they're swept under the rug is because
these phenomena do not produce effects that can be subjected to
scientific investigation. For something to be an appropriate subject for
scientific investigation, it needs to be something that either occurs in
some predictable manner, or occurs frequently enough, or that can in some
way be examined, or produces some effect that can be quantified or
measured somehow.
Anecdotal evidence is useless for this. It is a well-know phenomenon
that multiple witnesses to an event produce multiple, often mutually
contradictory reports of that event. This has been *scientifically*
investigated, by the way. For example, during a class lecture, someone
comes into the class, does something startling and memorable, and
leaves. The class is asked to describe what they just saw (the event
being deliberately staged for this purpose). The descriptions are so
varied that, relying only on them, it would be impossible to guess what
actually happened.
and dumped sometimes thousands of miles away, outside the weather
patterns that caused the even. And so on. There is never any shortage
of answers. That is not why science doesn't investigate.
As for funding, sure. Scientists need to eat. Much of the equipment
used by scientists is expensive, utterly beyond the ability of individual
scientists to buy. Just like anyone else, scientists go where the jobs
are, where there is some way of earning a living - and of having the
equipment they need.
Your complaint about stonehenge, etc., isn't quite accurate. Scientists
have been investigating these megaliths for over a hundred years.
They've got a good idea who made it. They're working on the "why" - last
I heard, some were thinking it was a place of healing, among other things.
I think what you're complaining about (If I understand you correctly) is
that scientists aren't investigating some of the New Age claims of
mysterious energies there. Again - lack of evidence.
As a magician, he's in a much better position than most to detect fraud,
since magic is fraud (I mean magic for entertainment, not Lord of the
Rings sort of stuff). Magicians are tricksters. Similarly, many
tricksters are magicians, and many so-called psychics are tricksters.
Randi has been helpful in uncovering these frauds.
More to the point, he's offered a large financial reward to anyone who
can produce psychic phenomena in laboratory conditions. No one has
claimed this prize. Why is that?
Randi's conclusion is that psi simply doesn't exist. He may be right,
but I disagree.
Another conclusion may be that psi phenomena are not amenable to being
produced under laboratory conditions. Going back to my love analogy, if
you offered people money to fall in love under laboratory conditions, it
probably wouldn't happen, either.
However, in either case, if psi cannot be reproduced under laboratory
conditions, it cannot be investigated scientifically.
statement of faith. Like you, I believe in psi. I believe there's
*something* there, even if it's not what Madame Zona claims. But I don't
have any useful evidence of it. Personal experience, personal
observations, sure. Useful evidence? No.
has already decided; all he's looking for is more evidence to back up his
prejudice. But that doesn't mean all skeptics are biased.
I consider myself a skeptic, yet I keep an open mind about stuff. I just
don't accept claims until I've seen some evidence to support them.
the attitude of "I don't know, let's find out" but rather, "this is
bullshit, let's prove it's bullshit."
have to show something compelling to back it up.
Second, as I have often repeated, there isn't any *useful* evidence.
been seen to bend a spoon he wasn't holding? I haven't. How do you know
Crichton can bend a spoon? Did he make the claim? Or is your evidence
anecdotal - someone said it, somewhere?
As for YouTube, please. There is no way to distinguish between real and
faked videos (or photographs). Even I can make a fake video, and I have
no particular skills with video.
I've got a photo of my cat climbing the Andromeda Galaxy. I found a
photo on the Internet showing John Paul II holding Paris Hilton in one
hand, a bottle of Jack Daniels in the other.
So, OK. Let's say that you've convinced a scientist to take these claims
seriously - not to *accept* them (that wouldn't be objective), but simply
to maintain an open mind. Dr. Von Mitterschmerz is willing to set aside
any biases he has and have a sincere look. Where does he begin?
All the anecdotal evidence is suspect. How can you tell who's telling
the truth, who's lying, who's simply mistaken? How can you tell
clairvoyance from telepathy, psychokinesis from precognition? In fact,
how can you tell whether it was a psi phenomenon, or intervention by some
spiritual entity - God, angels, demons, etc.? Points off if you tell me
angels aren't real. There are as many angelic sightings as psi events,
or near to it. And for that matter, how can you tell whether some of
these psi events were caused by aliens using highly advanced science?
Anecdotal evidence is useless for this investigation, for the reasons I
just cited. So we need to go to the lab.
Dr. Rhine's experiments, while intriguing, have not been duplicated. My
own experiments, using Zener cards, were inconclusive. But of course,
perhaps my subjects simply weren't psychic - I didn't try thousands of
people, only a small handful.
So Dr. Von Mitterschmerz needs to set up an experiment of some sort,
screening large numbers of people for psi abilities. With any large
number of people, there will be a few who have a high number of hits,
apparently showing some talent. So we focus on those.
Is he expected to try to repeat Rhine's experiments? Others have done
so, with negative results. Why should Dr. Von Mitterschmerz pursue such
an unpromising course?
So I'm asking you, what experiments should scientists perform, in order
to properly investigate psi phenomena? What *should* they be doing, that
they are supposedly refusing to do?
They are not, in general, going to try to reproduce experiments that
others have already tried to reproduce, if there was a negative result.
You complain of scientists moving the goalpost. "Believers" do this all
the time. When Rhine's experiments proved inconclusive, people started
talking about the laboratory being unsuitable for delicate psychic
temperaments. Probably true, but this wasn't mentioned *before* the
experiments.
Whenever an experiment has an undesired result, someone is likely to
start moving goalposts. It's human nature.
What is needed is to come up with an experiment that would seem likely to
test the phenomenon, and to agree *beforehand* on what would be
acceptable as evidence - and what wouldn't.
I don't have any ideas for this. Do you?
--
The best thing that comes out of Iowa is I-80.
any psi phenomenon. Also, there is no evidence that psi phenomena, if
they exist, are FTL. There is no way to measure such a thing because
you're relying on human reaction times. The greatest distance you can
separate two people (practically, at this time) is the diameter of the
earth. A light signal takes 40 msec to travel that distance, which is
shorter than our ability to respond to a stimulus. That being the case,
it is not possible to measure the speed of psi "signals" at the moment,
if they travel at or faster than the speed of light. We'd either need to
separate the two subjects by millions of miles, or find some physical
(that is, some mechanical or electronic) way to detect a psi "signal."
More to the point, there is no reason to think that psi phenomena has
anything to do with energy, movement, time, etc. If time and distance
are illusory - a claim made by many mystics and others who accept psi
phenomena - then there is no space for a signal to travel. It's all
"here," meaning our concepts of signal speed or distance are also
illusory. In fact, the notion that our various minds have location may
be illusory. And so on.
Trying to cram psi effects into the notions of current physics is
possibly futile. In fact, as I said, trying to use science to
investigate the phenomena may be futile, because of its reliance on
concepts that, in psi, simply might not apply.
Exactly my point. That's why I made the comparison to the emotion of
love. Love is sufficiently common that people generally accept that it
exists, even if science can't demonstrate it. When an effect is only
perceived by a minority of people, the general tendency is to dismiss it
as not existing.
The reason they're swept under the rug is not because they don't fit
accepted theories. The reason they're swept under the rug is because
these phenomena do not produce effects that can be subjected to
scientific investigation. For something to be an appropriate subject for
scientific investigation, it needs to be something that either occurs in
some predictable manner, or occurs frequently enough, or that can in some
way be examined, or produces some effect that can be quantified or
measured somehow.
Anecdotal evidence is useless for this. It is a well-know phenomenon
that multiple witnesses to an event produce multiple, often mutually
contradictory reports of that event. This has been *scientifically*
investigated, by the way. For example, during a class lecture, someone
comes into the class, does something startling and memorable, and
leaves. The class is asked to describe what they just saw (the event
being deliberately staged for this purpose). The descriptions are so
varied that, relying only on them, it would be impossible to guess what
actually happened.
sky are said to be ones sucked up by tornadoes and such, carried aloft,
and dumped sometimes thousands of miles away, outside the weather
patterns that caused the even. And so on. There is never any shortage
of answers. That is not why science doesn't investigate.
As for funding, sure. Scientists need to eat. Much of the equipment
used by scientists is expensive, utterly beyond the ability of individual
scientists to buy. Just like anyone else, scientists go where the jobs
are, where there is some way of earning a living - and of having the
equipment they need.
Your complaint about stonehenge, etc., isn't quite accurate. Scientists
have been investigating these megaliths for over a hundred years.
They've got a good idea who made it. They're working on the "why" - last
I heard, some were thinking it was a place of healing, among other things.
I think what you're complaining about (If I understand you correctly) is
that scientists aren't investigating some of the New Age claims of
mysterious energies there. Again - lack of evidence.
While I find Randi's arrogance annoying, he's got several good points.
As a magician, he's in a much better position than most to detect fraud,
since magic is fraud (I mean magic for entertainment, not Lord of the
Rings sort of stuff). Magicians are tricksters. Similarly, many
tricksters are magicians, and many so-called psychics are tricksters.
Randi has been helpful in uncovering these frauds.
More to the point, he's offered a large financial reward to anyone who
can produce psychic phenomena in laboratory conditions. No one has
claimed this prize. Why is that?
Randi's conclusion is that psi simply doesn't exist. He may be right,
but I disagree.
Another conclusion may be that psi phenomena are not amenable to being
produced under laboratory conditions. Going back to my love analogy, if
you offered people money to fall in love under laboratory conditions, it
probably wouldn't happen, either.
However, in either case, if psi cannot be reproduced under laboratory
conditions, it cannot be investigated scientifically.
So - how do you know this? I believe what you are doing is making a
statement of faith. Like you, I believe in psi. I believe there's
*something* there, even if it's not what Madame Zona claims. But I don't
have any useful evidence of it. Personal experience, personal
observations, sure. Useful evidence? No.
Look, I agree that Randi is biased. Anyone who claims to be a "debunker"
has already decided; all he's looking for is more evidence to back up his
prejudice. But that doesn't mean all skeptics are biased.
I consider myself a skeptic, yet I keep an open mind about stuff. I just
don't accept claims until I've seen some evidence to support them.
There is no such thing as unbiased debunking. Debunking begins, not with
the attitude of "I don't know, let's find out" but rather, "this is
bullshit, let's prove it's bullshit."
But it does. If you are claiming an unknown phenomenon, you are going to
have to show something compelling to back it up.
impossible. What you may have is evidence, which is entirely different.
Second, as I have often repeated, there isn't any *useful* evidence.
a spoon? Or anyone else, for that matter? Has anyone, anywhere, ever
been seen to bend a spoon he wasn't holding? I haven't. How do you know
Crichton can bend a spoon? Did he make the claim? Or is your evidence
anecdotal - someone said it, somewhere?
As for YouTube, please. There is no way to distinguish between real and
faked videos (or photographs). Even I can make a fake video, and I have
no particular skills with video.
I've got a photo of my cat climbing the Andromeda Galaxy. I found a
photo on the Internet showing John Paul II holding Paris Hilton in one
hand, a bottle of Jack Daniels in the other.
So, OK. Let's say that you've convinced a scientist to take these claims
seriously - not to *accept* them (that wouldn't be objective), but simply
to maintain an open mind. Dr. Von Mitterschmerz is willing to set aside
any biases he has and have a sincere look. Where does he begin?
All the anecdotal evidence is suspect. How can you tell who's telling
the truth, who's lying, who's simply mistaken? How can you tell
clairvoyance from telepathy, psychokinesis from precognition? In fact,
how can you tell whether it was a psi phenomenon, or intervention by some
spiritual entity - God, angels, demons, etc.? Points off if you tell me
angels aren't real. There are as many angelic sightings as psi events,
or near to it. And for that matter, how can you tell whether some of
these psi events were caused by aliens using highly advanced science?
Anecdotal evidence is useless for this investigation, for the reasons I
just cited. So we need to go to the lab.
Dr. Rhine's experiments, while intriguing, have not been duplicated. My
own experiments, using Zener cards, were inconclusive. But of course,
perhaps my subjects simply weren't psychic - I didn't try thousands of
people, only a small handful.
So Dr. Von Mitterschmerz needs to set up an experiment of some sort,
screening large numbers of people for psi abilities. With any large
number of people, there will be a few who have a high number of hits,
apparently showing some talent. So we focus on those.
Is he expected to try to repeat Rhine's experiments? Others have done
so, with negative results. Why should Dr. Von Mitterschmerz pursue such
an unpromising course?
So I'm asking you, what experiments should scientists perform, in order
to properly investigate psi phenomena? What *should* they be doing, that
they are supposedly refusing to do?
They are not, in general, going to try to reproduce experiments that
others have already tried to reproduce, if there was a negative result.
You complain of scientists moving the goalpost. "Believers" do this all
the time. When Rhine's experiments proved inconclusive, people started
talking about the laboratory being unsuitable for delicate psychic
temperaments. Probably true, but this wasn't mentioned *before* the
experiments.
Whenever an experiment has an undesired result, someone is likely to
start moving goalposts. It's human nature.
What is needed is to come up with an experiment that would seem likely to
test the phenomenon, and to agree *beforehand* on what would be
acceptable as evidence - and what wouldn't.
I don't have any ideas for this. Do you?
--
The best thing that comes out of Iowa is I-80.
R
Ron Hubbard
Guest
Really? How can you have precognition and premonition, prcognitive
telepathy, retrocognition, and psychometry if there is no connection
to time?
That's true, so you need a new paradigm and a new psience-- uh, sorry
about that-- a new science; actually, psionics has been around for a
while but only a few schools teach it or any courses that are a part
of it.
They don't investigate because they think the answer is so immediately
obvious, why bother to look into it. But when coins, pieces of metal,
strange fungal spores, and sometimes organic matrial that can't be
identified fall out of thin air, the idiotic excuse that a whirlpool
sucked thm from some place nearby becomes patently absurd.
But there are some amazing possibilities that the science people got
their heads too stuck up in their asses to explore, and i'm not just
bing cynical here: the whol history of science-- all 300 years of it--
has been basically advances made because lone people exploring into
areas others didn't give a crap about. Roentgen discovered x-rays by
accident, Messier discovered numerous celestial bodis-- not because he
was interested in them, but because he liked comets and he wrote down
all the things he didn't want to see. My point bing, most of our
gratest discovries have been by pople in fringe aras who didn't accept
the stock answrs thir colleagus were happy to believe.
It might sound too much like sci-fi, but what if there are sporadic
wormholes or dimensional rifts-- new aras of science, but not when
nobody gives a crap.
No, they have come to a logical, yet stupid conclusion: that hundreds
or more people spent *generations* hauling multi-ton rocks from
distant quaries and managd to lift them-- by hand! whn vn modern crans
would hav a problem-- just to make a calendar. Some of ston circles
are in such isolated places in the British Isles that dragging rocks
there would be virtually impossible. That's not science, that's coming
to quick answer because when you give the matter some serious thought,
you have some serious enigmas to be explained that *can't* be
explained by conventional and easy answers.
I don't want to go into this, but there are ancient cities in isolated
places all over this planet that shows some exceptionally
sophisticated engineering techniques whre science can xplain them away
by saying th ston slabs wr on wooden rollers and blah blah blah... but
those answers are bogus. Many of the things in science books that are
accepted as truths are just plain WRONG.
Okay, here is a FACT that far too many people just do not want accept:
Randi is a stage magician whose very livelihood is illusion,
misdirction, and lies. He has said on occasion that the way his
"offer" was written, nobody could ever collect on it. That's probably
the only true thing about it. Randi's FAQ also said-- though it may
now have been rewritten-- that 1)just becaus somone may have a [valid]
claim, randi has the right to reject it. So if i had all the
telekinetic powrs of Richard Tyler and Jean Grey, I could be rejected.
2) Many people hav to re-apply and re-apply bfor being tested. If you
have been turned down four times, are you gonna waste your time a
fifth or a sixth time to be tested? 3) Even beore being tsted, a
claimant must have a recommendation from an "approved" source,,, and
so on! The whole thing is a scam, a PR trick that nobody could ver win
but randi can always sit back-- just like you-- and say, "See, i made
the offer, but nobody has ever won; proof there aare no psychic
people, no psi." This, of course is bullshit, but many people don't
look beneath the surface of his supposed offer and fall for the crap.
I can offer any NBA player 10 megabucks if he can sink a basket on
only one tiny condition: he needs to wear a straight-jacket, that's
all... Can anybody win that money?
That's what Randi does: effectively straight-jackets anybody who taks
his offer, if they can even gt tested. Hell, he's nver gonna lose a
penny but he'll look like an honst man on th surface but any cop will
tll you, that's how any good scam works. If h was honest in his offer
he would get people to do some simple, straightforward test of whatevr
gift they claim to have; that can b done pretty easily with safeguards
to insure no cheating, but wouldn't hamper the testee-- but then that
scuzzy bastard would not only lose his money but would also have to
admit that psi abilities are real. I used to hav a friend who taught a
college course called "Altered States of Consciousness. She was
incidentally a very capable snoop; a remote viewer / clairvoyant who
could see what's going on from two cities away--- this is the kind of
thing the government loves to develop and utilize. Unlike Randi, there
viwpoint is that psi may be a rare commodity, but it can be used
nonetheless; all they needed was th right people. anyway. if honestly
tested my friend could've won that money in jiffy.
You keep saying that but it's exactly true. ESP has been demonstrated,
repeatdly, in the lab; it has also bn demonstratd in th fild whn
dowsrs wer used to find hidden mins during Vietnam and in the oil
industry. But here's the thing: there is such an anti-psi bias that a
lot of the results simply don't gt publishd in scientific journals
and it's far too easy to use that old excuse "if psi is real, why
can't the subject get the right answer all the time?" In dealing with
an unique phnomna-- which by the way is MOSTLY BIOLOGICAL and
PSYCHOLOGICAL, too many skeptics and critics ignore that fact and
expect a psi to rpeat somthing over and over again, then whn it can't
happn, say "see, there's nothing to it." It's not enough that someon
can move matchs and maybe even light them, it has to b don a hundred
or a thousand tims to get validity. This indicates to m-- and many
others-- that "scintific methodology" is flawed (although I would use
word "fucked.").
It was Carl Sagan who cam up with that "extraordinary claims needing
extraordinary proof"nonsense, but it really is true that all that is
neded is *sufficient proof* and that is everywhere. I know of doctors,
psychologists, neurologists, and many othrs who have no problm of
accepting psychic abilits and phnomena-- probably because many of them
exprienced it in some way; are these expert people wrong just becaus
physicists say there is no such thing as psi? When does the word of a
small segment of science start to dominate all others? And given the
fact that the history of science shows that the physics people ar far
from infallible when coming up with conclusions, why would anyone
accept the conclusion psi is not real based solely upon scientific
dogma? That's kinda lik saying the UFO that gave you a bad burn or a
fatal case of radiation poisoning (and this happens) was not real
becaus science says UFOs are not real. Like that old joke, who do you
trust: me, or your lying eyes?
Oh, nonsense!
All that's needed is a desire to do it and probably a shitload of
money. Biofeedback guru Elmer Greene did research on a yoga swami who
did demonstrations of psychokinesis in front of witnesses and the
Monroe institute did neurological and EEG research on a bunch of psis
to see if there was a qualitative difference between each type of psi
(telepath, clairvoyant, telekineticists, precogs, etc) and between
psis and norms, The results were surprising: the norms-- uh, the
average control group-- showed the usual beta activity but the psis
showed unique brainwave patterns: 4 Hz for telepaths (sending), 6 hz
for telepath recievers as well as astral & mental projection, 7 Hz for
the teeks (telekineticists), and 8.3 Hz for the clairvoyants and
precogs; only one psi gift was upper beta at 21 Hz thus proving that
there were indeed definitive physiological differences that people
could point at. Of course the skeptics say ther's nothing to it, but
that is some rather exceptional data.If you want to make a psionics a
true science, you have to start somewhere. <w>
Research. Years and years of research. There are a few psi lists out
there-- ironically, because I wrote the original list and many have
copied it, lol. While there is a strange anti-psi bias out there-- as
well as a lot of nonsense-- there is a lot of valid information; all
anyone has to do is look for it.
LOL. No, I don't have faith in anything! Well, I take that back; like
Einstein, I have faith in human stupiidity and that's all.
Why, I thought personal observation was the very key to science and
without it, there wouldn't be any advances at all. As Orville Wright
once said, "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted
as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."
And since science has turned it's nose up at psi, how could one ever
learn the true nature of it or how it behaves if not through the
experiences of others? And BTW, much of medicine is fundamentally
based upon the experinces of others. When sombody staggers into a
hospital with a pain in their side, doctors don't hav to do new
research as nough pople rportd similar pains to lt them know that
appendicitis is the probable cause. Don't sneer at personal experience
and anecdotal accounts; these are the basis for learning.
Hmmm, maybe if sombody said there was an eight foot tall BHM (big
hairy Monster) running around in my neighbor's back yard. I would
indeed like more than his word; a few foot prints might be nice. But
psi stuff is not new: people have used crystal balls for scrying a
thousand years ago, while poltergeists have been around ever since the
first homes-- so on the face of it there is far more proof that
something extraordinary is going on. A couple of yars ago there was a
national *news report* about a woman who had the sudden urge to get
herself and her daughter out of their house; a few moments latter a
small plane crashed into it, destroying it completely. And we all
know of the woman who wakes up in the middle of the night when her son
gets killed half a world away in a war What more evidence do you
want? If I said that the numbers 4-8-5 was going to come in at the
lottery tomorrow and lo and behold it does, is that enough proof? It
is for most people...
That depends upon your definition of "useful." But there is more than
sufficient evidence for the existnce of psi as all the books, movies,
TV programs, internet articles, et al shows. You won't find many
pople who can tell you about protons, but ask if they have ever had a
hunch (premonition,) or if they knew what sombody ls was thinking,
(telepathy) or was really good with animals (telempathy) -- while they
may not know the precise name for it, most people have had some kind
of direct or even indirct exprince with ESP, psi, laran, granny magic,
or whatever anyone wants to call it across the world. Only someone
with a closd mind would say that there was "no evidence."
You know a lot of writers are-- or were-- closet psis, or even openly
psi. Author James H, Schmitz wrote mostly "psi-fi" because he believed
in writing what he knew about: he was a known telepath who had his own
circle of like people back in the 60s; E.E. "Doc" Smith wrote mostly
psi stories, Marion Zimmr Bradley, Susan Cooper, Robert A. Heinlein,
Karl Jung, and vn Freud in his latr years cam to blive intelepathy and
was said to have had a few incidents. but ys, in his latr years,
Chricton learned th art of spoon bending through telekinesis as did
author Martin Cadin (Cyborg and The Six Million Dollar Man).
I wouldn't have to "convince" anyone. Even physicist Wolfgang Pauli
believed in psi; google the "Pauli Effect." Many other prominent
scintists also believe. ;-)
My friend taught remote viewing and spoon bending can also be learned
by low-levl psis on up; it's just a matter of brainwave states. People
in the East acquire all kind of skills due to mditation but it takes a
long time. despite Doc Smith's comment to the contrary---
Psychokinetics-- sometimes called psychodynamics or telekinetics-- is
a subject to which very few nonpsis have given serious consideration.
Nothing worthwhile concerning it is in general circulation, since it
can be handled only in the esoteric symbology of paraphysics and
paramechanics; both of which disciplines are closed books to non-
psionic minds.
E.E. Doc Smith (Subspace Encounters)
-- there actually is a lot of info on telekinesis if you look for it--
although much of that 411 is crap. The same applies to current
viewpoints on telepathy which in my opinion is a sub-space phnomenon,
but what the hell do I know about anything?
Some things go beyond coincidence and becom psi manifestations: books
suddenly jump off of a solid, stable, shelf or somone wins the lottery
five or six times in a row or everywhere you go elevator doors are
open (thre's a story I could tell you about *that* but you're not the
anecdotal type)-- thre was the girl who was always involved in
spontaous fires wherever she went and the guy who caused storms not to
mntion th family whre almost every member was hurt or killed by
lightning. Events that defy statistical probabilities are usually psi.
How often do you see a missing videotape fall out of thin air?
LOL. for the record, telekinesis comes under the general heading of
psychokinesis which also includes telekinesis, parakinesis,
cryokinesis, pyrokinesis, EPK (electro-psychokinesis), storm control,
bio-psychokinesis, thought photography, levitation, and SLI (street
lamp interference). All aspects of psychokinesis control matter and /
or nergy in some way; levitation controls or neutralizes gravity while
parakinesis neutralizes inertia. In theory, if you can do TK at 7 Hz
theta it should also work for all the other gifts in this group.
Clairvoyance and precognition are "visual gifts" and work at a
slightly higher 8.3 Hz alpha frequency as does retrocognition and just
maybe psychometry as well. Precognitive telepathy presents a bit of a
problem though.
You ought to see Stephen King's movie, Rose Red: a college professor
gets together a bunch of psis to investigate a haunted house.
You can't; too many things in the universe are inexplicable and psi
has a way of making the strangest, the most bizarre kind of things
happen... including contact with the supernatural. And in fact, being
a psi maks one a certified weirdness magnet
I was at the very beginning of the Heavens Gate movement when it
started here in the Northwest; Applewhite wasn't as crazy as people
thought he was and there's more to the story than most people will
ever know.
James H. Schmitz proposs three kinds of psis: Class I folks who only
have only sporadic incidents and who aren't aware of being psychic;
the Class II people who are aware of their abilities and have some
degree of control, and the Class III psis who are also called
"Unpredictables" because they can have abilities that can come and
go...well, unpredictably, and with unpredictable control. Probably the
class 2s are the most common. It's kind of hard not to know it when
strange things keep happening throughout your life
Good luck!
I never read Rhine's experiments but I can probably see why any less
than dedicated experimnter had negative results. if you do them, I
hope you get better results. Better than Peter Venkman anyway heh heh.
Oh, i don't see why not. If ya go about it the right way you can point
to your results and explain why you did better than anyone else. This
is called making a discovery...
Okay, that attitude will shoot you in the foot from the very
beginning.
*Which* phenomena do you want to test. There are over six dozen
abilities and phenomenon ranging from astral projection to xeno-
telepathy, the ability to understand alin or foreign thoughts-- not to
be confused with xenoglossy (the "gift of tongues"). If all you want
is somthing easy to do, buy a pair of dice and see who can make them
consistently come up sixes or something or lookup "psi wheel" in the
Wikipedia, which, BTW, I wrote that entry. A psi wheel is easy to make
and once covered by a transparent bowl or something, is an immensely
easy way to test for telekinesis. It's also an easy way to develop TK,
too.
Have fun. <w>
Ron
________________
Space having four dimensions. Psiontists working through that fourth
dimension. Subspace itself-- why not many spaces existing in subspace?
Perhaps an infinite number of spaces with subspace a separating yet a
containing medium? He groped for an analogy-- found none. But the
staggering thought seemed strangely logical.
E.E. Doc Smith (Subspace Encounters)
"Those whom heaven helps they call the sons of heaven. They do not
work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let
understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment.
Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."
Chuang Tse
B
Bob Masta
Guest
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:34:52 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard
<orion@dslnorthwest.net> wrote:
<snip>
The basic idea is that when someone comes forward with a
claim to be tested, they work out an agreement with Randi's
institute on exactly how the test will be performed, what
will constitute success, etc. *BOTH* parties agree to this
plan before any testing, so there will be no back-pedalling
afterward, from either side. The only "straitjacket" is
that claimants have to stick to the terms they themselves
agreed to. And yes, there are some pretty simple tests of
most of these claims, with safeguards that don't hamper the
testee. That's not the problem. The problem is that the
testees either won't agree to any safeguards, or they do
agree and fail.
The hucksters and con artists of course don't even apply,
usually with some lame excuse if they are asked about it.
The claimants that really believe in their own powers are
different. They are often simple souls who just don't
understand how easily people can fool themselves, and are
surprised to discover that their "talent" doesn't appear
when actually tested objectively.
And then there are those who prefer to bad-mouth Randi
instead of examining their own biases, and contributing
something useful to the discussion.
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!
<orion@dslnorthwest.net> wrote:
<snip>
This is a complete misrepresentation of Randi and his offer.
The basic idea is that when someone comes forward with a
claim to be tested, they work out an agreement with Randi's
institute on exactly how the test will be performed, what
will constitute success, etc. *BOTH* parties agree to this
plan before any testing, so there will be no back-pedalling
afterward, from either side. The only "straitjacket" is
that claimants have to stick to the terms they themselves
agreed to. And yes, there are some pretty simple tests of
most of these claims, with safeguards that don't hamper the
testee. That's not the problem. The problem is that the
testees either won't agree to any safeguards, or they do
agree and fail.
The hucksters and con artists of course don't even apply,
usually with some lame excuse if they are asked about it.
The claimants that really believe in their own powers are
different. They are often simple souls who just don't
understand how easily people can fool themselves, and are
surprised to discover that their "talent" doesn't appear
when actually tested objectively.
And then there are those who prefer to bad-mouth Randi
instead of examining their own biases, and contributing
something useful to the discussion.
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!
R
Ron Hubbard
Guest
On Apr 12, 5:51 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
You go on thinking that. And believing in Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny, too. But not evrybody is foold by his bogus claim. The man is
slick, like all good con men. But I really thought there were smarter
people in the world but now I have to think that Einstein was right
again when he said Only two things are infinite: the universe and
human stupidityand Im not sure about the former.
Ron
You go on thinking that. And believing in Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny, too. But not evrybody is foold by his bogus claim. The man is
slick, like all good con men. But I really thought there were smarter
people in the world but now I have to think that Einstein was right
again when he said Only two things are infinite: the universe and
human stupidityand Im not sure about the former.
Ron
R
Ron Hubbard
Guest
On Apr 12, 8:48 am, Ron Hubbard <or...@dslnorthwest.net> wrote:
And for those who can't think it through for themselves and are
blinded by Randi's great "integrity:"
"The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10
years supports any statement that psi does
not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd
on many levels. The procedures for the
Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple
"outs" for Randi and the JREF that any
discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary
human performance would think twice about
(and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like)."
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
Ron
_____________________
Arbitrary Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific
phrase such as Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
to back up their dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the
goalposts. In reality, claim requires
'extraordinary proof', ' just sufficient proof.
TV Tropes & Idioms
And for those who can't think it through for themselves and are
blinded by Randi's great "integrity:"
"The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10
years supports any statement that psi does
not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd
on many levels. The procedures for the
Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple
"outs" for Randi and the JREF that any
discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary
human performance would think twice about
(and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like)."
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
Ron
_____________________
Arbitrary Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific
phrase such as Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
to back up their dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the
goalposts. In reality, claim requires
'extraordinary proof', ' just sufficient proof.
TV Tropes & Idioms
C
Chiron
Guest
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:51:28 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:
<snip>
say here - agreeing on the significance of results *before* conducting
the experiment - is part of what a well-designed experiment should do.
Once you've decided on how to interpret the outcome, it's much more
difficult to weasel out of it if it doesn't go your way (for *both*
sides).
powers, and actually possess such powers.
One simple and wholly adequate explanation for no one being able to claim
Randi's prize is that psi events simply don't work under laboratory
conditions. This can obviously always be claimed, and there's no way to
prove whether it's true or not. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't
be happening.
But as I've been saying, such a case would mean that, while psi events
might still exist, they would not be amenable to *scientific*
investigation.
There are many common human experiences that are not amenable to
scientific investigation. There are likely also some *uncommon* human
experiences that are similarly not amenable to such investigation.
--
This login session: $13.99
<snip>
so fairly or not. I simply don't know. I do know, though, that what you
say here - agreeing on the significance of results *before* conducting
the experiment - is part of what a well-designed experiment should do.
Once you've decided on how to interpret the outcome, it's much more
difficult to weasel out of it if it doesn't go your way (for *both*
sides).
You seem to exclude the possibility that some may believe in their
powers, and actually possess such powers.
One simple and wholly adequate explanation for no one being able to claim
Randi's prize is that psi events simply don't work under laboratory
conditions. This can obviously always be claimed, and there's no way to
prove whether it's true or not. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't
be happening.
But as I've been saying, such a case would mean that, while psi events
might still exist, they would not be amenable to *scientific*
investigation.
There are many common human experiences that are not amenable to
scientific investigation. There are likely also some *uncommon* human
experiences that are similarly not amenable to such investigation.
--
This login session: $13.99
C
Chiron
Guest
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:24:11 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
Ron, how do you know that this Website is presenting accurate information?
I looked at both Randi's site (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-
challenge/challenge-faq.html), and the one you posted. Randi's site is
reasonable. It does not speak of disproving anything. It speaks of
confirming - or failing to confirm - a class of phenomena.
The site you posted makes all sorts of claims against Randi, claiming
that he has thrown up obstacles to anyone trying to meet the Challenge,
denied people from even applying, and so on. If true, these are serious
accusations that would definitely weaken Randi's claims. But... how can
we know they *are* true?
Again, I don't care for Randi's arrogance, his attitude that psi is all
fraud or ignorance or mental illness, and all that. He's NOT objective
in his attitude. Nevertheless, his offer and his stated requirements are
completely reasonable, and are nothing more or less than good, solid,
scientific procedure.
Do you have any links to specific incidents that are documented? It's
kind of hard to accept anecdotal evidence (part of the entire problem
here, of course). So-and-so wasn't allowed to move to the next test,
because Randi was being a jerk (or whatever). Maybe so, but really I
need more than that.
From what I can see here, it looks like Randi's offer is legitimate and
reasonable. The problem, as I have said more than once, is that psi
phenomena are fragile and don't survive well in laboratory conditions -
much as many other human experiences. That does NOT mean they don't
exist, or that they're not valid. It may only mean that they're not
amenable to scientific examination.
Randi's challenge was not to determine the existence (or not) of psi
phenomena. Nowhere did I find him talking about disproving them.
Everywhere, he spoke of confirming or not confirming them, which is not
at all the same as proving or disproving them.
As I said, I believe in some psi phenomena - personal experiences and
personal observations. Because of this, I believe Randi is wrong to
claim (if he does) that they don't exist.
However, Randi has one very important point that I think is vital. He
claims, with complete justification, that people just accept claims
without any sort of discrimination, no critical thinking. Doing this is
simply a bad idea. If you accept any claim that comes along, you have no
way of knowing what's true and what's not.
I think that the issue of whether psi phenomena exist is relatively
unimportant, when compared to the issue of whether people are equipped to
examine the evidence. They're not, in general. You have the Faithful
and the Infidels, the Believers and the Skeptics, and a lot of holy war
going on, and very little intelligent discussion in most places.
If a belief in psi is based on faith, there's nothing wrong with that -
as long as we acknowledge that it's based on faith. If it's supposedly
based on reason, then the reasons should be ... well... reasonable.
So for example, my belief in psi is based on personal observations. Yes,
I might have been fooled or mistaken, though I took great care to ensure
this didn't happen. Maybe I had some bout of temporary (or permanent)
mental illness. And so on. It's always possible to dismiss my
experiences as based on fraud, error, or pathology. Nevertheless, given
that I am convinced these experiences were real, and that other
explanations don't fit, it is reasonable for *me* to conclude that psi
exists.
I didn't just accept some claim from people I never met, or from someone
who makes money out of producing amazing effects (magician, professional
psychic, professional preacher, etc.). In fact, I didn't just accept the
events that I witnessed, without giving a whole lot of thought to how
they might have transpired through more ordinary means. If there were
*any* reasonable explanation that would do away with psi, I considered it
inconclusive and didn't accept it as a psi event. Even so, I still had a
handful that I couldn't eliminate. So I accept them.
That's not useful for scientific investigations, at least by others.
It's only useful to me; but it's enough.
Finally, just kind of wondering - so what if Randi is a fake? At the
very most, if he got his way completely, all he could ever show is that
no one was able to demonstrate psi phenomena under the circumstances he
required. He could not prove they don't exist - that isn't possible. He
couldn't even show that they can't exist under his conditions. All he
could ever show is that no one was able to demonstrate them.
So what? Do you see Randi as actually being harmful? Arrogant, snotty,
maybe. Wrong, yes, as far as my experiences have indicated. But where's
the harm in what he's doing?
If people have psi experiences, they'll know Randi is wrong. If they
don't, then ... what difference does it make whether they believe he's
right or not?
I hope it's clear that I'm asking a question here, not trying to be
clever with rhetorical questions. I honestly don't see where it matters
whether people believe in psi or not.
--
I owe, I owe,
It's off to work I go...
Ron, how do you know that this Website is presenting accurate information?
I looked at both Randi's site (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-
challenge/challenge-faq.html), and the one you posted. Randi's site is
reasonable. It does not speak of disproving anything. It speaks of
confirming - or failing to confirm - a class of phenomena.
The site you posted makes all sorts of claims against Randi, claiming
that he has thrown up obstacles to anyone trying to meet the Challenge,
denied people from even applying, and so on. If true, these are serious
accusations that would definitely weaken Randi's claims. But... how can
we know they *are* true?
Again, I don't care for Randi's arrogance, his attitude that psi is all
fraud or ignorance or mental illness, and all that. He's NOT objective
in his attitude. Nevertheless, his offer and his stated requirements are
completely reasonable, and are nothing more or less than good, solid,
scientific procedure.
Do you have any links to specific incidents that are documented? It's
kind of hard to accept anecdotal evidence (part of the entire problem
here, of course). So-and-so wasn't allowed to move to the next test,
because Randi was being a jerk (or whatever). Maybe so, but really I
need more than that.
From what I can see here, it looks like Randi's offer is legitimate and
reasonable. The problem, as I have said more than once, is that psi
phenomena are fragile and don't survive well in laboratory conditions -
much as many other human experiences. That does NOT mean they don't
exist, or that they're not valid. It may only mean that they're not
amenable to scientific examination.
Randi's challenge was not to determine the existence (or not) of psi
phenomena. Nowhere did I find him talking about disproving them.
Everywhere, he spoke of confirming or not confirming them, which is not
at all the same as proving or disproving them.
As I said, I believe in some psi phenomena - personal experiences and
personal observations. Because of this, I believe Randi is wrong to
claim (if he does) that they don't exist.
However, Randi has one very important point that I think is vital. He
claims, with complete justification, that people just accept claims
without any sort of discrimination, no critical thinking. Doing this is
simply a bad idea. If you accept any claim that comes along, you have no
way of knowing what's true and what's not.
I think that the issue of whether psi phenomena exist is relatively
unimportant, when compared to the issue of whether people are equipped to
examine the evidence. They're not, in general. You have the Faithful
and the Infidels, the Believers and the Skeptics, and a lot of holy war
going on, and very little intelligent discussion in most places.
If a belief in psi is based on faith, there's nothing wrong with that -
as long as we acknowledge that it's based on faith. If it's supposedly
based on reason, then the reasons should be ... well... reasonable.
So for example, my belief in psi is based on personal observations. Yes,
I might have been fooled or mistaken, though I took great care to ensure
this didn't happen. Maybe I had some bout of temporary (or permanent)
mental illness. And so on. It's always possible to dismiss my
experiences as based on fraud, error, or pathology. Nevertheless, given
that I am convinced these experiences were real, and that other
explanations don't fit, it is reasonable for *me* to conclude that psi
exists.
I didn't just accept some claim from people I never met, or from someone
who makes money out of producing amazing effects (magician, professional
psychic, professional preacher, etc.). In fact, I didn't just accept the
events that I witnessed, without giving a whole lot of thought to how
they might have transpired through more ordinary means. If there were
*any* reasonable explanation that would do away with psi, I considered it
inconclusive and didn't accept it as a psi event. Even so, I still had a
handful that I couldn't eliminate. So I accept them.
That's not useful for scientific investigations, at least by others.
It's only useful to me; but it's enough.
Finally, just kind of wondering - so what if Randi is a fake? At the
very most, if he got his way completely, all he could ever show is that
no one was able to demonstrate psi phenomena under the circumstances he
required. He could not prove they don't exist - that isn't possible. He
couldn't even show that they can't exist under his conditions. All he
could ever show is that no one was able to demonstrate them.
So what? Do you see Randi as actually being harmful? Arrogant, snotty,
maybe. Wrong, yes, as far as my experiences have indicated. But where's
the harm in what he's doing?
If people have psi experiences, they'll know Randi is wrong. If they
don't, then ... what difference does it make whether they believe he's
right or not?
I hope it's clear that I'm asking a question here, not trying to be
clever with rhetorical questions. I honestly don't see where it matters
whether people believe in psi or not.
--
I owe, I owe,
It's off to work I go...
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Ron Hubbard wrote:
Smith wrote much better Science Fiction than Hubbard.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Smith wrote much better Science Fiction than Hubbard.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.