rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/11/86)
In article <1793@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <531@hope.UUCP> corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf) writes: >-... If you have been studying for that long, you must have >-learned the un-bendable arm trick. (you use your muscles to try >-to keep an other person from bending your arm at the elbow, then >-you extend KI, while *relaxing* your muscles) Would you mind >-explaining this in terms of ballence, leverage, motion, and pressure? > >I'm certainly no expert on physiology, but offhand I see >no reason to think that this effect cannot be explained >without resorting to mystical "forces". So can about 95% of the "fakir's" talents and astounding feats. You know, those cute tricks like walking on coal, sleeping on a bed of nails, pulling a string through your nose, slowing your breathing and heartbeat. Of course there is the "commercial version", Trancendental Meditation, or the medical term "stress management", or the technological approach, "biofeedback". It took 20 years to figure it out, but it all started with "PSI" research. >Since you seem >to be claiming that it cannot be explained by normal >Western science, how about a proof of your claim? >Otherwise this is just an argument about whether a normal >explanation can in principle be found, which we don't know >from what has been posted to this point. The trick is simple. If the biceps are COMPLETELY relaxed, and the triceps are COMPLETELY tensed, learning this degree of muscle control is the trick. An even more dramatic illustration of this is the "Toad" style of kung-fu. In this case, every muscle is trained to tense and relax sufficiently that even with needles, their "skin" cannot be penatrated significantly. A toad's only weak spots are his ears and his eyes. Of course his muscles are so overdeveloped, that he doesn't move as fast as some of the other styles. >Just because we >don't know the answer to a question doesn't demonstrate that >it is unanswerable in a given context, though. With all of these forms of "PSI". The trick is to change the context, and expose the significant scientific principles. If you are really lucky, and use the right observation methods, you might uncover new principles. >(Perhaps a good physiologist can explain this. If so, >would you fold your tents and steal away?) I explained it, but also explained exactly why he shouldn't fold his tents. >There are MANY things within the domain of legitimate >(Western) science that I find far more interesting than the >rather unimaginative ideas of the mystics. >Some of them >are real puzzles, too, but there has been a long history of >solving these puzzles within a rational framework. Heck, >at the Atlanta Hilton several of us saw several apparently >"rationally impossible" demonstrations at the magic shop. >Anyone willing to pay for the privilege could discover how >an entire illusion was the result of mundane physical laws >combined with misdirecting the viewer's thoughts. I even >got one of the proprietors to explain how Uri Geller bends >spoons. The one advantage of the magician is that he knows how he does his tricks. Furthermore, most magicians use the same techniques or only minor variations on the illusions. One of the abilities that made Houdini famous was is ability to hold his breath for over 4 minutes, and manipulate objects with his toes better than most people could manipulate them with their hands. I used to show off by swimming for 3 minutes under water. Had I also learned to conserve through TM, I could have probably made it to 4. >If these patently mystical effects are actually due >to ordinary non-mystical behavior of objects, then why should >I think that comparatively weak "psi" effects are mystical? You shouldn't. You should be attempting to look for scientific characteristics. I fact, we only now have equipment capable of measuring some of the possible "other forces" that could be directly or indirectly manipulated. How many feet of nerves do we have? How many volts per cell does the brain generate? Why is it so rediculous to believe that nervous system is not capable of "recieving or sending" electromagnetic, neuclear, electrostatic, or ?? forms of force. We know that there are variations in field intensity, we even know that to trigger interesting secondary reactions, only the force of a few atoms is needed. I don't have to change barometric pressure to blow a feather across the room, only focus a very small amount of energy in a small area. >People who WANT to believe in mysticism seem not to be >dissuaded by any amount of rational argumentation, and >people who WANT to be rational seem not to be swayed by >any amount of talk from the mystics. The tragedy is that those who believe in mysticism simply do not understand their abilities themselves. Think about the "TM" example above. A mystic would say "clear your mind of ALL thoughts, then devine inspiration will come". A "stress management" therapist would say, "get your mind off worrying about the problem so you can see the solution that may be right in front of you, in your subconcious mind". In some circles, they say let go and let God. It's amazing how we can fight over terminology. >One would think that >a ground rule of net.sci would be that the general rules >of scientific enquiry apply, which would rule out mystical >"explanations" unless they could be unambiguously >demonstrated, which so far none of the mystics have done. Very good rules. The problem is one group is trying to prove things unambiguously, the other is trying to disprove the results, rather than the explanation. >I doubt very much whether the two viewpoints are logically >compatible, so these arguments are probably a waste of time. If the "mystics" could simply say, as the above person did, "here is something which doesn't appear to have a scientific explanation", and the scientist can say, oh there is an explanation, here it is. Or "show us your best examples so we can discover which ones apply", then we have some ground rules. If the best examples can only move a light beam 1 second in angle, perhaps for 5 seconds during a 24 hour period, then the data should be examined when it occurs. Unfortunately, many scientists insist that the subjects not waste their time with their "bunk". Imagine an animal behviourist spending only 20 minutes making observations. A PSI scientist can't expect "dumb animals" to duplicate observations "on queue".