greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg) (10/15/86)
In article <364@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: [Lots of ambiguous, untestable theorizing deleted from original posting] > However, it may be that very subtle forms of telepathy (below >the threshold of consciousness) can be going on all the time without >our being aware of it. If this phenomenon is subtle enough, we >may not be able to distinguish it from the noise (due to the selective >nature of our consciousness which acts as a kind of squelch.) Alternatively, we may invent it by selectively looking at the noise. Whatever you mean by noise. And telepathy. > Now for the punch line: I've had more than a few unambiguous >experiences of communication with my girlfriend (my love) which could >be described as "telepathic." Your research is unscientific. You might protest that scientific reasoning is only a Western bias, so I'll explain myself. By unscientific I mean inconclusive, imprecise, uncontrolled, and unconvincing. >For example, a few weeks ago I called >her, but she wasn't home, so I left a message. A couple hours later >I suddenly had a burst of ecstasy...I thought to myself, >"maybe she's just got home and got my message."... > > That not good enough for you? How about the time we had >the same dream, but she was in San Diego and I was in LA? It's very easy to take all of the experiences in your life, select the coincidences, and then declare that they are more than coincidences. It's also easy to edit your own memory to have it fit your preconceived notions of the world. Recollections of dreams and feeling are especially easy to change. Or to put it more bluntly, I had my own experiment recently: I ran a random number generator for a long time. Here is a sample of the results: 11011100111010... ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^ I discovered an *amazing* coincidence, nay it was more than coincidence. ALL of the digits above the arrows are 1's! Given that there are ten ones, the odds of that are 1024 to 1! > Yes, I am a senior in physics (a pretty good physics student, >too, in my opinion :-), and I realize that there is no plausible >mechanism that could have transmitted this kind of information. Boy, you must be pretty smart. If you feel that there is no plausible mechanism, or in other words, no plausible explanation (for a mechanism is no more than that), then your theories are inherently implausible. What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you describe. In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the biggest enigma in all of physics. It should be presented as the great counterexample in all physics courses. Other paradoxes in physics are presented in this fashion, so why not yours? Maybe there is something wrong with your experiments... >Excuse the psychobabble. I'm sorry, but I can't. Psychobabble, just like any other sort of babble, is ultimately inexcusable. It doesn't belong in net.physics, and it doesn't belong in the mouth (or at the fingers) of a "pretty good physics student". gregregreg
hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) (10/16/86)
Summary: In article <403@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg) writes: > . . . >Your research is unscientific. You might protest that scientific reasoning >is only a Western bias, so I'll explain myself. By unscientific I mean >inconclusive, imprecise, uncontrolled, and unconvincing. I never claimed to be presenting scientific data. However, you clearly did not read my posting carefully. I have a lot more anecdotal personal experience which could convince even you, Greg. If you could suspend your disbelief. However I have little hope for that. I simply did not feel that it would be appropriate to post such personal experience publicly; I simply wanted to put out a couple representative examples. >>For example, a few weeks ago I called >>her, but she wasn't home, so I left a message. A couple hours later .>I suddenly had a burst of ecstasy...I thought to myself, >>"maybe she's just got home and got my message."... >> >> That not good enough for you? How about the time we had >>the same dream, but she was in San Diego and I was in LA? > >It's very easy to take all of the experiences in your life, select the >coincidences, and then declare that they are more than coincidences. It's also >easy to edit your own memory to have it fit your preconceived notions of the >world. Recollections of dreams and feeling are especially easy to change. You are becoming rather offensive here, Greg. Stating the obvious and then accusing me of overlooking it is a rather weak counter-argument. Of course the above possibility has occurred to me, however after three years of this kind of "coincidence" occurring regularly (one particular series of events I calculated as having approximately a 1 in 10^15 chance of occurring randomly. This experience was SO strange that I will keep it to myself at the risk of sounding like a lunatic. It was not specifically related to telepathy, however it was completely outside the realm of known physics) I had to finally concede to myself that something definitely unexpected was going on. Believe me, it came as a surprise to find that these effects were REAL, and they could happen to ME. Of course, I hadn't made the a priori assumption (which you seem to have made) that these phenomena are impossible, therefore forcing the conclusion that every single experience was a "coincidence." (I would venture to give you a little advice if you are to have a fruitful career in academic discourse. First of all, it is rather bad practice to always patronize your interlocutor, even if you feel (as you always do, I've noticed) that he is at an intellectual disadvantage (which you seem to find true of anyone who disagrees with you.) You may not be able to overcome this character fault (since you obviously emulate W. Buckley), however, since you are the type (folks, this is a private message between Greg and I so you may skip this paragraph if you wish; however, I feel like publicly criticizing Greg's netiquette today, sorry) who seems to feel that you have already come to a precise understanding of what is fundamentally the correct way to view the Universe and how to explore it intellectually. Unfortunately, Greg, since I happen to consider myself your intellectual equal (or better), (you may disagree with this assessment :-) and I also have seen your reasoning process, I have to let you know that you process of thinking, although quite valid, is certainly not the Be All and End All. If your interlocutor does not lay out all of his evidence and all of his arguments, perhaps it is not because he is confused and thinking vaguely, but that there is something more to his position than you perceive. Just . . . maybe. In my case, in fact, there is. Quite a lot more, and you most likely, unfortunately, will never be able to appreciate this.) >> Yes, I am a senior in physics (a pretty good physics student, >>too, in my opinion :-), and I realize that there is no plausible >>mechanism that could have transmitted this kind of information. > >Boy, you must be pretty smart. No comment :-). > >If you feel that there is no plausible mechanism, or in other words, no >plausible explanation (for a mechanism is no more than that), then your >theories are inherently implausible. > >What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you >describe. In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the >biggest enigma in all of physics. It should be presented as the great >counterexample in all physics courses. Other paradoxes in physics are >presented in this fashion, so why not yours? Maybe there is something wrong >with your experiments... Yes, I mean to imply that these kind of experiences could provide source material for a new intellectual investigation into a particular phenomenon, as electrical and magnetic phenomena did in the 19th century. However, obviously since these kinds of phenomena are difficult to reproduce (since they involve very complex biological systems) they certainly could not be presented as "the great counterexample". Few people can even admit to their plausibility unless they have also come into contact with similar phenomena. In my case it seems to happen very frequently, particularly with my girlfriend, to such a degree that I cannot just toss it off as my own wishful thinking. (In fact, it has rather serious consequences in that I have to be responsible for the well-being of not only myself but of her as well. This is something that you would not understand, Greg, perhaps you shall never understand. I hope, however, that you will someday have such a connection with someone.) I do not know why this happens to us. It may be related to my training in the Japanese martial arts. -Mitsu
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/16/86)
> > [Greg] > >It's very easy to take all of the experiences in your life, select the > >coincidences, and then declare that they are more than coincidences. It's also > >easy to edit your own memory to have it fit your preconceived notions of the > >world. Recollections of dreams and feeling are especially easy to change. ---- > [Mitsu] > You are becoming rather offensive here, Greg. Stating the > obvious and then accusing me of overlooking it is a rather weak > counter-argument. Of course the above possibility has occurred to me, > however after three years of this kind of "coincidence" occurring > regularly (one particular series of events I calculated as having > approximately a 1 in 10^15 chance of occurring randomly. This > experience was SO strange that I will keep it to myself at the > risk of sounding like a lunatic. ------ How is Greg's stating the obvious offensive to you, Mitsu. Greg's example with the 1's and 0's in the random number generator is entirely appropriate to your case. Or did you not understand it. I can easily find coincidences in my life that I can estimate roughly at having individual probablities of the order of 1 in 10^3 through 1 in 10^6. String a few of these together and I can come up with an accurate probability of that string of coincidences of 10^whatever I want. The question you should ask yourself, Mitsu, is how many possible strings of coincidences could have possibly occurred in your life. Only a few minutes of thought should convince you that this number far excedes 10^15. If you feel that your particular string of coincidences is "strange", fine, but that has no scientific meaning. Your postings are so vague that they are not appropriate for net.physics. I don't feel this way simply because I believe that you are entirely wrong (although I do). Gathman's "channels" I also believe to be totally wrong, but Gathman's postings DO belong in this group, (if they belong anywhere) because, unlike yours, at least they are PHYSICS nonsense. He is at least attempting to define his ideas in scientific terms, so that they can be evaluated. Until you do so, your mind reading may or may not be real, but does not belong in net.physics. There MUST be another newsgroup more suited to your postings. Please find it. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg) (10/17/86)
In article <2577@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >He is at least attempting to define his ideas in scientific terms, so that >they can be evaluated. Until you do so, your mind reading may or may not >be real, but does not belong in net.physics. There MUST be another newsgroup >more suited to your postings. Please find it. Although I agree that Mitsu's posting does not belong in net.physics, I think the argument in favor of scientific terms can be made stronger: An idea that cannot be evaluated (such as Mitsu's claims of mind-reading) is neither true nor false, neither real nor unreal. It is a non-statement about reality. It adds nothing to an understanding of nature. "This isn't true; it isn't even false!" - Wolfgang Pauli gregregreg
hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) (10/18/86)
In article <2577@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> > [Greg] >> >It's very easy to take all of the experiences in your life, select the >> >coincidences, and then declare that they are more than coincidences. It's also >> >easy to edit your own memory to have it fit your preconceived notions of the >> >world. Recollections of dreams and feeling are especially easy to change. >---- >> [Mitsu] >> You are becoming rather offensive here, Greg. >------ >How is Greg's stating the obvious offensive to you, Mitsu. Greg's >example with the 1's and 0's in the random number generator is entirely >appropriate to your case. Or did you not understand it. Excuse me for continuing this discussion here, but I did so because this was the original newsgroup in which the topic of mind reading or telepathy arose. I did not choose to put this topic here. I simply was interested in posting my personal viewpoint, from actual experience. Of course, Bill, I understood Greg's argument. My point was that this is such an obvious argument that it might have occurred to Greg that I had thought of it already, and had discounted it after some rather convincing experiences came down the line. I hold further that the things which have happened to me have happened to other people, and that they are certainly not just a series of carefully chosen coincidences. I didn't spend each day going over with my friend every experience of each minute of every day, looking for coincidences of this type; these events "jumped out at us" as it were. I don't always get "blasts of ecstasy" and so forth. From this point of view Greg's analysis breaks down. -Mitsu
hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) (10/18/86)
In article <447@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg) writes: >Although I agree that Mitsu's posting does not belong in net.physics, I think >the argument in favor of scientific terms can be made stronger: > >An idea that cannot be evaluated (such as Mitsu's claims of mind-reading) is >neither true nor false, neither real nor unreal. It is a non-statement about >reality. It adds nothing to an understanding of nature. I believe the original thread of the argument was the evolutionary advantage/disadvantage of telepathy. My point was that the following possibility was being overlooked: since it is only human beings who can report telepathic events through language, we can only say for sure that telepathy is not common in humans. We cannot say the same for animals. My hypothesis was that because of the large differences between the human and animal mind, it may well be that telepathic ability in humans is simply supressed; particuarly because in the current era we have a "common-sense" world view which excludes telepathy as a possibility. However, there is a large amount of evidence that ancient cultures and primitive cultures believe in various different accounts of psychic phenomena. My hypothesis was, further, that we have simply forgotten how to listen to our "sixth sense"; and that in the past, when we did not rule out the possibility in our world view, people were much more inclined to listen to this "sixth sense." This would provide an explanation as to why psychic phenomena do not manifest themselves as often today as they might have in the past. The whole point of this argument being: suppose telepathy were possible and humans were capable of it. Why don't we see more telepathy today? The above is a brief hypothesis (rough, I admit, but I cannot see how I can present a precise theory when the subject is still so shrouded in ignorance). If psychic phenomena do occur, it is clear that we do not know what kinds of phenomena are possible nor how or under what conditions they occur. It is ludicrous to ask for a "definition" of telepathy; I think what is required at this stage is simply a series of reports of isolated incidents (data). After a large number of events have been recorded carefully, a pattern may well emerge. It may be that 50% of the data will be spurious (again, I am assuming for the sake of argument that the phenomena ARE real, and presenting a possible scenario), 10% representing "actual" psychic events, and 40% representing willful fraud or deceit. Possibly with a concerted effort a pattern might emerge, and at this time it would be appropriate to classify and define the types of phenomena that are possible. Again, it is crazy to ask for a "definition" when there is still not enough data to begin to discern a pattern! -Mitsu
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/18/86)
In article <403@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >In article <364@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >[Lots of ambiguous, untestable theorizing deleted from original posting] >> However, it may be that very subtle forms of telepathy (below >>the threshold of consciousness) can be going on all the time without >>our being aware of it. If this phenomenon is subtle enough, we >>may not be able to distinguish it from the noise (due to the selective >>nature of our consciousness which acts as a kind of squelch.) > >Alternatively, we may invent it by selectively looking at the noise. >Whatever you mean by noise. And telepathy. It's a breath mint!! It's a candy mint!! It's a breath mint!! It's a candy mint!! Stop! You're BOTH right! It's a breath mint AND a candy mint! It's TWO mints TWO mints TWO mints in one! >easy to edit your own memory to have it fit your preconceived notions of the >world. Recollections of dreams and feeling are especially easy to change. When in doubt, acuse. >Or to put it more bluntly, I had my own experiment recently: I ran a random >number generator for a long time. Here is a sample of the results: > >11011100111010... >^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^ > >I discovered an *amazing* coincidence, nay it was more than coincidence. ALL >of the digits above the arrows are 1's! Given that there are ten ones, the >odds of that are 1024 to 1! My, what a clever boy. Grow up, Sophomore. Ridicule is appropriate on Saturday Night Live and Not Neccessarily The News. It has no place in establishing truth. You have good points to make, why spoil the effect with bad sportsmanship? You won't like this example either. In my own family, a more dramatic series of dreams by my sister ended when they came true: she repeatedly dreamed of Dad choking, and of herself struggling to wake up and go to help him (ever dream that you couln't wake up, or of running through molasses?) She finally did get up (took seconds but seemed like longer) and staggered to Mom and Dad's bedroom, where Mom was paralysed with fear, couldn't speak, just pointed to the bathroom. Dad had tried to swallow some body-temperature water from the shower and his larynx got confused and spasmed (that's how he described it to me... hey, this isn't the dream I'm describing, this happened.) He was just about to inject himself with adrenalin (he's a doctor and has various allergies, so keeps some remedies handy)... says he probably would have survived even without Margie's help, but the spasm cleared when she pounded him on the back (she could see he was choking, and had expected it from the dreams.) The dreams stopped. Proof? Nope. The sun rising in the morning proves nothing, could be a simulation. There is no proof, if you go to extremes. So don't go to extremes, learn to live. Part of that is to learn what is, not what theory says. If you limit yourself, your power of observation is reduced. Either limitation of too much belief or too much skepticism puts blinders on you. Anecdotal examples prove nothing, but they can be worthwhile to inspire deeper thought. Or they can be a distraction from real thinking. (From my point of view, that would be the TV evangelists... but to be fair, some New-Age and psi stuff qualifies as distraction, too). If I told you I had seen rocks fall from the sky (or that my Dad and my sister had), would you scoff that there are no rocks in the sky, therefore the report HAS to be false? There is a third alternative, besides belief and disbelief: open mindedness. Try it. You'll be a better scientist for it. Or at least a better person. >> Yes, I am a senior in physics (a pretty good physics student, >>too, in my opinion :-), and I realize that there is no plausible >>mechanism that could have transmitted this kind of information. (I wouldn't say that, just that none that has been proposed has been verified.) >What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you >describe. In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the >biggest enigma in all of physics. It is, actually. And he didn't "discover" it, wise-ass. > It should be presented as the great >counterexample in all physics courses. Other paradoxes in physics are >presented in this fashion, so why not yours? Only the ones already tamed, or safely divorsed from uncomfortable folklore. Physicists tend to be very proud of how superstitious they aren't, and go to amusing lengths to prove it, at the expense of objectivity. > Maybe there is something wrong >with your experiments... What experiments? He was presenting experience. Not conclusive proof of anything, of course. His theories are quite preliminary, but fit well with my experience, so far. The subconscious mixes input from many sources, including psi (and the conventional sources like memory, body language, unconsciously noted details, sometimes even scent, etc), and draws conclusions of variable utility called hunches, dreams, premonitions, common sense, wisdom, horse sense, chemistry, rapport, instant (dis)-like... not a well- ordered obedient servant of logic and order. A difficult subject to deal with rationally, so why bother (pardon the sarcasm)? Just put on the blinders. Easier to dismiss it all than to try to sort it out. >>Excuse the psychobabble. (Mitsu, I knew you'd get burned on that phrase. What a straight line!) >I'm sorry, but I can't. Psychobabble, just like any other sort of babble, is >ultimately inexcusable. It doesn't belong in net.physics, and it doesn't >belong in the mouth (or at the fingers) of a "pretty good physics student". >gregregreg And ridicule does belong? I think Mitsu wrote rather clearly, and presented useful ideas for further consideration. Go ahead and criticize, but don't dishonor yourself so with childish taunts. (MY what a lovely tempest our teapot is developing!) - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) {really oliven} or, if that fails: {get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs Leaving the net temporarily about Oct 21; back in maybe early-mid November. Will try to catch up on mail and news when I get back.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/19/86)
< [Phil Stephens, in response to Greg] < Ridicule is appropriate on Saturday Night Live and Not Neccessarily The News. < It has no place in establishing truth. ------- No, but it's a very effective tool when the other guy is being ridiculous! ------- < You have good points to make, why spoil the effect with bad sportsmanship? < You won't like this example either. In my own family, a more dramatic < series of dreams by my sister ended when they came true: she repeatedly < ... etc. etc. .......... < Proof? Nope. The sun rising in the morning proves nothing, could be a < simulation. There is no proof, if you go to extremes. So don't go to < extremes, learn to live. Part of that is to learn what is, not what theory < says. If you limit yourself, your power of observation is reduced. Either < limitation of too much belief or too much skepticism puts blinders on you. ---------------- I'm underwhelmed. When it comes to physics, or bullshit, there is no such thing as too much skepticism. ---------------- < Anecdotal examples prove nothing, but they can be worthwhile to inspire < deeper thought. Or they can be a distraction from real thinking. (From my < point of view, that would be the TV evangelists... but to be fair, some < New-Age and psi stuff qualifies as distraction, too). < < If I told you I had seen rocks fall from the sky (or that my Dad and my < sister had), would you scoff that there are no rocks in the sky, therefore < the report HAS to be false? --------------- No, I would say that it probably was meteorites. You HAVE heard of them, haven't you. --------------- < There is a third alternative, besides belief < and disbelief: open mindedness. Try it. You'll be a better scientist for < it. Or at least a better person. ------------------ Unfortunately, Phil, you cannot tell the difference. Anyone who disbelieves you is close-minded. Anyone who believes you is open-minded. ------------------ < <[Greg, in response to Mitsu] < <What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you < <describe. In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the < <biggest enigma in all of physics. ------------------ < It is, actually. And he didn't "discover" it, wise-ass. ------------------ Phil, first you berate Greg undeservedly for bad sportsmanship. Then, you procede to call Greg a wise-ass. For once, I must admit you are right. Greg has more wisdom in his ass than you do in your whole body. And much more civility and manners, and less hypocrisy. ------------------ < <It should be presented as the great < <counterexample in all physics courses. Other paradoxes in physics are < <presented in this fashion, so why not yours? ------------------ < Only the ones already tamed, or safely divorsed from uncomfortable folklore. ------------------ Or the ones for which there is the slightest shred of reproducible evidence. ------------------ < What experiments? He was presenting experience. Not conclusive proof of < anything, of course. His theories are quite preliminary, but fit well with < my experience, so far. -------------------- What theories? Mitsu's stuff may be a theory in the common English usage of the word, like "I have a theory that I'm gaining weight", but they are nowhere near the very beginnings of a theory as the term is used in physics. This is sci.physics, remember. My gaining weight also fits into my experience, so far, but it's hardly an appropriate item for this newsgroup. -------------------- < The subconscious mixes input from many sources, < including psi (and the conventional sources like memory, body language, < unconsciously noted details, sometimes even scent, etc), and draws conclusions < of variable utility called hunches, dreams, premonitions, common sense, < wisdom, horse sense, chemistry, rapport, instant (dis)-like... not a well- < ordered obedient servant of logic and order. A difficult subject to deal < with rationally, so why bother (pardon the sarcasm)? Just put on the < blinders. Easier to dismiss it all than to try to sort it out. -------------------- Why should we bother. You have just said above thas psi exists. What more evidence could we possibly need.-) So, Phil, having come out and said that psi exists, in the absence of proof, you show yourself to be the close-minded one. Neither Greg nor I ever said that psi does not exist, only that Mitsu's evidence and yours was woefully inadequate at best, and worthless at worst. Physicists do not dismiss it all. They just have more productive ways to spend their time. If you wish to talk about the subconscious mind, horse sense, etc, try net.psychology, or net.behavior, or something. -------------------- < <<Excuse the psychobabble. < (Mitsu, I knew you'd get burned on that phrase. What a straight line!) ---------------- < < [More Greg] < <I'm sorry, but I can't. Psychobabble, just like any other sort of babble, is < <ultimately inexcusable. It doesn't belong in net.physics, and it doesn't < <belong in the mouth (or at the fingers) of a "pretty good physics student". ---------------- < And ridicule does belong? I think Mitsu wrote rather clearly, and presented < useful ideas for further consideration. Go ahead and criticize, but don't < dishonor yourself so with childish taunts. ---------------- If you are going to be ridiculous, you must expect ridicule. Mitsu's "ideas", such as they are, are not physics. Neither are yours. They do not belong in sci.physics. If you and Mitsu had posted to an appropriate newsgroup, nobody would have hassled you. Phil, you have shown yourself to be everything that you accused Greg of. What is so sad is that you probably really believe what you say. PLEASE, put your psi discussions in another newsgroup. PLEASE. ---------------- -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
prs@oliveb.UUCP (10/19/86)
Thanks again for keeping the discussion alive. Opponents do more to keep this discussion on net.physics/sci.physics than proponents do. Would have quickly died out w/o your loyal support: thank you, thank you, thank you. In article <447@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >An idea that cannot be evaluated (such as Mitsu's claims of mind-reading) is >neither true nor false, neither real nor unreal. It is a non-statement about >reality. It adds nothing to an understanding of nature. > >"This isn't true; it isn't even false!" - Wolfgang Pauli >gregregreg Nonsense. Because he did not propose specific particles or equations he is being imprecise? Hardly. He was answering some good and bad points others had made, and doing rather well at it. Your point undoubtedly fits some argument, somewhere, sometime (maybe even some particular sentence or paragraph of some posting of mine!); but it does not fit Mitsu's posting that you are criticisizing. Before one gets to the point of proposing a specific experiment, one discusses hypothesis, wild theories, hunches, counter proposals, past experience, and in some fields one even discusses --gasp-- folklore. Particularly in psi, one has to sift through a lot of static and contradictory nomenclature to even decide what one is looking for. But one is told not to even think about it unless one can prove it is worthwhile w/o first going through that phase. Harumph. This probably does belong in mod.psi, but I haven't seen it in months. Someone just posted a btw that mod.psi is "up again" after several weeks. Weeks? Maybe it isn't getting forwarded to oliveb. If anyone HAS gotten new mod.psi articles in the past 6 months, please E-mail a short note to me, and I'll try to piece together from the paths they take to me what is happening (if no response, I'll unscientificly assume it doesn't reach anyone). Meanwhile, friendly pen-pals are welcome! I have a few modest theories of my own, some experiences to share, and I 'collect' bizzare world-views... for their novelty, and their utility in temporarily considering a radically different approach to what one normally takes for granted. - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) {really oliven} or, if that fails: {get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs Leaving the net temporarily about Oct 21; back in maybe early-mid November. Will try to catch up on mail and news when I get back.
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/20/86)
(The following, in retrospect, is personal response to personal flames. Neither has real content with reguard to either psi or physics, but I am posting because the insults were public, so the reply must be. Feel free to skip this if you prefer substance.) In article <2581@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >< [Phil Stephens, in response to Greg] >< Ridicule is appropriate on Saturday Night Live and Not Neccessarily The News. >< It has no place in establishing truth. >------- >No, but it's a very effective tool when the other guy is being ridiculous! Which is why I ridicule you and Greg. You're being ridiculously skeptical, not reasonably skeptical. >------- >< extremes, learn to live. Part of that is to learn what is, not what theory >< says. If you limit yourself, your power of observation is reduced. Either >< limitation of too much belief or too much skepticism puts blinders on you. >---------------- >I'm underwhelmed. When it comes to physics, or bullshit, there is no such >thing as too much skepticism. Not so. Devout disbelief tends to reduce one's ability to observe just as much as devout belief. You indict yourself. Thank you. >---------------- >< If I told you I had seen rocks fall from the sky (or that my Dad and my >< sister had), would you scoff that there are no rocks in the sky, therefore >< the report HAS to be false? >--------------- >No, I would say that it probably was meteorites. You HAVE heard of them, >haven't you. You missed my point. You HAVE heard of them, and have accepted them all your life because the books say they exist. This was not true a few centuries ago, as someone else recently posted. I submit that you would be one of those scoffing this "nonexistant phenomina" if it had not already been proven. As the other poster said, the point is not that there are no rocks in the sky therefore they cannot fall, but that they fall, therefore there are rocks in the sky. The parallel to psi phenomina is quite apt. You indict yourself again. >< There is a third alternative, besides belief >< and disbelief: open mindedness. Try it. You'll be a better scientist for >< it. Or at least a better person. >------------------ >Unfortunately, Phil, you cannot tell the difference. Anyone who disbelieves >you is close-minded. Anyone who believes you is open-minded. Wrong. But you wouldn't know the difference, would you? It is the closed- minded way in which you disagree that gives you away, not the fact that you disagree with me. But I don't think you're intelligent enough to grasp that, judging by your recent postings. (YES I'm just saying that to get your goat. And dishing back to you what you dish out. Oh, you didn't know you were? Case in point.) >< <[Greg, in response to Mitsu] >< <What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you >< <describe. In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the >< <biggest enigma in all of physics. >------------------ >< It is, actually. And he didn't "discover" it, wise-ass. >------------------ >Phil, first you berate Greg undeservedly for bad sportsmanship. Then, you >procede to call Greg a wise-ass. For once, I must admit you are right. Resorting to name-calling doesn't do much for my point, but it isn't the same level of bad sportsmanship as what I was criticizing. So what?? I really felt that Greg was being unsportsmanly earlier, and specious here. Is "specious" a more acceptable word than "wise ass"? Good. Bill, you also are being specious. >Greg has more wisdom in his ass than you do in your whole body. My, how you show your maturity to be SOOOO much greater than mine. Shall I worship you? >And much more civility and manners, and less hypocrisy. No, he wasn't being civil or mannerly. If you think so, you are a hypocrite. >Why should we bother. You have just said above thas psi exists. What >more evidence could we possibly need.-) Frankly, I'm bored with the topic of "does it exist". I'm more interested in "how does it work", which is what really offends you. You keep insisting on your own agenda of "it doesn't exist unless you can persuade me, nyah nyah nyah!", which to me is like saying meteorites don't exist. > So, Phil, having come out and said that psi exists, in the absence >of proof, you show yourself to be the close-minded one. Neither Greg nor No, but no point talking to you about it. Defend myself? Unneccessary. >I ever said that psi does not exist, only that Mitsu's evidence and yours No, you only ridiculed anyone who seems to have concluded differently than you obviously have. This strongly implies that you believe psi does not exist. I am amazed at your hypocracy! >was woefully inadequate at best, and worthless at worst. Inadequate to close the issue, certainly. Worthless? To you, because it doesn't fit your agenda. > Physicists do not dismiss it all. They just have more productive >ways to spend their time. But not you, you prefer responding to these articles and keeping the topic heated up. >< And ridicule does belong? I think Mitsu wrote rather clearly, and presented >< useful ideas for further consideration. Go ahead and criticize, but don't >< dishonor yourself so with childish taunts. >---------------- >If you are going to be ridiculous, you must expect ridicule. That goes for you, too, as I said earlier. You think we're being ridiculous; we (or at least I) think you're being ridiculous. Looks like a standoff. >Mitsu's "ideas", such as they are, are not physics. Neither are yours. >They do not belong in sci.physics. If you and Mitsu had posted to >an appropriate newsgroup, nobody would have hassled you. To mod.psi? It seems to need repairing. Perhaps you should be lobbying for that repair work instead of perpetuating the flamage on sci.physics. Hassled me? Think I mind? Think I'm worried about being hassled? Nope, I'm enjoying exposing you this way. Thanks!!!! > Phil, you have shown yourself to be everything that you accused >Greg of. What is so sad is that you probably really believe what you say. No, seems to me that *you* have shown yourself to be everything that I accused Greg of. No surprise. It's sad that you really believe you are defending the truth by your antics. Must be a flimsy truth if it must be defended with intimidation. (ie, why are you so insecure about it?) >PLEASE, put your psi discussions in another newsgroup. PLEASE. Bug off. This discussion would have died out two weeks ago w/o the constant harrassment. Since this topic has led me to some interesting people, it has been worthwhile for me. If it dies out on this group while I'm away for a few weeks, that's fine with me too. Remember, I didn't PUT the discussion here any more than you did. I just responded to various things. Difference is, I have been contributing to a discussion, and you have been prolonging it by your opposition. How amusing. But if this goes on much longer, it will get very boring! Further insults by E-mail, please, you're cluttering the net! Again!! >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Actually, I would prefer to post to {talk|misc|soc|sci}.psi, but I'll settle for mod.psi if someone gets it to propagate to this node (assuming it exists beyond the first 8 messages). Until then, I will gleefully add to the discussion in any group where I happen to see psi crop up, to help encourage repair or creation of a more appropriate newsgroup (aha! my own hidden agenda revealed at last!) Almost gone.... - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) {really oliven} or, if that fails: {get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs Leaving the net temporarily about Oct 21; back in maybe early-mid November. Will try to catch up on mail and news when I get back.
greg@endor.harvard.edu (Greg) (10/20/86)
In article <146@oliveb.UUCP> prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) writes: >In article <447@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >>An idea that cannot be evaluated (such as Mitsu's claims of mind-reading) is >>neither true nor false, neither real nor unreal. It is a non-statement about >>reality. It adds nothing to an understanding of nature. >> >>"This isn't true; it isn't even false!" - Wolfgang Pauli >>gregregreg > >Nonsense. Because he did not propose specific particles or equations he is >being imprecise? Hardly. Whatever makes you think that I insist that a sound idea needs to propose specific particles or equations? I never said or meant anything of the kind. What I did mean is that Mitsu gave no explanation of what he means by telepathy. The best that I can tell from his accounts of mind-reading is that he thinks that telepathy is any extraordinary coincidence between his mental state and someone else's. You cannot merely collect a list of coincidences, no matter how extraordinary or unusual, and call it a phenomenon. It is more than likely that you are looking at many different phenomena. Which is exactly what I think of Mitsu's examples: Each anecdote is its own phenomenon. No two anecdotes have anything to do with each other, except that they were observed by the same person. >Before one gets to the point of proposing a >specific experiment, one discusses hypothesis, wild theories, hunches, >counter proposals, past experience, and in some fields one even discusses >--gasp-- folklore. I saw no hypotheses, wild theories, tame theories, hunches, assertions, proposals, or counter-proposals in Mitsu's posting. I only saw past experience and folklore. I did see final conclusions (that is, Mitsu has concluded that he has telepathic powers), but all this stuff in the middle that you're talking about was missing. ---- gregregreg
prs@oliveb.UUCP (10/21/86)
In article <480@husc6.HARVARD.EDU> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >What I did mean is that Mitsu gave no explanation of what he means by >telepathy. The best that I can tell from his accounts of mind-reading is that >he thinks that telepathy is any extraordinary coincidence between his mental >state and someone else's. Thank you for expressing your point clearly and politely. In fact, I may have overreacted to your previous posting (I've been a bit wired lately, working at night and all. Not condusive to politeness or reasonableness on my part, nor to my granting others the benefit of the doubt. I'll try to do more of the latter in the future.) I expect Mitsu will have some reply, which I look forward to seeing. btw, I just stumbled upon sci.misc; until mod.psi gets repaired, that might be an acceptable alternative to posting psi discussion in sci.physics (not that *I* object to it being here!) >---- >gregregreg ...........almost gone.............. - Phil prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) {really oliven} or, if that fails: {get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs Leaving the net temporarily about Oct 21; back in maybe early-mid November. Will try to catch up on mail and news when I get back.
marv@ism780c.UUCP (Marv Rubenstein) (10/22/86)
>however after three years of this kind of "coincidence" occurring >regularly (one particular series of events I calculated as having >approximately a 1 in 10^15 chance of occurring randomly. This You have to be very carefull about computing the probability after the fact. Consider for example tossing a coin 200 times and recording the results. e.g. HHTTTHTHH... Now, what is the probility of repeating the sequence exactly. I compute the probility as about 6.22E-61. But what is the probability of the first outcome? Would you belive 1.0? Also, consider the probality that Boston would beat California in the playoff when they were behind in the 9'th with 2 outs and 2 strikes on the batter. I actually made a bet with a friend at that point that Boston would win the series. ESP? I don't think so. Just a lucky guess. Marv Rubinstein
dole@garth.UUCP (10/23/86)
Hmm, I've always wanted to build a psychic accelerator: Line up a bunch of psychics in a row pointed at the Evil Empire. Give each psychic a couple of bricks and have them bash the bricks against their heads. The resulting empathic wave front should be enough to crush the Godless Ones. Perhaps Uri Geller can be used as the injector. Uses up a lot of psychics, though. ( Can you hear me, SDI?) Harry
hadeishi%husc4@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (11/12/86)
I have discussed this issue at length (psychic coincidences) however your exposition does not convince me. I believe you failed to see my point. What I meant was, I was able to detect the unusual nature of the event BEFORE it was verfied to be a "coincidence." In fact, this type of thing has happened to me several times in the last few years (in a big way) and many, many times in small ways (where I haven't detected the coincidence before it way verified.) That is to say, these so-called psychic events have had characteristics which set them apart from everyday phenomena; this is the point of my article which you seem to have totally overlooked. Now when your friend began to talk to you about that comic strip, I am sure you didn't think at the time "aha, this is strange, I'll bet something weird comes of this." That event may or may not have been psychically driven (most likely not) but it did NOT have the characteristic of being identifiable BEFORE the coincidence was verified. What I don't understand about your attitude is your clinging to your ideas about how the world works as if your life depended on it. Why are you so convinced that psychic phenomena are impossible (so much so that you fail to see an elementary point in my article?) What is clear is that you should not confuse the map with the territory; just because your map doesn't have any symbols for "psychic phenomena" on it doesn't mean they're not out there. I would personally take a much more skeptical view of my own conception of how the world works . . . to me that is TRUE skepticism. -Mitsu
RMann%pco@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (11/14/86)
> I believe you failed to see my point. What I meant was, I was >able
to detect the unusual nature of the event BEFORE it was verfied >to be a
"coincidence."
Sorry, I've got to butt in here. It seems that you are one of those
rare people who have experienced unexplainable coincidences that seem so
improbable that they must be due to psi phenomenon.
Given a large enough population and enough time, it is very likely that
at least one person in that population will experience a random set of
events that are "unusual". This person is very likely to believe that
it's due to psi or God's will, or fate, or karma, or whatever depending
upon their constitutional right to believe in whatever they darn well
choose.
You seem to be one of these people. And I am sure that you cannot be
convinced otherwise. I have NEVER experienced a "major" coincidence and
I cannot be convinced there IS psi. However, if ever do experience a
psi event, then I'm sure that I'll reconsider. :-)
Remember, someone HAS to win the lottery, no matter how improbable that
may seem to the rest of us losers.
Rogerdavet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (11/18/86)
In article <245@sri-arpa.ARPA> RMann%pco@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: > >> I believe you failed to see my point. What I meant was, I was >able >to detect the unusual nature of the event BEFORE it was verfied >to be a >"coincidence." > >Sorry, I've got to butt in here. It seems that you are one of those >rare people who have experienced unexplainable coincidences that seem so >improbable that they must be due to psi phenomenon. Such events are not nearly as rare as you assume. Just last Sunday while coming back from a trip to Big Bend Nat. Park I suddenly found myself thinking about a computer programmer friend crashing a diskette and losing valuable work shortly after noon. Past experience had taught me to recognize these unusual changes in mental thoughts as being ESP related. Sure enough, the person had been working on the weekend (a rare event in itself) and had accidently erase a complete diskette on his Grid at that time. Coincidence? If this only happened once sure. But every couple of months I have the same thing kind of thing happen. No way that's coincidence. -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (11/18/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <809@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >Coincidence? If this only happened once sure. But every couple of months >I have the same thing kind of thing happen. No way that's coincidence. No way is it physics either. Scram, buster. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720