rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/22/86)
In article <1344@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >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. In some cases, this is true. Given a context, a sequence of "free associations" can indeed lead to a "common thought". What if there is no context? More significantly, when context is so subtle as to be non-obvious (unconcious cueing), are there ways to sharpen our awareness of the "synchronizing messages" from the subconcious. >>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. Remember, I was addressing original, "creative" thought. Typically the types of thoughts that come when you are not reacting to stimulous. Thoughts that come at 2:00 A.M. when your just about to fall asleep, or when doing something totally unrelated. These are the ones that come from the "black hole" of your subconcious mind. >>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. I agree with you here. The whole point of science is to find explanations for whatever the data indicates. The parapsychologist *should* simply be trying to find data or paranormal phenomena that isn't easily explained by current knowledge. This is little different than the "systems test" field in the computer profession. In this case, the tester is looking for abnormalities or "bugs" which vary from the specified explanation of the system's documented behaviour. >A better research topic is to try 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. Much as the tester turns a "bug report" into the development or maintenence staff. Let those with the knowledge determine *why* the system acts the way it does. Maybe it's not a bug, but a feature :-). >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) And just as a programmer needs the "systems test" engineer to fully test the system. Science needs "systems test" (PSI researchers) to find the "variations", else science becomes stagnant. I have to admit at this point, that PSI research, as currently practiced, comes nowhere close to the symbiotic relationship described. This could and should change, which is why I bring it up. I agree with the scientists that simply "rolling dice" as a means of "proving" telekenesis, or "symbol matching" as a means of "proving" ESP is about as useful as crashing the heads on the disk drive before testing a computer. The techniques used in PSI research do require some changes. I believe S. Friesen was the one who suggested having psychics turn a "torsion bar" rather than trying to affect dice. It certainly should be possible for someone capable of "bending spoons", or "statisticly affecting dice" to apply a few micrograms of force to *some* type of material without touching it physically. If not that then possibly a few nanovolts of change in electrical charge, a few picovolts of electromagnetic interference, or something equally measurable. On the other hand, in the few research projects where PSI research evidence is more significant, there is indeed evidence of something which merits further investigation. In areas associated with psychology and neurology, there are several "grey areas". For example, the subconcious mind, it's effects on biophysical, physical, and intellectual activity, and techniques of training it, are still a very wide open field. In fact, much of the so-called "mysticism" of virtually all of the world's cultures focus on directing the subconcious. The current approach of psychology is to attempt to intellectually overpower the subconcious, yet it is often the most intellectual who experience the most severe symptoms. It is interesting that psychodrama was actually developed by a minister at a mental health center, not a scientist at a university.