mkent@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (02/26/87)
[] In article <33446a71.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes: >Marty Kent writes: > >> Suppose you say something rude about my mother, and I punch you in the >> nose. Tom's in the room and sees all this happen. Mary comes in and asks >> him what's up, and he tells her ... complex, mechanistic description of "purely physical" events with no reference to participants' intentions ... >> Now all of this is *true*. But most people would agree that this level >> of description rather misses the point, don't you think? > > Yes, I agree that it 'misses the point' in the sense that Tom could just as > well have said, "Peter said something rude about Marty's mother so Marty > punched him". But note that the neurological level of description and > the behavioral/social level of description are not essentially in conflict. I think we're in agreement here; this was what I meant when I wrote "all of this is *true*." Now it happens you and I see these descriptions as not in conflict, for which I'm glad. But many people, elementary school teachers of my era (late 1950's) for example, seem(ed) to think that "more physical" descriptions are always correct, and that they somehow preclude animistic, "unscientific" ones. At last year's (or was it two years ago?) ACM SIGCHI conference, Allen Newell spoke of a variation on Gresham's Law: "Hard science tends to drive out soft." What he seemed to me to be saying was that more quantitative, "engineering-type" descriptions tend to drive out qualitative ones (actually he was speaking of the character of psychological research that might be useful in the design of computer-human interfaces). The cultural roots of our scientific study of the material world are so much stronger than the roots of our scientific study of mind that we tend to label non-materialistic descriptions of phenomena as "unscientific", in some cases simply rejecting such descriptions out-of-hand. I think there's a meta-level to this, and it has to do with the usefulness of descriptions in the first place. To the extent that we're completely involved in the pursuit of some well-defined set of goals, we can evaluate "competing" descriptions of events in terms of what they buy us in that goal structure. We need to be explicit about this. For instance if we believe in and are primarily concerned with the emotional states of the participants in a conversation, we'll have use for different kinds of descriptions than if we're concerned with neurological events. I don't mean to imply any kind of mutual exclusivity either, but only that our focus and orientation define and prioritize what we consider "elementary" and some cases even relevant. > They just look at the same events at two different levels. > It's the same as if we described the ReadNews program in terms of 'C' > source code or in terms of the machine language in the binary file. There > is a definite mapping from one to the other, though I concede that all the > details of this mapping in the nose-punching case have yet to be worked > out. I think this remains to be seen. To the extent that our descriptions really constitute a hierarchy of detail, I agree. In my original example of a verbal disagreement as seen from the "everyday" perspective and from some kind of physio/neurological perspective, I tend to think each high-level (everyday) event maps to a (set of) low-level events. But this may not be true. I just got a copy of Drexler's "Engines of Creation," in which he presents the possibility of (among many other things) creating an atom-by-atom duplicate of a physical object. Suppose we were to create such a duplicate of a living being: would the duplicate be alive? Would it be "the same being" in some sense? If not, it would mean that our description of the being as a material phenomenon was missing something. (Of course this missing something could simply be a matter of the granularity of the atomic description; perhaps Life is fundamentally a material phenomenon, but shows up below the atomic level...) > If there is some mapping from neurological events to 'astral bodies' perhaps > someone can suggest what it might be. Oh, yes, and as I usually request, > also suggest *by what means* we might know this to be the case. I think this is a good path to be on, but, obviously, it's really a tough one. To my knowledge noone's yet been able to draw any kind of serious mapping between neurological events and even very "mundane" everyday mental events like formulating a sentence or holding a particular image in the mind's eye. Some work in this direction has been to associate certain frequency ranges of electrical brain activity (so-called beta, alpha, theta and delta waves) with certain kinds of everyday activities, but the correlations seem pretty weak. Still, it's a start. Perhaps neurological events are just too low-level to use as an adequate basis for description and measurement of personal mental (psychic? spiritual?) experiences. Gotta run... more soon. . . - Marty . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Marty Kent net: MKent@violet.berkeley.edu work: Dept. of EMST / 4527 Tolman Hall / UC Berkeley / Berkeley, Ca. 94720 415/ 642 0288 home: 1129 Bancroft Way / Berkeley, Ca. 94702 415/ 548 9129 . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . .
mod-psi@ulowell.UUCP (03/11/87)
[] >Marty Kent writes: [...] > To my knowledge noone's yet been able to draw any kind of >serious mapping between neurological events and even very "mundane" >everyday mental events like formulating a sentence or holding a particular >image in the mind's eye. Some work in this direction has been to associate >certain frequency ranges of electrical brain activity (so-called beta, >alpha, theta and delta waves) with certain kinds of everyday activities, >but the correlations seem pretty weak. Still, it's a start. > > Perhaps neurological events are just too low-level to use as an adequate >basis for description and measurement of personal mental (psychic? >spiritual?) experiences. > > - Marty Some of the neurological studies being done recently actually DO begin to relate to some mental activities. I remember several articles in Scientific American (and in Psychology Today...?) about a recognizable EEG pattern (might be called a "T wave"--I forget) which happens when a subject sees a known symbol (word) in a meaningless context. It is believed that this pattern occurs while the brain searches wildly for a context in which the symbol fits. Several other studies duplicated these patterns, and I beleive these findings are fairly generally accepted. I beleive the Sci Am Brain/Cognitive reprint series from 3 or 4 years ago is where I saw it. A more recent article can be found in March '87 OMNI, pg 90, about Charles A. Warren and Norman S. Don, neuroscientists at U of Illinois. They are trying to detect Event-Related-Potentials associated with reception of psychic knowledge. Their subject, a Chicago 'psychic' named Olaf Jonsson, guessed at symbols on standard ESP cards while connected to an EEG machine. He guessed at a 50% hit rate (random would be 20%), and the researchers found a 73% correlation of of a particular pattern and correct guesses. Anyway, some serious scientists are trying to relate our internal realities to the physical world, and with some amount of success. I hope this field really blossoms in the coming years... --das peace. inner first, outer will follow...
trainor@CS.UCLA.EDU (03/15/87)
[] In article "David A. Sheppard" <das@godot.think.com.uucp> writes: >... >Scientific American (and in Psychology Today...?) >... >A more recent article can be found in March '87 OMNI, pg 90, about >... Pablum for the masses. Douglas
barnett@vdsvax.UUCP (03/17/87)
[] In article <1135@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> "David A. Sheppard" <das@godot.think.com.uucp> writes: >Their subject, a Chicago 'psychic' >named Olaf Jonsson, guessed at symbols on standard ESP cards while >connected to an EEG machine. He guessed at a 50% hit rate (random >would be 20%), and the researchers found a 73% correlation of of >a particular pattern and correct guesses. > >--das I would like to find out more about these `results'. Most of the research done with Olaf Jonsson, and most of the research with PSI, has been extremely flawed in the methodology. As an example, the Burack-Jonsson tests done in 1971 were embarrassing. When the proper controls were in place, Olle had a headache. Yet when the controls were eliminated, amazing results occurred! In the tests with Edgar Mitchell, the 20% probability became 40%! Of course, these figures are suspect when it is discovered that Jonsson recorded the results of his own experiment. In another example, Dr. J. B. Rhine reported success in 1949 with Jonsson and later retracted the results when he admitted that the tests were under Jonsson's control. As far as I know, positive results in PSI experiments are inversely proportional to the amount of controls placed on the experiment. In blunt terms, scientists are not qualified to specify the controls needed. And the easiest people to delude are the scientists who want to show a positive results. On the other hand, the SCIOP is quite capable of ignoring experiments that they can't disprove. Randi never talks about his failures. If you make the above claim, please document it. In fact, I would like to hear about ANY test that proved the existence of PSI. Just because there was a report in some journal doesn't prove anything. A thorough reading of Randi, Marks/Kamman, and the Skeptical Inquirer demonstrate that. I don't say Randi is perfect either. One of these days he is going to hand over his $10,000. Not because of a real PSI phenomenon, but because he was fooled. As a concrete example, it is obvious that the grooves on records appear different on different albums. You can see changes between quiet passages and loud passages on classical records. And there are large differences between rock albums. So if the labels were covered, it is easy to identify records with sight alone. Yet when someone (I forget the name) claimed he could use his fingers to identify records, Randi was completely baffled. He was unable to determine how the effect was done. To start another subject, I often wonder about the following: Suppose PSI phenomena was real. Suppose PSI phenomena is by its very nature uncontrollable. If it is uncontrollable, it is unmeasurable, and unrepeatable. If it did happen, the scientists would ignore it because it was not done under controlled conditions. If it did happen under controlled conditions, other scientists would reject the claim because they could not repeat it. Therefore PSI phenomena will never be accepted as real. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@ge-crd.arpa, barnett@steinmetz.uucp ...!{chinet,rochester}!steinmetz!barnett
Philip@ulowell.UUCP (03/21/87)
[] In article <5041@shemp.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> trainor@CS.UCLA.EDU (Vulture of Light) writes: >[] > >In article "David A. Sheppard" <das@godot.think.com.uucp> writes: ->... ->Scientific American (and in Psychology Today...?) ->... ->A more recent article can be found in March '87 OMNI, pg 90, about ->... > >Pablum for the masses. > > Douglas As soon as I saw David's posting I had a psychic flash: "some asshole's going to completely miss the point and dismiss the whole topic just because David mentioned PT and Omni" Sure enuf, the very next posting I saw was the one by Douglas, who opened his mouth (so to speak) and removed all doubt. ("Better to remain silent and let others doubt your wisdom..."). Rent a brain, Doug. One should not place too much trust in mass-mkt mags, but one can certainly use them as a jumping off place to start searching for more reliable information. Some even include specific references to help you get started (I wish more of them did). Thanks to David for his posting, and if he or anyone else has more info from non mass-mkt sources, so much the better. - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) {really oliven} or, if that fails: {get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs Mail welcome, but my mailer seldom cooperates when I try to reply.
mod-psi@ulowell.UUCP (04/03/87)
[] Bruce G. Barnett (barnett@ge-crd.arpa, barnett@steinmetz.uucp; ...!{chinet,rochester}!steinmetz!barnett) writes: > As far as I know, positive results in PSI experiments are >inversely proportional to the amount of controls placed on the >experiment. In blunt terms, scientists are not qualified to specify >the controls needed. And the easiest people to delude are the >scientists who want to show a positive results. (I do plan on addressing some of his other points -- but one thing at a time). This is undoubtedly true, but reflects more on your sources of information than on the status of parapsychological research. This is something commonly said by a certain class of critics, and picked up by others, such as yourself, who rely on them for information. The supposed justifications for the statement is based on a massive selective reading of the evidence and other distortions. I have twice started a detailed rebuttal and both times it became too long. There is just too much misinformation behind the statement. It is like trying to make a sensible response to creationist statements like "No new species has ever been observed to have evolved". Fortunately, for the first time in about forty years, a broadly based textbook of the field of parapsychology has been published. It surveys the whole field quite thoroughly and hardheadedly, discussing the strengths *and weaknesses* of the evidence for psi, the experimental methods, what is known and what needs to be learned. Although I don't agree at all times with the authors' choices of emphasis and opinions, I highly recommend the book. Whether or not your opinion about the existence of psi is changed you will come away from reading this book with a *very* different (and more realistic) view of the field of parapsychology. The book is: _Foundations of Parapsychology: Exploring the Boundaries of Human Capability_ by Hoyt L. Edge, Robert L. Morris, John Palmer, and Joseph H. Rush. Published by Routledge & Kegan Paul; Boston, London and Henley. 1986. ISBN 0-7102-0226-1 and (pbk.) 0-7102-0805-7. You should be able to order it through most general bookstores. I believe that the cost of the paperback is $22.50. To cover the significant points briefly (refer to the above book for details and justifications): 1) The field of parapsychology grew out of the field of psychical research when it was realized (by Rhine) that the investigation of spontaneous case material and the claims of self-proclaimed psychics would never provide reliable enough scientific evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena. Such investigations are perhaps useful for providing suggestive evidence *about* the nature of psi, if it exists, but provide little or no evidence for its existence. 2) Parapsychologists routinely investigate many people claiming exceptional psychic abilities. The great majority of them are unable or unwilling to work under sufficiently controlled circumstances, or are found to be fraudulent. A few survive rigorous enough testing to warrant publication in one of the parapsychological journals. As said above, few parapsychologists take such publication as adding significantly to the evidence *for* psi. It is published so that the apparent characteristics and limitations of that subjects performance can be used as suggestions towards understanding how "strong" psi might operate if it exists, and to give other parapsychologists (and those few critics who actually pay any attention to the field) an opportunity to evaluate and criticize the testing procedures. When evidence later emerges (as has occurred in a handful of cases) that subject fraud occurred, this has no effect on the evidence for the existence of psi. It only means that the characteristics of the psychics "performance" cannot be taken as reflecting the characteristics of "real psi", if it exists. 3) Nevertheless, a number of psychics (D.D. Home, Eileen Garrett, and Keith Harary come to mind off the top of my head) have submitted to extensive and varied scientific tests with a wide varieties of tight controls, and have never been shown to be "cheating". They have not always succeeded, but their failures have not been shown to be particularly correlated with the degree or nature of the controls imposed. This does not, naturally enough, prove that they were not fraudulent, but it does contradict Bruce's assertion. 4) The evidence for the existence of one or more consistent anomalies, referred to as psi, rests on literally thousands of successful, well done experiments with more-or-less "general" subject populations. The controls for these experiments, for the most part, meet or exceed the quality of control found in a similar selection of experiments from any other field of experimental science. Despite years of trying, the critics have consistently failed to provide any meaningful evidence that more than a tiny fraction of the total observed effect in these experiments is due to poor experimental controls, or that varying degrees of control have much effect on the results of those experiments which meet the publication criteria of the field. Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!pbsvax.dec.com!cooper INTERNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.dec.com Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.