Psipog

[Crunchy Cat]

No probs, NLP = neuro linguistic programming, and is used to both influence/feed information to people to create a specific outcome, or can be used to aquire information from people without them realising theyve given anything away.

Here's a video demonstrating some classic NLP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg

Cold-reading is different to NLP, but very similar, its basically the process of getting information that (to the untrained eye) can look very much like telepathy.
Its basic how a classic fraudster will 'read minds' and its very very easy to spot once you know how it works.

That was quite a funny video.

Dont you see the fallacy in making that claim though?
With all due respect, you dont actually know the psychological processes by which people can 'look' like theyre reading your mind so i fail to see the basis on which you can accurately assess when someone is and isnt faking it, or even when its soley one or the other.
Youre making subjective judgments without the background in psychology to accurately acertain how and what is going on.
And despite this hole in your knowledge youre calling into question the judgement of people who are trained and who do have knowledge of those processes.
Isnt this just an extention of people who post in science forums saying they 'know why SR/GR is wrong' even without the proper backing to really understand special or general relativity?

I don't have to be a subject matter leader in psychology to understand enough about it and how it relates to reality. My judgements are based on the presence of fantastic claim over eons, no supportive objective evidence, and the common psychology of people who want the fantastic to be true (check out the last psipog blog entry from the owner). I am the easiest person in the world to influence with real supportive evidence (especially the self-evident kind). If some 'psi' enabled person walked up to me and said, "Hey, you were just thinking about cats in macaroni and cheese." and it were true then I would be impressed.

90% of the country I live in accept that a life form called 'God' exists. There are many subject matter experts (far moreso than me), yet they don't have any supportive evidence, there is contradictory evidence against them, and their claims have been around for eons. I also know of the human psychological needs that religion fulfills and how 'God' is typically an anthropomrophization of reality.

The only fallacy is the idea that if you are not a topmost expert in the field then you cannot put pieces of knowledge in that field together and be correct.

Lately ive been incredibly impressed by a woman called Sally Morgan, i thought she was just a flake initially but appearances can be decieving.
She has all the hallmarks of the real thing - can get the information she needs blindfolded and with the subject absolutely mute, and can read minds whilst not even being in the same room as the subject (ruling out pheromones).
I hope she puts herself forward for some sort of study at some point, id love to see her methods under the lense.

Ahh yes, I have seen part of the episode where she guesses people's occupation by hand-touch. A real double blind experiment, not under her control of course, would quickly determine if she is a fraud or not (I would bet the farm on the fraud outcome).

Well youre quite welcome to believe that, but without any grounding whatsoever in psychology i dont think anyone is going to take you seriously.
Again it's like the people in the cosmology forums saying einstein was wrong when all theyre basing it on is half a graham greene book they once read.

I think I am probably far more 'grounded' in psychology than you realize. Einstein has alot of supportive evidence to back up relativity. Psi doesn't have alot of supportive evidence (in fact I have yet to see any). It's not a very accurate comparison. Really the onus of proof is on the 'believer' to be taken seriously. You're focusing on me way to much and should be focusing on supporting the claim that 'psi' exists. Show me. Give me a self-evident performance. Win that nobel.

No room for any interpretation or judgment?
Every experiment ever conducted in any field is open to interpretation and judgement. Im sorry but you just cant take subjectivity out of the loop youre asking for the impossible and simply ramping up your demands to a degree that noone in science can reasonably achieve.

If I claim to be able to play the paino and then prove my claim by playing your favorite song then there is no room for interpretation or judgement. The claim is objectively proven. If by some strange circumstance you interpret my piano playing as eating chocolate and judge the outcome purple then you have a neurological disorder and are not biologically qualified to process information.

Yes they do share a relationship, but youre taking that to be an explaination for physical/mental phenomena when it really doesnt explain anything.

It explains alot, for example that entaglement is the result of an imposed relationship.

Saying 'they share a relationship' is basically fine with me as long as you accept and understand that that isnt an explaination of the mechanics behind the phenomena, and from what im aware - never has been intended as such.

It explains some of the mechanics behind it. Pulling from shared repository of information says alot and of course there are many deatails which are very much unknown.

No it doesnt this is the thing - you can either invoke higher spacial dimensions to solve the problem of (mediumless) information exhange, in which case we have bohm's zen-like 'undivided whole'. Which would actually perfectly explain all psi phenomena - how can two systems communicate over large distances via no known medium? simple,theyre the same thing, theyre undivied - the information doesnt have to travel or go anywhere.

'Psi' people would have to be entagled with others in this scenario. If people became entagled it would probably kill them. Why do two systems have to be one in this scenario? Why can't two systems have their own local variables (ex. x, y, z) as well as shared valriables (a, v, d)? Why is another dimension required?

The other option is - we rule out these higher spacial dimensions and the particles are simply passing information about their states over large distances, its simply that we dont understand how this process could work yet since there appears to be no physical medium through which theyre communicating.
In either instance mediumless information exhange between states ist a problem, as you yourself might say 'reality agrees with it'.

Well close, reality shows that particles can share a relationship. It doesn't show that information can be transmitted over a distance instantanously (i.e. there isn't any travel / duplicate sets of data).

Well it's an interpretation based apon experimentation, the point is - alot of what i talk about isnt just jumbo jumbo im making up on the spot; it's real science and psychology - its just stuff you arnt personally aware of. That's all i was demonstrating by posting that quote.

I never said 'hidden variable theory' wasn't an interpretation of QM nor was it something new to me. There is simply no evidence for information transfer between entangled particles, lots of evidence a shared relationship, and 'hidden variable theory' is currently incompatible with QFT.

Either way, none of this supports the existence of 'psi'. This isn't a matter of explaining the mechanics of something that exists... this is a matter of establishing that something does in fact exist (the 'what' comes before the 'how').

Out of curiosity, if all 'psi' was literally disproven, how would you take it knowing that you allowed yourself to be deceived and tried to deceive others?

 

[grover]

Incorrect. My position is that Psi is unsupported due to lack of supportive evidence.

Don't be intellectually dishonest, you said "Give me a 100% hit rate for telepathy, clairvoyance, telekensis, pyrokensis, remote viewing, astral projection, you name it.

For example, I can play the piano and demonstrate it with a 100% hit rate. I can comb my hair and demonstrate it with a 100% hit rate. I can move my left arm and can demonstrate it with a 100% hit rate."

It's not flawed. It's true. I was simply sloppy in the delivery of information. If I were in a sitaution where I was claiming to perform the mistake would not likely have been made.

You would have to prove that Psi 'practicioners' are as sloppy as when I copy-and-paste while not paying attention.

Yep, my memory is so unrealiable that I remembered the path of clicks which ultimately got me that information I posted. Naturally I will repost the correct URL for you... that came from my faulty memory. Unreliable. Faulty.

Your still missing the point. The point is that a person can't be sure if their memory is correct.

http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

From the wiki article on the ganzfelds -the hit rate for the ganzfelds were 32%, meta-analysis of Ganzfeld's was 37%, and autoganzfelds were 34%.
And the Ganzfeld's were double-blind. That article you posted was speculating that the double-blind had been compromised if the sender was making loud noises that a person could hear in anothr room. Speculation is not science. For the Ganzfeld experiments to be disproven a sceptic would have to recreate the exepriment and modify the correct the possible methodological errors and falsify the Ganzfeld experiments. No sceptics have ever done this which is what they will have to do to disprove the results of the Ganzfeld experiments. This type of retesting experiments is standard practice in all science. Sceptics are free to speculate all they want but they shouldn't confuse their speculation with science.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Don't be intellectually dishonest, you said "Give me a 100% hit rate for telepathy, clairvoyance, telekensis, pyrokensis, remote viewing, astral projection, you name it.

For example, I can play the piano and demonstrate it with a 100% hit rate. I can comb my hair and demonstrate it with a 100% hit rate. I can move my left arm and can demonstrate it with a 100% hit rate."

It's not dishonest. When a person is reading my mind they should be 100% certain that I was thinking about a giant dancing meatball, monkeys, and triangles... in that order.

Your still missing the point. The point is that a person can't be sure if their memory is correct.

You're trying to make an excuse for the people whom are taking shots, missing most of the time, and never knowing either way without someone else's confirmation.

Why do you want Psi to be true so badly? Do you think it's a cold, heartless, impartial world without it?

From the wiki article on the ganzfelds -the hit rate for the ganzfelds were 32%, meta-analysis of Ganzfeld's was 37%, and autoganzfelds were 34%.
And the Ganzfeld's were double-blind.

I wonder what the original publications said?

That article you posted was speculating that the double-blind had been compromised if the sender was making loud noises that a person could hear in anothr room. Speculation is not science. For the Ganzfeld experiments to be disproven a sceptic would have to recreate the exepriment and modify the correct the possible methodological errors and falsify the Ganzfeld experiments. No sceptics have ever done this which is what they will have to do to disprove the results of the Ganzfeld experiments. This type of retesting experiments is standard practice in all science. Sceptics are free to speculate all they want but they shouldn't confuse their speculation with science.

That last article? I was only posting it for the numbers. Either way, in the experiments there WAS communication from recepient to sender / experimenter and there WERE opportunities for cuing (not speculation for either). Simply put, thats why the results cannot be trusted. Why waste time recreating something that you know is flawed to begin with? It is the onus of Psi advocates to show results from a double blind experiment with no known sensory communication or opportunities for.

If positive results arise from such an expriment then there is something to look at. Specifically, how humans achieved stastical significance... and I strongly doubt 'psi' would be the answer in such a situation... but then again I strongly doubt such a situation would even arise to begin with.

 

[grover]

It's not dishonest. When a person is reading my mind they should be 100% certain that I was thinking about a giant dancing meatball, monkeys, and triangles... in that order.

Why? That's like saying memory is never accurate be cause it isn't always accurate.

You're trying to make an excuse for the people whom are taking shots, missing most of the time, and never knowing either way without someone else's confirmation.

No, I'm saying just because someone isn't 100% accurate proves nothing
(any thing that requires skill). Just because someone isn't sure if they were accurate proves nothing (people don't know if their memories are accurate. What you are setting up is a classic strawman argument. I'm not saying they can do this skill with 100% accuracy or be certain they are correct so stop arguing against that point.

Why do you want Psi to be true so badly? Do you think it's a cold, heartless, impartial world without it?

It honestly doesn't affect me anymore than what quantum physicists are saying about the universe. The simple fact of the matter is that there is science thats been done that shows its existence. You're the intellectually dishonest one, not me. Your the one that refuses to accept the science, and apparently the one that has an invested interest in it not being true to the poing that you will ignore science.

That last article? I was only posting it for the numbers. Either way, in the experiments there WAS communication from recepient to sender / experimenter

No, you are wrong. Here is what it says on page 18: As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred. I suggest you actually bother to read things you post to support your position. It is very damaging to your case when you get your own supporting evidence wrong.

and there WERE opportunities for cuing (not speculation for either).

Wrong. As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred.

Simply put, thats why the results cannot be trusted.

Seeing as you are wrong the results can be trrusted. But I await your intellectually dishonest squirming.

Why waste time recreating something that you know is flawed to begin with?

They don't think its flawed, from page 19: we believe that the autoganzfeld studies (and the resulting database) represent an impressive achievement. The studies achieved a very high level of methodological sophistication. However, just as the autoganzfeld studies built upon the shortcomings of past studies, so future work should aim to identify and eradicate any errors contained in the autoganzfeld studies

It is the onus of Psi advocates to show results from a double blind experiment with no known sensory communication or opportunities for.
If positive results arise from such an expriment then there is something to look at.

There were positive results. Only a total fanatic fundamentalist willl deny it. If you understood science you would know that refining the methodology of experiments is a normal part if the procedure. The Ganzfeld studies would be falsified if they redid the studies and eliminated the possible methodoligical problems and there was no statisitically significant deviation. That has not happened, meaning the Ganzfeld experiments have not been falsified.

Specifically, how humans achieved stastical significance... and I strongly doubt 'psi' would be the answer in such a situation... but then again I strongly doubt such a situation would even arise to begin with.

The situation already has arisen. Once again, I suggest you actually bother to read your supporting evidence because it is very damiging to your case when you clearly haven't bothered to read it and get wrong what little you have read.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

I've one thing to say:

Argumentum Ad Nauseum! To all of you!

 

[heliocentric]

I don't have to be a subject matter leader in psychology to understand enough about it and how it relates to reality. My judgements are based on the presence of fantastic claim over eons, no supportive objective evidence, and the common psychology of people who want the fantastic to be true (check out the last psipog blog entry from the owner).

Yeah i think this is the problem really youre rallying against psi phenomena in a very proto-age of enlightment way. In which anything that seems superstitious or odd must be treated as the natural enemy of rational thought.
Youre buying into a very low-grade form of scientism imo that opperates outside of any real knowledge of what it is youre trying to refute.
At the very least if youre going to dissect psi phenomena as psychological slights-of-hand you need to have some form of background or awareness of coldreading, the fact that you dont just adds to my suspicion that there's no real methology or rationale to any of your ideas or beliefs.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but thats really how i see it.

I am the easiest person in the world to influence with real supportive evidence (especially the self-evident kind).

This is another problem i percieve in all this - you keep flip-flopping on your demands.
You say one minute you want evidence, then you want statistically significant evidence, then you want 'absolute proof' - which i might add doesnt exist anywhere in science.
Im not sure what it is you actually want!

If some 'psi' enabled person walked up to me and said, "Hey, you were just thinking about cats in macaroni and cheese." and it were true then I would be impressed.

Ive pretty much had that happen to me; there are people out there who can pull out of your head exactly what youre thinking and can (litterally) do it with their eyes closed.
If youre looking for those sort of interpersonal proofs id suggest learning as much about body language cues, coldreading, and nlp and then challenging a psychic to read your mind.
You might not even come to the same conclusions i have, but i think it would give you a much more broad idea of whats actually going on here.

90% of the country I live in accept that a life form called 'God' exists. There are many subject matter experts (far moreso than me), yet they don't have any supportive evidence, there is contradictory evidence against them, and their claims have been around for eons. I also know of the human psychological needs that religion fulfills and how 'God' is typically an anthropomrophization of reality.

I think youre working off some deeply flawed assosications - you cant lump god together with ufos, ghosts, psi and put it in a corner of your mind marked 'weird stuff' and then run at it with a big stick.

The only fallacy is the idea that if you are not a topmost expert in the field then you cannot put pieces of knowledge in that field together and be correct.

Noone said you had to be a leading expert - you just need to know what it is youre attacking or defending as an absolute minimum of rational discourse.

Ahh yes, I have seen part of the episode where she guesses people's occupation by hand-touch. A real double blind experiment, not under her control of course, would quickly determine if she is a fraud or not (I would bet the farm on the fraud outcome).

In what way did you believe she was being fraudulent? you must have seen something or become aware of something very specifc to be willing to bet that much on a pre-determined outcome.
Does the fact that she DID score positive hits by definition mean she MUST have been fradulent someone along the line?
This consistantly seems to be the logic youre working off.
Youre working off the basis that information exchange by no apparent physical medium is 'impossible' and then attacking anything which conflicts with this assumption (which incidently lies completely outside of where science is currently at).
I think you really need to sort out why psi is or should be impossible and then work out why quantum mechanics starkly contradicts this aristolean viewpoint.
It's not something you even have to put forward to me - i think its just something to sort out in your own head. So you can know exactly what it is youre arguing against and why.

I think I am probably far more 'grounded' in psychology than you realize. Einstein has alot of supportive evidence to back up relativity. Psi doesn't have alot of supportive evidence (in fact I have yet to see any). It's not a very accurate comparison. Really the onus of proof is on the 'believer' to be taken seriously. You're focusing on me way to much and should be focusing on supporting the claim that 'psi' exists. Show me. Give me a self-evident performance. Win that nobel.

Self-evident in this instance meaning an '100% hit rate' - something which you know is absolutely impossible in any scientific area of study.
Pure scientism

If I claim to be able to play the paino and then prove my claim by playing your favorite song then there is no room for interpretation or judgement.
The claim is objectively proven. If by some strange circumstance you interpret my piano playing as eating chocolate and judge the outcome purple then you have a neurological disorder and are not biologically qualified to process information.

But science is about testing and understanding the ambigious not the axiomatic, im sorry but i frequently get the impression that you have no idea what science is or how it works.

It explains some of the mechanics behind it. Pulling from shared repository of information says alot and of course there are many deatails which are very much unknown.

Ah, but where is that repository of information stored? where does it spacially exist? perhaps it isnt spacial atall but purely mental.
These are the questions that people in quantum theory and philosophy are currently asking.
Someone like Chalmers believes or rather posits that information is the fundamental of the physical and mental. Consciousness and matter might simply be two different expressions of information.

'Psi' people would have to be entagled with others in this scenario. If people became entagled it would probably kill them.

That's not really how it works, the idea is reality co-exists in different states - you are both the seperate entity of cruncy cat and the undivided whole at the same time.

Why do two systems have to be one in this scenario? Why can't two systems have their own local variables (ex. x, y, z) as well as shared valriables (a, v, d)? Why is another dimension required?

It's just a way of solving the problem of information exchange (which in some instances would have to be faster than light) between systems.
It's basically a way of keeping relativity intact.

I never said 'hidden variable theory' wasn't an interpretation of QM nor was it something new to me. There is simply no evidence for information transfer between entangled particles, lots of evidence a shared relationship, and 'hidden variable theory' is currently incompatible with QFT.

I really dont think you get the point here, im not trying to prove that information is physically passing between systems. Thats pretty much the opposite of my view actually (although i dont completely rule it out as a possiblity).
The central point im making is - two seperate systems can have knowledge of each others state WITHOUT there needing to be a physical medium to communicate their state.
We're basically arguing for the exact same thing, its just you art comfortable with implications of it all.

Out of curiosity, if all 'psi' was literally disproven, how would you take it knowing that you allowed yourself to be deceived and tried to deceive others?

I dont work on the basis of psi being absolutely true, i work in degrees of probablity (bit of a nihilist like that).
So my asserted probablity of psi being real would simply drop.
This happens all the time though, there are many things which im constantly shifting on the more i learn and the more knowledge i come into contact with.

This is kind of besides the point though, i dont 'believe' in psi in the classic sense and i honestly dont care if you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'.
What im taking issue with is simply your methodology, even if you did believe in psi id still give you a hard time for the exact same reasons.
Im ultimately far more concerned about how one 'arrives' at their conclusions rather than what their conclusions actually are.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yeah i think this is the problem really youre rallying against psi phenomena in a very proto-age of enlightment way. In which anything that seems superstitious or odd must be treated as the natural enemy of rational thought.

Not at all. Its fantastic claims of truth that must be passed through a BS filter for those people whom value truth.

Youre buying into a very low-grade form of scientism imo that opperates outside of any real knowledge of what it is youre trying to refute.
At the very least if youre going to dissect psi phenomena as psychological slights-of-hand you need to have some form of background or awareness of coldreading, the fact that you dont just adds to my suspicion that there's no real methology or rationale to any of your ideas or beliefs.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but thats really how i see it.

The criticism is at best irrelevant and at worst a tactic to protect psi. I've explained that I am aware of the strong human desire for psi to be real, that humans self-deceive and deceive others on the topic immensly, and that all existing evidence currently does not support the existence of psi. That's it. Because there is so much fraud associated with psi, and you know there is, a claim has to be self-evident and / or shown under perfect double-blind circumstances (depending on the claim).

This is another problem i percieve in all this - you keep flip-flopping on your demands.
You say one minute you want evidence, then you want statistically significant evidence, then you want 'absolute proof' - which i might add doesnt exist anywhere in science.
Im not sure what it is you actually want!

It depends on the claim. If you claim telekensis, I want to see it in a controlled defrauded environment... exactly as is.

Ive pretty much had that happen to me; there are people out there who can pull out of your head exactly what youre thinking and can (litterally) do it with their eyes closed.

I have yet to meet one... it's a shame too. It sounds like the biggest and most important discovery on earth.

If youre looking for those sort of interpersonal proofs id suggest learning as much about body language cues, coldreading, and nlp and then challenging a psychic to read your mind.
You might not even come to the same conclusions i have, but i think it would give you a much more broad idea of whats actually going on here.

I've issued that challenged several times on this forum and in real life. 100% failure rate (not surprising).

I think youre working off some deeply flawed assosications - you cant lump god together with ufos, ghosts, psi and put it in a corner of your mind marked 'weird stuff' and then run at it with a big stick.

With the exception of UFO's of course I can. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. I strongly doubt anyone can identify everything they see trapsing through the sky. I can however, lump anal probing abductions right into that corner with the rest of the delusional stuff.

Noone said you had to be a leading expert - you just need to know what it is youre attacking or defending as an absolute minimum of rational discourse.

I do, it's fiction being asserted as truth.

In what way did you believe she was being fraudulent? you must have seen something or become aware of something very specifc to be willing to bet that much on a pre-determined outcome.

She's a human, obviously not going for the nobel and to better humanity with such a 'precious' ability', and she controls most of the variables. Put her in a real controlled environment and all the magic will disappear.

Does the fact that she DID score positive hits by definition mean she MUST have been fradulent someone along the line?

It's a strong indicator considering that there is no confirmation that the psi exists.

Youre working off the basis that information exchange by no apparent physical medium is 'impossible' and then attacking anything which conflicts with this assumption (which incidently lies completely outside of where science is currently at).
I think you really need to sort out why psi is or should be impossible and then work out why quantum mechanics starkly contradicts this aristolean viewpoint.

I am not searching for 'hows' in QM to this in the least... that was your doing. Looking for a 'how' without a 'what' is a senseless endeavor. I know exactly what 'psi' is. It is human psychological need mixed with delusion.

It's not something you even have to put forward to me - i think its just something to sort out in your own head. So you can know exactly what it is youre arguing against and why.

I am arguing against fantastic delusion being passed off as truth. Why I am doing it is because I value truth and want to minimize the negative impacts that fantastic delusion will have on people's lives.

Self-evident in this instance meaning an '100% hit rate' - something which you know is absolutely impossible in any scientific area of study.
Pure scientism

In 10 tries I can play the piano 100% of the time. In 10 tries I can move my left arm 100% of the time. In 10 tries, I can open and close my door 100% of the time. In 10 tries I can make electrons flow from point A to point B 100% of the time. Given 10 tries, could you type 3 words each time? Can you read the last word in a sentence and shout it out aloud? Can you do it 10 times in a row? We're talking about human self-ability claims... not conditional arial phenomena.

But science is about testing and understanding the ambigious not the axiomatic, im sorry but i frequently get the impression that you have no idea what science is or how it works.

Science is a an endless process of testing hypothesis/predictions and modeling the results (theory)... it uses reality to ask reality questions about reality. I get the impression that you might not understand that for something to be true, reality has to agree.

Ah, but where is that repository of information stored? where does it spacially exist?

Being shared, it would be stored in both particles at the same time. How that happens nobody knows.

perhaps it isnt spacial atall but purely mental.

To the best of human knowledge, 'mental' requires a brain.

These are the questions that people in quantum theory and philosophy are currently asking.
Someone like Chalmers believes or rather posits that information is the fundamental of the physical and mental. Consciousness and matter might simply be two different expressions of information.

I would categorize that as fantasy it it's presented as a claim. If it's presented as a hypothesis then I would love to see the results of experimentation. If there is no intention of testing behind it then it's a speculation. What reality does point to (evidence-wise) is that consciousness is an effect of the brain and is purely 'physical'.

That's not really how it works, the idea is reality co-exists in different states - you are both the seperate entity of cruncy cat and the undivided whole at the same time.

It's just a way of solving the problem of information exchange (which in some instances would have to be faster than light) between systems.
It's basically a way of keeping relativity intact.

You mean I am a cross section of reality but yet still a part of reality? Of course. What I am saying is that integrating say mind-reading would require entagled people (or parts of entagled people) to share repositories and that would likely kill them. One person starts walking and the other person's brain smashes up against the insides of their skull. Not a pretty picture.

I really dont think you get the point here, im not trying to prove that information is physically passing between systems. Thats pretty much the opposite of my view actually (although i dont completely rule it out as a possiblity).
The central point im making is - two seperate systems can have knowledge of each others state WITHOUT there needing to be a physical medium to communicate their state.
We're basically arguing for the exact same thing, its just you art comfortable with implications of it all.

There is a difference between having knowledge of each others state and sharing a repository of state.

I dont work on the basis of psi being absolutely true, i work in degrees of probablity (bit of a nihilist like that).
So my asserted probablity of psi being real would simply drop.
This happens all the time though, there are many things which im constantly shifting on the more i learn and the more knowledge i come into contact with.

Probability is a great way to work with unknowns. In fact if you don't accept psi as true (or false) then you're doing fine; although, its confusing considering I was under the impression that you have come in contact with definitive proof.

As you are then not a claimer of 'psi' exists then there is no sense in asking for evidence as it doesn't apply to your position.

This is kind of besides the point though, i dont 'believe' in psi in the classic sense and i honestly dont care if you 'believe' or 'disbelieve'.
What im taking issue with is simply your methodology, even if you did believe in psi id still give you a hard time for the exact same reasons.
Im ultimately far more concerned about how one 'arrives' at their conclusions rather than what their conclusions actually are.

The methodology is simple. Claim for eons, no supportive evidence, known human desire, known human delusion, known human fraud. I could even add contradictory evidence of missing energy costs in psi but it's really unnecessary.

Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc&mode=related&search=

 

[heliocentric]

Not at all. Its fantastic claims of truth that must be passed through a BS filter for those people whom value truth.

With all due respect i think youre going to have to do a little better than invoking a 'BS filter' that's fine for every day conversation, but not in an arena of science where rigour and specifics are key to genuine understanding.

The criticism is at best irrelevant and at worst a tactic to protect psi. I've explained that I am aware of the strong human desire for psi to be real, that humans self-deceive and deceive others on the topic immensly,

Knowing that humans have the ability to be deceptive isnt enough, you need to know the exact methods by which people decieve if youre really serious about this.

and that all existing evidence currently does not support the existence of psi.

Only if you ignore the whole concept of statistical signficance - if you have a problem with this scientific means of analysis please tell me, i have no problem if you tackle this issue head on and with rationality.
Otherwise youre reverting back to false claims again.

That's it. Because there is so much fraud associated with psi, and you know there is, a claim has to be self-evident and / or shown under perfect double-blind circumstances (depending on the claim).

Self-evidence is absolutely meaningless in experimental science, there's a reason why you wont find scientists using phrases like that - its because self-evidenacy relies on subjective or personal/internal inquiry, you have to be much more objective than that.

It depends on the claim. If you claim telekensis, I want to see it in a controlled defrauded environment... exactly as is.

How do you completely 'defraud' an environment?

With the exception of UFO's of course I can. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. I strongly doubt anyone can identify everything they see trapsing through the sky. I can however, lump anal probing abductions right into that corner with the rest of the delusional stuff.

No you cant - you deal in absolutes to a shocking degree for someone whos so dedicated to the scientific method.
You can only calculate the probability of an alien life form comming to earth and performing such an action, you cant absolutely say it 'cannot' happen.

I do, it's fiction being asserted as truth.

Because its self-evident yeah? science never even enters the loop the way youre approaching this.

She's a human, obviously not going for the nobel and to better humanity with such a 'precious' ability', and she controls most of the variables. Put her in a real controlled environment and all the magic will disappear.

Again you deal far too much in faith-based absolutes imo.

I am not searching for 'hows' in QM to this in the least... that was your doing.

Yeah but my point was - if youre going to rally against psi as if its impossible, which is effectively what you are doing - then i think its pretty reasonable for me to ask why you believe it is impossible within this discussion.

Looking for a 'how' without a 'what' is a senseless endeavor. I know exactly what 'psi' is. It is human psychological need mixed with delusion.

Youre just resorting back to positive claims again in the absense of a reasoned argument.
Its like me saying 'youre wrong, because i KNOW psi is real' its just silly, and completely un-scientific.

I am arguing against fantastic delusion being passed off as truth. Why I am doing it is because I value truth and want to minimize the negative impacts that fantastic delusion will have on people's lives.

You dont understand even the rudimentary basics of psychology though, but in spite of that you feel ready to point out how everyone is falling under the spell of delusion

In 10 tries I can play the piano 100% of the time. In 10 tries I can move my left arm 100% of the time. In 10 tries, I can open and close my door 100% of the time. In 10 tries I can make electrons flow from point A to point B 100% of the time. Given 10 tries, could you type 3 words each time? Can you read the last word in a sentence and shout it out aloud? Can you do it 10 times in a row? We're talking about human self-ability claims... not conditional arial phenomena.

That analogy doesnt work, i was going to explain why but just go back to what Grover responded to that, i think he explained it perfectly.

Being shared, it would be stored in both particles at the same time. How that happens nobody knows.

Ive never once heared anyone in QM state that the information about the state of 'other' particle is stored inside both particles, but alright.

I would categorize that as fantasy it it's presented as a claim. If it's presented as a hypothesis then I would love to see the results of experimentation. If there is no intention of testing behind it then it's a speculation. What reality does point to (evidence-wise) is that consciousness is an effect of the brain and is purely 'physical'.

It was a speculation (not a claim), and consciousness itself isnt physical - its the subjective quality of physical matter.
Even materialists agree with that, whether its inherent or emergent is another matter, although thats maybe getting alittle off topic.

You mean I am a cross section of reality but yet still a part of reality? Of course. What I am saying is that integrating say mind-reading would require entagled people (or parts of entagled people) to share repositories and that would likely kill them. One person starts walking and the other person's brain smashes up against the insides of their skull. Not a pretty picture.

I think youre being over-litteral with this unified whole thing it doesnt mean we're all squashed together with my leg comming out of your nose or something.
Its much more abstract than that.
Again youre arguing against all these qm theories as if its all stuff im making up on the spot - this is all just very common everyday science.
But when i come out with it its like you fight against it as if its completely irrational, which really makes no sense atall to me.

There is a difference between having knowledge of each others state and sharing a repository of state.

And whats the key difference then?

I really dont know why the idea of a particle having knowledge of the other's state gets up your nose so much, this is what quantum physicists believe.
If you have a distinct problem with certain aspects of QM theory, i really wish youd bring them up so we could rationally discuss their merits.
Rather you projecting all your QM hangups onto me as if im the one who came up with any of this stuff.

Again this is just common-variety modern day sicence, but you react extremely badly towards it all as soon as it falls outside of your assumptions.

Probability is a great way to work with unknowns. In fact if you don't accept psi as true (or false) then you're doing fine; although, its confusing considering I was under the impression that you have come in contact with definitive proof.

Well as i said you dont get the luxory of definitve proofs in science, so i try not to think in those sorts of terms.
You could certainly say though that i 'largely believe psi to be an existant phenomenon unexplainable by current psychological understanding'.

The methodology is simple. Claim for eons, no supportive evidence, known human desire, known human delusion, known human fraud. I could even add contradictory evidence of missing energy costs in psi but it's really unnecessary.

Youve gone back to making false claims again, so im going to ignore this one.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

With all due respect i think youre going to have to do a little better than invoking a 'BS filter' that's fine for every day conversation, but not in an arena of science where rigour and specifics are key to genuine understanding.

I understand. People want psi to be true so bad that they are willing to decieve for it. Did you watch that video?

Knowing that humans have the ability to be deceptive isnt enough, you need to know the exact methods by which people decieve if youre really serious about this.

I agree with the first part. You actually have to catch several in the act. It's been done to death (again see the video for a great example). With the second part, the importance of understanding every known method of deception is more for a controlled setting... unless you are proposing an experiment in which case I would be happy to explore deception with you so it can be avoided.

Only if you ignore the whole concept of statistical signficance - if you have a problem with this scientific means of analysis please tell me, i have no problem if you tackle this issue head on and with rationality.
Otherwise youre reverting back to false claims again.

Statistical significance is fine the experiment can be trusted to be leak-free. I never had any problems with that; however, if such data were to surface then there would be a 'what'... specifically that humans achieved statistical significance. The next question becomes 'how'... and I doubt that 'psi' would be the explanation.

Self-evidence is absolutely meaningless in experimental science, there's a reason why you wont find scientists using phrases like that - its because self-evidenacy relies on subjective or personal/internal inquiry, you have to be much more objective than that.

Not self-evidence. Self-evident. "What you see is what you get".

How do you completely 'defraud' an environment?

It depends on the claim. In a mind reading claim for example, separate everyone involved with no possibility of subjective communication at any point in the experiment. Double-blind... no leakage.

No you cant - you deal in absolutes to a shocking degree for someone whos so dedicated to the scientific method.

In matters of existence claims there is only an absolute outcome. Either the *something* exists or it doesn't.

You can only calculate the probability of an alien life form comming to earth and performing such an action, you cant absolutely say it 'cannot' happen.

You are correct and I can say specific human claims of being anal probed by 'greys' are false. Regarding sentient and advanced ET life, I don't know that it exists nor do I know that it doesn't. Based on my knowledge of reality, I would put a higher probability that they do exist, but I don't know either way.

Because its self-evident yeah? science never even enters the loop the way youre approaching this.

Even you think that Psipog was 99% delusional. I think it's 100% but either way its self evident that human delusion exists beyond statistical significance when it comes to psi.

Again you deal far too much in faith-based absolutes imo.

It either exists or it doesn't. I have faith that alot of the information reality provides about human psychology is what it is. I have faith (unconditional trust) in reality.

Yeah but my point was - if youre going to rally against psi as if its impossible, which is effectively what you are doing - then i think its pretty reasonable for me to ask why you believe it is impossible within this discussion.

With technology aids it may very well be possible. There is simply no evidence that humans can do it presently.

Youre just resorting back to positive claims again in the absense of a reasoned argument.
Its like me saying 'youre wrong, because i KNOW psi is real' its just silly, and completely un-scientific.

What matters is being correct in this case... and of course the onus is on the claimer to prove the point.

You dont understand even the rudimentary basics of psychology though, but in spite of that you feel ready to point out how everyone is falling under the spell of delusion

It is your opinion that I don't understand the basics of psychology. There isn't a single person on planet whom isn't deluded about something. Most of the world is deluded about very important things that affect their lives. 'God' being a good example. Humans are easily deluded especially in cases where the delusion is something they *want* to be true. If you want statistical evidence, just take the number of claims on psipog.

That analogy doesnt work, i was going to explain why but just go back to what Grover responded to that, i think he explained it perfectly.

And of course my response to grover is that if you're tossing a basketball, you know when you miss. He is simply trying to protect psi.

Ive never once heared anyone in QM state that the information about the state of 'other' particle is stored inside both particles, but alright.

Now you have

It was a speculation (not a claim), and consciousness itself isnt physical - its the subjective quality of physical matter.
Even materialists agree with that, whether its inherent or emergent is another matter, although thats maybe getting alittle off topic.

I would be curious to know how it isn't physical especially if it's an effect of the physical.

I think youre being over-litteral with this unified whole thing it doesnt mean we're all squashed together with my leg comming out of your nose or something.
Its much more abstract than that.
Again youre arguing against all these qm theories as if its all stuff im making up on the spot - this is all just very common everyday science.
But when i come out with it its like you fight against it as if its completely irrational, which really makes no sense atall to me.

I understand how everything can be distinct and part of the whole. What I am saying is that for two entities to gain a shared relationship they have to be entangled. For those thoughts in your brain to be entangled means alot of mass of the brain would have to be shared (possibly multiple parts of the nervous system too). We know from entaglement that if particle A changes direction so does particle B.

And whats the key difference then?

To have knowledge about another state means you have a copy of varaibles. To share the state means there is no copy.

I really dont know why the idea of a particle having knowledge of the other's state gets up your nose so much, this is what quantum physicists believe.
If you have a distinct problem with certain aspects of QM theory, i really wish youd bring them up so we could rationally discuss their merits.
Rather you projecting all your QM hangups onto me as if im the one who came up with any of this stuff.
Again this is just common-variety modern day sicence, but you react extremely badly towards it all as soon as it falls outside of your assumptions.

I've read some QM publications and that doesn't appear to be what physicists think is happening. Look at it his way, to have knowledge of each others states requires copying (not sharing). Entanglement between two particles means that the wavefunction describing the two particles cannot be separated in any way or form... which nixes copying... which nixes maintaining seperate data about the other's state. What's left over? Sharing of one repository.

Well as i said you dont get the luxory of definitve proofs in science, so i try not to think in those sorts of terms.
You could certainly say though that i 'largely believe psi to be an existant phenomenon unexplainable by current psychological understanding'.

Alot of definitive knowledge results from science. If it didn't that computer you are typing on wouldn't be there. Your follow-up statement's use of the word belief can result in multiple interpretations. I think it is clearer to state exactly your stance... e.x. you think that psi has a high probability of existing.

Youve gone back to making false claims again, so im going to ignore this one.

The only part that you could hope to contest is the absence of supportive evidence... so please, support the existence of psi. I've shown you a video of a telekenetic shown to be fradulant. You yourself admitted that nearly all of Psipog is delusional. I can show you and endless supply of frauds. Show me the real thing.

 

[heliocentric]

I understand. People want psi to be true so bad that they are willing to decieve for it. Did you watch that video?

I think ive seen it before, hes simply blowing on the objects to make them move isnt he?

Statistical significance is fine the experiment can be trusted to be leak-free. I never had any problems with that; however, if such data were to surface then there would be a 'what'... specifically that humans achieved statistical significance. The next question becomes 'how'... and I doubt that 'psi' would be the explanation.

No experiment can ever be entirely 'leak-free' i really think youre asking for the impossible. Yes you can up the controls so that fraud or unconscious deception is very very very unlikely to take place. But you just cant have this 100% fault-free experiment that youre looking for, thats just not possible.
What we have established so far however i think (if you'll allow me to recap) Is that A. psi experiments are the most tightly controlled out of ANY form of experimentation.
And B. within this incredibly rigerous experimentation - statistical data has been found.

Now yes, you can choose to 'not recognise' the validity of that data because it doesnt conform to your 100% error-free standards.
But nothing else in science (litterally nothing) conforms to those standards either, does that mean we disregard all the data in all the studies ever attained?

Not self-evidence. Self-evident. "What you see is what you get".

Self-evident truths are fine, but i thought this was a science forum

Even you think that Psipog was 99% delusional. I think it's 100% but either way its self evident that human delusion exists beyond statistical significance when it comes to psi.

Im not sure where 99% came from, i dont remember putting a figure on it (from what i remember anyway).
The only thing id really take issue with is those ki balls.

It either exists or it doesn't. I have faith that alot of the information reality provides about human psychology is what it is. I have faith (unconditional trust) in reality.

Sounds rather intuitive.

With technology aids it may very well be possible. There is simply no evidence that humans can do it presently.

False claim again.

It is your opinion that I don't understand the basics of psychology. There isn't a single person on planet whom isn't deluded about something. Most of the world is deluded about very important things that affect their lives. 'God' being a good example. Humans are easily deluded especially in cases where the delusion is something they *want* to be true. If you want statistical evidence, just take the number of claims on psipog.

Sorry but as i said, being aware of delusion and maybe reading abit of dawkins heare and there really isnt enough.
If you think something is a fraud or a trick youve got to know the methods.
What youre basically doing is like claiming someones cheating in a card-game without having a clue about any of the tricks that dishonest card-players actually imploy.
How are you going to spot something when you dont even know how it works

And of course my response to grover is that if you're tossing a basketball, you know when you miss. He is simply trying to protect psi.

The 'net in the hoop' in psi experiments is a subjective hoop though, you cant objectively see whether its gone in or not untill the subject has confirmed (or otherwise) the psychics belief that theyve scored a hit.

I would be curious to know how it isn't physical especially if it's an effect of the physical.

To put it another way - consciousness is the subjective property of the physical.
i.e. your thoughts that youre thinking now arnt physical in themselves, although yes matter does play a role in producing those thoughts.

I understand how everything can be distinct and part of the whole. What I am saying is that for two entities to gain a shared relationship they have to be entangled. For those thoughts in your brain to be entangled means alot of mass of the brain would have to be shared (possibly multiple parts of the nervous system too). We know from entaglement that if particle A changes direction so does particle B.

Well think of it like this - before the big bang exploded out into the universe every proto-element of the universe was entangled.
So its not so much my physical brain being say...entangled with yours its more like the underlying sub-elements are entangled.
This is what ive always taken the concept of the undivided whole to be, although ideas of entanglement are changing all the time.
The biggest problem of course with correlating psi phenomena with quantum mechanics has been the issue of entanglement and 'spooky' action at a distance being soley the domain of the quantum world - not the macro.
However quantum effects are starting to measured within our own macro universe too.
Check out this article..the underlying message is - quauntum phenomena is possible within our macro universe as well, therefore there is no fundamental reason left anymore to argue against macro action at a distance as being impossible.
http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

Thomas Durt of Vrije University in Brussels also believes entanglement is everywhere. He has recently shown, from the basic equations that Schrödinger considered, that almost all quantum interactions produce entanglement, whatever the conditions. "When you see light coming from a faraway star, the photon is almost certainly entangled with the atoms of the star and the atoms encountered along the way,"
he says. And the constant interactions between electrons in the atoms that make up your body are no exception. According to Durt, we are a mass of entanglements.

To have knowledge about another state means you have a copy of varaibles. To share the state means there is no copy.

Then how do you 'share' non-existant information?
What youre essentially saying is that theres some 'shared aspect' of the two systems - but you cant actually define either what it is theyre actually sharing or how theyre doing it.
As i said saying two particles share a relationship is absolutely fine as long as you realise that it doesnt explain anything.

I've read some QM publications and that doesn't appear to be what physicists think is happening. Look at it his way, to have knowledge of each others states requires copying (not sharing).

Ok so there is no information, and there is no copy, instead the particle simply 'inherently knows' (psi) when to move in relation to the other particle with no information passing between those two systems.
When you strip it all down thats essentially your position on this.
Which is funny because youre actually arguing in favour in psi as it relates on the quatum level.

I think it is clearer to state exactly your stance... e.x. you think that psi has a high probability of existing.

No probs, id be happy with that.

The only part that you could hope to contest is the absence of supportive evidence... so please, support the existence of psi. I've shown you a video of a telekenetic shown to be fradulant. You yourself admitted that nearly all of Psipog is delusional. I can show you and endless supply of frauds. Show me the real thing.

Well ive shown you several pieces of evidence with statistically signicant data - but you wont accept that it is signicant data.
Which is obviously a wee bit problematic, ive told you which psychics working right now i believe are likely to be 'the real thing' and youve said you know for certain that this person would simply fail any experimentation, without their even having to be any experimentation.
Therefore its clear that your belief and views on this are constructed outside of data and experimentation.
To top it off youre making judgements in regards to what you believe to be fraudulent behaviour without understanding the methods that frauds actually imploy.
Theres no method, no process, only a belief or 'self-assured opinion'.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why? That's like saying memory is never accurate be cause it isn't always accurate.

Um... because they say they can. It's like saying "prove it".

No, I'm saying just because someone isn't 100% accurate proves nothing
(any thing that requires skill). Just because someone isn't sure if they were accurate proves nothing (people don't know if their memories are accurate. What you are setting up is a classic strawman argument. I'm not saying they can do this skill with 100% accuracy or be certain they are correct so stop arguing against that point.

When you wrote that post, were you not sure that you wrote that post? Maybe someone else wrote it? Can you trust that your memory is accurate enough to know that you wrote that post? The argument isn't strwaman. If someone says they can read my mind then they should be able to read my mind and know that they are reading it. Have you ever read the word "cat" and weren't sure about it right after reading it? Probably not.

It honestly doesn't affect me anymore than what quantum physicists are saying about the universe. The simple fact of the matter is that there is science thats been done that shows its existence.

I have yet to see that science... neither have science institutions. For example, in 1988, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences released a widely publicized report commissioned by the U.S. Army that assessed several controversial technologies for enhancing human performance, including accelerated learning, neurolinguistic programming, mental practice, biofeedback, and parapsychology (Druckman &h; Swets, 1988; summarized in Swets &h; Bjork, 1990). The report's conclusion concerning parapsychology was quite negative: "The Committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena" (Druckman &h; Swets, 1988, p. 22).

You're the intellectually dishonest one, not me. Your the one that refuses to accept the science, and apparently the one that has an invested interest in it not being true to the poing that you will ignore science.

Lots of evidence... supporting poor controls and opportunities for leakage. It is untrustworthy. Lots of evidence supporting human delusion... it is what it is.

No, you are wrong. Here is what it says on page 18: As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred. I suggest you actually bother to read things you post to support your position. It is very damaging to your case when you get your own supporting evidence wrong.

Wrong. As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred.

Lets go straight to the protocol source (notice the highlights):

Method

The basic design of the autoganzfeld studies was the same as that described earlier [Footnote 4]: A receiver and sender were sequestered in separate, acoustically-isolated chambers. After a 14-minute period of progressive relaxation, the receiver underwent ganzfeld stimulation while describing his or her thoughts and images aloud for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, the sender concentrated on a randomly selected target. At the end of the ganzfeld period, the receiver was shown four stimuli and, without knowing which of the four had been the target, rated each stimulus for its similarity to his or her mentation during the ganzfeld.
The targets consisted of 80 still pictures (static targets) and 80 short video segments complete with soundtracks (dynamic targets), all recorded on videocassette. The static targets included art prints, photographs, and magazine advertisements; the dynamic targets included excerpts of approximately one minute duration from motion pictures, TV shows, and cartoons. The 160 targets were arranged in judging sets of four static or four dynamic targets each, constructed to minimize similarities among targets within a set.


TARGET SELECTION AND PRESENTATION

The VCR containing the taped targets was interfaced to the controlling computer, which selected the target and controlled its repeated presentation to the sender during the ganzfeld period, thus eliminating the need for a second experimenter to accompany the sender. After the ganzfeld period, the computer randomly sequenced the four-clip judging set and presented it to the receiver on a TV monitor for judging. The receiver used a computer game paddle to make his or her ratings on a 40-point scale that appeared on the TV monitor after each clip was shown. The receiver was permitted to see each clip and to change the ratings repeatedly until he or she was satisfied. The computer then wrote these and other data from the session into a file on a floppy disk. At that point, the sender moved to the receiver's chamber and revealed the identity of the target to both the receiver and the experimenter. Note that the experimenter did not even know the identity of the four-clip judging set until it was displayed to the receiver for judging.

RANDOMIZATION

The random selection of the target and sequencing of the judging set were controlled by a noise-based random number generator interfaced to the computer. Extensive testing confirmed that the generator was providing a uniform distribution of values throughout the full target range (1-160). Tests on the actual frequencies observed during the experiments confirmed that targets were, on average, selected uniformly from among the 4 clips within each judging set and that the 4 judging sequences used were uniformly distributed across sessions.

ADDITIONAL CONTROL FEATURES

The receiver's and sender's rooms were sound-isolated, electrically shielded chambers with single- door access that could be continuously monitored by the experimenter. There was two-way intercom communication between the experimenter and the receiver but only one-way communication into the sender's room; thus, neither the experimenter nor the receiver could monitor events inside the sender's room. The archival record for each session includes an audiotape containing the receiver's mentation during the ganzfeld period and all verbal exchanges between the experimenter and the receiver throughout the experiment.
The automated ganzfeld protocol has been examined by several dozen parapsychologists and behavioral researchers from other fields, including well-known critics of parapsychology. Many have participated as subjects or observers. All have expressed satisfaction with the handling of security issues and controls.

Seeing as you are wrong the results can be trrusted. But I await your intellectually dishonest squirming.

Looks like I am not wrong and you are doing a great job of polarizing yourself.

They don't think its flawed, from page 19: we believe that the autoganzfeld studies (and the resulting database) represent an impressive achievement. The studies achieved a very high level of methodological sophistication. However, just as the autoganzfeld studies built upon the shortcomings of past studies, so future work should aim to identify and eradicate any errors contained in the autoganzfeld studies

Correct, they dont.

There were positive results. Only a total fanatic fundamentalist willl deny it. If you understood science you would know that refining the methodology of experiments is a normal part if the procedure. The Ganzfeld studies would be falsified if they redid the studies and eliminated the possible methodoligical problems and there was no statisitically significant deviation. That has not happened, meaning the Ganzfeld experiments have not been falsified.

Fanatic fundamentalist or someone whom can see the evidence for what it supports (and doesn't support). I think it's likely that somoene will refine the experiment. I predict that positive results will just disappear.

The situation already has arisen. Once again, I suggest you actually bother to read your supporting evidence because it is very damiging to your case when you clearly haven't bothered to read it and get wrong what little you have read.

Of course it has... I saw a bunch of psigoger's walk off with nobel's and are heading up some important psi research projects at genentec.

 

[grover]

Um... because they say they can. It's like saying "prove it".

Youy are still arguing a strawman. No one is saying they have 100% accuracy so stop arging against it. What is being argued is that that scientific studies supports the existence of psi based upon statitistics.

When you wrote that post, were you not sure that you wrote that post? Maybe someone else wrote it? Can you trust that your memory is accurate enough to know that you wrote that post? The argument isn't strwaman. If someone says they can read my mind then they should be able to read my mind and know that they are reading it. Have you ever read the word "cat" and weren't sure about it right after reading it? Probably not.

Still a strawman. What you are demanding is a level of absoluteness and certainity that does not exist in the real world.

I have yet to see that science... neither have science institutions. For example, in 1988, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences released a widely publicized report commissioned by the U.S. Army that assessed several controversial technologies for enhancing human performance, including accelerated learning, neurolinguistic programming, mental practice, biofeedback, and parapsychology (Druckman &h; Swets, 1988; summarized in Swets &h; Bjork, 1990). The report's conclusion concerning parapsychology was quite negative: "The Committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena" (Druckman &h; Swets, 1988, p. 22).

In the report he says there are above-statistical chance hits, but he hypothesises that there are methodological flaws. Finding possible methodolgical flaws is normal in science, what then normally happens is the test is then redone this time removing the possible methodological errors. If, after reperforming the test, the statistics difference isn't there then the original hypothesis has been falsified. That's what is supposed to happen in science. For some reason sceptics think that speculating without falsifying the experiment is enough. It isn't.

Lots of evidence... supporting poor controls and opportunities for leakage. It is untrustworthy. Lots of evidence supporting human delusion... it is what it is.

Right, if the sceptics actually want to end this debate they have to redo the experiments and falsify them. That's how science works.

Lets go straight to the protocol source (notice the highlights):

Method

The basic design of the autoganzfeld studies was the same as that described earlier [Footnote 4]: A receiver and sender were sequestered in separate, acoustically-isolated chambers. After a 14-minute period of progressive relaxation, the receiver underwent ganzfeld stimulation while describing his or her thoughts and images aloud for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, the sender concentrated on a randomly selected target. At the end of the ganzfeld period, the receiver was shown four stimuli and, without knowing which of the four had been the target, rated each stimulus for its similarity to his or her mentation during the ganzfeld.
The targets consisted of 80 still pictures (static targets) and 80 short video segments complete with soundtracks (dynamic targets), all recorded on videocassette. The static targets included art prints, photographs, and magazine advertisements; the dynamic targets included excerpts of approximately one minute duration from motion pictures, TV shows, and cartoons. The 160 targets were arranged in judging sets of four static or four dynamic targets each, constructed to minimize similarities among targets within a set.


TARGET SELECTION AND PRESENTATION

The VCR containing the taped targets was interfaced to the controlling computer, which selected the target and controlled its repeated presentation to the sender during the ganzfeld period, thus eliminating the need for a second experimenter to accompany the sender. After the ganzfeld period, the computer randomly sequenced the four-clip judging set and presented it to the receiver on a TV monitor for judging. The receiver used a computer game paddle to make his or her ratings on a 40-point scale that appeared on the TV monitor after each clip was shown. The receiver was permitted to see each clip and to change the ratings repeatedly until he or she was satisfied. The computer then wrote these and other data from the session into a file on a floppy disk. At that point, the sender moved to the receiver's chamber and revealed the identity of the target to both the receiver and the experimenter. Note that the experimenter did not even know the identity of the four-clip judging set until it was displayed to the receiver for judging.

RANDOMIZATION

The random selection of the target and sequencing of the judging set were controlled by a noise-based random number generator interfaced to the computer. Extensive testing confirmed that the generator was providing a uniform distribution of values throughout the full target range (1-160). Tests on the actual frequencies observed during the experiments confirmed that targets were, on average, selected uniformly from among the 4 clips within each judging set and that the 4 judging sequences used were uniformly distributed across sessions.

ADDITIONAL CONTROL FEATURES

The receiver's and sender's rooms were sound-isolated, electrically shielded chambers with single- door access that could be continuously monitored by the experimenter. There was two-way intercom communication between the experimenter and the receiver but only one-way communication into the sender's room; thus, neither the experimenter nor the receiver could monitor events inside the sender's room. The archival record for each session includes an audiotape containing the receiver's mentation during the ganzfeld period and all verbal exchanges between the experimenter and the receiver throughout the experiment.
The automated ganzfeld protocol has been examined by several dozen parapsychologists and behavioral researchers from other fields, including well-known critics of parapsychology. Many have participated as subjects or observers. All have expressed satisfaction with the handling of security issues and controls.

You do of course realize there are three people? Receiver, Sender, Experimenter. I don't see what you're bold comments prove. This is still true:
As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred. Now the sceptics have to redo the test to see if the statistical deviation disappears when they redo it. If it does the test has been falsified. As it stands the Ganzfeld experiments constitute evidence which has yet to be falsified.

Correct, they dont.

we believe that the autoganzfeld studies (and the resulting database) represent an impressive achievement. The studies achieved a very high level of methodological sophistication. However, just as the autoganzfeld studies built upon the shortcomings of past studies, so future work should aim to identify and eradicate any errors contained in the autoganzfeld studies.
The Ganzfeld studies constitutes evidence which has yet to be falsified.

Fanatic fundamentalist or someone whom can see the evidence for what it supports (and doesn't support).

Just like Christian Fundamentalists can see the evidence of evolution for "what it really is" - a "deception."

I think it's likely that somoene will refine the experiment. I predict that positive results will just disappear.

The experiment was refined after the initial round of Ganzfeld tests and all the sceptics predicted the results would disappear, but they didn't. The tests were redone according to the sceptics specifications and the results still came back positive. The evidence is evidence. Stop saying it isn't. It says everything that these experiments have never been falsified. If the Ganzfeld studies are falsified they will cease being evidence and they will have been shown to have been due to methodological flaws. Until they are falsified they constitute evidence. Period.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think ive seen it before, hes simply blowing on the objects to make them move isnt he?

Pretty much and it looks impressive.

No experiment can ever be entirely 'leak-free' i really think youre asking for the impossible. Yes you can up the controls so that fraud or unconscious deception is very very very unlikely to take place. But you just cant have this 100% fault-free experiment that youre looking for, thats just not possible.

I would be happy with zero human communication or opportunities for communication and nobody knows each other in a pure double blind environment.

What we have established so far however i think (if you'll allow me to recap) Is that A. psi experiments are the most tightly controlled out of ANY form of experimentation.
And B. within this incredibly rigerous experimentation - statistical data has been found.

A. That seems to be the case.
B. Yep.

And of course C. The controls are not adequate so B. cannot be trusted.

Now yes, you can choose to 'not recognise' the validity of that data because it doesnt conform to your 100% error-free standards.
But nothing else in science (litterally nothing) conforms to those standards either, does that mean we disregard all the data in all the studies ever attained?

Those other experiments are not dealing with life forms that go to great lengths to cheat... so the compairson itself is inadequate.

Self-evident truths are fine, but i thought this was a science forum

Remember the 'sprites'. Some scientists retrieved pictures and video of them. That means their existence is 100% self-evident. Science brings visibility to what's self-evident. Microsopes bring visibility to bacteria. Radio telescopes bring visibility to non-visible light galaxies. Airplanes and cameras bring visibility to 'sprites'. These are all 'what' phonemonena.

Im not sure where 99% came from, i dont remember putting a figure on it (from what i remember anyway).
The only thing id really take issue with is those ki balls.

Why do you take issue with ki balls?

Sounds rather intuitive.

Reality has so many facets that are anything but intuitive. Did you know that photons only travel through space and not through time? Regardless, it is what it is. Reality does not lie.

False claim again.

Show me the evidence then.

Sorry but as i said, being aware of delusion and maybe reading abit of dawkins heare and there really isnt enough.
If you think something is a fraud or a trick youve got to know the methods.
What youre basically doing is like claiming someones cheating in a card-game without having a clue about any of the tricks that dishonest card-players actually imploy.
How are you going to spot something when you dont even know how it works

You don't have to know all the methods of cheating to be able to know something is a fraud. Knowing what humans can, cannot, and behaviorally do are far more important. That psychic lady for example. I know humans cannot do that, I know humans can deceive each other, and I know that humans go out of their way to deceive each other in psi. Put her in a controlled environment and the magic will disappear. I would put money on it.

The 'net in the hoop' in psi experiments is a subjective hoop though, you cant objectively see whether its gone in or not untill the subject has confirmed (or otherwise) the psychics belief that theyve scored a hit.

We can't, but the shooter should be able to see their own ball... they are consequently making an objective claim.

To put it another way - consciousness is the subjective property of the physical.
i.e. your thoughts that youre thinking now arnt physical in themselves, although yes matter does play a role in producing those thoughts.

It still doesn't explain why thoughts are not physical. What supportive evidence exists that they are not?

Well think of it like this - before the big bang exploded out into the universe every proto-element of the universe was entangled.
So its not so much my physical brain being say...entangled with yours its more like the underlying sub-elements are entangled.

Sub-elements being entangled? Like quarks?

This is what ive always taken the concept of the undivided whole to be, although ideas of entanglement are changing all the time.
The biggest problem of course with correlating psi phenomena with quantum mechanics has been the issue of entanglement and 'spooky' action at a distance being soley the domain of the quantum world - not the macro.
However quantum effects are starting to measured within our own macro universe too.
Check out this article..the underlying message is - quauntum phenomena is possible within our macro universe as well, therefore there is no fundamental reason left anymore to argue against macro action at a distance as being impossible.
http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

It's whatever reality says is true... but I don't see any phenomena of 'psi' to correlate it to.

Then how do you 'share' non-existant information?
What youre essentially saying is that theres some 'shared aspect' of the two systems - but you cant actually define either what it is theyre actually sharing or how theyre doing it.
As i said saying two particles share a relationship is absolutely fine as long as you realise that it doesnt explain anything.

I have no idea how it works... I don't think anybody does. But you have 1 wavefunction for both particles and that nixes information transmission. That's important to know and while it doesn't explain the 'hows' it reduces the possibilities of the 'hows'

Ok so there is no information, and there is no copy, instead the particle simply 'inherently knows' (psi) when to move in relation to the other particle with no information passing between those two systems.
When you strip it all down thats essentially your position on this.
Which is funny because youre actually arguing in favour in psi as it relates on the quatum level.

I don't think the particle 'knows' anything. It's using information from the same repository as the other. If the information changes, both particles change accordingly. I don't think that supports the existence of 'psi' in the least. It's not even the same subject matter. It could be used as a hypothesis of 'how' if the 'what' existed in the first place.

Well ive shown you several pieces of evidence with statistically signicant data - but you wont accept that it is signicant data.
Which is obviously a wee bit problematic, ive told you which psychics working right now i believe are likely to be 'the real thing' and youve said you know for certain that this person would simply fail any experimentation, without their even having to be any experimentation.
Therefore its clear that your belief and views on this are constructed outside of data and experimentation.

To top it off youre making judgements in regards to what you believe to be fraudulent behaviour without understanding the methods that frauds actually imploy.
Theres no method, no process, only a belief or 'self-assured opinion'.

The judgement is based on existing knowledge and results. What I see you trying to set up is something theists often do. You cannot know 'God' does not exist without understanding *fill in the blank here*. It is a distract and maneuver tactic that sidesteps the knowns.

* People *want* psi to exist.
* People go out of their way to deceive people into thinking psi exists.
* People are deceived into thinking psi exists.
* The best experiments to date have inadequate controls and the results cannot be trusted.
*The best results from these flawed experiments is a ~35% hit rate (10% over chance... which is an 87% failure rate after removing the chance percentage).
* All receivers in such experiments never know if their 'shot' is a hit or miss.

Science is a great process for asking reality questions. Reality is a great validator for what is true. Pit these results against reality and the outcome is quite clear.

 

[grover]

A. That seems to be the case.
B. Yep.

And of course C. The controls are not adequate so B. cannot be trusted.

All I can say to this is...wow.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

All I can say to this is...wow.

What can I say... testing humans is a tough business.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Youy are still arguing a strawman. No one is saying they have 100% accuracy so stop arging against it. What is being argued is that that scientific studies supports the existence of psi based upon statitistics.

The statistics of "I can read your mind... sometimes... but I wont know if I did or not either way". I can do xxx... sometimes... but I wont know either way. How many skills aside from psi fall into that category?

Still a strawman. What you are demanding is a level of absoluteness and certainity that does not exist in the real world.

Mooooooooooooooo. What animal is associated with that sound? Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure?

In the report he says there are above-statistical chance hits, but he hypothesises that there are methodological flaws. Finding possible methodolgical flaws is normal in science, what then normally happens is the test is then redone this time removing the possible methodological errors. If, after reperforming the test, the statistics difference isn't there then the original hypothesis has been falsified. That's what is supposed to happen in science. For some reason sceptics think that speculating without falsifying the experiment is enough. It isn't.

In general I would agree, but the argument dismisses psychological knowns like humans go out of their way to deceive each other in psi.

Right, if the sceptics actually want to end this debate they have to redo the experiments and falsify them. That's how science works.

That is a valid option. At the same time the world body of science does not accept that psi exists so why do the work when psi-advocates have a long ways to go?

You do of course realize there are three people? Receiver, Sender, Experimenter. I don't see what you're bold comments prove. This is still true:
As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred. Now the sceptics have to redo the test to see if the statistical deviation disappears when they redo it. If it does the test has been falsified. As it stands the Ganzfeld experiments constitute evidence which has yet to be falsified.

we believe that the autoganzfeld studies (and the resulting database) represent an impressive achievement. The studies achieved a very high level of methodological sophistication. However, just as the autoganzfeld studies built upon the shortcomings of past studies, so future work should aim to identify and eradicate any errors contained in the autoganzfeld studies.
The Ganzfeld studies constitutes evidence which has yet to be falsified.

It proves communication happened and there were opportunities for leakage. I agree the evidence can stand to be falsified and I dont see the evidence supporting the claim either.

Just like Christian Fundamentalists can see the evidence of evolution for "what it really is" - a "deception."

Fortunately, reality disagrees with the Christian fundamentalist while they are getting their anti-biotic targeting bacteria resistant to Penicillin.

The experiment was refined after the initial round of Ganzfeld tests and all the sceptics predicted the results would disappear, but they didn't. The tests were redone according to the sceptics specifications and the results still came back positive. The evidence is evidence. Stop saying it isn't. It says everything that these experiments have never been falsified. If the Ganzfeld studies are falsified they will cease being evidence and they will have been shown to have been due to methodological flaws. Until they are falsified they constitute evidence. Period.

I agree. The evidence is evidence. I disagree in what it supports and I think it can't be trusted for what it is intended to support. Psi is not accepted as existing so the work for improving controls and re-testing is on the shoulders of psi-advocates. I am sure if skeptics find it convenient to falsify the experiments first they will as well just to drive that stake through the heart of the vampire.

 

[grover]

The statistics of "I can read your mind... sometimes... but I wont know if I did or not either way". I can do xxx... sometimes... but I wont know either way. How many skills aside from psi fall into that category?

Memory is a perfect example.

Mooooooooooooooo. What animal is associated with that sound? Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure?

Still a strawman. You are still arguing for a level that doesn't exist. I'm very impresees that you can come up with examples where people can know at a certain level of certainty but by know strecth of the imagination is that the case with all phenomenon. If it was there would be no need for science.
Furthermore, moo is very subjective and open to interpretation. In japan dogs say moo (that's a fact).

In general I would agree, but the argument dismisses psychological knowns like humans go out of their way to deceive each other in psi.

The argument does not dimiss that. What the argument says is that there are above statistical hits in consistently in experiments.

That is a valid option. At the same time the world body of science does not accept that psi exists so why do the work when psi-advocates have a long ways to go?

There are many instances in the history of science when the status quo proved itself to be too rigid in its thinking and flat out wrong. Plate techtonics is a good example. Second, you don't understand science. Finding possible flaws and criticsims of tests are standard procedure in science. What usually happens in science is that the person that finds the psssible flaw redoes the experiment this time elimintating the possibility of that flaw. For some reason in psi criticism the sceptics think it is enoguh merley to speculate and think that speculation itself is proof.

It proves communication happened and there were opportunities for leakage. I agree the evidence can stand to be falsified and I dont see the evidence supporting the claim either.

Stop repeating this. I am really starting to question your sanity when you keep repeating this over and over again even though the people that wrote that paper clearly state otherwise. Again, in their words: As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred. Do not repeat again that communication happened.

Fortunately, reality disagrees with the Christian fundamentalist while they are getting their anti-biotic targeting bacteria resistant to Penicillin.

Just proves that the Fundametalist will persist in their belief no mater what evidence is presented.

I agree. The evidence is evidence.

Then stop saying their is no evidence.

I disagree in what it supports and I think it can't be trusted for what it is intended to support.

This proves nothing but that you refuse to accept evidence that doesn't fit into your worldview. You are no different in this regard to a Christian fundamentalist that says they know "whats really going on" with the evidence for evolution - "deception."

Psi is not accepted as existing so the work for improving controls and re-testing is on the shoulders of psi-advocates.

No, the work is not solely on the shoulders of the psi-advocates. The work is also on sceptics that find what they believe to be possible methodological errors. They are actually the ones making the claim. The claim is: The statistical difference is due to methodological error X. What is supposed to happen is the test is redone removing methodological error X. If the statistical difference remains then it is known that the difference isn't due to error X. Don't forget the autoganzfeld are a refined methodological retest of the original ganzfelds and the statisitical difference remained.

I am sure if skeptics find it convenient to falsify the experiments first they will as well just to drive that stake through the heart of the vampire.

The fact that the sceptics have been unable to falsify these experiments says everyhting.

 

[grover]

What can I say... testing humans is a tough business.

Crunchy, you agree with the statement that "psi experiments are the most tightly controlled out of ANY form of experimentation." And then you go on to say that the controls "aren't adequate." You couldn't state in plainer language that no matter what evidence is presented you won't accpet it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy, you agree with the statement that "psi experiments are the most tightly controlled out of ANY form of experimentation." And then you go on to say that the controls "aren't adequate." You couldn't state in plainer language that no matter what evidence is presented you won't accpet it.

I think I mentioned this earlier. If there is zero communication between anyone involved, zero opportunities for communication between anyone involved, and the experiment is purely double-blind then I have no issue with the data collection.

 

[grover]

I think I mentioned this earlier. If there is zero communication between anyone involved, zero opportunities for communication between anyone involved, and the experiment is purely double-blind then I have no issue with the data collection.

Crunchy there is no evidence that the double-blind controls were compromised. Again, in their words: As such, it should be clearly noted that this paper has outlined the potential for the sender-to-experimenter leakage; it has not established that such an artifact actually occurred. Do not repeat again that communication happened.
The next step in science is for these critics to redo the test. If they falsify the experiment then the results get dismissed. Funny how you accept speculation as proof from sceptics but dimiss scientific evidence from "advocates."
In their words: we believe that the autoganzfeld studies (and the resulting database) represent an impressive achievement. The studies achieved a very high level of methodological sophistication. Stop saying their is no evidence - it's just plain and fucking simply not true. I will tell that to crazy-ass Christian Fundamentalists that refuse to accept the evidence for evolution and I will say it to crazy-ass "sceptics" like you that refuse to accept evidence of psi.