Plan9

Public school education. No fancy words, but I get to use box analogies.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

DaveOrion

I can see your grasp of condescending remarks is quite well rounded. You certainly have a long way to fall from the lofty throne you sit upon.

My comment about your condescending Easter Bunny post was indeed valid. As previously stated, I see this in every thread where scientific proof is lacking, making it more than valid. Whether you compare God to the Easter Bunny, or ESP to Santa Claus its still the exact same thing. A ridiculous and absurd comparison, with no basis in fact. Its the way you make yourself feel superior, much like your (since, based on the above post, your grasp of it seems to be tenuous at best) comment. Childish at best. Then you cant seem to spell hypothesis, and throw around some more big words, basically saying nothing at all. I see no valid argument whatsoever.

It was once assumed that communication through invisible waves traveling through the air was impossible. Now we realize that although radio & microwaves are invisible, communication is possible with them. Hey we can even use light now......I'm certain this was all "magical" & "mysterious" in the day, the stuff of science fiction. Yet some "open minded" individuals decided to endure the ridicule and move science forward...as often happens.

The scientific truths of today are often obsolete tomorrow....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Martian

Other than that, I'm done here. Going in circles makes me dizzy.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

DaveOrion

So you learned to spell hypothesis......wow.

I simply find it amazing when somebody categorically states that ESP does not exist. That is the height of arrogance since there is no possible way to know that. Much like your statement that squeebs PC was Virus Free!! Although invisible processes might be rare, there is no possible way for you to know that one is or isn't present based on a HijackThis log.......I find your superiority complex amusing.......

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Martian

If you feel that you can counter my arguments, by all means do so. However, I have done my best to restrain my own critiques to the content you post, rather than your individual character. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

roachboy

ok so...

this is a deceptive complicated matter in my view.

here's why...i do alot of collective improvisation, much of which involves sound spaces that turn on a dime--often quite radical changes of sonic direction without a score to set them up----so i KNOW that there are types of intersubjective alignment/communication--not only that but these routine..ordinary features of being-in-the world. improvisation simply works them--but indirectly (and i think that because we are marooned in language, that's the relation we are stuck with. there's nothing wrong with it, nothing to be done about it. it's just like that.) i have been doing this kind of work for 30 years (geez....) in one form or another, so there is no possibility of anyone telling me it doesnt happen.

but i also think that there is nothing particularly surprising about this, that it can be explained by way of complex dynamic systems model, through the notion of coupled oscillators.

so while the soundwork i do presupposes this kind of coupling, i dont think that there is "esp" nor do i think that any of the other discourses of mysticism apply or are necessary.

collective improvisation involves commonality of intent, physical proximity and closely related types of psycho-kinetic activity. there is also a common referencepoint in the sound formations that are being generated--but the complication there is that you cannot say that what all the players in a collective improvisation are doing is reacting, simply because the sound formations emerge and change too fast for that--and improvisation involves a particular type of awareness that in a sense bypasses the language-based structuring of being-in-the-world that constitutes what (for shorthand's sake) i'll call the platform across which we organize our regular experience.

again, there is nothing unusual about this bypassing--you do it all the time--think about the process of writing the sentences that make up the post that you might write in response to this. think about how you would describe that process in terms shaped by the sentences that result from it.

language structures lean on/generate a conception of causation that is primarily mechanical. this is obviously one type of causation, but is not causation tout court. that is a problem. that linguistic structures cannot account for everything is self-evident: they cant even account for the practices involved with using language itself without fundamentally altering the problems they purport to address (pace merleau-ponty on this one--the best essay on the problem of representing practice is "indirect speech and the voice of silence" in the collection "signs"--read it if you want to see how very rigorous philosophy bumps up against the question of practice---because that is what is at issue here, really, it seems to me.)

basically, i think that the category of esp is worthless.
i think it is based on a mis-mapping of ordinary forms of human activity that fall outside discourse, that it is a variant of older ways of talking about these capacities which were routed through the language of mysticism, which i also think worthless. (CAVEAT: worthless here extends in strange ways--it might mean only that i personally find them worthless in that they tell me nothing, they do not appeal to me aesthetically, i cannot use them to formalize or think about anything nor do they function to extend the working of improvisation--this to stick with the example that i introduced earlier---BUT i know folk for whom the above is not the case insofar as esp or mysticism are viable languages/terminologies for talking about this process, mostly because FOR THEM it enables a refinement and extension of the activities themselves...so it follows that to the extent that i think these languages are trying to talk about the same thing as i am in this post, i think they're wrong, useless--but that presupposes alot--at any rate, i evaluate these languages in terms of what they do in particular situations for these folk, whom i encounter in the context of soundwork---but transposed onto an analytic level, as devices that say something ABOUT what happens, i think they're useless. there is a difference between these claims--one is about functionality, the other about analytic power. these aren't the same. so the problem really is whether--to get back to the topic of the thread--esp names anything. i dont think it does.)

to the extent that esp names a process of register-crossing (you know, "bend the spoon") i think it useless. it seems to me that it misnames a feature of collective psycho-kinetic activity, fetishizes it, places it into a false position, imputes arbitrary operations to it and looks for arbitrary effects. it sets it up as a double of intentionality (the directing of attention toward objects in the world), which i think is false, simply because it maps onto a language-based structure an operation that is not containable within it. the idea of esp misstates everything about what it would purport to explain.


problem no. 1: we tend to impute causation to phenomena that occur in sequence. we do it even more strongly when phenomena unfold simultaneously---you see this all the time in social analysis---the assumption that amounts of zetigetist history--esp is a playground in which these limited notions of causation get mapped arbitrarily.

problem no. 2: verification. the mistake outlined just above explains the problems of verification. you are looking the wrong way, in the wrong place, for the wrong type of operations, when you invest in the category of esp. you are looking for the effects of the name "esp"---you create a false circle with the category.

this is probably confusing as a post, because i think it appears to be saying two different things---i dont see it that way, but i am not sure that i've explained myself well. we'll see.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Plan9

Ever see Se7en, Dave?

Show me what is in the box.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

Isaac Asimov - The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14 No. 1, Fall 1989
The Relativity of Wrong
pg.. 35-44

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

...When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory.

And yet is the earth a sphere?

No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties&emdash;for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.

That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the earth differ in length.

What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are perfectly spherical in shape.

However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct eclipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.

Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.

The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct.

The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent.

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat.

Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard I was put into orbit about the earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull of the earth--and therefore its shape--with unprecedented precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the earth than the North Pole sea level was.

There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the earth was pear-shaped, and at once many people decided that the earth was nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in space. Actually, the pearlike deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect was a matter of yards rather than miles, and the adjustment of curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long.

Again, it is because the geological formations of the earth change so slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that the earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it would make no difference whether the earth and life were billions of years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp.

But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution.

If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a static universe and the rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their folly.

Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent refinements.

The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and longitude today.

The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though they assumed the earth to be the center of the universe. Their measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains.

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Plan9

So the brains know more as the tools get better...

God damn... what's in the box?!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

roachboy

incompleteness is a key notion.
its good to keep in mind.
i'm not sure that really keeping it in mind does anything good for claims to certainty..quite the contrary. if mathematics as a formal language is incomplete, and it is only within a formal language that there is even any possibility of claims that approach certainty, then what does it do to other types of claims?

incompleteness is constitutive.
nothing you can do to make it go away.
any scientist who knows anything about philosophy knows this.

so i'm not entirely sure i understand who the asimov quote was directed at, ustwo, and i dont know how you understand it (in the sense that i dont know which aspects of it you emphasize and which you do not, simply because you posted it without comment), but it *is* interesting.
so thanks.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

DaveOrion

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

MSD

I assume your point is, once again, that we don't know everything and that what we find in the future might be completely different from what we're capable of conceptualizing. In relation to this discussion, however, I don't see how it's relevant. Scientific progress has been made when something (or nothing) is observed that doesn't fit the mold that we have. Einstein wouldn't have had to come up with relativity if everything we observed fit Newton's model.

My point continues to be this: under controlled conditions in peer-reviewed studies, nothing has been observed that indicates that ESP exists. Common belief in the scientific community is that ESP does not exist. The observations and the theory are consistent, therefore no new theory of how things work has to be proposed. If new evidence arises that is inconsistent with the belief that ESP does not exist, then a new theory has to be proposed, tested, refined, and possibly replaced. If, in the study of the brain, something is found that does something but cannot be mapped to an internal body function, then the answer may be that it processes a sense that we currently do not know or understand.

I am confident that ESP does not exist. I have been wrong about things before , and new evidence has surfaced in the past that forced me to change my way of thinking. Until hard evidence indicates otherwise, I will maintain my stance.

Plan9

I like propping up the ESP argument with astrophysics.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

DaveOrion

Uh, I think you missed the point there bro, my post was in response to Ustwo's assumption that theories evolve in a way as to include previous older theories, which is the case sometimes but not always. In the case of Newtonian physics being applied to the very big or small (see article), they simply didn't work, became obsolete, and were replaced by Einsteinian physics.

Of course Newtonian physics is still quite helpful if you need to calculate the trajectory of an artillery round, but doesn't cut it with astrophysics or quantum mechanics.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Plan9

No, no... I got the point. I fail to see how it presents evidence of ESP.

Newton kinda had the right idea, Einstein fixed it.

Just like DeLamarck sparked an idea and Darwin fixed evolutionary theory.

Just like the guy who invented checkers had the right idea, but the guy who invented Hungry Hungry Hippos fixed boardgames.

This isn't a valid argument for ESP because it features big words and household science names.

What's in the box for ESP?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

balderdash111

Not sure if you got this, but he spelled it right the first time. Plural of hypothesis is hypotheses.

I don't know what all this stuff is about squeebs and viruses, but have a point to make here.

Nobody can say categorically that ESP does not exist, any more than someone can categorically say that Thor the Norse god of thunder does not exist (or to use a less trite example, that pyramids don't have the power to sharpen razorblades). You can't prove a negative, as we all know.

The fact is, however, that despite various efforts to detect such an effect, no peer-reviewed study has found any evidence that ESP is real phenomenon. Is it possible that ESP exists but simply has never been reproduced in a study? Yes. Does that mean you should believe it exists? Up to you, but as has been pointed out already, if all the evidence you need that something is real is that nobody's proven it isn't, then you should be believing all sorts of wacky ideas. So, putting the question back to you - why do you believe in ESP when there is no proper evidence to support it? Why this phenomenon and not others?

Martian is absolutely dead on about your misunderstanding of the scientific method.

You do realize that there is a difference between something being "impossible" and nobody knowing how to do it (or even to think about doing it) right? Radio waves - I'd have to check but I suspect nobody knew they even existed for very long (relatively speaking) before Marconi figured out how to transmit information over them.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

DaveOrion

Dude you are either really slow or don't realize when I'm trying to make light of a situation. Wake up & smell a bit of teasing......

All you've done is repost whats already been said, and taken on the same superior attitude. You do realize that is a perfectly logical argument to assume that science will evolve and that our current testing methods are insufficient to study this phenomenon??? I also hope you realize it is also a perfectly logical argument to to state that most scientific theories are not 100% infallible, scientific theories are simply our current best guess, whether you realize that or not.
So proving a positive beyond any shadow of any doubt seems to be a tad difficult too....

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/...PARANORMAL.htm



There are also several other studies showing the existence of ESP, there was a 25% chance of choosing the correct target by "luck", yet the studies yield a 38% hit rate. I may dig them up, but it seems pointless since no matter what studies I post the detractors will always say the data is flawed. Its just much safer to agree with the majority, and maintain the status quo.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Ustwo

What an interesting website that is...breaking down the current scientific paradigm.

Please tell me you don't rely on sites like this for understanding and you are just trolling this thread like the homeopathic medicine one.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

Big talk from someone with an 80% warn, You seem to be the biggest troll of all....

If making posts relevant to the original OP is trolling, then ya got me. It appears to me I'm presenting an opposing viewpoint, with pretty graphs and all....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Ustwo

Its 70% and I only get when I get fed up with idiots, but if in your world thats somehow proof, well then, who am I to judge.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Baraka_Guru

I find it odd that the "status quo" is often used with disparagement, especially in the context of ESP and scientific research. The research methodology and resulting studies are disappointing.

The status quo is often preferable.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

SecretMethod70

Let's try to keep things civil here folks.

And let this be a lesson not to brag about your warning rating to the other members...we keep them private for a reason

(And before anyone starts thinking Ustwo is a liar in this thread, he does have a different warning rating now and it's none of your business as to why)
<hr>
As for the thread itself, a simple observation (more like a rhetorical question): why is it that the majority is necessarily bad? This is a common theme among believers in....stuff like this (for lack of a better term/phrase). People post over and over again with what amounts to "95% of the scientific community says this is B.S." and then believers come by and post something done by that other 5% and imply it's better because it's not the majority or the status quo. Perhaps sometimes something is the majority and the status quo for a reason?

Similarly, I always find it interesting (and frustrating) when I see comments like "it seems pointless since no matter what studies I post the detractors will always say the data is flawed." The phrase "pot calling the kettle black" comes to mind. 1) If 95% (or whatever) of respected and educated scientists disagree with your 5% of scientists (which is most certainly the case when it comes to things such as E.S.P.), which is the group being presented with information and ignoring it? 2) Again, if the large majority of the scientific community rejects the claims....maybe there's merit to the idea that the data is flawed?

Not that I expect anyone here to admit to this - and some will probably be offended and upset that I even make this assertion - but I think some people have a certain need to be special, to be outside of the mainstream, to have some sort of uncommon knowledge. In many people, this takes the form of religion, and then there are those who replace the more standard religions with something like belief in astrology, or E.S.P. or whatever else. One common thread though is this idea that because the opinion is "mainstream" it is inherently bad. This is a very strong indication that there is an ulterior motive to belief in such things...that being outside of the mainstream is a necessary characteristic of that person's personality. It's also interesting that many such people are drawn to what they must know, subconsciously at least, is a losing battle. You're not going to convince the majority that E.S.P. exists, and that's OK, because it's not actually about convincing the majority, it's about being in the minority...feeling somehow special. If, by chance, the majority DID become convinced that E.S.P. (or whatever other supernatural, new-agey phenomenon) is real...most of the people who so easily shrug off the majority opinion against E.S.P. now would find some other new-agey phenomenon to follow instead.

And just like other religious people get offended when you imply that there may be more going on under the surface of their religious dedication than they admit, I expect plenty of people here to be offended and adamantly deny everything I said here. That's OK though, because I'm not trying to win you all over...but maybe one person will be encouraged to take a closer look at why they are who they are and choose to believe what they believe.

Either way, I doubt I'll be participating much more in this thread. I only have so many endless-debates-that-go-nowhere in me per year.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ring

I am reading the original questioners question in this thread.

'If people that don't necessarily believe in esp still believe in the validness of a hunch or intuition, and how using these abilities can manifest outside current television programs to the community'

This is the gist of what I read and if I quoted anything incorrectly let me know.

I freaked out rather severley the first time I witnessed my sister 'channeling'
My mind wanted to go so many other places at that moment.

She has to go through a rather intense physical preparation for this experience that involves eating very little yet healthy.

She is not in any state that could be misconstrued as sleep deprived-over stressed - magic mushroomed induced visionary whatever, I realize I am having trouble with my thoughts here.

We come from a long line of psychics so to speak.

I tried to push away my own abilities for decades, frankly I am not ready for the responsibility that comes with that power.

I see basic intuition as a gift that has never steered me wrong yet,
if I am truly selfless to listen to it.

Happy horizons,
peace.

DaveOrion

Boasting is the recourse of a pseudo-superior intellect.

I could care less why.

The same comments (give or take) have already been posted in response to other threads regarding the paranormal. I am also tired of trying to enlighten the closed minded entities which inhabit this domain. If I wasn't so full of tryptophan I would elaborate, but as SM70 has already stated, this endless circular argument has become tiresome.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

MSD

http://skepdic.com/pear.html
It's a long read, so I'll post a few highlights. The gist is that while the PEAR study looks good on the surface, it's not nearly as definitive as it seems at first. I'll concede that the methodology needs to be looked into in order to determine whether results are flukes or results of an actual phenomenon; I won't dismiss it outright. I still remain skeptical, though.

Once again, my main problem with the machine event studies is that they were uncontrolled; a number generator might be close to random, but only after millions of trials would slight imperfections showing it to be pseudo-random become apparent. This is mentioned toward the end of the article.

Jetée

The Uncanny becomes something else in entirety when it regulates itself in regularity.

I question it increasingly more each day, yet have not as of thus far found that singular catalyst to propel historical cross-writings and obsession to discover blind spots not obvious in practice. Time shall tell, as will I.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

jewels

Talk about semantics

Everyone does agree but is too blind to see it. This is nothing but terminology. Statistics and required proof and the laws of science make it so the most brilliant and logical minds will refuse to believe something they can't explain.

American Heritage define ESP as "Communication or perception by means other than the physical senses".

The quotes above are all instances of extra sensory perception and would be unexplainable to dear Dr Spock. But you have readily admitted "uncanny abilities", "information that may not be obvious", "noticing tiny things" -- all EXTRA sensory feats, if you will. Not everyone is capable of these things at all times.

Telepathy and clairvoyance, the ESP scary stuff to the logic heads, are gifts for those who have the talent, patience, creativity and capacity to develop those traits even further.

Yes, I believe that we all have it to some extent. And I don't believe in luck, not even for auditions or job interviews.

Hain

I got to disagree with you jewels about semantics, so forgive me if I misunderstood or am going the wrong way.

I wish I could find a better definition than that as I dislike the ambiguous word "senses." This can go to mean: (1) the total stimuli sent to the brain, or (2) only the stimuli which gets consciously interpreted by the brain. I happen to agree with (1).

There isn't anything ESP about these statements---only they have a little extra perception of their senses. One of the five senses stimulated enough neurons lost somewhere which fired information to whichever higher level conscious-related neurons. They were not conscious of those first neurons, but those first neurons were just wired right. Does a man with 20/10 vision have ESP? Does a mentalist have ESP for picking up on the subtle things we communicate in our voice, words, and body language?

With ESP, especially the ESP most here are describing or debating, there is no input through the known five senses that would explain some uncanny ability. Since science is already starting to sound more and more like fantasy (like Feynmann using the idea that positrons are just electrons moving backward in time for his theories in quantum electrodynamics), I don't dismiss the idea that there could be some sense outside our five senses. We just haven't picked up on it. Quantum entanglement is a prime example for ESP, despite disallowing the sending of information, who knows what other phenomena exist within the universe, between us and the world, or a mother and child.

But even I have to say that the box is empty, regardless of how much I want there to be something in it.

And do you really want to drag Spock into this, as his race is psychic? Mr Spock did not like guesses, as he could not consciously and logically account for all variables.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ottopilot

I knew you would say that ...

I generally agree with the analogy for a number of things. It's not that I don't agree/disagree with ESP, etc. IMO there's usually nothing of substance "in the damn box" to convince me either way. I admit I have my initial biases based on personal experience.

BTW - I actually have ESP

...uh, an ESP Eclipse II

the EMG's are sweet.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Ustwo

If my friend and I are driving on LSD and see a yellow speed boat, and a short time later start to hum 'yellow submarine' its not ESP.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Baraka_Guru

Of course not. You would have used your physical senses in that example.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

telekinetic

An entire discussion about ESP without a mention of James Randi and the JREF $1,000,000 prize? Ring, can you (or your sister, or one of the other psychics in your family) really not use an extra million dollars, plus the invaluable worth of convincing the entire world, without a shadow of a doubt, that you really have the powers you say you have? It would alter the whole of modern science, and be the most important discovery in the last hundred years!

__________________
twisted no more

roachboy

well, my position about this stuff is complicated...i have no problem with the fact--in my experience anyway--that in certain types of directed activities, what seems like intersubjective communication that happens too fast to be explained rationally can and does happen. almost any collective improvisation will show you that. but i dont believe in esp--that this sort of thing can be understood as a double of intentionality, directed onto the world, used to manipulate objects, etc.

these two positions actually reinforce each other: in my experience, this trans-subjective work is bounded by a shared project, immersion in a type of activity/medium and disposition. in other words, the environment within which this sort of phenomenon unfolds is tightly bounded, and you could see it as a result of a sustained engagement with improvisation as a type of practice.

listening--and most other sensory zones, work quite a bit faster and in a more open manner than you'd think---improvisation is a temporal activity, while language tends to stabilize relations to and amongst elements encountered in time...if you think about this distinction, it's pretty clear that the transition from temporal practice to statements about temporal practice involve some shearing off of possibilities that may remain open and usable in the context of temporal practices.

i tend to think of improvisation as a space of coupled oscillators, generating and working within a complex dynamic system.

so i don't see it as a particularly extraordinary activity--i think we do this sort of thing all the time, but we also operate within a conceptual framework that has no way of either accounting for or talking coherently about not just improvisation but temporal processes in general.

improvisation on a musical instrument is just extending this space, training yourself to think through the development of structures rather than through the movement of sentences.

but it's a tightly bounded space, musical improvisation, the possibilities of which are--to my mind--a function of working with your instrument. so while this may rely on capacities that everyone has but may or may not have the occaison to extend and work as a discrete type of activity, fact is that what happens in a collective improvisation--how things come together, how they alter, where the capacity of a group of people who may not even know each other to stop and start, change directions, develop structures and dissolve them---is a function of training yourself, directly and indirectly.

the problem with notions like esp, it seems to me, is that they abstract this practical engagement with materials/a medium and make it into the duplicate of directing your attention at an object in your visual field. it ain't like that, i dont think.

but there's another problem: if i am right about the above (it corresponds to my experience, but also to how i understand my experience) then it would be pretty much impossible to separate these communicative possibilities from the practical interactions that condition them, that make them possible, that enable them to move or develop. scientific proofs presuppose discrete objects of analysis, or discrete relational systems. making this discrete is a problem--so i would imagine that scientific investigations of this sort of capacity would also turn it into esp.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite