rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (06/22/84)
The distinction between conscious and subconscious components of the mind is an important one. The substrate for consciousness is basically cortical, which implies that it has access to language and reasoning processes, but only some of the information about emotional states processed primarily in lower brain centers. To restate it: consciousness can monitor only a fraction of the activity of the brain, and can effectively control only a fraction of our behavior. The example of body language not being conscious is a good one (although trained observers can learn to make conscious interpretations of some of these signals). >2. Intuition is just induction based on partial data and application of a > "model" or "pattern" from a different experience. > >3. Intuition is a random-number-generator along with some "sanity checks" > against internal consistency and/or available data. > >I submit that about the only thing we KNOW about intuition is that it is >not a consciously rational process. > ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) There is a variety of evidence that human memory is content addressable. The results of the association process whereby different memories are compared or brought together are accessable to consciousness, and indeed may even make up a significant component of the "stream of consciousness". The "sanity checks" are the conscious, rational evaluation of the associations. A lot of intuitions and ideas get junked... The control of this association process is not rational: how many times have you known that you knew a fact, but were unable to produce it on the spot? There may well be an element of randomness to this process (Hinton at CMU has suggested a model based on statistical mechanics), but there are also constraints on the patterns to be matched against. You don't generate lots of inappropriate associations, or you would not be very successful in competing for survival. And that is the force that shaped our brain and thought capacity. --Rich Goldschmidt cbosgd!rbg a former brain hacker (now reformed?)
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (06/23/84)
"subconsious", "mind", etc -- what DO these words mean? More
importantly, do these things exist?
I assert they do not. I take the behaviorist philosophy that what
you call "mind" is a thing invented by Plato or some dead Greek
person which is just as mystical and unreal as "the Gods" or
"magic."
What you have is a brain. What you do is behavior. You are an
organism that responds to AND IS CHANGED BY your environment.
That's all. The rest you've made up or assumed was true because
some dead greek person said it was there.
Show me your "mind" -- demonstrate its existence. I dare you.
(oh dear, he's doing it again ...)
--
Gordon A. Moffett
{ hplabs!nsc, decvax!sun!amd, ihnp4!dual } !proper!gamhutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (06/26/84)
<behaviourists know nothing about good behaviour> | "subconsious", "mind", etc -- what DO these words mean? More | importantly, do these things exist? | I assert they do not. I take the behaviorist philosophy that what you | call "mind" is a thing invented by Plato or some dead Greek person | which is just as mystical and unreal as "the Gods" or "magic." | What you have is a brain. What you do is behavior. You are an | organism that responds to AND IS CHANGED BY your environment. That's | all. The rest you've made up or assumed was true because some dead | greek person said it was there. | Show me your "mind" -- demonstrate its existence. I dare you. | (oh dear, he's doing it again ...) -- | Gordon A. Moffett I love how Moffett casually dismisses the efforts of those men whose lifework was to understand the nature of themselves and reality. Who cares that they developed the framework from which our view of the world arose. They are dead Greek persons and their ideas are not worthy of any consideration. Even better, he dares us to demonstrate the existance of our minds, while adequately demonstrating the lack of existance of his own. (No :-) for fools like that! Is there a symbol for tears of pity?) Hutch
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/26/84)
> "subconsious", "mind", etc -- what DO these words mean? More > importantly, do these things exist? > I assert they do not. I take the behaviorist philosophy that what > you call "mind" is a thing invented by Plato or some dead Greek > person which is just as mystical and unreal as "the Gods" or > "magic." > What you have is a brain. What you do is behavior. You are an > organism that responds to AND IS CHANGED BY your environment. > That's all. The rest you've made up or assumed was true because > some dead greek person said it was there. > Show me your "mind" -- demonstrate its existence. I dare you. BRA-VO!!!!!!! -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gek@ihuxj.UUCP (glenn kapetansky) (06/26/84)
Ok, Mr. Moffett let's discuss this idea of yours that concepts
invented by Greeks are to be taken with agrain of salt. I agree.
So let me paraphrase your contentions by quoting Aristotle, and
I invite you to take yourself with a grain of salt:
"Show me these atoms of yours, Leucippus!"
(By means of this wonderfully scientific argument, Aristotle discredited
the atomic model of matter effectively until Rutherford). I don't
mean to insist you are wrong, Mr. Moffett, but may I point out that
your scientific rigor is suspect?
--
glenn kapetansky
"The time has come", the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things..."
...ihnp4!ihu1j!gek gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/27/84)
"Mind" refers to a process, not to a piece of squishy hardware.
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (06/27/84)
> From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) > Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR > > I love how Moffett casually dismisses the efforts of those men whose > lifework was to understand the nature of themselves and reality. > Who cares that they developed the framework from which our view of > the world arose. They are dead Greek persons and their ideas are > not worthy of any consideration. > > Even better, he dares us to demonstrate the existance of our minds, > while adequately demonstrating the lack of existance of his own. > (No :-) for fools like that! Is there a symbol for tears of pity?) How ad hominem [ a term I've learned from netland! ]. You've not answered my question. Those "men whose lifework was to understand nature" told us that the Sun went around the Earth, that all matter was made of combinations of Fire, Water, Earth and Air, (or just Water alone), and other interesting ideas that have since fallen into disrepute. Now, I am not offering this as a counter-argument or claiming that all dead Greeks are wrong. But I assert that the idea of ``mind'' is an invented one, even if very old, and would like you to examine your belief in the (possibly mythical) ``mind'' and explain -- even if to your own satisfaction -- just what that thing is. And enough cute remarks about the having or lack of ``mind'' on the part of participants of this discussion. It contributes nothing. -- Gordon A. Moffett { hplabs!nsc, decvax!sun!amd, ihnp4!dual } !proper!gam
mwg@mouton.UUCP (06/27/84)
++ OK, gang, let me bounce this one off y'all: Shirley MacLaine's latest autobiography deals with a lot of this reincarnation/mind/soul/God stuff. I'm not sure I swallow it whole but, she has some very interesting ideas, and her theories are pretty much self-consistent. First, on the clash of science and religion: "...why is there such a gap between science and the Church?" "Well," said Tom, "because science just lately (in cosmic terms, of course) feels it has rid itself of the shackels of religious superstition and is now enjoying its freedom and golden age. The attitude is understandable. To research those domains of the Church which was its former jailer would only rebuild the power base of that old traditional persecutor. "...science feels there is no basis on which to inquire about the existence of the soul. Also there isn't much money in that kind of research." [p. 194-5] Second, on the existence of the mind or soul, independent of the brain. (This, again, is not MacLaine, but another character speaking.) Some of our scientists suspect this energy is there but they can't measure it because it is not molecular. They say there's an energy that fills interatomic space, but they don't know what it is. Even they call it the cohesive element of the atom, which they term 'gluon'. They know it is not matter, but rather units of energy. ...it is this subatomic energy that makes up the Source. Therefore the Source, that form of energy, is not molecular. Now I'm going to tell you the hard part to understand, but the part that is the most important. This energy is the energy that makes up the soul. Our bodies are made out of atoms; our souls are made of this Source energy. [p. 325] This is interesting because it is a synthesis of religious and scientific ideas which reconciles the conflict without contradicting either. She says the mind or soul may be within the realm of science but, they just havn't gotten there yet. Anybody from net.phsics know anything about gluons? respectfully submitted, Mark Garrett Bell Communications Research ...allegra!mouton!mwg ^--(sheep? My computer's a sheep?) "Feeeel the Force, Luke"
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/27/84)
> Ok, Mr. Moffett let's discuss this idea of yours that concepts > invented by Greeks are to be taken with agrain of salt. I agree. > So let me paraphrase your contentions by quoting Aristotle, and > I invite you to take yourself with a grain of salt: > "Show me these atoms of yours, Leucippus!" > (By means of this wonderfully scientific argument, Aristotle discredited > the atomic model of matter effectively until Rutherford). I don't > mean to insist you are wrong, Mr. Moffett, but may I point out that > your scientific rigor is suspect? On the contrary. Leucippus' theory was nothing more than that -- a theory -- until there WAS evidence that the model involved in the theory was correct (described the phenomena accurately). And, believe it or not, the same holds true for those who speculate about mind/brain dualities. Speculations may often be correct. More often they may be incorrect. Only supporting evidence lends credulity to speculations. -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
jeff@alberta.UUCP (C. J. Sampson) (06/28/84)
>Ok, Mr. Moffett let's discuss this idea of yours that concepts >invented by Greeks are to be taken with agrain of salt. I agree. >So let me paraphrase your contentions by quoting Aristotle, and >I invite you to take yourself with a grain of salt: >"Show me these atoms of yours, Leucippus!" >(By means of this wonderfully scientific argument, Aristotle discredited >the atomic model of matter effectively until Rutherford). I don't >mean to insist you are wrong, Mr. Moffett, but may I point out that >your scientific rigor is suspect? I am sure that there were people saying exactly the same thing when people decided that perhaps stones didn't fall faster just because they were heavier. Keep in mind that people such as Galliao (sp?) also happened to discredit Aristotle for the indefinite future. Perhaps they shouldn't have spoken out against an old Greek? I'm not trying to say that I agree with Mr. Moffett, but I question the validity of Mr. Kapetansky's opinion on this. Perhaps it is *he* who is discrediting science. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C. J. Sampson USnail: #712 11135-83rd ave. ***DISCLAIMER*** ihnp4!alberta!jeff Edmonton, Alberta +--------------+ ubc-vision!alberta!jeff CANADA T6G 2C8 | These may | sask!alberta!jeff | be opinions. | +--------------+ "He who spends the storm beneath a tree, takes life with a grain of TNT."
neal@denelcor.UUCP (06/28/84)
**************************************************************************
>Show me your "mind" -- demonstrate its existence. I dare you.
To what, pray tell, would I demonstrate its existence if
not your "mind"?
Regards,
Neal Weidenhofer
"Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc.
but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!nealdmcanzi@watmath.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/28/84)
> Second, on the existence of the mind or soul, independent of the > brain. (This, again, is not MacLaine, but another character speaking.) > > Some of our scientists suspect this energy is there but > they can't measure it because it is not molecular. They say > there's an energy that fills interatomic space, but they don't > know what it is. Even they call it the cohesive element of the atom, > which they term 'gluon'. They know it is not matter, but rather > units of energy. > ...it is this subatomic energy that makes up the Source. Therefore > the Source, that form of energy, is not molecular. Now I'm going to > tell you the hard part to understand, but the part that is the most > important. This energy is the energy that makes up the soul. Our > bodies are made out of atoms; our souls are made of this Source > energy. [p. 325] > > > This is interesting because it is a synthesis of religious and > scientific ideas which reconciles the conflict without contradicting > either. Some recent physical theories say that the class of particles called baryons (which includes common protons and neutrons) are themselves made from a family of strange and charming particles known as quarks. The quarks in a baryon are held together by gluons. (Many of the names that particle physicists use for particles were devised in a near-fatal fit of whimsy.) The passage above is interesting, not because it synthesizes science and religion, but rather as a case study of how almost anything poorly understood by most people can be used to "explain" almost anything else as poorly understood. Hence: the soul is made of gluons. I wouldn't be surprised in the future to see telepathy and psychokinesis "explained" by quark emissions, and tales of UFO's travelling faster than light using gluonic drives! David Canzi, watmath!dmcanzi "Solving Today's Problems Tomorrow"
rjb@akgua.UUCP (06/28/84)
Mark,
That's mutton ain't it ?
What you are describing relative to Shirley is what is called
in Theology "The God of the Gaps." That is everything that
we currently do not have an explanation for is explained by
"God". This keeps the conflict between Sci. and Rel. to a
minimum but that god is very wimpy and unsatisfying. I like
the real ( read real to me) God a lot better.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784dya@unc-c.UUCP (06/28/84)
References: mouton.93
say WHAT ???? Some of this energy holds the interatomic matter together,
other ("the Source") consolidates into the soul? So this is the locus of
interaction, eh? Rene Descartes was right...find the locus of interaction
and you solve the mind-body problem! (R.D. said the place where mind and
soul interact (oops, brain and soul) was the pineal gland, because it was
an unduplicated neurological structure.) Sorry, charlie, this gluon-soul
stuff does not explain, it just explains away.
This soul-brain stuff is a tough nut to crack; that's why we need to go
back before the invention of these really poor terms and pursue an entirely
different path.
P.S. Is there a critical level of gluons? Do living bodies have excess
gluons, which are "lost" as the person loses it's soul?
Please, moulton!mug, elaborate and post some more of this excerpt. I
would like to know where he's coming from.
Davidrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/28/84)
> I love how Moffett casually dismisses the efforts of those men whose > lifework was to understand the nature of themselves and reality. > Who cares that they developed the framework from which our view of > the world arose. They are dead Greek persons and their ideas are > not worthy of any consideration. [HUTCH] ... and who cares if they have no evidence to back up their interesting but as yet (and possibly forever to be) unfounded speculations? (Not Hutch) Let's throw careful analysis and evidence out the window; they're unimportant, especially since so many brilliant men "devoted their lives" to these ideas (and failed to come up with anything conclusive pointing toward proof). > Even better, he dares us to demonstrate the existance of our minds, > while adequately demonstrating the lack of existance of his own. > (No :-) for fools like that! Is there a symbol for tears of pity?) ;-( has been proposed. I think I'll use it now since the statement above is little more than an ad hominem attack at Moffett. What should have been questioned was the level of intelligence in Mr. Moffett's brain, if indeed anything was to be questioned at all. Perhaps the author has a mind, but lacks a brain :-) [That *was* cruel, and I apologize, but the temptation was just too great.] -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (06/29/84)
> From: gek@ihuxj.UUCP (glenn kapetansky) > Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL > > Ok, Mr. Moffett let's discuss this idea of yours that concepts > invented by Greeks are to be taken with agrain of salt. I agree. > So let me paraphrase your contentions by quoting Aristotle, and > I invite you to take yourself with a grain of salt: > > "Show me these atoms of yours, Leucippus!" > > (By means of this wonderfully scientific argument, Aristotle discredited > the atomic model of matter effectively until Rutherford). I don't > mean to insist you are wrong, Mr. Moffett, but may I point out that > your scientific rigor is suspect? Nice try. I get this counter-argument all the time, but it is an empty one. Indeed we now know that atoms exist because we have manifested atomic tracks in liquid helium (or hydrogen or something) and have even changed some atoms into other atoms. And Mr Aristotle was right in discrediting Leucippus (but I thought it was Democritus) about his presumed atoms because: a) Leucippus didn't demonstrate his atoms, he just guessed there was something like them that made up the universe. b) The technology for such a demonstration did not exist c) Leucippus' (and Democritus') atoms were not the atoms we know today, but just concepts of how matter is formed, and therefore in the realm of philosophy and not science. ... Here is a free bonus: I've said that there is no mind because its existence has not be measured, and that the only thing we can measure and observe is behavior. Is behavior itself enough to justify the existence of mind? In the behaviorist realm, I believe, this question is quietly ignored. All such arguments go back to attempts to show that a mind exists, when in fact we have no evidence to hypothesize its existence (?yet). (Creationism, anyone?). Further, behavior is accepted as a characteristic of animals (a priori) so this is where the science of behavior begins. So let us just look at behavior and make our hypotheses from that, rather than impose a view of the ``mind'' which we would like to have exist but as of yet have not demonstrated. -- Gordon A. Moffett { hplabs!nsc, decvax!sun!amd, ihnp4!dual } !proper!gam
gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/30/84)
Any attempt to explain to a fellow what is meant by "mind" necessarily assumes that he has one. This is not a triviality, but an example of a general situation called the "stolen concept" by Nathaniel Branden many years ago. A concept is stolen if it is used in an attempt to discredit it, especially if its use cannot be avoided in any such attempt. This is a good indication that the concept is of something truly fundamental. To the fellow who defies anyone to demonstrate what is meant by "mind": Your mind is what you used in evaluating the above paragraph when you read it. Certain hardware such as your eyes and brain were definitely involved (blind people may have used some sense other than vision), but mind is the result of functioning of a brain, not the brain itself. Processes can have a reality without being classed the same as concrete existents. This whole subject area belongs to the branch of philosophy known as Epistemology, the study of what knowledge consists of and how it is acquired. Of course, philosophers are generally held in (well-deserved) disdain, since they seem to have produced more confusion about these things than real understanding. The best discussion of conceptualization that I have seen is Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (available from Palo Alto Book Service, and perhaps reprinted elsewhere, I don't recall).
holland@uiucdcs.UUCP (07/02/84)
#R:proper:-139600:uiucdcs:33300004:000:2426 uiucdcs!holland Jul 1 20:15:00 1984 > > /**** uiucdcs:net.philosophy / gam@proper / 2:40 am Jun 30, 1984 ****/ > > From: gek@ihuxj.UUCP (glenn kapetansky) > > Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL > Here is a free bonus: I've said that there is no mind because its > existence has not be measured, and that the only thing we can measure > and observe is behavior. Is behavior itself enough to justify the > existence of mind? > > In the behaviorist realm, I believe, this question is quietly ignored. > All such arguments go back to attempts to show that a mind exists, when > in fact we have no evidence to hypothesize its existence (?yet). > (Creationism, anyone?). > > Further, behavior is accepted as a characteristic of animals (a priori) > so this is where the science of behavior begins. So let us just look > at behavior and make our hypotheses from that, rather than impose > a view of the ``mind'' which we would like to have exist but as > of yet have not demonstrated. > -- By imposing measurement you choose to look at certain dimensions of the whole, and to call their cartesian product "behavior". Your choice of dimensions (dimensions, which, in the behavioral sciences especially are only roughly understood or even as-of-yet unrecognized) speaks to you as the definition of the object, as a paradigm for the object, or whatever. Nothing that cannot easily be distilled from your choice of dimensions is easy to see. Nobody denies that we have brains, or even that the mind-as-we-can-attempt- to-define-it lives mainly in the brain. (Falls mainly on the plain?) But to reduce the mind to a physical object, which is what I think you are trying to do when you talk of the "brain", seems to be in the wrong spirit. It means that when looking at yourself you are compelled to see yourself in terms of "brain", and ultimately, in terms of the physical processes which bring about the brain. Fine, assuming science gets there, which someday it will. But knowing the brain in this way tells you very little unless you're trying to diagnose a brain injury. In this representation of the brain I would imagine that such things as mood would be so far removed from any explanation (except for the superficial chemical one of which chemicals at what site, which is very limited information). I prefer my understanding in different terms, as imprecise as they are, in terms of metaphor even. mike hollander parsec!uiucdcs!holland
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/02/84)
[<+>]
It's rather difficult to argue about something like "mind" without
having first established a definition of same. I suspect that at least
some of those who object to the notion of mind are really objecting to
mystical implications that they see in the concept, but I don't see that
there is anything mystical in the notion of mind if it's properly defined.
Perhaps the problem arises from the habit of considering that which is
non-physical less 'real' than the physical, but this simple assumption
doesn't work for "mind".
Consider: we are unable to doubt our own existence, for we experience
ourselves directly; yet, unless we make mystical assumptions about "soul",
we must conclude that our existence is temporary and contingent. This
would seem to demonstrate that we are not physical, for the physical
(matter, energy) is never either created or destroyed, but only changes
forms.
So, if we adopt a minimal definition of "mind" as the experiencing
of our own existence, is any further argument necessary? Does anyone
doubt that we, indeed, have the experience of existence? It may not seem
a useful concept scientifically, since it is not reducible into component
parts, but we can hardly doubt the reality of that to which it refers.
It can be amusing to note the zeal with which some social
scientists (e.g., radical behaviorists) attempt to banish all subjective
elements from their disciplines, and to emulate the supposed objectivity
of the physical sciences. They seem to take 19th century ideas of classical
physics as their ideal, and fail to notice that physics, itself, has
given up this sort of pure objectivity as an inadequate model of reality.
Anyone seen Schroedinger's cat around here? :-)
Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barryrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/03/84)
>OK, gang, let me bounce this one off y'all: (I'll take it as intended - sort of a what-do-you-think.) >Shirley MacLaine's latest autobiography deals with a lot of this >reincarnation/mind/soul/God stuff. I'm not sure I swallow it >whole but, she has some very interesting ideas, and her theories >are pretty much self-consistent. But do they have any connection with the real world? I haven't read much of it, but I haven't read any that touches reality very well. >Second, on the existence of the mind or soul, independent of the >brain. (This, again, is not MacLaine, but another character speaking.) > > Some of our scientists suspect this energy is there but > they can't measure it because it is not molecular. They say > there's an energy that fills interatomic space, but they don't > know what it is. Even they call it the cohesive element of the atom, > which they term 'gluon'... It's always interesting to see what happens when a lay person picks up two or three sentences of tough scientific material, removes it from context, and extrapolates wildly. Now, I've seen actors take on more unlikely roles (:-), but Shirley MacLaine as a particle physicist??? > ...it is this subatomic energy that makes up the Source... > ...This energy is the energy that makes up the soul... I thought it was the Force, not the Source. Oh, sh*t, no wonder I haven't been able to levitate! >This is interesting because it is a synthesis of religious and >scientific ideas which reconciles the conflict without contradicting >either... Perhaps, but only to the extent that it doesn't even enter the domain of science. Hey, enjoy her humor but don't take it seriously... -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (07/04/84)
> Second, on the existence of the mind or soul, independent of the > brain. (This, again, is not MacLaine, but another character speaking.) > Some of our scientists suspect this energy is there but > they can't measure it because it is not molecular. They say > there's an energy that fills interatomic space, but they don't > know what it is. Even they call it the cohesive element of the atom, > which they term 'gluon'. They know it is not matter, but rather > units of energy. > ...it is this subatomic energy that makes up the Source. Therefore > the Source, that form of energy, is not molecular. Now I'm going to > tell you the hard part to understand, but the part that is the most > important. This energy is the energy that makes up the soul. Our > bodies are made out of atoms; our souls are made of this Source > energy. [p. 325] A *real* character, I'd say. It looks like s/he strung together a bunch of words from physics without knowing what they mean. "but they can't measure it because it is not molecular"? There's lots of ways to measure the energy in a light beam, but a light beam isn't "molecular" either. According to quantum field theory, forces between particles are carried by "fields". If you're just considering, say, the force between two charged particles, the value of the electric field at a point in space and at a particular time is just a vector proportional to the force on a particle with one unit of charge at that point in space and at that time; it merely reflects the effect of other charges. However, given that the electric field can effect the magnetic field, and vice versa, one can construct electromagnetic field patterns that only reflect other charges indirectly; a pair of charges moving together and apart will generate an electromagnetic wave which will travel through space (affecting other charges as it goes) even after the original charges cease to move. That's what light is, and what radio waves are, and what X-rays are, etc.. In quantum field theory, such waves behave as if they were made of individual "units". If such a wave causes charges to move, thus transferring some energy from the wave to the charges, this energy is transferred in discrete units, or "quanta". The quantum of the electromagnetic field is called the "photon". One could say that a photon isn't "matter, but rather a unit of energy." Atoms are held together by the electromagnetic force; the electrons, with negative charges, are tied to the positively-charged nucleus by the electromagnetic attraction between opposite charges. (Just like the old pith balls in High School physics - well, not *just* like, but close enough for this discussion.) The nucleus, however, is made of positively-charged particles (protons), which would tend to *repel* one another electromagnetically, and non-charged particles (neutrons), which wouldn't give a d*mn one way or the other. The nucleus doesn't fly apart, though (at least not in non-radioactive matter), so *some* force must hold it together. It currently seems the case that protons and neutrons themselves are made of particles called "quarks"; there is another force that holds them together. The quanta of the field for this force are called "gluons". So there's nothing magic or Awesomely Mysterious about gluons. They're just like photons, only different. Like photons, one could say they "aren't matter, but rather units of energy", but so what? The energy that they carry probably *doesn't* fill interatomic space; it fills the space *within* protons and neutrons, but doesn't seem to get out. And no, we don't "know" what it is, but we don't "know" what electromagnetic energy is, either. We know some properties that electromagnetic energy has. We know *lots* of properties that it has, actually; it's been studied for hundreds of years. We know a lot less about the properties that gluon energy has. For one thing, we don't know that it even exists. The theory behind it (called, for reasons having nothing to do with its properties, "quantum chromodynamics") is the prime contender for being the correct theory of how particles like protons and neutrons work. However, it hasn't been around long enough, or been verified in enough ways, for people to say "this is it". Neither theory nor experimental evidence gives us any reason to say that souls are made of it. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/06/84)
There is a lot of bandying about of the term "energy" by the new superstitionists. I wish they would cut it out; "energy" has precise properties (as the term has been refined by Physics) that make it practically certain that all these "life energies" do not exist. Maybe there is something real being talked about, but "energy" is the wrong term for it.
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/07/84)
I should've known better than to address an argument to someone who claims he has no mind.
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/09/84)
<The wise man believes only in lies, trusts only in the absurd, and learns to expect the unexpected> Your assertion that any attempt to explain the concept of mind to someone must include the assertion that he has one confuses me. If I explain to your blind man that there is such a thing as color, I do not assume that he "has one". If I make up a concept called "mind" (perhaps I am really a dead Greek) I see no reason to assume that either of us has one. If you wish to define any system of behavior and/or understanding as "mind" you are just trying to define away the argument. Likewise, if I understand by using my blood, and he does also, we can understand the concept of mind without having the usual version of one (there is just no getting away from the restrictions of language and cognate, is there?) Objectivism does not seem useful, and I found that Ayn Rand and Nat Branden just dig a very deep rathole to fall down. Even ERGO, which is funded for life, seems to be quietly dying due to lack of interest (an obscure publication of the MIT community or something). The line at the top is from, among other places, a TV series called "Tales of the Unexpected". It has a simple meaning: A wise man knows that language is severely limited: often we think we understand words to mean something other than what the speaker intends. The wise man knows that as soon as you utter the "truth" you have distorted it; truth can not be spoken, it must just be itself. Thus, any concept expressed in words and in speaking is a lie. Anyone who acts on these lies as truth is being absurd; the only consistent acts are those which are absurd, recognizing this aspect (Master Joshu was fond of taking off one sandal and wearing it upon his head, but that is another koan). The only thing you can expect in a world where change is the only constant is something different--the unexpected. But already I have typed too much. My apologies. -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba
crm@rti-sel.UUCP (07/13/84)
I wish all those physicists would stop redefining terms that we philosophers, mystics, etc have been using for years -- every time they do, they start to claim that *they* have the only definition, and the rest of us are wrong. "Energy" (ref the word) has been around a lot longer than its precise (question-begging) definition in physics. If you don't like the way we use a term, make up your own. (Whew! I thought this was going to be mildly satirical, not a flame...) Charlie Martin (...mcnc!rti-sel!crm)
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/17/84)
"Energy" as used by physicists has definite, quantitative, properties. "Energy" as used by Shirley Maclaine and, apparently, CRM's breed of philosopher, has at best a fuzzy meaning and can be stretched to cover any mystical non-concrete that the user wishes. Surely, in any rational epistemology, the physicist's definition should prevail.
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (07/18/84)
Greetings:
How presumptuous, to think that "modern" physics has all the answers,
or has the best definition of "energy". Oh, yes, indeed, the "physicists"
definition is the one to use when talking of "physical" phenomena. But
there are yet phenomena which "physics" fails to explain, and which, in fact,
appear to contradict some of the "laws" of "physics". Webster's explains:
EN-ER-GY n. [LL energia, fr. Gk energeia activity, fr. energos active, fr. en
in + ergon work] 1: the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual ~>
2: natural power vigorously asserted <work with ~>
3: the capacity for doing work
ERG n [Gk ergon work - more at WORK]: a cgs unit of work equal to the work
done by a force of one dyne acting through a distance of one centimeter.
Ok, so you CAN measure the PSI energy required for a telekinetic to move
an object with their mind, based on the existing "physics" definition of
energy. Now, tell me it takes no work (energy) for a telepath to send a PSI
message, or to receive one. Our "physics" once explained how the sun orbited
the earth. It doesn't yet explain everything. PSI phenomena do exist, and
obviously some form of "energy" is involved in the process. It also happens
to work right through a Faraday cage, so we'll doubt it's an electro-magnetic
phenomenon. Let's see, gravity works through Faraday cages, so I guess we'll
have to believe in "energy" of the PSI kind, even though we only know about it
that it is NOT electromagnetic. PSI is definitely "intellectual work", as
Webster's would define it.
Go back to your physics lab. There is no life outside of it. Physicists
have ALL the answers. And the only useful definitions of words. Dream on...
{ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny(Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)crm@rti-sel.UUCP (07/18/84)
The argument-like sentance "surely, in any rational epistomology, the physicist's definition would prevail", is cute but not very strong. First of all, "energy" has a fuzzy meaning BOTH in physics and in mystical stuff -- can you tell me *what* energy is -- that is, what is this energy thing? Can you *point* to it? If not, your whole argument for your definition is based on your description of its characteristics -- as is the "mystical" definition. Further, the "mystical" form of energy *can be directly perceived* so long as one is willing to undergo the needed training (for example, Aikido.) This "mystical" form of energy, since it may be directly perceived, starts out with a *prima facia* (excuse my spelling if incorrect, please, all you Latin-ists) better claim to 'truth' in most epistomological systems. Also, (again consider Aikido as an example) there is predictive value to the "mystical energy" description -- if one believes in the energy of *ki*, it will be easier to learn Aikido, and one's techniques will work better during the time in which the perception of the flowing of *ki* energy is happening. Since the "energy" is both perceivable and predictively usable, it seems to have a strong claim. Your statement might perhaps be better stated as "... in a MATERIALIST epistomology" which is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. Charlie Martin
gwyn@brl-tgr.UUCP (07/20/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dcdwest.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA Message-ID: <3446@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 10:02:32 PDT ain Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 3 Xref: 287 97 1242 "PSI phenomena do exist" Oh really? Who is dreaming?
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/20/84)
"PSI phenomena do exist" Oh really? Who is dreaming?
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/84)
> Our "physics" once explained how the sun orbited > the earth. It doesn't yet explain everything. It's true, scientists once believed that the sun orbited the earth. Then evidence was uncovered that provided a better model of reality. Does your intended analogy with PSI still hold? Is there similar evidence for PSI that explains something the physical model cannot account for? > PSI phenomena do exist, and > obviously some form of "energy" is involved in the process. Oh? Apparently you can show us the aforementioned evidence? > Go back to your physics lab. There is no life outside of it. Physicists > have ALL the answers. And the only useful definitions of words. Dream on... Part of the process of scientific involves defining specific terms clearly so that people cannot simply make wild statements using terms like "energy", "power". etc. in a serious scientific context. Another part of the process involves removing variables such as personal bias and distortions created within the human brain ("I experienced something, I remember it *this* way, thus this is what happened!"). It is very fashionable to make such remarks as "Go back to your physics lab, you silly scientist who knows nothing of the real world. Your serious study denies certain possibilities just because there's no evidence for them, but *I* know them to be true, and I will prove it to you, ha ha, no need to be as rigorous as with your so-called scientific method. What do you mean you saw a wire? Aha, you didn't believe!! If you had believed, you wouldn't have cared about the wire, and it would have been real!!" When in reality, the reasons for the objections to real scientific inquiry are solely because real scrutiny would show no evidence (or counterevidence) for their positions. "I believe that the emperor has clothes on. Since not believing might lead to examination that could show him not to be wearing any clothes, we must believe in order for the clothes to be there." -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/20/84)
Clearly, the physicists need a word to use when they want to describe ``energy'' (what physicists mean by energy). However, the philosophers and the mystics have a need for a word as well. If the physicists preempt the word that has been around for a long time and hasn't been used only to describe what the physicists mean then they create several problems for themselves and for other people. The people who have been using ``energy'' without meaning what the physists mean immediately get told that they are entirely wrong because what they are talking about isn't ``energy'' at all. This is rather rough on the people who didn't know that the physicists were about to redefine the term, but they can always go back and rewrite, I suppose. It is terribky hard on the people who are dead, though. If you ever try to read old manuscripts you will find that ``energy'' is used to mean a whole variety of things. It makes reading the old manuscripts more difficult because you have to keep thinking that the words that he is using does not have the same context as you carry around with you. The other effect is perhaps worse. Some fraud gets up and talks about ``the mysterious energy whatzit'' and lo and behold people assume that because he is using the wonderful scientific term ``energy'' he must be 100% genuine and thoroughly scientific. Either way you lose. I can't help but think that it would be better if somebody had just coined a new word. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
janney@unm-cvax.UUCP (07/21/84)
Physicists do not have all the answers, but, as far as energy is concerned, they have the best, most useful ones currently available. If that be presumption, make the most of it. As to the existence of phenomena > which "physics" fails to explain, and which, in fact, > appear to contradict some of the "laws" of "physics" I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to take your word for it. The track record of psi reseachers in detecting fraud is abysmal. Do I need to describe Project Alpha? No one has all the answers, but some answers are demonstrably better than others. Jim Janney {{convex,ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, {purdue,lbl-csam,cmcl2}!lanl-a}!unm-cvax!janney There is only one thing worse than playing cricket together, and that is playing it by yourself -- "Oscar Wilde"
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/21/84)
> How presumptuous, to think that "modern" physics has all the answers, >or has the best definition of "energy". Oh, yes, indeed, the "physicists" >definition is the one to use when talking of "physical" phenomena... Thank you deeply for allowing physicists to talk... >...there are yet phenomena which "physics" fails to explain,... ...which is really nice. I'm glad (as are all physicists) that we haven't solved all the problems of how the entire universe works, down to the last detail. >...and which, in fact, >appear to contradict some of the "laws" of "physics"... This is quite a different statement. It's a bold one when presented without any support or examples. >... >Ok, so you CAN measure the PSI energy required for a telekinetic to move >an object with their mind, based on the existing "physics" definition of >energy. Well, you can calculate what it would take to move a given object; so what? >Now, tell me it takes no work (energy) for a telepath to send a PSI >message, or to receive one... OK, I'll tell you that. Since there is no such thing as a PSI message (outside of certain imaginations), it can't take MUCH energy. >Our "physics" once explained how the sun orbited >the earth. It doesn't yet explain everything... Look, this gets tedious. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It has models of how things seem to work. The models get revised as we learn more. Look, my beliefs once explained how my Christmas presents were brought by Santa Claus. I've learned better since then, and I don't feel that I was a fool when I was much younger. But I can learn. >...PSI phenomena do exist,... No, they don't. Yes, I know that my statement is nothing but a "Nyah, Nyah" to the original, so I'll rephrase it: I have never observed an event which I can associate with a PSI phenomenon. Neither has anyone that I know whose observational abilities I respect. No report of a verified PSI phenomenon has been documented, insofar as I am aware. (I intend "verified" in a somewhat rigorous sense, not just "I saw it too, George.") >PSI is definitely "intellectual work", as Webster's would define it. Yes, it's the work of trying to convince yourself that something is happening, against all physical evidence to the contrary. >Go back to your physics lab. There is no life outside of it. Physicists >have ALL the answers. And the only useful definitions of words. Dream on... Go (back?) to net.flame. You haven't contributed anything to net.sci except tendentiousness. Physicists (and scientists in general) never claimed to have all the answers; if you think they've claimed that, that's your own personal problem. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/22/84)
*** Energy is not a "thing" in the sense of a table. We use the Energy is an "organizing principle" and a description. My wife is an apprentice acupuncturist. Her teacher (our family acupuncturist) has 15 years experience mostly in mainland China where her father and grandfather were doctors of Chinese medicine. I was sold after she cured a terrible headache I had that my regular doctor said would go away eventually. I read a book called "The Web That Has No Weaver", which is about Chinese medicine. The book made a fascinating point about "yin" and "yang" that I think bears strongly on this discussion. The book points out that "yin" and "yang" are not material things like shoes and socks. But it stresses strongly that they are also not trancendental. They are *descriptive*. They reflect distinctions about the world that the Chinese people make and that we do not make. This is in line with the hypothesis that language shapes our world-view. The example in intro to linguistics books is that some eskimos have many different words for snow. They make distinctions that we do not make. Likewise, energy is neither material nor transcendental. It is a generalization we make about the behavior of the universe around us. If the universes can be different, the things in them can be too. A good essay about energy in Western thought is by Thomas Kuhn. It is called "the Simultanious Discovery of Energy Conservation". It is available in *The Essential Tension*, which is a book of his essays. He says that in Europe 5 papers were published proposing the law of conservation of energy within two years. Only one of the authors knew about the work of the others. The reason is that the way the word "energy" was being used was changing. Until Europe in the 18th century, it never occurred to anyone that the heat causes by the friction of a plowblade and lightning were somehow the same thing. Once the various events we ascribe to energy were all linked, the law of conservation of energy logically followed. "Energy", then, is a generalization about events. Over history and across cultures other generalizations have been made and called "energy." Each society has things that are important to them. They have events that are worthwhile making generalizations about. If we accept the notion that societies may be different, but that there is no way to say that any are better or worse, we must accept that each societies use of the words or concepts we translate "energy" is as valid as another's. We could "prove" that the Japanese could not be talking about "real energy" when they talk about "ki", and still be flattened by an Akido master. We could "prove" that "chi" is not "real energy", and still be cured of an illness by Chinese medicine. Energy means different things to different people. It is a generalization about the world. Different societies find it useful to make different generalizations. The specialized use of the word "energy" made by scientists is no more or less vaild than the use as in "I don't have any energy today." The "nature of energy" is entirely subjective. The statement: "we know now that the earth goes around the sun" is misleading. What is meant by "know?" How, specifically, do we "know?" A better way to state what we "know" about the motions of the sun and the earth is to say that "if we adopt the model that that the earth goes around the sun we can explain more things with fewer principles." The criteria for selection of a model is *usefulness.* When Newton introduced gravity as an axiom in his system the reaction (according to Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolution), was that he was being inelagant. Most people did not believe that gravity explained anything at all. They felt he was begging the question. If someone claims that apples fall by a different principle than frozen ducks fall and explains each event with its own laws they must be missing useful generalizations. His claim that adding gravity as an axiom to the system would make a more useful system proved to be true, so much of his system survives, as does the notion of "gravity." The question of "PSI energy" is a muddle of langauge. Since "energy" is a generalization about events in the world, "PSI energy" must also be a generalization about events in the world. Which events? More importantly, if we classify some events in the world as "PSI energy" will that benefit us in some way that will make us want to choose this generalization over one we are already using? Don Steiny Personetics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta!scc!steiny harpo!fortune!idsvax!scc!steiny ucbvax!twg!scc!steiny
dmcanzi@watmath.UUCP (David Canzi) (07/22/84)
> There are yet phenomena which "physics" fails to explain, and which, in fact, > appear to contradict some of the "laws" of "physics". > ... PSI phenomena do exist, and obviously some form of "energy" is > involved in the process. Again and again experiments claiming to provide evidence for psychic phenomena fail to satisfy these simple requirements: 1) Conditions must be carefully controlled to prevent cheating. Someone trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon not previously known to exist (eg. psi) must set up his experiment so that the results can not be explained by phenomena already known to exist (eg. fraud). 2) Other experimenters must be able to repeat the experiment with the same equipment, the same procedure, and, perhaps, the same psychic and get similar results. If they fail at this, the success of the original experiment must be attributed to dumb luck, self-delusion, or (my favourite) fraud. This discussion has really drifted off the topic, as all net discussions seem to. The matter at issue in the first place (well, actually, at the place where I first joined in) was the claim of some fringe "scientist", repeated by Shirley MacLaine, that the "energy" that makes up the soul consists of gluons. Nothing was said in the article about the evidence for this bold claim, and bold claims *must* be supported by evidence. But I can't even imagine what type of evidence *could* support that claim. Nobody has ever detected the soul. (There was a claim once that a dying man was weighed just before, and just after, and lost 2.5 pounds. If this were true, and the weight loss could not be attributed to known physical causes, then we would all surely have heard more about this.) Nobody has a theoretical description of the soul, with some indication of how it interacts with the brain. In order to design an experiment to detect the soul, some such description is necessary. There is no evidence that the soul is made of gluons, or that it interacts with the brain, or that it even exists. BUT THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO *WANT* TO BELIEVE. So anybody with sufficient intelligence and deficient morals can write 200 or so pages of clever bullshit claiming to demonstrate the existence of the soul (or PK, or the Loch Ness Monster...) and use oodles of scientific terminology to make it sound authoritative, and make a decent living. If he's one of the luckier ones, he may pull down megabucks. And millions of suckers will, once again, get taken.
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (07/22/84)
Greetings: > Is there evidence for PSI that explains something the physical model cannot > account for? Apparently you can show us the aforementioned evidence? No, I can't prove or show you, but if you'll check out the PBS broadcast NOVA on this subject, "they" will show you some fairly convincing evidence. Their program was aired this past week, and may still be running? Also, you might investigate an L.A. based company named Delphi whose business is PSI. Also, you might check with SRI (Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International). Separately, I add the following, which, from previous readings of these net newsgroups, will only result in flames about scientific methodology being lacking, but which I shall nevertheless present as the evidence which *first* convinced *me* of the existence of PSI: 1) I have, on *one* occasion, been the unwitting receiver of an extrasensory message, which clearly demonstrated a mind to mind link. The sender of the message was my spouse's mother, who was experiencing the death of her husband and was so distressed that she woke me from a sound sleep with her mental "primal scream" of distress, some 30 miles away. 2 minutes later she followed up with a phone call explaining that her husband was having a heart-attack, and would we come right over to be with her. 2) I have lived with a(nother) mate who was not only extrasensorily sensitive to what I was doing and where I was, but who on a couple occasions experienced precognition (awareness of future events). I shall not bother to provide details of these events, precisely because they were unrepeatable, and not subject to investigation by scientific method. Note also, that they all occurred with people who were close enough to me already, as to be considered "family" at the time. Note also that I used to be a *firm* unbeliever until item (1) above occurred to me. I thoroughly believe in the scientific method, and as a degreed engineer have been trained to apply same to my entire approach to life. Only personal experiences of PSI were able to convince me that the scientific method simply won't find most PSI occurrances. Why? because in most earthlings, PSI is too undeveloped an I/O channel to be repeatable, or produced on demand in a laboratory setting. Furthermore, I think that if you were to bother to do any serious investigation of PSI phenomena which were verifiable and truly impressive, you'd find them to be classified. The DOD has PSychIcs working for them, and they are truly running scared because the USSR is ahead of us in PSI research, and in PSI-war. There certainly is a parallel to cyphers: at several prominant technical conferences where scientific researchers intended to present advanced papers on cryptography, Uncle Sam stepped in, said, sorry, but that's classified, speak no further of this to the public, lest it fall into Russian hands. I shall shut up now, before the men in the trenchcoats come to silence me. Again, just because YOU haven't experienced it, and just becasue YOU can't produce it in YOUR laboratory, doesn't mean that others haven't. {ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny(Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)
sunny@decwrl.UUCP (07/22/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxe.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 SMI; site sun.uucp Message-ID: <1564@sun.uucp> Date: Sun, 22-Jul-84 15:59:37 EDT UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 51 Greetings: > Is there evidence for PSI that explains something the physical model cannot > account for? Apparently you can show us the aforementioned evidence? No, I can't prove or show you, but if you'll check out the PBS broadcast NOVA on this subject, "they" will show you some fairly convincing evidence. Their program was aired this past week, and may still be running? Also, you might investigate an L.A. based company named Delphi whose business is PSI. Also, you might check with SRI (Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International). Separately, I add the following, which, from previous readings of these net newsgroups, will only result in flames about scientific methodology being lacking, but which I shall nevertheless present as the evidence which *first* convinced *me* of the existence of PSI: 1) I have, on *one* occasion, been the unwitting receiver of an extrasensory message, which clearly demonstrated a mind to mind link. The sender of the message was my spouse's mother, who was experiencing the death of her husband and was so distressed that she woke me from a sound sleep with her mental "primal scream" of distress, some 30 miles away. 2 minutes later she followed up with a phone call explaining that her husband was having a heart-attack, and would we come right over to be with her. 2) I have lived with a(nother) mate who was not only extrasensorily sensitive to what I was doing and where I was, but who on a couple occasions experienced precognition (awareness of future events). I shall not bother to provide details of these events, precisely because they were unrepeatable, and not subject to investigation by scientific method. Note also, that they all occurred with people who were close enough to me already, as to be considered "family" at the time. Note also that I used to be a *firm* unbeliever until item (1) above occurred to me. I thoroughly believe in the scientific method, and as a degreed engineer have been trained to apply same to my entire approach to life. Only personal experiences of PSI were able to convince me that the scientific method simply won't find most PSI occurrances. Why? because in most earthlings, PSI is too undeveloped an I/O channel to be repeatable, or produced on demand in a laboratory setting. Furthermore, I think that if you were to bother to do any serious investigation of PSI phenomena which were verifiable and truly impressive, you'd find them to be classified. The DOD has PSychIcs working for them, and they are truly running scared because the USSR is ahead of us in PSI research, and in PSI-war. There certainly is a parallel to cyphers: at several prominant technical conferences where scientific researchers intended to present advanced papers on cryptography, Uncle Sam stepped in, said, sorry, but that's classified, speak no further of this to the public, lest it fall into Russian hands. I shall shut up now, before the men in the trenchcoats come to silence me. Again, just because YOU haven't experienced it, and just becasue YOU can't produce it in YOUR laboratory, doesn't mean that others haven't. {ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny(Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/24/84)
> > Is there evidence for PSI that explains something the physical model cannot > > account for? Apparently you can show us the aforementioned evidence? > No, I can't prove or show you, but if you'll check out the PBS broadcast NOVA > on this subject, "they" will show you some fairly convincing evidence. Their > program was aired this past week, and may still be running? Also, you might > investigate an L.A. based company named Delphi whose business is PSI. Also, > you might check with SRI (Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International). The NOVA program was a crock. It gave only lip service to skeptics on PSI, and otherwise fell over itself to "prove" that PSI exists. Most of the "evidence" it discussed was warmed over stuff that has been refuted long before. No mention of Project Alpha was made (for those that are unfamiliar with this, it was a "sting" like operation where an imposter posed as a psychic to see if the psychic investigators would detect him cheating. They didn't.) For another view of the program, consult the Summer, 1984 issue of the *Skeptical Inquirer*. Let's face it, how credible are these "psi" researchers if they cannot even detect an obvious fake? Send flames. I will be on vacation and won't be able to read them. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (07/24/84)
Rich, et al:
It seems that there is a kind of pseudo-science at work here that
is based on the premise that "nothing exists until its existence is
proven". Beg to differ!
A true scientific approach would be that until proven ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,
a suspected entity or phenomenon MAY exist. We just plain don't know!
There is much too much evidence of PSI events and experience (mixed with
plenty of misinterpretation, fraud and swamp gas, admittedly) to stubbornly
deny, simply because a suitably rigorous scientific procedure has not yet
proven its validity. This only means that PSI lies in the gray area
between the certainty of its validity and the certainty of its nonexistence.
A recent NOVA program presented a pretty interesting (and balanced) view
of the history of PSI research. It included plenty of room for accepting
the fraud or imprecision of those studies and observation where such were
present, and still came out with a rather convincing case for something
real at work.
It surprises me that anyone beating the drum of 'scientific method'
would not take a glance at the history of scientific research of all
kinds and note the myriad statements of "can't be - impossible" that
turned out to be nothing of the kind.
Think about it...
Just suppose that there are phenomena active that are manifest
in PSI-type experiences. These need not be separate from the physical
universe, but merely aspects of it that we do not yet understand
(what self-respecting scientist would deny there are plenty of those?).
Over human history, these unexplained and perhaps disquieting events
are 'explained' by those experiencing them (and those close to them)
in whatever way they can believe (since a bad explanation is less
terrifying than none at all!). Since mental states of concentration,
relaxation and confidence (in religious terms, faith) are necessary
for the experience to occur, repeatability may be difficult to achieve.
Also, the subconsious may easily find reasons to block the surfacing
of a PSI-type event to consiousness and the subject will be totally
unaware of either the event or the cause of its blockage.
To those who have had these experiences, they stand proven thereby.
To others, an scientific approach can only be (at this time, anyway)
that "I may not be willing to pronounce this certain, but neither
can I pronounce it impossible".
--
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simardcrm@rti.UUCP (07/25/84)
Similarly, the reasoning methods used by The Amazing Randi are laughable -- cf. the argument at the AAAS meeting in San Francisco, in which parapspsych researchers were reviled for an hour, and then given five minutes in which to rebut. (Randi and others in the reviling group walked out on the rebuttal anyway.) Consider this: We have a phenomenon that can only be observed under very special conditions, in situations which cannot be easily duplicated, and we events which occur in these situations only once in a few thousand or million trials. Photographs of these events can be produced, but these photographs can be easily faked; in addition, these photographs are of such a quality that they can only be interpreted by observers who begin by being trained for a number of months in the interpretattion of these photographs (or else, the interpreters were in the original group that figured out how to interpret the photographjs, using a theory to develop the interpretation method which the method itself was being used to test.) In addition, the people performing the interpretation have a vested interest in having the interpretation conform to the world-view/theory which they are "testing" -- since they have devoted a large part of their lives to this theory. Question: Can this interpretation be trusted? Answer: I'm not sure -- there is a lot of interpretation and cirularity in the "reading" of the evidence. Question: Is the experiment repeatable? Answer: Well, maybe... With enough trials, you will see two events which can be *interpreted* as representing the same sort of event. However, this can take on the order of a million trials. Kicker: the sort of experiment which I am describing is bubble-chamber photography, widely used in subatomic physics. =========================== Randi's arguments always seem to resolve to the claim that 1) if it can be faked, it must have been faked; and 2) anybody who would believe in this stuff must be a dip anyway. I'm not sure that I believe in psi myself -- even having been brought up to believe that it exists, and having been raised in a family which was rather well known for having second sight. I've even had "psi-like" experiences myself. I still am not a true believer, and believe in psi much less than I believe in (say) particles which behave as both a solid object and a wave, and which cannot even be precisely located in space. However, I am something of a philosopher, and once did specialize in logic (I mean the real thing, not this Boolean Algebra stuff) and I can recognize *ad hominem* and *post hoc ergo propter hoc* when I see them. Randi's stuff is full of them...
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/84)
> Clearly, the physicists need a word to use when they want to > describe ``energy'' (what physicists mean by energy). However, > the philosophers and the mystics have a need for a word as well. > If the physicists preempt the word that has been around for a long time > and hasn't been used only to describe what the physicists mean then they > create several problems for themselves and for other people. The problem is that physicists (and scientists in general) try to find specific accurate terms to describe a phenomenon/event/etc. Other more generic definitions of terms like power, energy, etc. still exist. But some speculators (those who believe in things based solely on speculation according to the way would like the world to be) take a term and are sure to use it in as loose a sense as possible ("There's an energy associated with this...") This usurping of a scientific term while using a more general (hazier) definition manifests itself in what gets called "Mellowspeak" or "Californiese". ("Like, I can feel this, like, energy, surrounding my, like, essence, man, totally reflective...") [NO SLUR MEANT ON CALIFORNIANS IN GENERAL, JUST THE ONES WHO TALK AND THINK LIKE THAT :-] > The other effect is perhaps worse. Some fraud gets up and talks about > ``the mysterious energy whatzit'' and lo and behold people assume that > because he is using the wonderful scientific term ``energy'' he must > be 100% genuine and thoroughly scientific. My point exactly. -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (07/28/84)
[I could be another Lincoln ... ] Thanks to Don Steiny for arbitrating this silly "energy" debate. Pseudo- science may be in a state of idiocy, but that's no reason to ignore the limits of science. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (07/30/84)
Two very good source books concerning PSI research as practiced at SRI and elsewhere are: Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, by Martin Gardner (Prometheus, 1981) Flim-Flam, by James Randi (Prometheus, 1982) In case you think I'm being one-sided, I am. If you want other citations, the latter book contains a selected bibliography covering both sides of the fence. Read them; the methods used in PSI research are laughable - about on a par with the spoof in Ghostbusters, except that at SRI they were serious about it. Amazing. -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc
howard@metheus.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (08/09/84)
I have to agree with Sunny that some PSI is real. When I was in high school I had a girlfriend who was moderately talented in this regard. She used to be able to read (some aspects of) my mind with reasonable accuracy. The two incidents that stick in my mind most: (1) I was pretty skeptical about all of this at first, and one day she and a friend were talking to me on the phone (they were about 10 miles away). We had been talking for a while about PSI, them believing, me doubting, when I (quietly) picked up a knife from the table and said something like "O.K., if you're so psychic, what am I holding in my hand?" Without any hesitation, she said "a pencil" and her friend said "a knife". I was about to retort that one out of two wasn't statistically very meaningful when I realized that I had been holding a pencil in my other hand for several minutes, unconsciously doodling on the newspaper. At that point I screamed. (2) She was also very good at identifying cards that I was looking at. The only time I have statistics for is the time that a skeptical friend of mine challenged us to demonstrate. We attempted 25 cards from a standard pack of 52 playing cards (no jokers), without replacement. The score was: 5 cards exactly right (suit and rank) 5 cards rank right but suit wrong 5 cards suit right but rank wrong 10 cards completely wrong (I know these numbers look made up, but the reason we stopped at 25 is that I had been keeping a running tally and everything came out so even then.) The statisticians among you may find it desirable to calculate the odds against doing this well by random luck. I remember doing so, and I think the answer was more than 1,000,000,000 to 1, but it's been 15 years. You may assume that after each guess the card was exposed for all to see; at any rate some of them were, and she was always told whether she was right or not. So, does this make me a believer in PSI? Well, yes and no. For myself, I never really saw any UTILITY in any of this. For example, we tried once to have her play blackjack, but the effect (if any) wasn't strong enough to enable her to win money. And it always felt unreliable; sometimes she had it, sometimes she didn't, and there wasn't any way to control or enhance it. So, mostly, I live as though PSI was nonsense, because I don't see what I could do differently if I was absolutely convinced that it wasn't. But I won't ever say I'm certain there's nothing to it (who could *prove* that, anyway?). And sometimes, when I get a certain sort of hunch about something, I'll let my heart lead instead of my head. Howard A. Landman ogcvax!metheus!howard (till August 14th) "Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine. I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shine."
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/16/84)
On Psi - a telephone conversation: >We had been talking for a while about PSI, them believing, me doubting, >when I (quietly) picked up a knife from the table and said something like >"O.K., if you're so psychic, what am I holding in my hand?" Without any >hesitation, she said "a pencil" and her friend said "a knife". I was >about to retort that one out of two wasn't statistically very meaningful >when I realized that I had been holding a pencil in my other hand for >several minutes, unconsciously doodling on the newspaper. At that point >I screamed. Would you have screamed if the answer had been "a telephone"? Seriously, the set of possible answers is not all that large--it would have to be something near at hand, not too large, a tangible object. Now, if you had pursued it with various objects for multiple trials, that would have been more interesting, although it's still a poorly-controlled experiment. Many of the experiences that people have which they feel lend credence to psi phenomena occur in situations where a lot of unconscious cueing is possible. It's surprising just how subtle the cues can be, yet still be given by observer and received by subject without either realizing it. In fact, this is a problem even in the physical sciences, let alone psi research. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
jejones@ea.UUCP (08/16/84)
#R:proper:-139600:ea:9800029:000:1932 ea!jejones Aug 16 03:10:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / metheus!howard / 12:06 am Aug 10, 1984 */ (2) She was also very good at identifying cards that I was looking at. The only time I have statistics for is the time that a skeptical friend of mine challenged us to demonstrate. We attempted 25 cards from a standard pack of 52 playing cards (no jokers), without replacement. The score was: 5 cards exactly right (suit and rank) 5 cards rank right but suit wrong 5 cards suit right but rank wrong 10 cards completely wrong (I know these numbers look made up, but the reason we stopped at 25 is that I had been keeping a running tally and everything came out so even then.) The statisticians among you may find it desirable to calculate the odds against doing this well by random luck. I remember doing so, and I think the answer was more than 1,000,000,000 to 1, but it's been 15 years. You may assume that after each guess the card was exposed for all to see; at any rate some of them were, and she was always told whether she was right or not. -The problem is that in a large set of outcomes, any one of them looks very -unlikely. Is this particular outcome one that lends support to the notion -that there is such a thing as psi? I don't particularly think so, especially -since the desired outcome is ill-defined, and the experimenters stopped when -they got a result they liked. So, does this make me a believer in PSI? Well, yes and no. For myself, I never really saw any UTILITY in any of this. For example, we tried once to have her play blackjack, but the effect (if any) wasn't strong enough to enable her to win money. And it always felt unreliable; sometimes she had it, sometimes she didn't, and there wasn't any way to control or enhance it. -This is exactly what would happen if it were the case that supposed -psi events were simply coincidence. I think you're right to live the way you -do. -James Jones /* ---------- */