Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?

[xssve]

About the only way planets have for influencing you is via their gravity force; Carl Sagan said that the MD who delivers you has more gravitational influence on you than any planet does.

We are talking about some fairly delicate brain chemistry here - the Sun has a great deal of gravitational force, as does the moon, and the entire solar system is all tied to together by gravitational forces, it's almost absurd to suggest there would be no effect at all.

There has been some studies done recently on differences between babies born in summer and those born in winter, i.e., you don't even need astrology to make the case here.

 

[Recidiva]

Well, here's the thing: the test of science is reproducability. If an experiment can't be reproduced, than obviously some critical variables are not understood and therefore the process isn't understood.

The problem with unreproducible psi experiments is: if they can't be reproduced, or if the psychic himself doesn't know when he's able to reproduce the correct conditions for psi to work, then what good it is psi at all? How does he know his prediction will be accurate (conditions are right) or inaccurate (conditions are wrong) if he himself doesn't know what the necessary conditions are? He can't, and so it's all just a guessing game.

But you're probably going to say something like: "Well, I can tell when the information I'm getting through psi is accurate or not. I know when I wake up in the middle of the night knowing the phone's going to ring, it's really going to ring."

Fine, then. That's a testable situation. The way I'd test you would be to monitor your sleep for a couple months and record all the times you wake up expecting a phone call, and recording how many times you were right. That's scientific, and it even would allow you to assign a confidence level to your predictions: "I'm kind of certain someone will call", "I'm dead certain someone will call", "I just got up to go to the bathroom."

The problem is, they have done experiments like this, allowing the psychic to only pick those cases in which his confidence of being right was high, and still the results are no better than random.

In other words, not even the psychic himself knows when the conditions are right.

If you have a tool and not even the user knows whether it's going to work or not, you don't have a very useful tool. The success of the whole operation in that case becomes a matter of happenstance, which means it's a matter of chance, which means it's entirely random.

Well, for me, there's no pattern. It's more of a navigational tool in my life, that helps me detect when I should be paying attention. In once case I just "knew" someone close to me was about to kill themselves and I got to them in time to save their life and get them to the hospital. This wasn't a thought process, I just had a real sudden insight into what was going on and I asked to take the afternoon off. Otherwise it was a totally normal day at work, no signs whatsoever leading to any sort of knowing of anything. Just a lightning bolt that motivated me. A very familiar type of lightning bolt I'd learned not to ignore.

When I got to the guy, he'd already taken enough sleeping pills to kill himself, cut off the fuse box and the severed the phone line, and if I hadn't been there to talk him into leaving voluntarily with me, he'd have been dead. He wanted to die, didn't want anybody to know, and was just woozy enough from all the drugs that I was able to lie to him enough to get him out of the house voluntarily and not be suspicious. I had convinced him that he needed to say goodbye to my daughter before he went and promised I would let him die after that. I lied. I drove to my daughter's day care with him in the car, told him to stay in the car and I'd bring her out, then called 911 from inside the daycare and got him to the hospital against his will.

So for me it's a flash of something that has zero to do with where I am or what I'm doing, and everything that has to do with someone I care for being in distress.

However, my brother killed himself and I had zero clue. So who knows what triggers it. Maybe I had a chance to get to person A and no chance to make any difference in person B's life. I don't know.

My talent is entirely useless to other people and as far as I can tell, untestable.

But there's no reason for me to doubt it. There have been no other circumstances where I get that lightning bolt and it doesn't lead me directly to what I think I'm going to find.

It may not be a reliable tool, but it being useful to me isn't in question.

 

[xssve]

The problem with unreproducible psi experiments is: if they can't be reproduced, or if the psychic himself doesn't know when he's able to reproduce the correct conditions for psi to work, then what good it is psi at all? How does he know his prediction will be accurate (conditions are right) or inaccurate (conditions are wrong) if he himself doesn't know what the necessary conditions are? He can't, and so it's all just a guessing game.

I think it's a mistake to assume that if you can't pin it down and control it scientifically, it's useless - it's just useless to science.

The ability to sense danger, somebody waiting to dry gulch you, a Cave Bear around the next bend or whatever, could conceivably have been extremely useful to our HG forebears. Again, it's almost taking the more skeptical view to suggest that it would impossible for such a handy trait to evolve, if in fact there is any mechanism at all that might be adapted to those ends.

If you could handle fissionable materials without touching them, then that might be useful to science, if all you can do is bend spoons, maybe not so much - unless another scientist is stalking you, it might not be anything that would be scientifically useful, for anything beyond basic research.

After spending a few months in the woods, years ago, I could predict rain almost to the minute, tell time time within five minutes, and detect a snake moving in the grass Thirty feet away - and that was with nothing but my nose and my eyes, I didn't have to think about it, I just knew, i.e., anoetic reasoning.

There's no reason for me to suspect that other senses can become equally sensitive under the right stressors, and some things that appear to be psychic phenomena can be often attributed to acuteness in one or more of the five established senses, but occasionally something defies that particular line of reasoning.

I'm just pointing out that if offers any significant advantage, it would be inherited, it would only take once, nothing mystical about it, it's just odds.

 

[Handley_Page]

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.

 

[Recidiva]

All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.

Hee hee. Hee. *snort*

 

[Liar]

This is true. There's no way to convince a skeptic that something is real and not faked. There's no way to convince a true believer that there's another explanation. I think both approaches are subject to coming to incorrect conclusions.

I haven't come to any conclusion, I just haven't tossed out or included data I don't think are relevant.

Isn't this the whole agnostic vs atheist definition game all over again?

The difference between believing in nothing and not believing in anything.

The point I was trying to make, and maybe rather confusingly so, is that there is often confusion over the definition of "data". People never seem to pick it apart enough.

Let's take the Jesus example, just because it's such a clear cut one.

"Jesus appeared to me in my breakfast toast" is not the data. It's an intepretation of: "My breakfast toast looks like Jesus"...which is not the data either. The data is "I associate the pattern in which my breakfast toast got burned with Jesus".

Only then can one start asking: Ok...why did I do that? The answer may still be spiritual, mind you.

Same thing with, say, premonitions. The data is "I experience that I often predict things right before they happen." Why do I experience that? And then you can line up the probable, the plausible and the possible. But those are always tainted with your preconceptions.

Do I always make those guesses in the back of my mind, and register them in the front of my mind when they happen to have been right? That would be MY guess, based on my preconceptions.

 

[Recidiva]

Isn't this the whole agnostic vs atheist definition game all over again?

The difference between believing in nothing and not believing in anything.

The point I was trying to make, and maybe rather confusingly so, is that there is often confusion over the definition of "data". People never seem to pick it apart enough.

Let's take the Jesus example, just because it's such a clear cut one.

"Jesus appeared to me in my breakfast toast" is not the data. It's an intepretation of: "My breakfast toast looks like Jesus"...which is not the data either. The data is "I associate the pattern in which my breakfast toast got burned with Jesus".

Only then can one start asking: Ok...why did I do that? The answer may still be spiritual, mind you.

Same thing with, say, premonitions. The data is "I experience that I often predict things right before they happen." Why do I experience that? And then you can line up the probable, the plausible and the possible. But those are always tainted with your preconceptions.

Do I always make those guesses in the back of my mind, and register them in the front of my mind when they happen to have been right? That would be MY guess, based on my preconceptions.

Yes. And then you get into the fun realities that certain tumors and certain brain chemistry imbalances create senses of well being or connection or power when they don't exist in reality. There's all sorts of queasy realities that make it a good idea to question something until there is some reasonable track record or proof.

I don't know about the prediction thing, and for me that's not part of my talent, though I do know some people who have some gifts in that direction. But for me that raises many more questions than it answers, as far as pattern or free will or guidance or any of that goes. There are those who absolutely insist on having guides and spirits and that's not me. I also don't process a single thing visually, so anybody who "sees" auras or spirits processes things entirely differently than I do, when I really only "feel" an energy field or a presence. And also at crisis points, I've "felt" things that were...not me. But that's subjective also. Whatever it is, it's freaky.

I don't think that reality follows preconception. There are plenty of people who preconceive that they'll never get sick or nothing will ever go wrong or any other sort of safe, comfortable place. Again it could be biochemical, a mind prone to lack of fear, until something happens and then that bubble's burst. "Crisis of faith" arises in many people who thought this way up to a point. You have to go far into denial to make preconceived notion always run true.

And in your argument, "the back of my mind" or "subconscious" or "lightning calculation" isn't any better explained as a process than guardian angels or spirit guides. It just sounds scienceyer.

The scientific theory isn't any more advanced, but is just as interesting and varied, as the mystical explanations.

 

[Liar]

And in your argument, "the back of my mind" or "subconscious" or "lightning calculation" isn't any better explained as a process than guardian angels or spirit guides. It just sounds scienceyer.

Actually it is. Maybe I didn't explain what I was going at. Screening as well as assimilation are well documented (through repeated controlled experiments) mechanisms in the psychology of processing impressions and information.

I observe something. What can my mind do with it?

I can ignore it and forget it (screening). We all ignore thousands of things every day. We'd go nuts if we didn't. A classic exampe of screening, is the Volvo example. Say you're looking to buy a Volvo. Before the thought entered your mind that maybe you should buy a Volvo, you never noticed when you met one in the opposing lane. But suddenly, you see every damn one.

I can make sense of it based upon the rules, categories and structures I have in my head (assimilation). I make the observation fit my world view. And in doing so, I am also likely to distort and tailor the observation slightly, sandpaper off the rough edges and wrap them in intepretation in order for them to fit more snugly into whatever shape the slots in my head are.

Or I can change the rules, categories and structures I have in my head to fit the new observations (acommodation). This doesn't happen as often as one would like to believe.

 

[Recidiva]

Actually it is. Maybe I didn't explain what I was going at. Screening as well as assimilation are well documented (through repeated controlled experiments) mechanisms in the psychology of processing impressions and information.

I observe something. What can my mind do with it?

I can ignore it and forget it (screening). We all ignore thousands of things every day. We'd go nuts if we didn't. A classic exampe of screening, is the Volvo example. Say you're looking to buy a Volvo. Before the thought entered your mind that maybe you should buy a Volvo, you never noticed when you met one in the opposing lane. But suddenly, you see every damn one.

I can make sense of it based upon the rules, categories and structures I have in my head (assimilation). I make the observation fit my world view. And in doing so, I am also likely to distort and tailor the observation slightly, sandpaper off the rough edges and wrap them in intepretation in order for them to fit more snugly into whatever shape the slots in my head are.

Or I can change the rules, categories and structures I have in my head to fit the new observations (acommodation). This doesn't happen as often as one would like to believe.

Okay. I get what you're saying here and I understand. I think that applies to every day thoughts. It doesn't however explain the far ends of the spectrum, things like autistic savants or any of the unusual events discussed that are considered fraudulent or paranormal.

I'm not discounting anything you're saying as part of the process, and those are the tools that I'm saying need to be developed in order to augment a natural talent. But to me they're really complementary processes, not the same process.

You can use your senses and your reason to come to certain conclusions and that's normal. The Volvo example is just a normal part of changing a frame of reference and a filter and therefore gathering more data on the subject than you had chosen to gather before.

However, there's no way that changing your filter and suddenly knowing how to speak another language or play a song you've never heard before on an instrument you've never played before, perfectly.

There's work and then there's talent and the type of talents I'm discussing aren't the type that are learned. They're inherent, like perfect pitch. You can get better through lots of exposure to music and tone to approach perfect pitch, but all that work and practice is never going to approach the ability to distinguish between tones and nuances of sound through learned practice more than someone who just...had it since they were born and "know" what a note is supposed to be.

 

[JackLuis]

All I've got to say is:

Poor little goats.

 

[Liar]

All I've got to say is:

Poor little goats.

Maybe they're exhibitionist goats? Some like getting stared at.

 

[Liar]

However, there's no way that changing your filter and suddenly knowing how to speak another language or play a song you've never heard before on an instrument you've never played before, perfectly.

There's work and then there's talent and the type of talents I'm discussing aren't the type that are learned. They're inherent, like perfect pitch. You can get better through lots of exposure to music and tone to approach perfect pitch, but all that work and practice is never going to approach the ability to distinguish between tones and nuances of sound through learned practice more than someone who just...had it since they were born and "know" what a note is supposed to be.

True, but htose examples you just cited are explainable (if not always empirically proven) in ways that stands up to scientific standards, and don't break the ground rules. The extraorinary abilities among some to just "know" the most intricate mechanics of music, or the most advanced mathematics (even if they don't use the academically accepted terminology unless they've heard it), is worthy ot wonder. People with extraordinary skills, learning abilitites and peak intellects (extreme intelligence in one narrow dicipline) do exist.

There is as you say no way to play a song you've never heard. (unless you just made it up ). Or even speak a new language. But there are several possible explanations as to why someone is playing a song that they experience that they never heard. One does not have to break the laws of physics to come up with a hypothesis. I disagree that that can't be a filter thing. It is a stretch that one can learn an language subconsciously and then all of a sudden trigger that. But flat out impossible? Not in my book. That is you being a being a believer and ruling out the possibility of a scientific explanation.

But that differs from things like clairvoyance and telekinesis, because they have to directly negate other things we (or most of us) hold as true. The laws of thermodynamics, for one.

That's the difference between the extraorinary and the supernatural. It lies not in the phenomena themselves, but in how people choose to approach them. I fully expect it to be possible to measure God, if there is such a thing otuside the minds of man. And even if it's just there, the concept of "God" will have energy and mass in the mind of men.

Ergh. Is this really things to discuss on a friday night? I need to get off work and go home...

 

[Recidiva]

True, but htose examples you just cited are explainable (if not always empirically proven) in ways that stands up to scientific standards, and don't break the ground rules. The extraorinary abilities among some to just "know" the most intricate mechanics of music, or the most advanced mathematics (even if they don't use the academically accepted terminology unless they've heard it), is worthy ot wonder. People with extraordinary skills, learning abilitites and peak intellects (extreme intelligence in one narrow dicipline) do exist.

There is as you say no way to play a song you've never heard. (unless you just made it up ). Or even speak a new language. But there are several possible explanations as to why someone is playing a song that they experience that they never heard. One does not have to break the laws of physics to come up with a hypothesis. I disagree that that can't be a filter thing. It is a stretch that one can learn an language subconsciously and then all of a sudden trigger that. But flat out impossible? Not in my book. That is you being a being a believer and ruling out the possibility of a scientific explanation.

But that differs from things like clairvoyance and telekinesis, because they have to directly negate other things we (or most of us) hold as true. The laws of thermodynamics, for one.

That's the difference between the extraorinary and the supernatural. It lies not in the phenomena themselves, but in how people choose to approach them. I fully expect it to be possible to measure God, if there is such a thing otuside the minds of man. And even if it's just there, the concept of "God" will have energy and mass in the mind of men.

Ergh. Is this really things to discuss on a friday night? I need to get off work and go home...

How do you explain autistic savants? By what mechanic can someone simply "know" something they've never been exposed to before, when it takes other people a lifetime to learn and perhaps then not even master to the level of a savant?

What's the difference between just "knowing" how to do something physical without any practice or previous information on the subject, and just knowing something emotional or mental without any previous practice or information?

Why couldn't they be explained by the same mechanic?

Just because one is more readily observable and therefore can't be "impossible" to science, doesn't mean that science has actually explained it yet (exactly which mechanics are involved in a savant vs the mechanics involved in someone who learns a trade or a skill over time)

But savantism exists, is observable and therefore isn't impossible, but it's still unexplained. The only difference in the asssumption is that there MUST be an explanation, we just haven't found it yet. That's the same attitude I have toward any phenomena I encounter that I can't explain yet.

As to my examples, knowing other languages you haven't learned or knowing songs you've never heard...that's not outside the realm of my experience, even personally, particularly the song part. I think a great deal in music and there was one very specific example of me thinking I was spontaneusly composing something in my head and I started humming it. I was in close quarters at that time with a fan of a particular song and band I've never heard about, and he said that song had been running through his head for the last few days. He hadn't played it, I hadn't heard it before, and if I hadn't felt compelled to hum it, I never would have known it wasn't something I made up myself. I didn't like it particularly and it was just...stuck in my head and I was trying to get it out.

You can say he must have played it and I must have heard it and that's fine. But it happens to me often enough to know it's possible. So again, just like savantism, for me, it's an observed thing that I don't have an explanation for yet.

It was a curiosity to me because I have an excellent memory for music. I know when I've heard something before and I hadn't heard this before. I knew it was new to me, and I assumed I was making it up because I wasn't familiar with it. And that doesn't mean I have an eidetic memory. I can barely remember my own phone number. So you may think it's not real. I do.

I don't see how telekinesis is invalid because it doesn't expend energy. You just expend the energy of the host, same as you'd expend energy to use your hand to move it. I can't do it, it's true, but I don't think it defies any laws in particular, if energy is required, the human body has lots of it at its disposal.

Well, if you can leave the subject behind, cool. I can't. This is definitely an "every day" topic for me. Happy Friday!

 

[Pure]

to Jack and all.

the new Clooney movie is a bit of a spoof, but there is some information about the real project Jedi, of the US. Army, at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-plot-Hollywood-film-U-S-army-experiment.html

General A. Stubblebine, in charge, tried to walk through walls. No success.

Soldier Echanis is said to have killed a goat by staring.**

Mc Moneagle says he helped in intelligence gathering by ‘remote viewing.’
===

As a followup,

Currently Wheaton is allegedly helping, by such means, in the search for Bin Ladin. (I gather no success).

Sounds like a good test of 'remote viewing,' to me!

===

** The Journal of Irreproduceable Results, a science humor mag, deals in such events.

www.jir.com

 

[xssve]

Get used to it Pure, magical thinking is a common outlet for cultures under stress - so quit bitching and start writing, lol.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

How do you explain autistic savants? By what mechanic can someone simply "know" something they've never been exposed to before, when it takes other people a lifetime to learn and perhaps then not even master to the level of a savant?

What's the difference between just "knowing" how to do something physical without any practice or previous information on the subject, and just knowing something emotional or mental without any previous practice or information?

Why couldn't they be explained by the same mechanic?

...

Well, first of all, savantism doesn't involve knowing something you've never been exposed to. Savants in certain subjects can reproduce things they've heard or seen through a kind of photographic memory, but they're not psychic. I know, because my brother-in-laws an autistic savant. Given any date, he can tell you what day of the week it falls on, and he can immediately reproduce any chord he hears on the piano, though he's musically illiterate. (Strangely, he can't reproduce melodies, only harmonies.)

The main reason they can't be explained by the same mechanism has to do with that excellent point Liar made about the difference between the extraordinary and the supernatural. Savantism is extraordinary but not supernatural. not "above nature". It violates no laws of nature.

ESP, precognition, telekinesis, etc. do violate the laws of nature as we understand them, because science knows of no way such processes could occur. Everything, everything, that happens in the universe happens through one of the 4 known forces of physics: the electromagnetic force, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. On the human scale, these last two forces are negligible, so everything we know of happens via the EM force and/or gravity.

While ESP might possibly be explainable as some sort of intra-brain EM communication, a kind of brain-to-brain radio, telekinesis--presumably the conversion of brain EM radiation into mechanical motion--is not. And precognition requires that information actually be sent backwards in time, which is a violation of some fundamental physical laws.

You would have to posit the existence of another, heretofore unknown force in physics, and this is a rather a huge and radical step to make on the basis of such flimsy evidence, a lot bigger and more consequential than anything Copernicus or Darwin or Einstein ever proposed. That's why there's such scientific skepticism over psi effects: not because they can't be scientifically demonstrated (although that fact certainly doesn't help their believability), but because they violate our basic knowledge of physics.

The assertion that psi powers exist is thus not a value-neutral statement. It's tantamount to saying that 300 years of science and physics is quite simply wrong. This is entirely possible (and in fact a fifth force has been proposed operating in deep space: the dark force), but we're going to need some very good evidence before we assign all we know of physics to the crapper.

Personally, no one roots for the Unknown like I do. I love the unexplainable, the Fortean, the anomalous and the magical. I go wild with each new UFO flap or Big Foot sighting. The unknown means freedom and possibility, and who's not in favor of that?

But when it comes down to brass tacks--when I have to decide whether I'm going to listen to my physician or to a psychic seer--I get terribly skeptical.

 

[Pure]

to doc,

since you are the scientist, not i, i simply bring up the topics as relevant, and hope you can explain to us.

superluminal transfer of information
nonlocality
Bell's theorem

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/oleinik_the_problem.pdf

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/NonlocalityStapp.doc

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607124


thanks.

 

[Epmd607]

since you are the scientist, not i, i simply bring up the topics as relevant, and hope you can explain to us.

superluminal transfer of information
nonlocality
Bell's theorem

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/oleinik_the_problem.pdf

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/NonlocalityStapp.doc

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607124


thanks.

Chapter 4.LVI.—How among the frozen words Pantagruel found some odd ones.

"The skipper made answer: Be not afraid, my lord; we are on the confines of the Frozen Sea, on which, about the beginning of last winter, happened a great and bloody fight between the Arimaspians and the Nephelibates. Then the words and cries of men and women, the hacking, slashing, and hewing of battle-axes, the shocking, knocking, and jolting of armours and harnesses, the neighing of horses, and all other martial din and noise, froze in the air; and now, the rigour of the winter being over, by the succeeding serenity and warmth of the weather they melt and are heard."

 

[Liar]

As to my examples, knowing other languages you haven't learned or knowing songs you've never heard...that's not outside the realm of my experience, even personally, particularly the song part. I think a great deal in music and there was one very specific example of me thinking I was spontaneusly composing something in my head and I started humming it. I was in close quarters at that time with a fan of a particular song and band I've never heard about, and he said that song had been running through his head for the last few days. He hadn't played it, I hadn't heard it before, and if I hadn't felt compelled to hum it, I never would have known it wasn't something I made up myself. I didn't like it particularly and it was just...stuck in my head and I was trying to get it out.

You can say he must have played it and I must have heard it and that's fine. But it happens to me often enough to know it's possible. So again, just like savantism, for me, it's an observed thing that I don't have an explanation for yet.

See that's the thing. I don't say that you must have heard it. I say that that's one possible explanation, and that it shouldn't be dismissed.

I have several explanations. Granted, I don't have proof for any of them, just hypothesis (hypothesises? hypothesii?) of what might have happened, ranging from the mundane to the silly to the supernatural. You must have too. It's easy.

- You heard it on the radio and forgot all about it.
- Someone played it on their boombox while you were taking a nap on that bus ride.
- Your friend snuck into your room at night and hummed it in your ear just to mess with you.
- You have a supernatural ability to read music out of thin air/other people's heads/radio airwaves/whatever.

Three of those are quite possible considering what we know about physics, and the human body. For the fourth to be possible, we must redefine physics and/or the properties of the human body (as we know them).

Well, maybe we should. Lord knows we have redefined what we know to be scientifically true, over and over through history. But always in the face of undeniable evidence and with thorough application of Occam's razor. When people stop looking at mundane possibilitites and judge them on their own plausibility, and instead seeminly search out the awe inspiring answers, that's when I have to put my skeptic hat on.

I don't see how telekinesis is invalid because it doesn't expend energy. You just expend the energy of the host, same as you'd expend energy to use your hand to move it. I can't do it, it's true, but I don't think it defies any laws in particular, if energy is required, the human body has lots of it at its disposal.

Telekinesis is invalid because there is no physical conductor between the expender of the energy and the object being moved. You'd basically have to create a conductor between the human body and the object, out of energy. The only thing that comes close, that we know of, is electromagnetic fields. One can, to a point, shape and direct those, and thus affect objects at a distance. But only other magnetic objects.

We do not contain all that much energy really, not enpough to do anything like that anyway. Life is pretty awesome in the things it can do, not because it is energy dense, but because living bodies are extremely energy efficient. The rate by which we convert chemical energy to kinetic and the mechanic ways we maximise the effect of that energy is something that engineers are green with envy over and study every day to see how it works. But we couldn't create a magnetic field to lift a wrench. Not enough iron, and not enough juice.

So what do we need in order to move objects at a distance? To rewrite what we know. We need a new principal to physics, one that we haven't observed elsewhere and that we're yet to understand. Quantum mechanics are sniffing at the edges of things able to challenge common physical reality, but as it seems, it's only valid on a sub atomic level.

 

[NoJo]

I suspected it could be him you were talking about - it's an interesting body of data he has accumulated, I haven't really made up my mind as to the validity of his theories yet. But it'd be intriguing to hear your take "from the inside" on why you consider his work a failure?

I worked with him and colleagues at the University of Tübingen on examining the reported phenomenon that people can sense when they're being watched. He and I designed an experiment and I built the visualization and analysis software for a demonstration, first in a concert hall, then on TV (!) to test whether people can sense people watching them when their back is turned. The TV one was so dumb I couldn't believe such a smart fellow as Sheldrake would waste his time with it!

Anyway I duly (and sceptically) performed the analysis (basically looking for "blips" in electrodermal activity at the moment the subjects were being watched), and guess what I found?




Nothing

 

[Recidiva]

Well, first of all, savantism doesn't involve knowing something you've never been exposed to. Savants in certain subjects can reproduce things they've heard or seen through a kind of photographic memory, but they're not psychic. I know, because my brother-in-laws an autistic savant. Given any date, he can tell you what day of the week it falls on, and he can immediately reproduce any chord he hears on the piano, though he's musically illiterate. (Strangely, he can't reproduce melodies, only harmonies.)

The main reason they can't be explained by the same mechanism has to do with that excellent point Liar made about the difference between the extraordinary and the supernatural. Savantism is extraordinary but not supernatural. not "above nature". It violates no laws of nature.

ESP, precognition, telekinesis, etc. do violate the laws of nature as we understand them, because science knows of no way such processes could occur. Everything, everything, that happens in the universe happens through one of the 4 known forces of physics: the electromagnetic force, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. On the human scale, these last two forces are negligible, so everything we know of happens via the EM force and/or gravity.

While ESP might possibly be explainable as some sort of intra-brain EM communication, a kind of brain-to-brain radio, telekinesis--presumably the conversion of brain EM radiation into mechanical motion--is not. And precognition requires that information actually be sent backwards in time, which is a violation of some fundamental physical laws.

You would have to posit the existence of another, heretofore unknown force in physics, and this is a rather a huge and radical step to make on the basis of such flimsy evidence, a lot bigger and more consequential than anything Copernicus or Darwin or Einstein ever proposed. That's why there's such scientific skepticism over psi effects: not because they can't be scientifically demonstrated (although that fact certainly doesn't help their believability), but because they violate our basic knowledge of physics.

The assertion that psi powers exist is thus not a value-neutral statement. It's tantamount to saying that 300 years of science and physics is quite simply wrong. This is entirely possible (and in fact a fifth force has been proposed operating in deep space: the dark force), but we're going to need some very good evidence before we assign all we know of physics to the crapper.

Personally, no one roots for the Unknown like I do. I love the unexplainable, the Fortean, the anomalous and the magical. I go wild with each new UFO flap or Big Foot sighting. The unknown means freedom and possibility, and who's not in favor of that?

But when it comes down to brass tacks--when I have to decide whether I'm going to listen to my physician or to a psychic seer--I get terribly skeptical.

Autism runs in my family, my son has it. It's nice that you know I'm wrong, but in my case, I get to disagree based on overwhelming evidence in my reality. I don't expect anybody to take what I say on faith. I don't have to hide it, though. I put it out there, and then very often, I get something back. Stories, anecdotes, demonstrations. If I remain open minded on the subject, I get more data to crunch and that works out fine for me. If your mind's made up, cool. I don't seek to change anybody's mind at all. It's of interest to me because it's a part of my life, not a curiosity like Bigfoot or a UFO that's - out there. Actually I don't care about Bigfoot or UFO's much because they don't affect me personally.

For me it comes down to having experiences that I know I'm not faking, don't have another reasonable explanation and I see explations or theories. Whatever you believe is in question and violates laws, that's fine. If I've seen it happen enough times anyway to assume that my understanding of the laws in question is incomplete, that's where I'm coming from. I've done my best to research the science as well as alternative explanations and I don't think anybody really understands the mechanics. I don't think violating laws is in question here, because since the mechanics aren't understood, how can you say you know what law is being violated if you don't know what's going on in the first place?

I don't think you should go see a psychic at all. However, if one stops you on the street and says maybe you should get a chest x-ray done because they can "see" or "feel" an imbalance there, and then you go on to get an otherwise undiscovered illness discovered and treated, I really don't see how that's a bad thing. And if you don't think that can happen at all, or every single instance of the extraordinary is always so easily dismissed, I just think you're missing something and that's okay. My life presents a different set of circumstances and data to process and for me the question isn't gathering evidence, it's attempting to work with it and integrate it into my life. If you happen to be a friend with someone who has psychic tendencies...watch. But people who don't know anybody with inexplicable talents are like people who "don't know any homosexuals." They're not looking and the questioned population knows to "pass" as normal around them because of their attitudes regarding their gifts.

Both science and talent can be misused. I'm on the side of using science and talent wisely and not dismissing one or the other entirely.

 

[Recidiva]

See that's the thing. I don't say that you must have heard it. I say that that's one possible explanation, and that it shouldn't be dismissed.

I have several explanations. Granted, I don't have proof for any of them, just hypothesis (hypothesises? hypothesii?) of what might have happened, ranging from the mundane to the silly to the supernatural. You must have too. It's easy.

- You heard it on the radio and forgot all about it.
- Someone played it on their boombox while you were taking a nap on that bus ride.
- Your friend snuck into your room at night and hummed it in your ear just to mess with you.
- You have a supernatural ability to read music out of thin air/other people's heads/radio airwaves/whatever.

Three of those are quite possible considering what we know about physics, and the human body. For the fourth to be possible, we must redefine physics and/or the properties of the human body (as we know them).

Well, maybe we should. Lord knows we have redefined what we know to be scientifically true, over and over through history. But always in the face of undeniable evidence and with thorough application of Occam's razor. When people stop looking at mundane possibilitites and judge them on their own plausibility, and instead seeminly search out the awe inspiring answers, that's when I have to put my skeptic hat on.

Telekinesis is invalid because there is no physical conductor between the expender of the energy and the object being moved. You'd basically have to create a conductor between the human body and the object, out of energy. The only thing that comes close, that we know of, is electromagnetic fields. One can, to a point, shape and direct those, and thus affect objects at a distance. But only other magnetic objects.

We do not contain all that much energy really, not enpough to do anything like that anyway. Life is pretty awesome in the things it can do, not because it is energy dense, but because living bodies are extremely energy efficient. The rate by which we convert chemical energy to kinetic and the mechanic ways we maximise the effect of that energy is something that engineers are green with envy over and study every day to see how it works. But we couldn't create a magnetic field to lift a wrench. Not enough iron, and not enough juice.

So what do we need in order to move objects at a distance? To rewrite what we know. We need a new principal to physics, one that we haven't observed elsewhere and that we're yet to understand. Quantum mechanics are sniffing at the edges of things able to challenge common physical reality, but as it seems, it's only valid on a sub atomic level.

The examination of every incident is really important and I've gone through it myself over and over, so when I present one incident, it's representative. I'm not presenting these like "I bought 100 tickets and once I won the lottery!" I'm presenting one example that speaks to hundreds of incidents in my lifetime. But to really "get" that you'd have to probably live with me and that's not really an option.

I really don't want to get into some Evangelical place where I'm trying to convince anyone of anything. Take it or leave it as representative of the things that happen that I consider to be part of some cache of evidence that over time forms at least my version of intellectual critical mass. I'm no longer in the "I wonder if it's true" place. I'm just saying I have observed and experienced things, but I can't tell you which ones are true except for the ones that have happened to me, and those give me insight into when others speak about it. I have talked to enough other people and known enough about how people hide it to pick up on it in many others.

I have no explanations. In this case this is like asking me "You say you've seen a star streak across the sky, but that's impossible, stars don't move! Your eyes must have been blurry. You were drunk. It was late at night, obviously, because there were stars, so you were tired." I've seen it, I don't need to justify what I saw or how I saw it, I don't need to recant just so people will think I'm sane. I saw it, I testify to it, now it's up to science to discover what a comet is. There are plenty of people who have seen comets in a lifetime, they just assumed they were blurred, drunk or tired.

I think it's a disservice to investigation to dismiss incidents when someone wasn't drunk, blurred or tired, they just saw something unusual and as yet unexplained. I'm definitely on the side of believing science will revise previous assumptions and discover whatever it is eventually and that'd be a very cool day.

 

[xssve]

I worked with him and colleagues at the University of Tübingen on examining the reported phenomenon that people can sense when they're being watched. He and I designed an experiment and I built the visualization and analysis software for a demonstration, first in a concert hall, then on TV (!) to test whether people can sense people watching them when their back is turned. The TV one was so dumb I couldn't believe such a smart fellow as Sheldrake would waste his time with it!

Anyway I duly (and sceptically) performed the analysis (basically looking for "blips" in electrodermal activity at the moment the subjects were being watched), and guess what I found?




Nothing

Did you perform any tests to detect neutrino activity?

You'd need a neutrino detector:

http://www.craigtozzi.com/sportsdesk/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/neutrino.jpg

 

[past_perfect]

I worked with him and colleagues at the University of Tübingen on examining the reported phenomenon that people can sense when they're being watched. He and I designed an experiment and I built the visualization and analysis software for a demonstration, first in a concert hall, then on TV (!) to test whether people can sense people watching them when their back is turned. The TV one was so dumb I couldn't believe such a smart fellow as Sheldrake would waste his time with it!

Anyway I duly (and sceptically) performed the analysis (basically looking for "blips" in electrodermal activity at the moment the subjects were being watched), and guess what I found?




Nothing

Ah ok, that experiment I heard about but haven't examined myself yet. The learning experiment done on British/German TV I would judge too inconclusive for anything substantial.

The pet experiments, however, seemed pretty convincing, also the data from the phone experiment and others. Being somewhat of a skeptic myself, I also read the debunking attempts regarding those experiments, which were less than impressive, or sometimes plain dumb/unscientific.

I was just a little surprised by your use of "always", and still am to be honest. One or two failed experiments wouldn't exactly warrant that phrase, at least not in my book.

Thanks for the info though.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

since you are the scientist, not i, i simply bring up the topics as relevant, and hope you can explain to us.

superluminal transfer of information
nonlocality
Bell's theorem

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/oleinik_the_problem.pdf

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/NonlocalityStapp.doc

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607124


thanks.

I'm not a quantum physicist, so I'm not qualified to discuss any of these topics, all of which involve the idea of quantum entanglement, though I did have some doubts about the superluminal transfer of information and did do a little extracurricular reading about it.

I take it that the reason you want these issues discussed is to mount a "more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosopy, Horatio" argument. That is, since we have these cases which seem to defy the laws of physics, all of physics is suspect, so anything goes, including the possibility that exotic quantum effects are at work in our brains.

Quantum mechanics has become infamous as the last refuge of the psychic, the religious, the mystic, anyone who wants to accord some extraordinary power to human consciousness as a molder of reality. (Poor Werner Heisenberg has been more misunderstood than anyone in physics.) On another forum years ago I read the postings of a PhD in physics who invoked quantum processes in the brain in an attempt to explain consciousness. The quantum argument these people basically use is: we really don't know anything (Heisenberg), so anything is possible.

But to give one example of superluminal transfer of information: Quantum mechanics says there is nothing to prevent an electromagnetic wave from suddenly "turning into" two complementary and opposite particles at any time, for no apparent reason, so long as the sum of all their properties is zero: if virtual particle A has +spin, v.p. B must have -spin: if A has mass of +1, B must have mass of -1, charge of -1, charge of +1, etc. Such particles are said to be quantumly entangled.

So a neutrino and an antineutrino may just suddenly appear out of nowhere, with opposite spins, one headed right and the other left (or up and down or whatever directions are necessary such that vector momentum is conserved). For particles generated from a ray of light, this has to happen in a very small bit of space and can only occur in a vanishingly small slice of time, and then the "virtual" particles must meet and annihilate each other to give back empty space and you can't tell that anything's even happened.

What if, though, you can keep the virtual particles from meeting and annihilating each other? What if you could keep them going until they were separated by, say, a light year or so. Now, you take the right-hand particle and destroy it. The laws of physics say that the left hand particle must disappear at exactly the same time, no matter how far away it is. (the reason is conservation of spin and momentum. You can't create either spin or momentum from nothing, and leaving a spiining virtual particle where there was none before changes the total amount of spin in the universe.) If it's a light year away, it can't wait that year for information to reach it about the fate of its sister. It must die immediately. This implies that it somehow "knows" the fate of its twin instantaneously: faster than the speed of light. Hence, the superluminal transfer of information.

This is a very thorny and exotic subject, combining quantum mechanics with relativistic theory (they don't get on well), and as I said, far beyond my expertise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know entanglement has only been observed in high-energy colliders, and the particles only exist for the merest fraction of a second, not enough time for them to get any distance apart, so superluminal transfer of information has never been observed.

My own guess is that quantum entanglement doesn't happen due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It's simply impossible to know the spin or mass or charge of one of these virtual particles with any sort of meaningful confidence. But that's just a guess.

Anyhow, out of my league.

What's important though, is to remember that just because quantum mechanics is weird, that doesn't mean Big Foot is real. It's supremely unlikely that quantum effects have anything to do with how our brains work.