friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/03/86)
In article <136@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >The problem here is that Randi would want Dykshorn to read specific thoughts, >Dykshorn only gets "symbols" of whatever the person has strong feelings >about at that moment. As to his initial claims, police departments, >the military, intellegence agencies, scientists, and reporters have been >sufficiently convinced that they will use leads given by him. He doesn't >even claim it's PSI. In fact he admits that it might be some form of >subconcious cognition. He looks at the input (picture, scene of the crime, >the victim, whatever), gets an image of something that may or not make >sense, and blurts it out. If he can explaint the image, he will. Sometimes >he can't, but later evidence explains the image for him. Well, I can understand why Randi would not accept this sort of thing, it sounds suspiciously like the old medium's trick of "cold reading". Say something generic, or even better, obscure, and *something* will come up which matches it! If he cannot make specific statements, then the range of possible matches is *very* large, and the probability of *one* of the possible matches occurring is quite high. All that is reallyy needed is a little knowledge off human nature and a talent for uttering ambiguous but reasonable sounding nonsense! Why invoke obscure, unusual phenomena for something that is not even out of the ordinary!! > >There was one fellow who used to get up in front of an audience and simply >blurt out whatever he was thinking and ask if someone else was thinking it. >Sure enough, someone would be thinking about it. The "artist" never claimed >to be a "mind reader", in fact, he assumed that when he mentioned something, >it would trigger someone else in the audience. Clairvoyance or suggestion? > And here is another bit if statistical hocus-pocus! This sounds like a variant of the birthday "paradox". Take a group of about 20 people, what do you think the chances of two of them having the same birthday are? In point of fact, it is virtually certain that there will be at least one such pair! So it is here, given an audience of a couple of hundred or so it is almost certain that *someone* in the audience will be thinking the same thing as the guy in front! It is not even necessary to invoke suggestion to explain this. Really, until those who want to believe in PSI can tell the difference between a simple parlour trick and a truly unexplainable event, they will have very little credibility. >Most of those who experience thoughts and images of this type don't know >what they are. Most would be happy to admit that it was cognition, or >suggestion, or whatever. > Probably because they believe such things are actually unusual, rather than ordinary results of human psychology! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/12/86)
In article <1314@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <136@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >> >>The problem here is that Randi would want Dykshorn to read specific thoughts, >>Dykshorn only gets "symbols" of whatever the person has strong feelings >>about at that moment. Rather than respond to the rebuttal, I would simply suggest that anyone interested, read about Dykshorn. There was a book on him called "My Passport Reads Clairvoyant" or something to that effect. >>There was one fellow who used to get up in front of an audience and simply >>blurt out whatever he was thinking and ask if someone else was thinking it. >>Sure enough, someone would be thinking about it. >>Clairvoyance or suggestion? >of a couple of hundred or so it is almost certain that *someone* in >the audience will be thinking the same thing as the guy in front! It >is not even necessary to invoke suggestion to explain this. > Really, until those who want to believe in PSI can tell the >difference between a simple parlour trick and a truly unexplainable >event, they will have very little credibility. Actually, I was assuming it was a parlour trick. Suggestion makes more sense. But why did the "mentalist" think the thoughts he thought? We'll assume he wasn't out in the audience before the show. >>Most of those who experience thoughts and images of this type don't know >>what they are. Most would be happy to admit that it was cognition, or >>suggestion, or whatever. > Probably because they believe such things are actually >unusual, rather than ordinary results of human psychology! The question here is not basic "cause effect" psychology, but spontaneous "random" thought. When simply letting our minds drift, what causes two people to "drift to the same thought at the same point in time". Actually, there is an answer, but it has to do with my earlier definition of ESP. Psychology can tell me why this thought is significant, where it might have originated from, possibly even what it means, but not why I thought it at that time. Actually, I agree, psychology will eventually find the answer, and it will all make perfect sense. But you have to study the phenomena to explain it. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Rex B.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/17/86)
In article <214@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >The question here is not basic "cause effect" psychology, but spontaneous >"random" thought. When simply letting our minds drift, what causes two >people to "drift to the same thought at the same point in time". My guess would be simply that people are genrally more similar to each other than most of us like to believe, so they just naturally think the same sorts of things in the same circumstances. > >Psychology can tell me why this thought is significant, where it might >have originated from, possibly even what it means, but not why I thought >it at that time. I disagree, I think psychology can even do the last mentioned thing. > >Actually, I agree, psychology will eventually find the answer, and it >will all make perfect sense. But you have to study the phenomena to >explain it. > I agree, I have always believed that unusual situations need to be studied. I just feel that the parapsychologist efforts at proving that something inexplicable is happening is misdirected. A better research topic is to tty and find the mechanism for an unusual phenomenon. This is the approach taken by psychology, physics and biology, and what makes them real sciences not pseudo-sciences. In the past it has only been when a phenomenon has been taken out of the context of PSI research and studied from the point of view of a different field that adequate mechanisms have been found. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Gryphon) (07/23/86)
Phone : (617) 937-0551
Usenet: ...!{wanginst,masscomp}!ulowell!dobro
Flame-To: /dev/null/...
Reply-To: dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Gryphon)
USMail: P.O.Box 8524, Lowell, Ma. 01853
Formal statement: MOD.PSI exists and is accepting contributions...
**[begin-lecture]
Please, stop yelling at people who are expressing opinions.
You CANNOT say that an opinion is wrong or invalid.
Stop saying that people are yelling at you, with the attitude
of "if I yell back enough, someone will agree with me..."
Stop, above all, acting like idiots. You people CAN think.
I have seen you (occasionally) do this.
Complaining about the way things are is not going to change them.
If you want to discuss this topic (intelligently) do so in MOD.PSI
However, if you want to behave like freshman, I leave you to the net.cold
**[end-lecture]
'Nough said.
Gryphon
-------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am simply a figment of my imagination and therefore
cannot have an opinion.
"Far beyond human ability to classify, or comprehend..."