I have read thread after thread of supposedly "scientific" types categorically disposing of ESP because....? Because they can't get their in-the-box thinking to wrap around the truth it seems. So for all you skeptics, read this and weep. For it seems some scientific types, like Professor Josephson who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1973 (and where are all your Nobel Prizes being displayed?) for proving that some materials could act as switches operating close to the speed of light, and could revolutionise computing and power transmission. He has said that he deliberately used his booklet to redress a serious imbalance in reporting paranormal research work. ´I think journals like Nature and Science are censoring such research,´ he said. ´There is a lot of evidence to support the existence of telepathy, for example, but papers on the subject are being rejected - quite unfairly.´

Here is the link:

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012

and here is part of what is said:

"1. Introduction

Critics of claims of the paranormal, e.g. Deutsch (2001), have declared extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal phenomena to be ‘nonsense’ ._ Such absolutist positions give little weight to the experimental evidence (Radin 1997) in support of the reality of such processes, and seem naive given the range of imaginative proposals concerning the nature of reality currently being put forward for serious consideration by conventional physicists._ One important advance has been the superseding of the so-called Standard Model as a fundamental theory of nature by string theory (http://superstringtheory.com), where the Standard Model features merely as a subset of the set of permitted possibilities._ As Carr (2001, 2003) (whose approach is centred on the alternative Randall-Sundrum picture) has suggested, such a change in perspective opens up new possibilities in science, including the possibility of accommodating paranormal phenomena within physics._ In the following a number of concepts are combined, each in essence consistent with accepted ideas, resulting in a qualitative explanation for ESP, with the promise of an eventual clear cut basis for understanding paranormal phenomena in general.

2. A separate mental reality

A key assumption we make is one which, while it has no clear connections with experimental physics, does make contact with a position that was advocated by mathematicians such as Gödel (Davis and Hersh 1981, Penrose 1994)._ This is the idea that some aspects of mentality involve a realm of reality largely, but not completely, disconnected from the phenomena manifested in conventional physics._ The idea of a disconnected realm does have precedents, for example in the way two of the fundamental forces (the strong and weak forces) play no role in large areas of physics and chemistry, whilst in other contexts they have a very important part to play._ Next note that string theory, involving as it does spaces having more dimensions than the usual three, and also a non-unique vacuum state (and according to Susskind (2003a, b), a very large number of such states), is consistent with there being such a ‘separate realm’, in a way that the Standard Model, with its unique vacuum state contained within a limited number of spatial dimensions, did not. ..."

"... 3. A model for ESP

We need to add another piece of detail to our model._ In order that it can model individual thought, we suppose that individual life forms can perturb the background state so as to create a localised ‘thought bubble’, tied to the individual concerned._ This suggests that the vacuum state involved is close to a phase transition, so that an appropriate perturbation can create a domain with a different kind of order to that of the vacuum.

Assuming the validity of the scenario that has been described, the picture proposed can be adapted to account for the phenomena we set out to explain, namely telepathy or ESP._ In the first, the grounds for the existence of such a process can be taken to be the advantages that might be conferred in certain situations if two life forms could in some way share their mental states (there could also be accompanying disadvantages, the significance of which will become clear later)._ It is natural to postulate, in this case, that a shared ‘mental bubble’, whose contents are available to both life-forms, is involved._ We assume, as would need to be assumed generally in the model, that the state of this bubble plays the role of information that is meaningful in the context and, by virtue of this, usable by the connected systems.

The physics involved in the ‘sharing’ that has to be assumed in the above can be clarified by means of an analogy based on the Mössbauer effect, which is a phenomenon involving the decay of radioactive nuclei embedded in a crystal (Mössbauer 1961)._ In a certain fraction of cases, depending on parameters such as the decay energy and the temperature, the recoil from such a decaying nucleus is in effect transmitted to the crystal as a whole rather than generating activity in the vicinity of the decay._ These ‘no local recoil’ processes involve a certain subset of all possible final states of the system, for which, as quantum mechanics allows, the state of the lattice vibrational system (phonons) is unchanged by the decay._ This somewhat esoteric possibility suggests a mechanism, dependent on analogous constraints upon the possible states of the thought bubble, that could fit our requirement of a system state being shared by two individuals as in the ESP situation."

So there is the possibility as presented by Josephson. I believe the line for apologies starts on the right. It may help to deliver that apology to all you have offended on your knees for it seems that is where we all belong in relation to the understanding of the great mysteries of the universe.

Sat Nam (said on MY knees, tongue firmly held in cheek) to one and all,



NEMESIS




;)

:( :confused: *weeping*...no, wait, I wasn't a sceptic to begin with.
Sat Nam. :)

Very simply, if the claims of ESP are true then somebody should be able to demonstrate.

This has yet to happen.

Originally posted by Persol
Very simply, if the claims of ESP are true then somebody should be able to demonstrate.

This has yet to happen.


Dear Persol:

I, myself, have demonstrated it many times. I think what you want is a scientific test. I don't even know how you would construct one. Also (if we are being serious about this) is the problem that ESP may occur in a random pattern. In other words, not a light switch that is either off or on. So I think this also may cast someone truly psychic in a bad light and cause a test to conclusively prove they are NOT psychic when in fact they are.

I used to read tarot cards. I've read for many people. I can remember hundreds of times where I predicted something that seemed by all rational thought to be impossible. One example, a woman called me and said she had just met a man she liked. I did the cards for her and said the cards showed he would come into her life in a serious way in August. I told her that it would be her choice as to what she did, but that according to the cards they would be married by the end of the year. Well, she called me every single week til April giving me blow-by-blow why this couldn't be so. They had had fight after fight. He had moved back in with his ex-wife, etc. Each time I did the cards, I told her the exact same thing. Finally, I had had enough and told her not to call me anymore. I had told her what was going to occur and to leave me the hell alone. Well, she did except for one call she made to me at the end of the year. She called to say she had just gotten married to the man who indeed had come to her in August and, of course, to APOLOGIZE. Big-time! I also in that first reading had asked her if she knew anyone in North Carolina. She said she didn't. I told her that was odd because she was moving there. She did when she got married. I would give you more examples, but this is not about me and I don't want you to fall asleep.

So suppose I am telling the truth and this did indeed happen? Then let's suppose I tell someone else something that didn't happen? Would that mean there was not a true psychic experience the first time? I mean do you decide by numbers? What about the cases where someone has a premonition of a plane crash? They have never had such a though before and will never have one again and yet they know a certain plane will crash and it does? How do you account for or count that? A lucky guess because they can't repeat it? Do you see what I'm getting at here? Or how about falling in love? Do you say you weren't in love because you are not now in love? Or take Einstein for example. Some of what he said is just being proven today. So again, did that make what he said invalid when it wasn't proven?

I just think it is extremely interesting that a brilliant man has given this validity. It's been a long time coming. As to whether it convinces anyone, well, again what is proof for there certainly is evidence. It's almost like saying the Yankees are not a good ball club because they didn't win the World Series. Or that another team didn't really win it because they only won it one year. Statistics are just that. Numbers that can be interpreted and predict what you want them to show.

To me this is fascinating. It neither proves nor disproves anything. But it presents a possibility and isn't that what life is all about?

Too right just because something is intermittent doesn't make it invalid.
The problem with testing is that the subject being human tends to tense up when needing to prove it. So they invariably can't prove their ability.

But in all fairness if an Esp wants to be recognised by science then he must submit to the rules of scientific proof.

Just because it can't ( yet) doesn't mean that it is invalid just that proof is elusive. Suffice to say that is so often reported that there must be some validity.

AS far as I am concerned personally I have no need for proof. It is only the skeptics that do.

The fact that somebody was a great physicist in 1973, doesn't make him an authority on ESP in 2003. The fact that he presumably was a rational thinker 30 years ago does not attest to him being one now.

Do you know that your stance: "I don't know how it could be scientifically tested" is typical woowoo? It is really very simple: If you claim that your ability has an impact on the real world, then it is testable, period.

If, as you claim, it has a random nature, test protocols might be more complicated, but it is not untestable.

What exactly, in a few sentences, is your claim? In other words, under which circumstances do you claim to be able to do what?

I have an 800,000 US$ award for you if this works out! (Actually, it's 1 milion, but I thought it reasonable to collect a tiny fee for my mediation).

Hans

ha ha MrcHans 200,000 big ones, by golly small commission hey?

The problem is that in the realm of the psychic the motor coordination of thought and imagination are very suseptable to interference especially from skeptics. The energies they produce interfere with the psychic mind considerably. The psychic feels this intuitively and shuts down due to the effort needed to repell the skepticism.

This means as you will probably suggest that until the skeptics stop being skeptics or the psychic can over come the interference then there will be no scientifically provable proof. And again the proof paradox sounds only like wooo wooo.......ha ha love that word. Even the mere notion of provability tends to shut people down.

I have seen this so many times. The psychic mind is just so senstitive, well it has to be to pick up the quantum level information that makes it all work.

A skeptic also creates this information but it is directed at the psychic thus focused with a challenge causing real problems.

As yet there has been no method discovered to insulate people from other peoples thoughts (like a room of some sort) malicious, skeptical or otherwise.(Padded cells used to be popular but that didn't work either)

It is only with rigourous training and discipline that any coordination of the psychic mind or brain is possible.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The fact that somebody was a great physicist in 1973, doesn't make him an authority on ESP in 2003. The fact that he presumably was a rational thinker 30 years ago does not attest to him being one now.

Do you know that your stance: "I don't know how it could be scientifically tested" is typical woowoo? It is really very simple: If you claim that your ability has an impact on the real world, then it is testable, period.

If, as you claim, it has a random nature, test protocols might be more complicated, but it is not untestable.

What exactly, in a few sentences, is your claim? In other words, under which circumstances do you claim to be able to do what?

I have an 800,000 US$ award for you if this works out! (Actually, it's 1 milion, but I thought it reasonable to collect a tiny fee for my mediation).

Hans

Dear MRC Hans:

Let’s start with your first statement. You call me a woowoo and then in the same breath, use similar logic. Does this mean you have joined our side? You say that just because someone was a great physicist in 1973, that doesn’t mean he is one now. Isn’t that what I said in my argument as to why it would be difficult it would be to prove ESP exists? The mere fact that one was so “inspired” at one time, either in physics or in ESP, does NOT mean they can be so inspired again. It does not mean that they were NOT inspired the first time. It also does NOT mean they can sit in a goddamned laboratory and repeat the process just because you would like to win some money. If you feel that test protocols can so easily be set, set one to determine whether this man that had an inspired thought in 1973 which won him a Nobel Prize, is now capable of such a thought again. Would this not be predicting a random pattern? How would you know? How would you prove it? If you are so wonderful at setting protocol, set one now. It is almost like guessing at whether a best-selling author will write another best-seller. It is further predicting whether you will like it as much. Inspiration is not determinable. One can see a pattern over an extended period of time, that a certain author goes to the top of the best-seller list each and every time, but does that mean they will always do so? But even that would be cheating because the pattern has already been established and it would be like reading a book already written.

Now we get to the next point where you want to know what exactly is MY claim. I believe I said this is NOT about me. I merely gave one example where by conventional scientific and logical means, it would have been impossible to determine the outcome of this one particular woman meeting this one particular man, neither of whom I knew. So if it wasn’t ESP what is your best intuitive response as to how this occurred? Oh, come on now, give it a try! As to the exact claim, my EXACT claim is someone (a stranger) asked me a question about another stranger and their interaction. I shuffled a deck of cards, read the pattern shown by using an intuitive part of myself and was able to accurately predict what would transpire between the two strangers. I should further add that this woman called me on the phone so I never saw her. Someone had given her my name and phone number so I did not have any information about her to base any rational or logical “guess” on. Obviously the man she met was even further removed from me for he hadn’t been referred by anyone at all. So I relied totally on what I saw in the cards. I further CLAIM that this is a different part of myself and different part of my brain from where I normally “think.” How do I know? Because very often when someone would ask me a question, “I” would immediately have a rational answer for them formulated on logic. But when I asked the question of the cards and would do a spread, the cards very often (most times) came up with a much different answer. I ALWAYS gave the seeker the information the cards told me.

I believe Quantum Quack (gotta love that name) is completely correct. The Observer Effect and the Delayed Choice theory would seem to prove to a very large extent the influence an observer exerts on things. In the Delayed Choice theory, the observer can even CHOOSE the outcome even after the outcome has occurred.

In terms of scientific testing, first you would have to NOT call me a woowoo as this is a sign of disrespect as would anyone saying, “Hey, ya lyin’, stupid bitch! Belly up to the laboratory for it’s time to test ya!” I don’t think anything other than the garden variety Westminster blue ribbon bitch would show up. In case you can’t tell the difference, I’m the one without the lead. So, first, a modicum of respect would be lovely. Next, we come to this issue of money. Why would one even want to acquire a million dollars in this way? Do you project onto me some sort of fantasy of yours? I would not ever get involved with that type of experimentation as sideshows and spectacles do not meet MY criteria for legitimate research. Next we come to the issue of testing itself where I feel you have completely misunderstood what I had to say.

I am not saying and did not say that this could NEVER be scientifically tested and determined to be legitimate — only that it would be difficult for the reasons I outlined. So before we get to what I think, let us see what you think. Do you agree that the observer exerts an influence? Next, do you agree that “nerves” (because of the observer?) play a factor in this? Let’s use an example.

A child practices a piano piece for a recital. They practice and practice and manage to perform it perfectly each and every time. On the night of the recital, nerves kick in and they make numerous mistakes, breaking down in tears. Now would you conclude from this that they were incapable of playing the piece? Would you say that they had the ability, but failed due to variables and outside influences? Would you say they had no talent to begin with and were wasting everyone’s time and money because they were obviously a woowoo?

Next, we follow-up on the notion of inspiration and something that is very difficult to pinpoint. Say an Olympian weightlifter is completely psyched, in excellent physical condition and has the crowd with him giving him that extra confidence. Let’s further speculate that he lifts a weight and sets a new Olympic and World record. Now a scientist wishes to map and see what exact physical exertion went into lifting that weight. So he hires the weightlifter to let him strap him up to a bunch of machines in an attempt to measure the stress, etc. in lifting the weight. The weightlifter agrees and arrives at the laboratory. He is unable to lift the weight no matter how hard he tries. The weightlifter further enters numerous competitions and is never able to repeat his world-record setting record. So what would be the conclusion? That he never lifted the weight because it couldn’t be done under laboratory conditions? That it was a fluke? Or that when all the factors come together a sum that is greater than the ordinary total of the parts happens? A zone fusion perhaps. I believe we’ve all had athletic experiences when we can seemingly do anything. The next day, we are back to normal, stumbling over blades of grass and running headlong into trees. We feel something different inside us, but what the heck is it? And why can’t we just enter this zone at will? I certainly would if I could.

As for proof that telepathy of some kind exists, I’ll tell you a personal story that has been repeated with experiments on dogs. I don’t know if an experiment has been performed on kitty cats. In any event, my mother was staying with me a couple of years ago. It was during the summer and I was working at a job. I was trying to save as much money as possible, so I began working a lot of overtime. I didn’t know when this overtime would occur, but when it did I would just offer to stay at the last minute. Consequently, I was getting home at all sorts of different times. There was no pattern. It would vary by hours. The first few nights, my mother was surprised and caught off guard when I arrived home. She would pop what she cooked in the oven to warm it up so that we could eat dinner. But then I arrived home (again at an hour that was random) and the meal was cooked and ready. She had it out on plates for me. I was surprised. To say the least. When we sat down to eat I asked her how the heck she knew I was coming home at that exact time since I didn’t even know nor did I call her? Was it a lucky guess? She said that she knew because of my cat. She said that she finally figured out my cat’s pattern as my mother had been watching her for a few days. She explained that thirty minutes before I arrived home, my cat would come out of the bedroom and sit on the couch, looking in the direction of the door. Ten minutes before I got home, my cat would go to the door and sit in front of it. Now at the time, I lived in NYC. My cat was in a closed apartment and had no way to see, hear or smell me. I was taking the subway home, so there was no sound of a car or anything familiar she could discern. Ten minutes was also the time that I would emerge out of the subway station and begin to walk to the apartment. Now this story doesn’t necessarily mean anything to you, but it should. For it shows that there is some sort of ESP or telepathy at work since there could be no other sense being used to predict my arrival home. And yet each and every night, not only was my cat able to predict the accurate time of my arrival, my mother was able to know this by watching my cat and interpreting her actions.

So to return to your assertion that ESP should be able to be proven, what exactly would be the protocol you would set to determine if someone was indeed psychic beyond a moral certainty? I am extremely curious as to what your “rational” thinking comes up with.

Sat Nam,



NEMESIS

Another point that may be worth considering is that if we drop the issue of extraordinary for a moment.

Does science know how it is we think at all ( normally)?

Can we prove our ability to think scientifically?

Can a person repeat an exact same thought more than once?

How is it that humanity can share a similar perception of reality.

"An apple is an apple to me and it is an apple to you as well"

How is it so ?

Can science prove the nature of love and why some persons care about others even when it is to their own detriment?

Maybe we should look closer at the ordinary psychic mind/heart instead of just concentrating on the extraordinary Psychic mind/heart.

AS the Letters suggest ESP is just that Extra ordinary sensory perception.

So how does science prove OSP Ordinary sensory perception?

How do we define the adjective Ordinary. Is Bill Gates "ordinary"

Is Steven Hawkings Ordinary?

Was Mother Teresa ordinary?
Are you ordinary?

Dear Quantum Quack:

Point very well taken!

My favorite answer to this idea of "proving" things is to prove to me that there is love. I mean it is a universal concept that a large percentage of the population has felt, but what the heck is it? How much does it weigh? What color is it? Who has isolated this feeling of love in a laboratory? Can it exist outside the body? We know nothing about it, and yet most of us have felt it.

So ESP may well just be something we all use, and yet, are unaware we do so.

It's sad that people are so submissive.

That goes for people who believe in parapsychology and people who believe that it doesn't exist.

The key word here is *believe* So tell me, do you beleive or do you know?

Personaly there is very little that I know. So what can I do about this? Perhaps I should take a pick from all the things others have said... Obviously I'm just too stupid and lazy to find out for myself.

Originally posted by exsto_human
It's sad that people are so submissive.

That goes for people who believe in parapsychology and people who believe that it doesn't exist.

The key word here is *believe* So tell me, do you beleive or do you know?

Personaly there is very little that I know. So what can I do about this? Perhaps I should take a pick from all the things others have said... Obviously I'm just too stupid and lazy to find out for myself.

Dear exsto_human:

I, for one, do not understand your point. Ignorance is the cause of all suffering. So it would seem most of us are in a profound state of ignorance. This indeed is sad if it causes us to be locked into suffering. If one is in bondage they are submissive to a degree. This is already a given. So?

In terms of using the word "believe" and "know", I do this purposefully. I do not like to use the word, "know" unless I understand everything in all its aspects. I don't. Therefore, I use the word "believe" to let everyone know I am relating an observation and not something I can confirm, explain and understand fully. In other words, I "know" that ball lightning exists, but do not understand it the way Tesla did and cannot therefore create it, lead it in any direction, and make it obey. Therefore, I simply can only "believe" this can be done because it would appear Tesla did this.

In terms of ESP, I would say that it has been written about in the Yoga Sutras. Patanjali firmly states that anyone undergoing a spiritual awakening will find they have these "magic" or "extraordinary" (this is in relation to the norm of society or what the average believes they "know") powers. They can therefore look at any pattern, from a flock of birds to tea leaves, and detect the future. They can read thoughts and be in direct communication with animals. While I have had such experiences and "know" these instances occurred, I choose to use the word "believe" because I simply do not "know" exactly why this is happening.

I hope this clears up why "I" use this terminology. Also in yoga, you are taught quickly to only use the word "observation" to refer to that which you see. It is important to start separating what you observe in this false state to what is the truth. So I "know" the experiences I related have happened. But in terms of "knowing" all that went into it and "knowing" exactly why it happened, I don't. What does go into this setting up or development of ESP? Why does one become "more" intuitive? I have tried myself using the brain paths outlined in Greek mythology. The point in my brain where this intuition seems to come from is indeed a point. If you let me open someone's skull (please do NOT allow me to do this for I can never get it together again properly), I could point to the area. It is in close proximity to the area of the brain I use for writing, poetry, music, etc. I "know" that area is activated when I am engaged in these activities. Why? I don't "know."

Therefore, I try to not use this word in connection with something I simply do NOT fully understand, yet "know" exists.

I will let others speak for themselves as concerns your comment.

Obviously I'm just too stupid and lazy to find out for myself.

A bit off topic but this quote prompted me to recall that words have significant power on how we see ourselves and how we develope our self esteem etc.

To say the words quoted you are suggesting the role of the suplicant the role of the inferior and to you, you invite stuff that maintains your position of seemingly low self esteem.

The power of the words we use and read is not to be underestimated I feel.

Personally I do not know the meaning of the words "Stupid"and or "Lazy", they hold no truth to me. Maybe they are words that have been yelled at you at some time, maybe they are words that you believe in. They hold no belief with in me.

But in all fairness if an Esp wants to be recognised by science then he must submit to the rules of scientific proof.

This is the point to me. I can only perceive the world through experience and I can only base the things i believe to be true on what I've sensed (saw, felt, smelled, tasted and heard). Unlike aerodynamics (I've been in airplanes, seen birds in flight, I know they work) or gravity (so far, every time I drop something, it falls down) things like ESP, atoms, dark matter or souls force me to guess based on things beyond my personal experience. The best I can do in this situation is go with the best evidence, at this point in history science does the better job.

I'm willing to believe in ESP but there is little substance showing the opposing arguments are wrong. People claim a lot of things, too many in fact, at some point you need proof ... the more 'out of the box' an idea is, the more proof is required.

So far ESP is just conjecture, I'm not saying it isn't possible I'm just saying ... show me. Testing something isn't some weird thing done by wild haired scientists, in dark laboratories. We rely on it everyday of our lives to define our understanding of the world.

As long as ESP is only described and shown with anecdotes that can't be repeated, it's just one among millions of unproved ideas.

Dear Nemesis,

My meaning is that the words belief and knowledge(gnosis) are the direct antithesis of each other. If we *believe* we follow illusions, like mirages on the horizon they have no substance no true manifestation. However if we seek knowledge, only then can we truely experience the world as what it avtualy is.
Don't get me wrong, I do in no way fully experience the world as it is. And in this sense my autority is limited in this context. Many are the negative states that plague and interupt my conciousness. However there are things and the truth of which I have proved for myself without doubt, and beyond any intelectual inference. Among these are astral projection, the pluralized selves, and the existance and influence of my divine parents, most notably the mother kundalini, also the existence of certain divine and awakened beings that help us along the spiritual path.*
So what I am saying is that if one chooses to simply believe in someone elses words, one will never see for themselves.

Obviously since you have experienced these then you know that they infact do exist. If you had not experienced them then it would simply be ignorance that you are conveying. And meaningless in its content.
So apparently what we have here is simply a missunderstanding of semantics, which is not unsual.

Sat Nam. :)

Dear Qantum Quack.

I was using those words in a sarcastic sense, and perhaps it was folly to do so as my message was not clear. What I'm saying is that people too often submit to anothers thought system, and the reason for this is the persons own ignorance and sloth. Anyone who calls them self an -ist in a more than categorical sense of the world would probably fall under this. On a different note there are people who actualy try to find out for themselves and who are mistaken (everyone can't be right!), they have atleast made an effort to find out even though they failed. This is alot better than simply following someone else.

* no doubt most will find me a lunatic after reading that, so be it.

Originally posted by exsto_human
Dear Nemesis,

Among these are astral projection, the pluralized selves, and the existance and influence of my divine parents, most notably the mother kundalini, also the existence of certain divine and awakened beings that help us along the spiritual path.*
So what I am saying is that if one chooses to simply believe in someone elses words, one will never see for themselves.

Obviously since you have experienced these then you know that they infact do exist. If you had not experienced them then it would simply be ignorance that you are conveying. And meaningless in its content.

So apparently what we have here is simply a missunderstanding of semantics, which is not unsual.

Sat Nam. :)

* no doubt most will find me a lunatic after reading that, so be it.

Dear Exsto_human:

I don't find you a lunatic at all and am glad to meet a fellow gnostic.

The ONLY thing I know for certain and that I would consider a "gnostic" experience is that there is a divine spirit, separate and apart from who we think we are, alive and well within our hearts. When this part of ourselves ascends and is in charge, we KNOW who we truly are. This divine being, our TRUE self, is trapped and begging for us to release it from bondage.

The rest of it I am discovering for myself as everything somehow relates to this divine being within ourselves. How or why this occurs I do not know. So, personally, I will use the word "believe" to describe the ancillary experiences connected with this vital "awakening."

And Sat Nam back at ya!




NEMESIS

Science doesn't care if it works 100% of the time. That's what probability is for. Nobody who claims to have esp abilities has demonstrated above guessing average.

If you are effectivly 'lying' half the time and telling the truth the other half, the ability is worthless.

Especially hilarious is the claim that various supernatural powers are set out of function whenever there is a skeptic in the room :rolleyes:.

You know, it is really very simple, and all boils down to this:

- If it has an impact on the real world, then it can be tested.

- If it does NOT have an impact on the real world, how do you know it exists?

Hans

Well you know MRC Hans, a little known man called Jesus was to supposed to have supernatural powers. Now whether you believe in him or not is not important but to say he had no impact on our reality is quite an understatement. ( as history shows)

I know where you are coming from and I agree but I make a distinction as to what you consider impact on reality.

May be next time you pick up the telephone "knowing" who it is before you speak to them you may reconsider the absolutest notion of proof that you require.

The next time you feel the warmth of your friends when you miss them you may reconsider the value of quantum emotional communications.

Of course all these things are not verifiable and you know maybe they should never be so as I am sure It may spoil the picture for every one.

Originally posted by Persol
Science doesn't care if it works 100% of the time. That's what probability is for. Nobody who claims to have esp abilities has demonstrated above guessing average.

If you are effectivly 'lying' half the time and telling the truth the other half, the ability is worthless.

Dear Persol:

You are completely missing the point.

The point is if you first do not know what ESP is, then how can you set an average for it? For if we use the hypothesis that this is a "function" then how the hell do we determine a "guess" from using "ESP"? Can't you see that ESP may well go into what people would consider a "guess"? So the root numbers or percentages that you are measuring against may well be skewed by ESP being used.

I also love it when perfectly rational questions as concerns methodology and protocol are completely ignored and not answered in favor of mocking. Do you really think this is a valid way of determining whether anything has validity?

So I ask you and MRC Hans again what would be the correct protocol for determining whether such a thing as ESP exists?

I've been here long enough to recognize an impass when I see it, this is a situation of proof vs belief without evidence.

Some people, either through 'experience' or assumption, know what they know and no evidence is needed. Others look at the billions of people who claim trillions of things (often they are contradictory 'truths') and need some degree of proof or be able to experience it directly to believe one point over the others.

These two camps can't debate successfully because the funamental rules of their belief systems are not compatable. It's like arguing with a tree, you can scream 'till your lungs bleed but it still won't hear you. No one will leave this discussion with different beliefs than they entered it with.

Lets face it, this debate ended before it started.

EDIT: Ah ha! It just occured to me what the problem is, this thread was addressed to the skeptics but doesn't offer what a skeptic would need to sway their views. This thread isn't for skeptics, it's for the people who already believe in ESP.

It should have been called 'To All ESP Believers: Read it and Continue to Believe!'

Originally posted by buffys
I've been here long enough to recognize an impass when I see it, this is a situation of proof vs belief without evidence.

Some people, either through 'experience' or assumption, know what they know and no evidence is needed. Others look at the billions of people who claim trillions of things (often they are contradictory 'truths') and need some degree of proof or be able to experience it directly to believe one point over the others.

These two camps can't debate successfully because the funamental rules of their belief systems are not compatable. It's like arguing with a tree, you can scream 'till your lungs bleed but it still won't hear you. No one will leave this discussion with different beliefs than they entered it with.

Lets face it, this debate ended before it started.

EDIT: Ah ha! It just occured to me what the problem is, this thread was addressed to the skeptics but doesn't offer what a skeptic would need to sway their views. This thread isn't for skeptics, it's for the people who already believe in ESP.

It should have been called 'To All ESP Believers: Read it and Continue to Believe!'

Dear buffys:

I think you should add a third camp to your very limited view of the world. The third camp would be those arrogant enough to speak for everyone.

No one was trying to convince anyone of anything let alone PROVE something to someone. The point was that a Nobel Prize winner came up with a theory offering a possible "scientific explanation." But you're right about the title not being properly worded. I should have entitled this post, "To those who have a Nobel Prize on their mantle, read it an enjoy!"

And, personally, I would much rather debate a tree than you. At least they offer shade whereas you offer nothing.



NEMESIS

wow, angry little fella aren't ya. Try reading the post again after you calm down a bit, you missed the point completely.

No one was trying to convince anyone of anything let alone PROVE something to someone.

If you weren't trying to convince anyone or prove something perhaps, 'To All Esp Skeptics: Read It And Weep!' was a poor choice for the thread title because it implies EXACTLY that.

You can backpeddle all you want but you're title speaks for itself really.

Quantum Quack:

I assert that you don't really know anything about quantum mechanics, or what it entails. I might be wrong. But your use of new-age buzz words like 'quantum emotional communications' suggests that you don't understand the quantum at all.

Originally posted by NEMESIS
The point is if you first do not know what ESP is, then how can you set an average for it?
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. What is it? Statistically you have a 1/100 chance. Statisitically nobody has been able to demonstrate the ability in this or other tests.

For if we use the hypothesis that this is a "function" then how the hell do we determine a "guess" from using "ESP"?
Ever hear of probability.

I also love it when perfectly rational questions as concerns methodology and protocol are completely ignored and not answered in favor of mocking. Do you really think this is a valid way of determining whether anything has validity?
Perhaps you could point to where I mocked you? I think not. I see the majority of the mocking coming from your side.

So I ask you and MRC Hans again what would be the correct protocol for determining whether such a thing as ESP exists?
What EXACTLY are you saying you (or someone else) can do?

Originally posted by buffys
wow, angry little fella aren't ya. Try reading the post again after you calm down a bit, you missed the point completely.

If you weren't trying to convince anyone or prove something perhaps, 'To All Esp Skeptics: Read It And Weep!' was a poor choice for the thread title because it implies EXACTLY that.

You can backpeddle all you want but you're title speaks for itself really.


Dear buffys:

Better to be angry than dense. And do you ever attempt thought? Ever?!!!

And it is "your" title and not "you're" title for "you're" is a contraction for "you are". God in heaven give me strength!

Now you are trying to tell me what I meant by the title. At best you can only tell me how you "interpreted" the title. And it implies what it states. That a Nobel Prize not only accepts ESP quite comfortably, but has managed to construct a model by which it works.

It gives validity to the subject and further offers a wonderfully, rich, insightful explanation if one cares to read. Obviously you can't even read my title nor get past it so this leaves you out. But for anyone else out there, PLEASE read the article. It's quite good.



NEMESIS

Do you like to base arguments on authority instead of self though?

ah yes, when all else fails jump on a spelling mistake. The last bastion of a failed argument, that and insults. Is that the best you have? I don't feel the need to point out insignificant errors to make my argument better.

I beleeve you accuzed someone of mocking earlier, I've gone through the thread and you are, hands down, the mocking/insult champ of this discussion. It's hilarious, you start a post with 'Dear (insert name):' and if the person you're responding to disagrees in any way you condescend and rage at them. Ya, that'll help your point.

I rekomend cutting down on you're coffee intake, or get a dog.

If a simple discussion (where the majority of insults hurled are from you) can make you this angry I'd consider avoiding forums, your going to have a heart attak.

BTW - I sprinkled some spelling mistakes throughout so ya have something REALLY IMPORTANT to attack.

ahh the proof we are all waiting for....

It's called the "Forum syndrome"

The proof is there and predictability is easy to establish.

It's quite simple really

First step, an attempt at opening discussion ( with a leading question)

Second step, discussion downgrades to debate. ( especially over word meaning and ...yes spellings. )

Third step, Debate downgrades to arguement. ( where word meanings get totally lost and spelling looses diversity)

Fourth and final step, every one gets pissed off, packs their bags ( words ) and goes home.

Sound a bit like middle east peace talks hey?

And who said there is no proof of psychic ability?

Ha

Ohh BTW there is one more step and that is that some of us come back and do it all over again.

There you go I have predicted the future,,, beware

It really IS that predictable isn't it, doesn't say much for humanity. Also this type of topic has the extra friction factor, 'believer vs skeptic'. It almost always degrades quickly.

From the link:

In order that it can model individual thought, we suppose that individual life forms can perturb the background state so as to create a localised ‘thought bubble’, tied to the individual concerned.

It’s interesting that he bases his theory on this one assumption yet offers no explanation as to how this so-called ‘thought bubble’ is conceived. So, Nemesis sez:

That a Nobel Prize not only accepts ESP quite comfortably, but has managed to construct a model by which it works.

Slow down there, cowboy – there is nothing to indicate his theory works aside from his assumption that ‘thought bubbles’ exist.

Where is his experimental evidence on ‘thought bubbles?’

Originally posted by Quantum Quack

Second step, discussion downgrades to debate. ( especially over word meaning and ...yes spellings. )


The fact that you think the transition to debate is a 'downgrade' puts your intellectual curiosity into question.

thats interesting, the same thing crossed my mind. Personally, i'm a big fan of debate and don't see it as a bad thing or a lower form of discussion at all. Debate (to me) is just a fancy word for a civilized discussion of opposing views.

BTW - I've never looked the word up so I may be wrong but that's always been my impression.

Originally posted by buffys
It really IS that predictable isn't it, doesn't say much for humanity. Also this type of topic has the extra friction factor, 'believer vs skeptic'. It almost always degrades quickly.

No arguments degrade when IDIOTS join the conversation. Are you also known for carrying that wet blanket with you to a party?

And I will once again try to convey to you what the INTENT was of posting this by QUOTING from the first statement made. I said:

"So there is the possibility as presented by Josephson. I believe the line for apologies starts on the right. It may help to deliver that apology to all you have offended on your knees for it seems that is where we all belong in relation to the understanding of the great mysteries of the universe.

Sat Nam (said on MY knees, tongue firmly held in cheek) to one and all,

Now, buffys, does this sound like I was expecting to change anyone's mind or get into an argument? Is this really what this conveys to you? I will give you a hint:

tongue-in-cheek

adj : cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks"; "tongue-in-cheek advice" [syn: bantering, facetious] adv 1: in a bantering fashion; "he spoke to her banteringly" [syn: banteringly] 2: not seriously; "I meant it facetiously" [syn: facetiously, jokingly]

Please note it says, "not seriously."

You know in looking over my posts on this site, I will say I have a definite Jekyll and Hyde thing going on. I veer wildly from preaching peace and love to skewering someone and taking no hostages in a verbal barrage. I really must do something about that. Actually there are those pills the nice doctor gave me....:eek:

Take care, buffys,

Originally posted by Persol


Ever hear of probability.

No. Did he used to date Winona Ryder?


I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. What is it? Statistically you have a 1/100 chance. Statisitically nobody has been able to demonstrate the ability in this or other tests.


Au contrare, mon ami! I have done a quick search on the web and have found...voile!

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm

An excerpt says:

"During that period he had participated in tests involving nearly 700 runs through the standard deck of ESP cards, averaging approximately 32% successes as compared with the mean chance expectation of 20%. Nothing like this prolonged series of tests had ever been made up to that time, and Hubert Pearce's performance was recognized even then as highly exceptional."

I did not thoroughly check this out to see if was bogus, but it does seem to have been published many times. Don't really know if this is proof of a valid test, but it's the best I can do right now since it's late. It would seem to disprove your notion that NO ONE has done this. I do apologize this if it's nonsense.

And I did note that the mocking came from the woowoo MRC Hans and not you. Pardon my pooling of the two of you into one entity.


Originally posted by (Q)
From the link:

That a Nobel Prize not only accepts ESP quite comfortably, but has managed to construct a model by which it works.

Where is his experimental evidence on ‘thought bubbles?’

Do you guys ever do any work for yourself? Want me to get you a beer while I'm up?

I will see what I can find.


NEMESIS

No arguments degrade when IDIOTS join the conversation. Are you also known for carrying that wet blanket with you to a party?

Hey! Good timing. Thank you NEMESIS, I think you've illustrated my point better than I would have been able to in 100 posts.

Shall we return to the subject now or would you like to continue to scream? I'll start an 'insult people' thread if you'd like, in an appropriate environment I'm more than happy to join in but we were discussing ESP right? It's hard to remember at this point.

Originally posted by buffys
Hey! Good timing. Thank you NEMESIS, I think you've illustrated my point better than I would have been able to in 100 posts.

Shall we return to the subject now or would you like to continue to scream? I'll start an 'insult people' thread if you'd like, in an appropriate environment I'm more than happy to join in but we were discussing ESP right? It's hard to remember at this point.

You're quite a charmer and I can see you do not even take an olive branch when it is offered. Instead you throw dried leaves. It will put you in good stead in life.

As for things being hard for you to remember, I'm sure you are well-acquainted with this problem. It must be like gum on your shoe at this point. Perhaps you could start taking notes?



NEMESIS

P.S. The original post was about ESP. Please let us return to this subject and not have anymore ridiculous responses!

that was an olive branch? ok, ill take your word for it.

P.S. The original post was about ESP. Please let us return to this subject and not have anymore ridiculous responses!

I thought I just said that ... anyway, on we go. While we were bickering some good points were brought up.

(Q) said:
It’s interesting that he bases his theory on this one assumption yet offers no explanation as to how this so-called ‘thought bubble’ is conceived.

I agree, it's kind of a theory built on top of another theory and little of the mechanics of how these bubbles operate is really addressed,

Persol quoted NEMESIS:
So I ask you and MRC Hans again what would be the correct protocol for determining whether such a thing as ESP exists?
Persol responded:
What EXACTLY are you saying you (or someone else) can do?

For me its as simple as getting people who claim to have these abilities and ask them to demonstrate what they can do. The protocol can be derived from the alleged abilities. If someone can, for example, move objects with their mind just set objects of varying weight in front of them and say 'show me'. Obviously all the normal testing rules would be applied and it would have to be repeatable but it seems like a pretty simple thing to test, you just need someone who can actually demonstrate some form of ESP. Once you have that, the actual testing should be easy.

Originally posted by buffys


Persol responded:

For me its as simple as getting people who claim to have these abilities and ask them to demonstrate what they can do. The protocol can be derived from the alleged abilities. If someone can, for example, move objects with their mind just set objects of varying weight in front of them and say 'show me'. Obviously all the normal testing rules would be applied and it would have to be repeatable but it seems like a pretty simple thing to test, you just need someone who can actually demonstrate some form of ESP. Once you have that, the actual testing should be easy.

Dear buffys:

This has already been done. Please READ what I replied to Persol.

"Au contrare, mon ami! I have done a quick search on the web and have found...voile!

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm

An excerpt says:

"During that period he had participated in tests involving nearly 700 runs through the standard deck of ESP cards, averaging approximately 32% successes as compared with the mean chance expectation of 20%. Nothing like this prolonged series of tests had ever been made up to that time, and Hubert Pearce's performance was recognized even then as highly exceptional."

So someone has bettered this probability that is so important to everyone. Can I now assume that the discussion is closed because Persol and you and everybody else has agreed that if someone can do this then there is such a thing as ESP? Or do you now prove yourself to be hypocrites by wanting another hurdle jumped over? You see, this is part of the problem. People say they want this, but then when the evidence is presented to them they dismiss it with a wave of their hand. I have submitted the evidence, so now do you all accept ESP?

And in terms of what I "say" I can do, I have explained this once, twice and will not repeat it a third. It really would help for everyone to read what has been said so people didn't have to repeat themselves. But in terms of people believing what I do what I say I can do, I found this charming bit written by skeptic on tarot card reading. This person really is an idiot. On this site:

http://www.icidal.com/xproject/archives/paranormal/coldreading.html


Bob Novella says this:

"Cold reading is a skill used by tarot card readers, psychics, palm readers, iridologists, astrologers, and even salesmen to gather information about a subject. The process begins with careful observation, supplemented by knowledge of statistics and the commonalties of human nature. From these starting points general statements are made, statements which are likely to be true about almost anybody. Visual and verbal feedback from the subject is then used to pursue accurate statements and abandon dead ends, all the time honing the initial guesses to more and more accurate conclusions. In the hands of an expert, the technique can be frighteningly successful, almost uncanny.

Cold reading is not one simple trick but a number of different methods for gleaning surprisingly accurate information about someone's personality characteristics and problems, all with ostensibly little effort. By definition this information is gathered on the spot by conversation, keen observation and a good memory. In contrast, the term 'hot reading' has been applied to information gathering that precedes visual and physical contact, usually through special databases, directories and other resources. Cold readers, though, do not need to rely on such sources. All that is needed is interaction with the subject. Before any interaction, though, most accomplished cold readers have as an information foundation, knowledge of probability and the common denominators of the human condition."

Now I have never done this before in my entire life. The fact that this person demeans everyone and puts everyone in the same charlatan low-life category irks me. You can see where he is wrong on the most basic of things for he asserts that these readers have:

"knowledge of probability"

So I am slammed in one direction by Persol with being accused of not even knowing if such a thing as probability exists and now in this article, it seems I am "MASTER" of it. I suppose if I had to be one of the other the latter is more appealing, but I'm afraid both are very untrue.

In terms of the model, again, the link is there. There is plenty of evidence and all theories until proven are theories. Are you (not you, buffys, but you in general) asserting that before someone hypothesizes a theory they need absolute proof? That should cut down on this activity. Beside this should be unnecessary as Persol has asked for someone to outgun probability. This has been done already.

So we have all agreed on proof being beating probability. It has been done. Now what are we now discussing?

Now what are we now discussing?

I thought we were discussing the validity of the paper you linked in your original post. So far, it has no validity because of the erroneous assumption of 'thought bubbles.' The paper is useless unless it can show some evidence in this regard.

well, not exactly friendly but reasonably civilized, I guess that'll be good enough.

So someone has bettered this probability that is so important to everyone. Can I now assume that the discussion is closed because Persol and you and everybody else has agreed that if someone can do this then there is such a thing as ESP? Or do you now prove yourself to be hypocrites by wanting another hurdle jumped over? You see, this is part of the problem. People say they want this, but then when the evidence is presented to them they dismiss it with a wave of their hand. I have submitted the evidence, so now do you all accept ESP?

The important word in my response was "repeatable". See, this is how it usually works (for me, at least, to believe something I haven't seen directly). One lab does some tests, then publish their results. This is followed by other labs doing the same tests and seeing if those results are consistent with their findings. This continues, sometimes for years, then comes the really cool part. If it is shown to be consistently achievable the parties start doing more complex testing in attempts to understand the mechanics of the process, in other words, "ok now we know it works, so how does it work?" (personally my favorite part). I didn't mention this part in my post because I assumed it was understood when discussing what entails scientific testing.

Remember cold fusion? that was supposedly proven in a lab too but it couldn't be repeated, that's what matters. Perhaps one day it will be shown as fact but that has yet to happen.

And in terms of what I "say" I can do, I have explained this once, twice and will not repeat it a third.

i assume you're addressing me here but I never asked 'what you can do' so I'm not sure what your point was.

Are you (not you, buffys, but you in general) asserting that before someone hypothesizes a theory they need absolute proof? That should cut down on this activity. Beside this should be unnecessary as Persol has asked for someone to outgun probability. This has been done already.

Personally my answer is, hell no! not at all, in fact I strongly encourage study in this area. You obviously have to start with an hypothesis, I'm just saying that until ESP enters the 'fact' stage it will be just one among many, many theories. I don't just say this about the 'paranormal' this goes for things like string theory, panspermia and the millions of other interesting ideas describing us and our universe. I think you have assumed I am anti-ESP and I assure you that is not the case. I would be ecstatic if it were shown to be real, a whole new area of study ... what could be better than that?

Originally posted by buffys


...The important word in my response was "repeatable". ...

...i assume you're addressing me here but I never asked 'what you can do' so I'm not sure what your point was.



Dear buffys:

I will repeat again what was already posted:

"During that period he had participated in tests involving nearly 700 runs through the standard deck of ESP cards, averaging approximately 32% successes as compared with the mean chance expectation of 20%. Nothing like this prolonged series of tests had ever been made up to that time, and Hubert Pearce's performance was recognized even then as highly exceptional."

Hubert Pearce repeated this ability 700 times. I would assume you could read and would have discerned this if it was so important to you.

In terms of your not asking me what I could do, you quoted Persol "asking me" in your post to me. That was what I was responding to.

And I am delighted you are open-minded to the possibility of ESP, but by your own criteria it has been proven. This is the point I attempted to get across in my last post. People say they want one thing, like you saying you want something repeated. So it is repeated "700 times" and you blithely go on saying you wish someday someone would prove something.

Why can't you (again, not you specifically, but it would be a start) explain what evidence you would consider proof and stick to it? Am I to assume you (buffys), want it repeated 700 + 1 times? If you say you want it repeated is not 700 times sufficient?

In terms of it being a process EVERYBODY can repeat, this is just getting ridiculous. It would be requiring everyone beating the 4 minute mile before you believed one person could do it. I believe this is where people are going awry in their thinking. If this a "skill" or "function" like say running, then not everyone can nor can everyone be trained to run or perform at the same level. Therefore, Hubert Pearce submitted to 700 runs of guessing cards. His average was above the level of chance. So he at least proved there is ESP and that he did possess this. Is this not a reasonable assumption? If not, why? Also people perform "extraordinarily" on certain days, it does not mean that someone did not run the 4 minute mile because they cannot ever repeat that feat again.

And, buffys, I will go back to something that you said. It was:

"Some people, either through 'experience' or assumption, know what they know and no evidence is needed"

I submit to you that this is a contradictory statement. For if one knows through experience, then that IS the evidence. Therefore, the evidence has been provided and they have scientifically proven something empirically true.

ok, let me be even more specific. When 1 lab does a series of runs whether its 5 times, 50 times, 700 times it still requires equivalent results by other labs. If a lab does 700 runs of the cards that isn't 700 tests, thats 1 test by one lab. It wouldn't be a test if they'd only done 1 run, a number of runs are required to get any reasonable data. Also, keep in mind that he wasnt successful 700 times either or even 300 times, just 32% of the time (slightly above average but hardly proof).

See the problem is as long as the results are not seen elsewhere and consistantly it's an anomoly at best, and barely that.

It would be requiring everyone beating the 4 minute mile before you believed one person could do it.

As far as a four minute mile goes that doesn't conflict with our understanding of the human body, biology allows for very fast runners. No physical 'rules' are being broken in that case. Unlike running fast, ESP makes claims that defy everything we understand about physics, biology, cause and effect, etc. I don't really see why it suprises you that very definitive proof is required for me to believe something so earth shattering.

I submit to you that this is a contradictory statement. For if one knows through experience, then that IS the evidence. Therefore, the evidence has been provided and they have scientifically proven something empirically true.

In a sense you're correct it IS evidence but only to that person. Like 1 lab achieving a result, that doesn't help me nor does it make it imperically true (except to the person who experienced it). Had I personally seen ESP displayed or done it myself I would believe it, but I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to just based on my word. Too many of these claims are directly contradictory, if 10 people say one thing is a fact and 10 others say the opposite where can I go from there? In these cases consistent, repeatable evidence is my only option.

ps - I promise there is no need to repeatedly quote yourself, I assure you I read it the first two times.

Originally posted by buffys
ok, let me be even more specific. When 1 lab does a series of runs whether its 5 times, 50 times, 700 times it still requires equivalent results by other labs. If a lab does 700 runs of the cards that isn't 700 tests, thats 1 test by one lab. It wouldn't be a test if they'd only done 1 run, a number of runs are required to get any reasonable data. Also, keep in mind that he wasnt successful 700 times either or even 300 times, just 32% of the time (slightly above average but hardly proof).



Dear buffys:

In all due respect, this is where the arguments of "skeptics" and "scientific" types breaks down and reveals you flat out will NOT believe anything nor your own eyes. For this has been my contention all along and it has been denied, but fortunately you have put it into print. I am not picking on your nor making this personal, so please don't take it that way. It's just that you have responded and finally we have arrived at the place where you have put the message I was looking for in print.

Note you say:

"Also, keep in mind that he wasnt successful 700 times either or even 300 times, just 32% of the time (slightly above average but hardly proof)"

This is a far cry from the original assertion that someone merely had to beat probability. Even a 1% difference is considered evidence and proof in most scientific testing. But now suddenly a 12% (the difference between chance which is 20% and the result which was 32%) is hardly proof. So there you have it. The reason why no one in their right mind would consent to testing. For the parameters for proof seem to vary wildly when we come to evidence of ESP. Suddenly what science uses as proof (A DIFFERENCE) is no longer proof. And 700 runs are actually 1 run. Amazing! Simply amazing!

In terms of other labs doing the testing, the problem comes again with the personal type of testing this involves. If you have no problem with the statistical evidence of probability than you would have no problem accepting that someone beating this statistic has proven that there is ESP and that he has ESP.

And you see from the quoted article on tarot readers how someone can "tell" everyone how it is that tarot readers "cold read" someone without having any proof or any evidence of how it is actually done. Why is it the "experts" on debunking can do this with no proof and they are not challenged? That too is wondrous. And as for what is said, I could have saved myself a lot of time by not memorizing the cards and doing hundreds of readings to hone my little talent by simply following this man's advice. Of course the fact that was over the telephone talking to someone I had never met would seem to blow apart his little theory. But why let logic creep into the conversation for we are discussing ESP and you can represent yourselves fraudulently as "scientific" when you are actually just resistant to the idea. I submit most skeptics are just this.

This is where the problem lies. For if I "submitted" to a test of tarot, and predicted a couple would marry by the end of the year, someone would say that this is not proof as it was a "guess" that came true because I followed the odds. What odds are those that say a couple that is not together will marry? I don't know. I suppose if we take a stab at how these foolish statistics are put together we can say a one in two chance since they will either stay together or break up. Forget all the variables attached to the situation.

I remember the story of Edgar Cayce submitting to scientific testing. Seems the experts didn't "believe" he was really asleep and so one of them pulled out his fingernail as proof. Edgar Cayce had absolutely no reaction until he woke up. Of course, even though they had done this, they still weren't convinced and wanted to do more testing. Cayce said he would never agree to anymore testing after that and was true to his word.

I suggest you skeptics all get together and decide on what you REALLY want. What proof it is you are really looking for and just hold firm to that which you state. So if you want a 100% success rate, just state that and at least be honest. If you want 3,000,000 people to demonstrate 100% accuracy then state that also. Otherwise you are the ones that are "lying" and making things up. Perhaps you are also the ones in a thought bubble that remains unattached to reality.

Sat Nam,


NEMESIS

i never said 700 runs was 1 run, I said 700 runs was 1 test.

Lets say a test is being done to discover if french fries cause acne. If you're test looks at one kid at mcdonalds and she's fed 700 small orders of fries of a few months, that's not a test. You use 500 kids, or better 50,000. You can't derive any useful data from 1 ... do u understand? And no matter what the result is from that single testing period science doesn't jump up and say aha! now we know the answer! They have other groups repeat it many times before anyone regards it as conclusive. How many ways can I say this?

This is a far cry from the original assertion that someone merely had to beat probability

I never asserted that, I think you're confusing me with another poster.

now I refer you you back to your point about the 4 minute mile, I believe that is possible WITHOUT stringent testing because I can run personally. Not that fast it's true but running is something MY body can do. The claims of ESP are beyond my experience completely and as I said defy everything I 'know'. I'm not saying its impossible but seriously, is it so hard to appreciate why this requires consistent evidence for me to believe?

Lets take an even more mundane angle, dieting for example. I've heard with equal vigor that carbohydrates must be reduced and protein intake increased for successful weight loss (tons of studies to back this up) on the other hand I've heard more carbohydrates and less protein is really the key (also, backed up with many studies). You see the problem? Until a clear consensus is found I won't know, and this is just weight loss for god's sake. My goal in life isn't to yell LIAR! at every claim that defies my present understanding of the world but why is it so hard to fathom my need for proof? Or that a study by one lab doesn't tell us anything conclusive?

It's a cliche but its true, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Have aliens landed? Is there a God? Is ESP possible? We're not talking about people running fast or what entails a good diet here. I'm being asked to believe that my entire understanding of the world is incorrect, I'm not saying it can't be, I'm just saying one guy guessing 32% of the cards in 700 tries isn't nearly enough. Seriously now, is that really so hard to fathom, is it that unreasonable?

I'm not an ESP skeptic, I'm an everything skeptic. If I'd personally experienced ESP, god, aliens or ghosts I'd believe it without OTHER evidence but i certainly wouldn't expect you to. Why is this so hard to understand?

First things first -

Originally posted by Persol
Science doesn't care if it works 100% of the time. That's what probability is for. Nobody who claims to have esp abilities has demonstrated above guessing average.

If you are effectivly 'lying' half the time and telling the truth the other half, the ability is worthless.

This is what I was referring to with the reference to lying. Persol maintains he was not mocking anyone, but he did effectively call everyone liars.


Originally posted by buffys
i never said 700 runs was 1 run, I said 700 runs was 1 test.

Lets say a test is being done to discover if french fries cause acne. If you're test looks at one kid at mcdonalds and she's fed 700 small orders of fries of a few months, that's not a test. You use 500 kids, or better 50,000. You can't derive any useful data from 1 ... do u understand? How many ways can I say this?



Dear buffys:

I will try this once again. I feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DISCOVER A CURE FOR ACNE. WE ARE TRYING TO PROVE IF "ONE" PERSON HAS ESP. WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE TO SEEING IF IT IS WIDESPREAD. THEREFORE YOUR ASSERTION THAT 700 ORDERS OF FRENCH FRIES ARE FED TO ONE CHILD IS RIDICULOUS. THIS IS NOT AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION NOR PROPER NOR FAIR. HOWEVER, YOU WOULD FEED FRENCH FRIES TO THE ONE CHILD IF YOU WERE TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FRENCH FRIES WERE CAUSING ACNE IN THAT ONE CHILD. IF WE FOUND OUT THAT FRENCH FRIES WERE CAUSING ACNE IN HIM, THEN WE WOULD NOT NEED TO FEED FRENCH FRIES TO ANYBODY ELSE! AND WE WOULD NOT NEED TO REPEAT IT 700 TIMES!

I will unlock my Key Caps now. Therefore, your methodology is flawed from the get go. Whether one million people have it or one person has it is not the point nor should it be. Proving there is ESP is like proving someone can break the four minute mile. ONE person did this to prove it could be done. It doesn't matter if you or your mother can do it. It was enough proof that one time.

I do not understand your frustration since you are blissly unaware of what the heck I am trying to say. It leads me down that very opportunistic road of personally insulting you, but I am trying not to. I really am. However, if you still do not understand, please do not reply because frankly I cannot make this any more simplistic.

And if you don't understand my frustration then reread Persol's comment. He says:

Originally posted by Persol
Science doesn't care if it works 100% of the time. That's what probability is for. Nobody who claims to have esp abilities has demonstrated above guessing average.

If you are effectivly 'lying' half the time and telling the truth the other half, the ability is worthless.

Note he says: NOBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE ESP ABILITIES HAS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE GUESSING AVERAGE. I have just given you someone who did this. His average is better than probability after 700 runs. And still, Persol does not concede when his very own criteria is met. And you still talk about curing acne?

Originally posted by NEMESIS
This is what I was referring to with the reference to lying. Persol maintains he was not mocking anyone, but he did effectively call everyone liars.
Come on, I know you aren't this dumb. If you are predicting the future, but have no idea which predictions are right, you ARE lying when you predict false things. This does not equate to calling 'everyone liars'. This only means people who do not know when they are right (but claim they are anyway) liars.

THEREFORE YOUR ASSERTION THAT 700 ORDERS OF FRENCH FRIES ARE FED TO ONE CHILD IS RIDICULOUS.
Typing in all caps like a child is also ridiculous. The point is that a person getting 32% when the odds say 20% is NOT better then probability. If you have 1000 coins, and flip each 700 times, one will almost certainly be heads 70% of the time. This does not make it some magical coin, and is evidence that it will be heads in the future. 700 is nowhere near a large enough sample to assume it isn't a statistical fluke.

I will unlock my Key Caps now.
Thank you.

Whether one million people have it or one person has it is not the point nor should it be.
His point was that this is not a statistically valid test. He tried to phrase this simply so that you would understand it, but that doesn't seem to have worked.

Proving there is ESP is like proving someone can break the four minute mile.
No. A four minute mile is repeatable. This is not. Otherwise a statisically valid sampling would be taken.

Note he says: NOBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE ESP ABILITIES HAS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE GUESSING AVERAGE.
You know very well what I meant. If I flip a coin once, and it is heads then I can't say that the coin is heads 100% of the times, and is better then average. Your sample size is meaninglessly small. Read up on probability and randomness, then try arguing your point.

Originally posted by NEMESIS
Persol maintains he was not mocking anyone, but he did effectively call everyone liars. Funny, you also maintained that I was not mocking anyone:

And I did note that the mocking came from the woowoo MRC Hans and not you.

NEMESIS sez:
Even a 1% difference is considered evidence and proof in most scientific testing.

In tests like this the variance is going to be more than 1% between different people. Don't play dumb. The large number of trials helps to approximate, but it doesn't necessarily work.

To draw a trivial example... what if each of these trials is, say, three cards? The only possible outcomes are: 0%, 33%, 66%, or 100% success.

So, I will detail an experiment. How about this:

I expose a person to 100 trials. Each trial consists of 3 Rhine cards concealed from them in a box. The cards have the usual 5 shapes on them, and there is no way the person can see the cards. They record their guesses and the guesses are then compared against the cards by an observer.

Since there are three cards, there are 4 possible outcomes.
They get none (0%) of them right.
They get one (33%) of them right.
They get two (66%) of them right.
They get all (100%) of them right.

The chance that a person will get each of these results:
0% - 4/5 * 4/5 * 4/5 = 64/125
33% - 1/5 * 4/5 * 4/5 (x3) = 48/125
66% - 1/5 * 1/5 * 4/5 (x3) = 12/125
100% - 1/5 * 1/5 * 1/5 = 1/125

So by guessing, a person has a 61/125 = 48.8% chance of getting a 33% OR HIGHER result in the three card test. This means that in any given group that you test with one trial of the three-card test, approximately half of them will test above "chance".

Until I see the numbers, the apparatus, and the nature of the experiment, I will not believe a scientific study whose probability is so easily misunderstood by most people...

The numbers for a 25-card deck are pretty large and I imagine you can do them yourself... I hope you understood the preceding, and the importance of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

EDIT
I appologize for my necromancy.... I completely forgot this was a month old post until I had replied. Just ignore what I've said and let it bury itself again like it should have....


Nemesis, let me start off by saying that I read both of your accounts and found them interesting (and yes I'll believe them). Especially the part about the cats, as I have cats myself. I'm not sure if they exhibit the same behavior, but I wouldn't be surprised as they are always at the door when I get home from my erratic schedules:)

However, these people are right. This one test done isn't enough proof that esp exists. First off, if you are to show me the back of the card and I correctly guess it, that's not a test of psychic ability, but a lucky guess. Now, with 700 cards, and I show 32% chance of success, this is a successful test that shows that I am in fact defying chance. However, this alone is not proof. Why? Haven't you ever had just pure lucky streaks before? Like someone else said, if I flip a 1,000,000 coins 700 times each and record the results, eventually one of them is going to exhibit a 70% success rate rather than a 50% success rate. Is this proof that that coin is now special and lands on heads more than it should? No. Then what is? By doing another test with the same coin, and probably a few more just to be sure. If that coin continually exhibits a 70% success rate, then you know that the makers probably put too much metal on the tails side of the coin.

In the same token, one guy out of millions getting a few extra cards (84) right isn't enough. Sure it seems amazing, but there's still the possibility that he got really really lucky. People have fallen from 15,000 feet up and walked away without an injury. I'm sure if you were to drop them a few more times, they will surely end up dead.

So, to prove that this guy is special, you do a few more tests with him and see if he still exhibits this 32% success rate, and if he does, you know he was not lucky, but moderately psychic.

I think ESP has always been documented as being something that physicists are interested in, as some of the experiments done in physics can have weird events occur afterwards that can only be described as ESP.

For instance one example version of ESP was the theoretical Experiment that Erwin Schrodinger came up with named Schrodingers cat, to which Eugene Wigner developed a "humanised" version which was known as Wigner's Friend.

Both experiments were about a better understanding of atomic theory, and a better understanding of the universe around us.

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/Wigner's-friend.htm

Just as the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was trying to bring quantum effects up to the scale of the real world, Wigner was trying to bring an intermediary observer into the thought experiment in order to highlight the need for an observer in collapsing waveforms. In the present interpretation (if I understand correctly), observation by any conscious thing is enough to collapse the waveform.

Dear Persol:

I, myself, have demonstrated it many times. I think what you want is a scientific test. I don't even know how you would construct one. Also (if we are being serious about this) is the problem that ESP may occur in a random pattern. In other words, not a light switch that is either off or on. So I think this also may cast someone truly psychic in a bad light and cause a test to conclusively prove they are NOT psychic when in fact they are.Here's a test. I'm thinking of a word when I think of you. What is that word?

NABISCO

Either it is Nabisco, or it isn't. So, there is a 50% chance that I am right and a 50% chance that I am wrong.

There is also a 50% chance that each of the next guesses is right:
Sub-lunar
Calcareous
Demonolatry
Porifera
Tofurkey
Procrustes
Shambling
Shackled
Pastry

Was it any of these words? No, you say?

I scored 0% - significantly below chance! I am a nega-psychic!

Yes yes YEEEEEEEEES! POWER IS MINE!

Do you believe in psychic abilities? Yes or No? End of Discussion....

Do you believe in psychic abilities? Yes or No? End of Discussion....Well, it's not. If someone can demonstrate it then the answer changes. That's what this is about.

It's not a question of belief .......end of story

Do you believe in psychic abilities? Yes or No? End of Discussion....
A discussion about beliefs in something is meaningless unless we take some good evidence or theories into account.

Hi all!

For a very good IMO scientific treatment of the "psychic pet" phenomenon visit here: http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Animals/index.html
specifically for those who think there is no evidence of the "paranormal".

Also, I could be wrong, but I think the above example refers to 700 runs or 50 cards each yielding a 32% success rate. Ie a 32% average success rate on 35,000 guesses where probability is approx. 20%.

Cheers, :)