Designing The Perfect Coil?

[Chiron]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:06:29 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

Sorry, Ron, but it is reasonable to ask how you know a source of
information is reliable.

"Randi is a known liar." OK, then it should be a simple matter to find
evidence to support that. Randi makes a statement or offer; someone
takes him up on that claim or offer; Randi doesn't come through. Very
simple.

"Randi's offer must be unfair, because there are known psi talents out
there who would otherwise have claimed the prize." That is only one
possible reason why the prize was never claimed. Another possibility is
that none of these psi talents were able to perform. Without additional
knowledge, there is no basis for forming a conclusion.

I don't see why you are so hostile to me. I am doing nothing more
terrible than asking you (or anyone) "How do you know?" This is always a
reasonable question.

I don't "use" anecdotal evidence as a crutch. I simply reject it as
generally not useful for trying to find the truth about a topic.

And you conveniently ignored my final question, which is "who cares if
Randi is a liar?" So he's a fake. He refuses to pay off, refuses to
perform a fair test, and so on. Maybe some people who might otherwise
consider the possibility of psi events, now are convinced they don't
occur. So what?

Are you trying to make converts? Are you proselytizing? Are you
accepting things on faith? If you are, that's fine, but then we're not
talking about science. We're talking about religion, which is a whole
other topic.

In my experience, when a person gets upset about having a statement
challenged, it is often a sign that his thinking is not sound, that there
are some holes in his arguments. You might do well to consider this
possibility.

--
Driver does not carry cash.

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 12, 1:19 pm, Chiron
<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:24:11 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

Ron, how do you know that this Website is presenting accurate information?

Look, i never met the man personally (I did see Uri Gellar in action
whn I was younger, but that's a bit beside the point) so I, like
everyone else, must make up my mind from the facts:

1. That "offer" has been around for over ten years or more and no
psi-- no one-- has vr won it.

2. There are some powerful psis around who can do some truly amazing
things, and if the offer was real, would have won
by now.

3. Randi has *said* he has made that offr so h would never have to pay
out-- and no one has won.

4. Randi is a known liar, adjusting the truth to met his own agenda.
And,

5. Not just on or two people claim they wr turnd down or th testing
procss wnt on for years, but MANY PEOPLE have claimed that they applid
ovr and ovr again but either got no reply or were turned down. i don't
know if there diffrent vrsions of the challnge FAQ but the version I
read had so many loopholes and catchs that anyon with two cnts worth
of brains would doubt the intentions of the offer. only somon havily
biased in Randi's favor would s nothing wrong with it. Thr ar lawyers
who lookd it over and said it was bogus-- so I may hav troubl doing
calculus but I *can* add 2 plus 2 and com up with th conclusion that
randi's offer is a scam. The only psi-- the only ones-- who might
possibly win with all of those boobytraps are Jean Grey of the X-Men,
Richard Tyler of the 4400, Wolf Messing, and God; and I evn hav doubts
about them as well.

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.

Of course, what would you expect? "Hi, I am a con man and a fraud, but
I want all of you idiots to sriously believe me whn i say that my
offer is ral and that I honestly will pay a million dollars to anyon
who can prove som paranormal ability at a hundred to one odds to begin
with and a 100,000 to 1 odds later on. You have nothing to lose heh
heh?" Seriously?.

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?

Gee, how do you know Randi is true? And I don't mean all the
unthinking hero worship that so many people fall down at his feet and
kiss his ass with, but with critical objectivity that would stand
rigorous analysis? Who has something to lose: the guy who made the
megabuck offer or the many people who said they applied and wasn't
tested? Who wrote the offer with 100,000 to 1 odds built-in if the
intent was to honestly prove the paranormal-- but to disprove it, now
that so-called offer is just perfect. Oh, puh-leeze!

Besides I don't have to prove Randi is a fake; Randi has to prove that
he isn't. Have you ever heard ONE SINGLE PERSON ever say that they
applied, took the test in a timely manner, and failed but they thought
it was a honst tst nonetheless? Just one?

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.

I'm not going to address this cuz I *know* you won't like my answer.
Blieve what you will; most people do.

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.

You know, you really do use "anecdotal evidence" like a crutch. One
day it will be your undoing.

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.

Okay, as evil-Willow once said, "Bored now." I've losing my patience
with anyone who the psi community would definitely consider to be
"head-blind" and / or a victim of the Sunnydale syndrome; you're a
waste of time. If you believe Randi's offer is so fair, take his test
and when you get the million, give me a call.

Ron


________________

“…Considering what the ordinary human being intrinsically is. By
‘ordinary’ is meant, of course, the person to whom the entire field of
psionics is a sealed realm; the person in whose tightly closed and
rigidly conventional mind no supra-normal phenomenon can possibly
occur or exist.”

–– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Explorers) —

 

[Chiron]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:06:29 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's
the things we know that ain't so."
-- Artemus Ward



--
I tripped over a hole that was sticking up out of the ground.

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 12, 7:47 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Ron Hubbard wrote:

“…Considering what the ordinary human being intrinsically is. By
‘ordinary’ is meant, of course, the person to whom the entire field of
psionics is a sealed realm; the person in whose tightly closed and
rigidly conventional mind no supra-normal phenomenon can possibly
occur or exist.”

–– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Explorers) —

   Smith wrote much better Science Fiction than Hubbard.

*Everybody* wrote better sci-fi than L. Ron Hubbard.

Ron

 

[Bob Masta]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:24:49 GMT, Chiron
<chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:51:28 +0000, Bob Masta 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.

I have no idea how Randi actually implements his offer - whether he does
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).

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.

You seem to exclude the possibility that some may believe in their
powers, and actually possess such powers.

Not at all, just reporting what has happened with actual
claimants.

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.

This has been called the "shyness effect". It's a classic
dodge, a way for claimants to never have to deliver the
goods except when among "friendly" (read: "gullible")
audiences.

It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
"laboratory". If you claim your powers only appear on the
corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
that.

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.

This implies there there is some class of phenomena that
will always be "beyond science". But that's not a
supportable position; all we can say is that there are some
things that science doesn't have a handle on at this moment
in time. But there are no a priori restrictions on what
science is ultimately capable of investigating. And please
note that by "science" I only mean "application of reason",
not confined to degree-holders.

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.

It would be hard to come up with a common or uncommon human
experience that is *in principle* not amenable to scientific
investigation. Sure, there may be limits in current
techniques, but that doesn't mean there is a *fundamental*
limit. This same story has played out repeatedly over the
history of science, where prior mysteries eventually become
well-understood. Predicting a limit to the process would be
risky indeed.

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!

 

[Chiron]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:31:40 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:

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.

This has been called the "shyness effect". It's a classic dodge, a way
for claimants to never have to deliver the goods except when among
"friendly" (read: "gullible") audiences.

It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that could only
appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because there are no

Falling in love. Singing, for some people. Public speaking, for many
people. Any sort of artistic endeavor requiring inspiration. All kinds
of activities are subject to "shyness."

Yes, it's often used as a dodge; but there may still be something to it.

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.

This implies there there is some class of phenomena that will always be
"beyond science". But that's not a supportable position; all we can

Not really. I'm describing things as they are, not necessarily as they
always will be. In my opinion, it is *never* a good idea to claim that
anything is impossible. The minute you say that, some putz will come
along and do it, making you look like an idiot.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin, 1895

"The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances,
known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a
practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the
air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the
demonstration of any physical fact to be." - astronomer Simon Newcomb,
1906

"Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of
Britain, 1957

So yeah, I'm not about to sit here and claim I know what is impossible
for science to attain.

But at the moment, psi phenomena - if they exist - are not amenable to
scientific investigation. And I guess they're also not amenable if they
*don't* exist... hmm...

say is that there are some things that science doesn't have a handle on
at this moment in time. But there are no a priori restrictions on what
science is ultimately capable of investigating. And please note that by
"science" I only mean "application of reason", not confined to
degree-holders.

I understand. I still doubt whether it will ever be possible to measure

or quantify *everything* in human experience. Whatever cannot be
quantified (and whatever doesn't follow the rules of logic) aren't going
to work with science. Of course, I have no way to *prove* my doubt.
That's OK. I don't insist on it. I'm not very attached to my notions,
and I may wind up arguing against them the next time the topic is
mentioned.

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.

It would be hard to come up with a common or uncommon human experience
that is *in principle* not amenable to scientific investigation. Sure,
there may be limits in current techniques, but that doesn't mean there
is a *fundamental* limit. This same story has played out repeatedly
over the history of science, where prior mysteries eventually become
well-understood. Predicting a limit to the process would be risky
indeed.

But what does "in principle" mean? Sure - anything that can be

quantified and that follows the rules of logic, can be dealt with using
science. However, in physics there is a limit to the accuracy of
measurements. You cannot, even in principle, obtain measurement of
arbitrary precision. There is a limit, a *fundamental* limit that won't
allow it. I'm referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Of course, measuring the momentum and position of subatomic particles
isn't exactly a "common human experience," but it does suggest that there
may, indeed, be things that will remain beyond the reach of science.

But as I say - I don't insist on it. And I wouldn't dare try to name any
particular phenomenon as being beyond its reach, because if I do,
tomorrow's headlines will prove me wrong.

Be well.

--
Keep on keepin' on.

 

[Chiron]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:50:07 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

But then, maybe that's what scares you. You'r scard that there ar people
who can do things you can't and it's just ating you up ain't it?

Ron, it is entirely possible for someone to disagree with you, without
them having to be stupid, crazy, stubborn, frightened, or whatever. In
fact, the might not even be wrong, but even if they are - it needn't be
because of any deficiency in their reasoning ability or their willingness
to entertain new ideas.

You are resorting to "ad hominem" arguments, trying to prove your
position by attacking the person you are debating with, instead of
limiting your comments to the statements the person is making. This is
never appropriate. Some might say that a person resorts to it when he
has no other points to make; I don't go quite that far, but it's a
logical fallacy nonetheless.

Right now the energy of psi - assuming it has anything whatsoever to do
with energy - is unknown, and has not been shown to exist outside of
living things. That could always change. I don't see why it is
impossible for this hypothetical energy to be identified, understood, and
perhaps even generated by non-biologic means.

You appear to be confusing the statement "psi is not amenable to
scientific investigation" with "psi is bullshit." The two statements are
not equivalent. You yourself admit that a person isn't likely to be able
to exhibit psi talent under lab conditions, and that's fine. Psi can
still exist, but in this case, it can't be investigated scientifically.

This is not saying it's bullshit, nor is it anyone being "afraid" of it
or whatever.

--
The groundhog is like most other prophets; it delivers its message and
then
disappears.

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 13, 5:31 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:24:49 GMT, Chiron





chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:51:28 +0000, Bob Masta 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.

I have no idea how Randi actually implements his offer - whether he does
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).

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.

You seem to exclude the possibility that some may believe in their
powers, and actually possess such powers.

Not at all, just reporting what has happened with actual
claimants.

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.

This has been called the "shyness effect".  It's a classic
dodge, a way for claimants to never have to deliver the
goods except when among "friendly" (read:  "gullible")
audiences.

It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
"laboratory".  If you claim your powers only appear on the
corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
that.

Psi is essentially a proprty of living things, and if you think
otherwise. go build a psi generator; you'll be rich byond your wildest
dreams! But if someone gave you unlimited funding and all the state-of-
the-art quipment in the world, you may come up with something but it
sure as hell won't produce a psi effect.

And now we get to the crux of things: you die-hard skeptics are so
determined to say that psi is not real pulls out the specious
smokescreen argument "if anyone has an ability, they must be able use
it under any circumstances-- in a lab (or anywhere else). That's an
incredibly stupid argument, as anyone who would use it would know. Can
anyone do a complicated algebra problem in their head while bright
flashing lights and loud sirens are going off in their face? Of course
not! But a psi-gifted person is expcted to perform under equivalent
circumstances and when they can't some yokel yells "See, I told you
there was nothing to it!"

Your statemnt is of course, rhetorical bull shit.

There have been numerous demonstrations of psi in labs all around the
world and th us military ven has protocols for technical remote
veiwing. But like anything psychological / physiological there has to
be some real motivation to perform, Now if somebody got five dollars
for every right answer, the test scores would go way up. But hell,
it's asir for me to go and play that same $5.00 at the lottery and
walk away with $3,000; I've done that several times before-- ya can
find my picture on the wall of Winners at a little grocery store in
Vancouver, WA. Nah, psi ain't real...

But then, maybe that's what scares you. You'r scard that there ar
people who can do things you can't and it's just ating you up ain't
it?


Ron


_________________

“Hard-headed, practical people, luckily, were inclined to consider
stories about psis to be at least ninety-nine percent superstitious
nonsense. However, the ones who didn't share that belief sometimes
reacted undesirably.”

–– Telzey Amberdon (Company Planet) ––

 

[Ron Hubbard]

It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
"laboratory".  If you claim your powers only appear on the
corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
that.

Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
nature can't be tested in a lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference_phenomenon

http://paranormal.about.com/od/telekinesispsychokinesis/a/aa052508.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/966/can-some-people-extinguish-streetlamps-by-means-of-their-bodily-emanations

http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/SLI.html


Ron



_________________

"As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has
happened that matters of great value to science were over -looked
because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook
of the time."

-- Allen J. Hynek --

 

[Bob Masta]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard
<orion@centurylink.net> wrote:

It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
"laboratory". =A0If you claim your powers only appear on the
corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
that.


Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
nature can't be tested in a lab.

You seem ot have missed my point, which was that a
"laboratory" is not needed for a scientific investigation.
And yes, street light interference is a good example, and
yes, it has been studied "on the street". And no, there is
no compelling evidence of anything paranormal.

Wikipedia calls it "confirmation bias", but that is only the
tail end of the story. Confirmation bias is when you pay
more attention to events that confirm what you already
expect. But until recently nobody had any expectation of
SLI, so how could they have a confirmation bias?

There's another phenomenon going on, which is that we tend
to relate external events to ourselves. That's perfectly
normal, and probably at the root of many psi claims. So when
you are driving along and a light goes out just as you get
near it, you don't stop and think about what the light does
when you are *not* near it. And what about when *other*
people are near it? So if you have a lamp that is "cycling"
(typically because it is near the end of its life) such that
it goes off and on frequently instead of just staying on,
then the odds are pretty good that when it goes off
*somebody* will be near it, and that if nobody is near it
then nobody remarks about it. (Duh!)

So once you have it in your mind that the cycling is all
about *you*, then the confirmation bias comes into play.
The next time, the light may go off when you are a
half-block away, but you will still count it as a "hit". And
so on.

If you really believe it is something about *you*, or even
about humans in general, consider setting up a video camera
that can view one of these magical lights and the traffic
below it, and see what happens.

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!

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 5:33 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard

Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
nature can't be tested in a lab.

You seem ot have missed my point,

No, I didn't miss your point, I *ignored * it. Do you honestly think I
haven't heard all of this before? And I do mean ALL of it before. Gee,
you would think the world was getting just a little bit smarter now
that it's the 21st century, but Ripley was right: IQs *are^ dropping.
Oy.

Look, I automatically tune out and quickly walk-- somtimes even run--
from anyone who sides with Randi or who seriously thinks his scam of
an offer has any validity. That shows that there is a defenitve
shortage of critical thought and a prejudice that I have encountered
far too often. It's sad that some people can't see the forest for the
trees, but still somtimes I try to spread just a little enlightenment.
I try to get pople to think if only a little bit, My bad!

Ron


___________________

Hubbard’s First Law of Perversity: "We all pay a high price for
stupidity."

-- Orion. Hubbard --

 

[Chiron]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:33:44 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:

Wikipedia calls it "confirmation bias", but that is only the tail end of

This is probably one of the major sources of error in investigations. It
applies to such varied activities as psi, gambling, and relationships.
We tend to focus on the events that support what we believe, and to
filter out the stuff that we don't believe or that we don't like.

This can't be used to explain all mysteries, of course. However, it is
something we tend to do unconsciously and automatically, so we are not as
aware of it as it influences our fact-finding. It affects us far more
than we like to admit.

My career was as legal secretary, where I saw firsthand how utterly
unreliable eyewitness testimony is. The only time two people ever agree
on what happened during an emotionally-laden situation (e.g., an
accident) was when they'd been carefully coached as to what "really"
happened. People just don't experience events - at least, not the scary
or upsetting ones - in the same way.

Another major source of error - possibly even more serious - is our
intense desire to know, to be certain about something. Many of us would
rather be wrong, than in doubt. But that's not a good way to learn
anything.

Most of the time when people get annoyed with me over a discussion, it's
not because I dare to disagree with them. It's because I ask them, in
all seriousness, "how do you know?" In all fairness to me, I ask the
same question of myself. Most of the time I have to admit that basically
I *don't* really know; I've accepted something based on guessing who's a
more reliable witness, or whether it's anything I've experienced or heard
of, stuff like that. My information is no more reliable than anyone
else's. Possibly my only advantage is that I accept this and work around
it...

And yet... there *was* this one street light, decades ago... I could see
it from many blocks away. It would shine steadily until I got within a
few feet of it, then suddenly start blinking. And when I got past it, it
would stop again. I wonder...

At this late date I can't say whether it blinked even when I was far from
it, and I simply didn't notice it as much. I certainly can't produce the
effect at will. Still...

--
Read terms and conditions.

 

[Winston]

Bob Masta wrote:

(...)

There's another phenomenon going on, which is that we tend
to relate external events to ourselves. That's perfectly
normal, and probably at the root of many psi claims. So when
you are driving along and a light goes out just as you get
near it, you don't stop and think about what the light does
when you are *not* near it. And what about when *other*
people are near it? So if you have a lamp that is "cycling"
(typically because it is near the end of its life) such that
it goes off and on frequently instead of just staying on,
then the odds are pretty good that when it goes off
*somebody* will be near it, and that if nobody is near it
then nobody remarks about it. (Duh!)

So once you have it in your mind that the cycling is all
about *you*, then the confirmation bias comes into play.
The next time, the light may go off when you are a
half-block away, but you will still count it as a "hit". And
so on.

Not necessarily.

Our city controls the street lights near the supermarket
in my neighborhood to discourage pedestrians in favor of
vehicular traffic.
(No license plates on peds, ya see.)

All along the street, each street light in turn will shut
off as I approach within ~half a block. A couple don't
but the lights owned by the city do. It's a little eerie.

If I travel by car, the street lights generally behave themselves.
(I did see one shut off whilst I was driving, but I also
saw a pedestrian heading for it a couple hundred feet
later!)

I will have to test the lights by bicycle at some point.

If you really believe it is something about *you*, or even
about humans in general, consider setting up a video camera
that can view one of these magical lights and the traffic
below it, and see what happens.

That'd require a compatriot.
I wouldn't want them to get into trouble
with the city and their Corporate Masters.



--Winston

 

[Chiron]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:46:24 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

Physicist Wolfgang Pauli had that kind effect on things so some of the
people around began calling it the "Pauli effect" although there is a
proper name for it; they wouldn't let him come around if they were
working on critical experiments. Say, have you ever noticed other things
like elevator doors being open all the time you come by? <g

I think the "Pauli Effect" may actually be a proper name for it. It's
supposed to occur when certain powerful intellects are near labs working
on things these intellects have an interest in. I don't know if it seeps
over to other labs (or elevators).

This effect made it into at least one science fiction short story from
around the Sixties or so...

--
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a
necessity."
-- Oscar Wilde

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 5:33 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard

or...@centurylink.net> wrote:
It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
"laboratory". =A0If you claim your powers only appear on the
corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
that.

Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
nature can't be tested in a lab.

You seem ot have missed my point, which was that a
"laboratory" is not needed for a scientific investigation.
And yes, street light interference is a good example, and
yes, it has been studied "on the street".  And no, there is
no compelling evidence of anything paranormal.

Wikipedia calls it "confirmation bias", but that is only the
tail end of the story.  Confirmation bias is when you pay
more attention to events that confirm what you already
expect.   But until recently nobody had any expectation of
SLI, so how could they have a confirmation bias?

There's another phenomenon going on, which is that we tend
to relate external events to ourselves.  That's perfectly
normal, and probably at the root of many psi claims.
So when you are driving along and a light goes out just as you get
near it, you don't stop and think about what the light does
when you are *not* near it. And what about when *other*
people are near it?

Sigh...

Okay, prmonition and prcognition, clairvoyance and even telekinesis
has ben noted for hundreds of years but SLI is a brand new item not
seen until maybe the eighties. You might ask why? Streetlights have
been around a long time; decades.

But lt's get real: yes, lights do go out once in a while-- it's both
natural and a statistical probibility. But how statististical is it
for nine streetlights to go out in sequence?

And think it through: do you think somone could mistake walking down
the street and hav two streetlights go out just so they can be almost
hit by a car in the sudden darkness or have the light overhead go out
suddenly while crossing the street and stumble over the curb, braking
an ankle? Misidentification of some nataural occurnce? Hahahaha!

As for other people, some of them have actually recorded this stuff on
videotape. But of course, if somebody recorded a real flying saucer
land in their yard, the first response for far too many people is to
label it fake. We live in such sad times when Photoshop and other
programs has made video and photographic evidence almost usless as
proof of anything! And perhaps as a worse social phenomena, it has
gotten so many morons making fake video that all the real evidence of
psi or any paranormal/unusual event gets swamped in the fake crap. Oy.

Ron


_______________

"As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has
happened that matters of great value to science were over -looked
because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook
of the time."

-- Allen J. Hynek --

 

[Winston]

Ron Hubbard wrote:

(...)

Say, have you ever noticed other
things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by?<g

Well, no.

I notice elevator doors remaining shut for a loooong
time (nearly) every time I come by.

--Winston

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 4:44 pm, Winston <Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:

Bob Masta wrote:

(...)





There's another phenomenon going on, which is that we tend
to relate external events to ourselves.  That's perfectly
normal, and probably at the root of many psi claims. So when
you are driving along and a light goes out just as you get
near it, you don't stop and think about what the light does
when you are *not* near it.  And what about when *other*
people are near it?  So if you have a lamp that is "cycling"
(typically because it is near the end of its life) such that
it goes off and on frequently instead of just staying on,
then the odds are pretty good that when it goes off
*somebody* will be near it, and that if nobody is near it
then nobody remarks about it.  (Duh!)

So once you have it in your mind that the cycling is all
about *you*, then the confirmation bias comes into play.
The next time, the light may go off when you are a
half-block away, but you will still count it as a "hit". And
so on.

Not necessarily.  

Our city controls the street lights near the supermarket
in my neighborhood to discourage pedestrians in favor of
vehicular traffic.
(No license plates on peds, ya see.)

All along the street, each street light in turn will shut
off as I approach within ~half a block.  A couple don't
but the lights owned by the city do.  It's a little eerie.

Funny thing, that started happening to me for a while then it stopped
for almost two whole years; somtims those "weak" lights would go out
as I pass by then come back on again as I get further away. But
probably the freakiest is when I walk by a house and th lights go out
at the samw time... Coincidence? Maybe once, even twice-- but numrous
of times becomes a pattern.

Physicist Wolfgang Pauli had that kind effect on things so some of the
people around began calling it the "Pauli effect" although there is a
proper name for it; they wouldn't let him come around if they were
working on critical experiments. Say, have you ever noticed other
things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by? <g>

Ron

 

[Jamie]

Winston wrote:

Ron Hubbard wrote:

(...)

Say, have you ever noticed other
things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by?<g


Well, no.

I notice elevator doors remaining shut for a loooong
time (nearly) every time I come by.

--Winston
That's the same as street lights and people in front of you

trying to get that last word in on the cell phone as they
are fumbling to put everything down, including their coffee,
make up kit, and hope the police didn't see them do all of this
and get moving before the light turns RED again. Meanwhile the
whole line behind them are blowing their horns.

I just love cell phoners in a crowded lane when you need to get
somewhere. Maybe that, too, can fit this subject!

Jamie

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 3:17 pm, Chiron
<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:33:44 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:
Wikipedia calls it "confirmation bias", but that is only the tail end of

This is probably one of the major sources of error in investigations.  It
applies to such varied activities as psi, gambling, and relationships.
We tend to focus on the events that support what we believe, and to
filter out the stuff that we don't believe or that we don't like.

This can't be used to explain all mysteries, of course.  However, it is
something we tend to do unconsciously and automatically, so we are not as
aware of it as it influences our fact-finding.  It affects us far more
than we like to admit.

My career was as legal secretary, where I saw firsthand how utterly
unreliable eyewitness testimony is.  The only time two people ever agree
on what happened during an emotionally-laden situation (e.g., an
accident) was when they'd been carefully coached as to what "really"
happened.  People just don't experience events - at least, not the scary
or upsetting ones - in the same way.

Another major source of error - possibly even more serious - is our
intense desire to know, to be certain about something.  Many of us would
rather be wrong, than in doubt.  But that's not a good way to learn
anything.

Most of the time when people get annoyed with me over a discussion, it's
not because I dare to disagree with them.  It's because I ask them, in
all seriousness, "how do you know?"  In all fairness to me, I ask the
same question of myself.  Most of the time I have to admit that basically
I *don't* really know; I've accepted something based on guessing who's a
more reliable witness, or whether it's anything I've experienced or heard
of, stuff like that.  My information is no more reliable than anyone
else's.  Possibly my only advantage is that I accept this and work around
it...

Okay, you have a problem. There are more people in the world with type
B blood than thre ar psi-gifted people and many of those have no idea
that they are indeed psi-gifted. When weird shit happens, its seldom
in front of audiences and all you hav are anecdotal accounts. I was
forced to take a comprhensive psych exam on an unbearably hot day so I
could get disability. I was hot, sick, bored, and did not want to b
there, so I was thinking about a story I had heard about how Jung trid
to convince Freud there wa something to the paranormal by making a
loud noise in Freud's bookcase.through psychic means.

I wanted something to happen...

While idly answring the qustions ther wasa a rumbling noise and
suddenly the picture on the wall just exploded. The psychologist
looked at it for a few momenets in silnce, thn turnd to m and askd me
if I believed in ESP; considering th circumstancs, I was afraid to
give him an honest answer so I lied and said no. He stard at me a
moment, then wrot somthing down and continued the exam. A few weeks
later yhy approved m for disability and I got all of the paprwork from
all the doctors I had seen and thir comments, among them was the
psychologist's report to the Social Security Administration that said:
"Subject dos not blieve in ESP." My jaw dropped; why would he actually
note that on such a rport? And more curiously, why would th SSA even
care? Here in Orgon, most of the people accepts psi as normal and as
believable as gravity-- doctors, psychologists, neurologists,
therapists, pharmacists, peope lin grocery stores--- but the SSA?
Freaky.

Anyhoo, anecdotal information often times has as much value as
anything else. This is not generally well known, but Freud had during
his later years come to accept telepathy-- he was one of the few
famous people who validated Wolf Messing's abilities as a pusher --
but his colleagues feared that if the psychological community became
aware of his views it would hurt the then infant practice of psycho-
therapy so his belief in things psychic was suppressed. Had Frued not
died prematurely of cancer, he might have made parapsychology
"respectable."


Ron


__________________

"No I don't believe in luck. No I don't believe in circumstance no
more. Accidents never happen in a perfect world, so I won't believe in
luck. After all accidents never happen-- could have planned it all;
precognition in my ears. "

–– Blondie ––








sII

 

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 16, 3:50 pm, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

Winston wrote:
Ron Hubbard wrote:

(...)

Say, have you ever noticed other
things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by?<g

Well, no.

I notice elevator doors remaining shut for a loooong
time (nearly) every time I come by.

when I was taking college classses I started to notic that very time I
arrivd an levator car would b ther with it's doors opn. First two or
thre times i thought it was coincidence but eight times?

So I started to wondr, what would happn if i was putting the "mojo" on
an elevator that had somebody in it... it wasn't until winter that I
went up north to Vancouver on a short vacation when one cold evening I
came into the hotel and once again there was a car with the doors
open. I walked in and pushed the button for my floor when I heard from
behind me a voice yelling "It was you! It was waiting for you! I
pushed all of the buttons and it wouldn't go; it was waiting for you!"
Bhind m was an old lady I didn't s before. Sh was sverely freaked
out; since sometimes it's hard enough to explain some psi-stuff to
other psis, it can be next to impossible to explain it to a... uh...
norm... so i didn't even try. I don't know whether she got off on her
floor, or if she got off on any floor just to get away from me, but
either way she got off before i did. I was both amused and amazed with
myslf as I had affected a mechanical device from what had to be a
hundred feet away or so, and through solid steel and granite (but I
always known that psi gos through everything) but I was still pretty
impressed with myself.

But once i had the answer to the big question, I found that I couldn't
whammy elevators for a long time; I had to stand around and wait just
like anyone else. It was about three years before elevators started
waiting for me again. Like SLI, I couldn't do that sort of thing if I
tried but at least I can't get killed by an open elevator door heh
heh. .

Ron


_____________________

"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 ––