PK parties

[flyboy217]

I haven't seen any postings on here about this yet, so I thought I'd ask. I'm going to cover it in a good amount of depth, so bear with me.

If you're not familiar, a man named Jack Houck has been giving for 21 years what he calls "PK parties." At these parties, he (purportedly) teaches people to bend metallic objects that they are normally physically incapable of bending:

http://www.jackhouck.com/pk.shtml

Prima facie, Uri Geller would come to mind. Since I understand he was caught cheating on numerous occasions, I'll not bring him up. The interesting thing about these parties is that several well-known (and well-respected) people have come away with the strong belief that they did indeed bend spoons in ways normally impossible:

Michael Crichton, a skeptical, Harvard-trained MD:

Michael Crichton in "Travels" (http://www.crichton-official.com/features/features_spoonbending.shtml)
Michael Crichton in an interview (http://www.crichton-official.com/travels/travels_books.shtml)

Dean Radin, well-respected parapsychological investigator:

Dean Radin's experience (http://www.psiresearch.org/spoon.htm)
(Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, especially if you are unfamiliar with his works. Read his account carefully.)

The University of Arizona:

PK Party at University of Arizona (http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/94/127/01_3_m.html)

I have many more links lying around.

Now, there are several interesting things to note:

In most cases, these people brought their own spoons, so that tampering is unlikely.
These people did it themselves (so please, no postings on sleight of hand or other trickery on behalf of the participants). The spoons exhibit extreme structural damage to their bowls, which is extremely hard to do with one's bare hands (try it).


I have read one explanation from James Randi:


There are a lot of these guys out there. What they do is they tell you to put pressure on the spoon but not enough to bend it. Now, what if I told you to take a wine glass, rap it on the edge of the table, but not hard enough to break it? How do you do that? How do put enough pressure on the spoon but not enough to bend it? Then concentrate on it, and it will bend.

You don't know how much pressure it takes to bend the spoon or to break this wine glass. That's the point. You can tap it on the table a number of times, and it won't break, then when you concentrate on it, it will break. But at the point where it does break, was it because you added something to it or because you rapped it a little harder or at a slightly different angle?

He's telling you to put pressure on the thing. He doesn't tell you to bend it with your mind; he tells you to put pressure on it but not enough to bend it with your hands--and then add energy to it from your mind. How do you know where that energy is coming from? You don't know.


This clearly fails to address the point that buckling the head of a spoon is beyond the physical abilities of most people (Crichton and Radin included).

At the very least, it is apparent that there exist spoons that have had their bowls crushed. Considering that both Radin and Crichton brought their own spoons, and are unable to do this with "normal" strength, what could be the cause? The two explanations I can see are 1) there is "something interesting" going on at these parties, or 2) all of these people are liars.

Considering that Mr. Houck himself has hosted parties for over 15,000 people, 85% of whom he says have shown positive results, shouldn't there already be a well-known explanation, either way?

[Goshawk]

All questions of "gee, how do you suppose they could have done that, if not by psychic powers?" aside, I have only one question: If Jack Houck has been doing this for over 20 years, why hasn't he trotted down to Randi's office, demonstrated it for him, and thereby earned himself an easy million dollars?

[Goshawk]

An obvious explanation:

In most cases, these people brought their own spoons, so that tampering is unlikely.
Beg to differ.

I read all four of your links, and none of them mentioned where they got the spoons, that I could see. Michael Crichton doesn't say he brought his own spoon. Nobody else says they brought their own spoons.

I am forced to conclude that the flatware, both spoons and forks, was provided by the "host" of the spoon-bending party, and that it was of some soft metal that would warm up when manipulated in the human hand, and become malleable enough to squish into weird shapes.

It's possible that even standard Oneida silver flatware would do this, although I'm not a metallurgist and I wouldn't really know.

I doubt if you could do the spoon-bending trick with stainless steel flatware.

Left this out, oops:

Also, I found this on Jack Houck's website:
We try to create a peak emotional event at a PK Party. The bigger this peak emotional event, the better the results.
So, he gives people these soft metal spoons, he gets them all pumped up, and in all the excitement, after the spoons are softened, they bend them with their own fingers, but they're really excited, and they're willing to believe that they did it with their minds alone. He even says to one guy, "Hey, didn't you notice that you bent the fork in your left hand?" and the guy goes, "Oh...yeah...you're right."

Read it for yourself.

It's all about persuading people of what they saw.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Goshawk
All questions of "gee, how do you suppose they could have done that, if not by psychic powers?" aside, I have only one question: If Jack Houck has been doing this for over 20 years, why hasn't he trotted down to Randi's office, demonstrated it for him, and thereby earned himself an easy million dollars?


it sounds passe, but that is where the rubber hits the road.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by flyboy217

The spoons exhibit extreme structural damage to their bowls, which is extremely hard to do with one's bare hands (try it).


It is something, like bending a key, that can be done probably pretty easily with practice.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Goshawk
All questions of "gee, how do you suppose they could have done that, if not by psychic powers?" aside, I have only one question: If Jack Houck has been doing this for over 20 years, why hasn't he trotted down to Randi's office, demonstrated it for him, and thereby earned himself an easy million dollars?

Yes, this is the first question any reasonable person (myself included) would ask. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning does nothing to answer my questions. After all, my question wasn't "is PK real?," but "why are the spoon heads bent?"


I am forced to conclude that the flatware, both spoons and forks, was provided by the "host" of the spoon-bending party, and that it was of some soft metal that would warm up when manipulated in the human hand, and become malleable enough to squish into weird shapes.


This is a reasonable conclusion. Consider Radin's quote: "All of my attempts to repeat this effect later, both with and without the use of force, failed." A metal that becomes malleable just once, and never again? I suppose not as far-fetched as a claim of people using psychokinesis, but it sounds far-fetched nonetheless (any metallurgists out there?).


It's all about persuading people of what they saw.

Which is why I bring up the issue of the pictures. They're certainly not incontrovertible evidence of anything at all, for sure. But they at least do give a direction in which to ask questions. Namely, regardless of what people believed or saw, why are the spoon heads bent? So far, the one-time only melting alloys is the best contender.


I doubt if you could do the spoon-bending trick with stainless steel flatware.

Read Jack's site again. He suggests using only stainless steel silverware. He also suggests that anyone who tries does the same, for this reason.

In the end, perhaps the best way to answer my question is to gather 30 of my friends, find stainless steel spoons and forks, and try it myself. One would be foolhardy to let words alone convince him, especially if the experiment is so simple. I think we can both agree on that. This thread will give me ideas on what to look for while conducting such an experiment.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is something, like bending a key, that can be done probably pretty easily with practice.


These people did not have practice. In any case, I invite you to try buckling a spoon head with your bare hands. Practice as much as you'd like, and let me know how it goes.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is something, like bending a key, that can be done probably pretty easily with practice.

With respect, the Houck parties are not the same thing at all.
I did some research for someone a few years ago on this very subject and during an interview with Dr Russell Targ he gave me this first hand account of the Houck party.:


"My co-author Jane Katra, a spiritual healer with small delicate hands, rolled up the bowl of a teaspoon at a PK party with Jack Hauk last year. She was quietly meditating (waiting for the party to end, so that we could go home) when she screamed!
The bowl rolled up 180 degrees in her closed fist, and frightened her. We took a picture of the spoon and put it, with its picture into a plastic bag. By the time we arrived home, the bowl had bent an additional 90 degrees, 270 in all.

I wouldn't know how to create such a smooth roll, even if I took a spoon to the lab. At the party, I later bent the bowl of a similar spoon by brute force, damaging my hand in the process. The bowl creased sharply as I broke the back of the bowl. It looked nothing like Jane's.

The following month we had another opportunity to go to a PK party. Northern California does have some advantages. At this party Houck (a metallurgist from Boeing) had one-foot long, 3/8 diameter aluminum rods as objects for bending. Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees.

Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever, without putting it over a knee, which is again quite a painful undertaking."

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by flyboy217
This is a reasonable conclusion. Consider Radin's quote: "All of my attempts to repeat this effect later, both with and without the use of force, failed." A metal that becomes malleable just once, and never again? I suppose not as far-fetched as a claim of people using psychokinesis, but it sounds far-fetched nonetheless (any metallurgists out there?).

He doesn't say he attempted it again with the same spoon.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


With respect, the Houck parties are not the same thing at all.
I did some research for someone a few years ago on this very subject and during an interview with Dr Russell Targ he gave me this first hand account of the Houck party.:

You are actually using Russell Targ as a source?

The man is incapable of critical thought. He believes that Uri Geller gets his powers from space aliens.

Oh wait. I forgot who I was posting to. Nevermind.

[The Don]

As I understand it:

If someone should wish to bend metal by means other than PK, there is a range of products available through your friendly magic retailer to enable you to demonstrate your powers.

When a group of people get together there is often a deal of pressure fit in with the group. If everyone else's spoons (the ones they bought from a magic shop) are bending and your spoon (the one you "borrowed" from the cafeteria) isn't, then there is a tendancy to either claim that your spoon is bending when it isn't or to apply a little manual force to enable it to happen.

If the explanation isn't PK then it's got to be the result of illusion. The reason why experienced observers are so convinced with someone's powers is that they are an excellent illusionist.

Should the PK master agree to be tested under "proper" conditions where the tests have been designed by skilled illusionists and they still manage to produce the effects, then that really is something to write home about.

and finally......
Considering that Mr. Houck himself has hosted parties for over 15,000 people, 85% of whom he says have shown positive results, shouldn't there already be a well-known explanation, either way?
The emphasis is mine, he gets to decide what is a "positive result" (perhaps it's just being in a room with a bent spoon" and he also provides this figure with no supporting evidence.

The most likely explanation is illusion. If he is willing to submit to properly controlled tests the PK perhaps can be ruled-in.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
You are actually using Russell Targ as a source?

The man is incapable of critical thought. He believes that Uri Geller gets his powers from space aliens.



No, he does not. :rolleyes:

He is actually a govt sponsored physicist and CIA contractee with a history of credibility and integrity. He was also a performing stage magician before getting qualified as a physicist so he is well versed in spotting trickery.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don


The emphasis is mine, he gets to decide what is a "positive result" (perhaps it's just being in a room with a bent spoon" and he also provides this figure with no supporting evidence.



"At this party Houck (a metallurgist from Boeing) had one-foot long, 3/8 diameter aluminum rods as objects for bending. Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees.

Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever, without putting it over a knee, which is again quite a painful undertaking."

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

With respect, the Houck parties are not the same thing at all.
I did some research for someone a few years ago on this very subject and during an interview with Dr Russell Targ he gave me this first hand account of the Houck party.:
How is this not a Russell Targ quote ?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don

How is this not a Russell Targ quote ?

?? What?

[Hamish]

A metal that becomes malleable just once, and never again? I suppose not as far-fetched as a claim of people using psychokinesis, but it sounds far-fetched nonetheless (any metallurgists out there?).


Not a metallurgist but you could try looking up work-hardening. In fact you can even try it. If you bend a teaspoon a couple of times it starts to become stiffer before it breaks. You increase the yield strength and decrease malleability.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"At this party Houck (a metallurgist from Boeing) had one-foot long, 3/8 diameter aluminum rods as objects for bending. Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees.

Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever, without putting it over a knee, which is again quite a painful undertaking."
Alternative possible explanations (to PK)

- the correspondent's memory of the event is not accurate
- the correspondent is lying to support their beliefs
- the two rods were superficially similar but quite different. After all (my emphasis)
Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever

Without access to any of the artifacts it's difficult to tell what the likely cause is. At a guess I'd suggest a combination of the first and the third.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
?? What?
Comprehensionally challenged this a.m., sorry

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don

Alternative possible explanations (to PK)

- the correspondent's memory of the event is not accurate
- the correspondent is lying to support their beliefs
- the two rods were superficially similar but quite different. After all (my emphasis)
Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever

Without access to any of the artifacts it's difficult to tell what the likely cause is. At a guess I'd suggest a combination of the first and the third.

With respect, Don, that's not really a rational skeptical explanation given the number of people involved and the integrity people involved. In a proper skeptical argument those sort of explanations only fly if they have evidence to support them.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
With respect, Don, that's not really a rational skeptical explanation given the number of people involved and the integrity people involved. In a proper skeptical argument those sort of explanations only fly if they have evidence to support them.
With the very greatest lack of respect....

The fact that the correspondent was not allowed to handle the bar in question causes major alarm bells to ring. If *I* was going to try and mislead someone into thinking I could magically bend metal *I* would use a softer piece of metal for me to bend and would then get my audience to examine a superficially similar, but much stiffer piece of metal.

I see no reason to grant the benefit of the doubt to your correspondent who is, if I recall correctly, you (a non-skeptic) recalling a conversation with Russell Targ (a hard-core non-skeptic) in which he recounts the experiences of himself and another non-skeptic. This anecdotal evidence is flawed.

The evidence of my assertion is that a different bar was used for the two "experiements"

[steenkh]

In my opinion this whole thing sounds very anecdotal. If all this bending of spoon bowl and metal rods was so easy, you would have physicians flocking to examine it - or Houck et al. clamoring to have it examined. A million dollars could also come his way.

But no, this phenomenon is limited to special parties arranged for the show and the money, and sponsored by types like Gary Schwartz, which in itself discredits the whole procedure!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don


I see no reason to grant the benefit of the doubt to your correspondent who is, if I recall correctly, you (a non-skeptic) recalling a conversation with Russell Targ (a hard-core non-skeptic) in which he recounts the experiences of himself and another non-skeptic. This anecdotal evidence is flawed.



Don, those are Dr Targ's exact words, verbatim. I still posess a copy of them, and I can provide you with his personal contact details if you like.

Trying to personally discredit him in your crass, opinionated manner, is not skepticism, at all. :rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by steenkh
If all this bending of spoon bowl and metal rods was so easy, you would have physicians flocking to examine it - or Houck et al. clamoring to have it examined. A million dollars could also come his way.


lol! Who said any of that has not happened?!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don


The fact that the correspondent was not allowed to handle the bar in question causes major alarm bells to ring. [/B]

"Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees. "

emphasis mine

[Ceinwyn]

Russell Targ believes that Uri Geller's powers come from aliens. So for him to believe that he can bend a bar with his mind doesn't hold much water for me.

Would I be presumptive to ask for any video documentation? Oh, heavens no. There will be none forthcoming.

No proof. No evidence. He just believes it.

Sorry Luci. Unconvincing.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees. "

emphasis mine
Yes so I hand you one bar which you bend (because it's designed to do so) and then I hand you a superficially similar one for you and your colleagues to examine (ine that doesn't bend).

Why is it SO hard for you to understand that these two bars could be quite different ?
Trying to personally discredit him in your crass, opinionated manner, is not skepticism, at all.
I'm just saying that he has been shown time and again to be a very partial witness who seems willing to accept the very flimsiest of evidence it supports his case.

Being charitable to Dr. Targ, perhaps his recollection of the encounter with Houck has changed over time and that what he remembers is much more impressive than what actually happened. Whatever, the bar he and his sons examined for non-bendiness was a completely different bar to the one he bent in the first place.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Originally posted by The Don
he gets to decide what is a "positive result" (perhaps it's just being in a room with a bent spoon" and he also provides this figure with no supporting evidence.


"At this party Houck (a metallurgist from Boeing) had one-foot long, 3/8 diameter aluminum rods as objects for bending. Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees.

Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever, without putting it over a knee, which is again quite a painful undertaking."

How does this quote support the claim of 85% of participants having a positive outcome? Do you deny that Houck has complete "ownership" of this claim, and that there is no evidence to suggest that this number of people actually bend the silverware?

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is something, like bending a key, that can be done probably pretty easily with practice.

Are you referring to a standard "yale" type key made of whatever they are normally made of?



I’ve tried to bend one before with my hands and I could never get enough leverage with just my hand - how can you bend these with your just hands? I’ve seen someone do a “key bending”, not a magician, he used a metal ring on his finger and he couldn’t do it without that.)

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Darat


Are you referring to a standard "yale" type key made of whatever they are normally made of?

I’ve tried to bend one before with my hands and I could never get enough leverage with just my hand - how can you bend these with your just hands? I’ve seen someone do a “key bending”, not a magician, he used a metal ring on his finger and he couldn’t do it without that.) Sleight of hand. It's a common magician trick.

You may think you weren't fooled...but you were.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Darat
I’ve tried to bend one before with my hands and I could never get enough leverage with just my hand - how can you bend these with your just hands? I’ve seen someone do a “key bending”, not a magician, he used a metal ring on his finger and he couldn’t do it without that.)

(You do realise that across the world, people sitting in front of computers have just ruined their house-key, and will be unable to get home tonight...?)

Finger-strength is fairly easy to train - ask any rock-climber. So it may be possible with some training. But even if you can, with the leverage available, doing it subtlely may be the hard part.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
Sleight of hand. It's a common magician trick.

You may think you weren't fooled...but you were.

In this case I know I wasn't. ;)

The trick way was also done a in a "psychics revealed" show on UK TV not so long ago, and that magician did use sleight-of-hand and misdirection to bend the key either against a counter top or another key - can't remember which.

But the person I saw doing it with the metal ring was using the ring so he could do the "magic bend" in his hand, it just let him apply enough leverage by holding the fat end and putting the pointy end on the metal ring.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


"Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees. "

emphasis mine

Did no-one else notice something about this....
the guy has his eyes CLOSED. He is describing the feeling of what he thinks is happening in his hands.

he 'had the experience.....' and 'had the impression...'

hmmmmm.... perception tricks , anyone?
or maybe even... gasp.. hypnosis/self hypnosis?

I used to love the 'rubber pencil' trick when I was a kid.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Darat
The trick way was also done a in a "psychics revealed" show on UK TV not so long ago, and that magician did use sleight-of-hand and misdirection to bend the key either against a counter top or another key - can't remember which.

I seem to remember he used two keys. He placed the key to be bent inside the hole of the other.

[Pragmatist]

The described effects could be easily obtained with a shape memory alloy. And some indium alloys become plastic at just above body temperature but are very hard when cold.

The other thing that strikes me was the comment about not being able to bend a 3/8th inch aluminium bar - sounds a bit wussy to me! :)

I also noticed in the original description that Houck says something to the effect that "small ladies" can esily bend 1/2 inch steel rods, but then further on he says:

"Sometimes people bring ridiculous things to the party like crow bars, heavy chains, etc. They are really into challenging and fundamentally are not interested in experiencing the phenomena themselves."

So these crowbars are presumably NOT 1/2 inch steel? My crowbar at home is less than 1/2 inch and it's steel. Perhaps the real key there is the word "bring".

Further on there is a comment about Eldon Byrd in Japan where he says the Japanese bent metal AND CHOPSTICKS. Aren't chopsticks usually made of WOOD? And then near the end there are comments about bending plastic. Which is all very well except for the "explanation" in the middle about transdimensional forces affecting the grain structure of METAL. So does the wood and plastic turn into metal, get bent and then transmute back to wood or plastic? Hmmm....

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don

Yes so I hand you one bar which you bend (because it's designed to do so) and then I hand you a superficially similar one for you and your colleagues to examine (ine that doesn't bend).

Why is it SO hard for you to understand that these two bars could be quite different ?

I'm just saying that he has been shown time and again to be a very partial witness who seems willing to accept the very flimsiest of evidence it supports his case.

Being charitable to Dr. Targ, perhaps his recollection of the encounter with Houck has changed over time and that what he remembers is much more impressive than what actually happened. Whatever, the bar he and his sons examined for non-bendiness was a completely different bar to the one he bent in the first place.

Don, I note you still prefer to employ wishful thinking and supposition ahead of skepticism. I can't argue against that. since it's based on your own beliefs. However, apart from reminding you that Targ is not only a govt sponsored physicist, he is a trained, performing stage magician, which you seem to conveniently step over, let me also remind you that you have been offered his contact details so you can raise your 'issues' directly, instead of making baseless and completely innacurate assumptions. If you PM me I will be happy to pass them on to you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Targ is not only a govt sponsored physicist

Not for a very long time. The support was withdrawn, because nothing was found. Which you seem to conveniently step over.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
he is a trained, performing stage magician

Is Targ a professional or amateur magician? By whom was he trained by?

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Targ is not only a govt sponsored physicist, he is a trained, performing stage magician
[/B]
The fact that he is paid by the government is not a guarantee of anything. His being a trained stage magician should give him better insight into the possible tricks involved, but again, there is no guarantee that this insight is used.

The man's reputation alone almost guarantees that he is not using insight in anything at all!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by steenkh

The fact that he is paid by the government is not a guarantee of anything. His being a trained stage magician should give him better insight into the possible tricks involved, but again, there is no guarantee that this insight is used.

The man's reputation alone almost guarantees that he is not using insight in anything at all!

Ah, I see, you would rather weigh up your own baseless opinion and possibly libelous assertions against a proven track record of integrity, honesty and professional excellence? :rolleyes:

This is what happens in pseudo-skepticism, they get so far, unable to push the bar any higher, so resort to the most crass and obvious attempts to personally discredit someone. I am sure these guys blank off in their own minds the fact that intelligent skeptics can read and draw their own conclusions from such desperate needs.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ah, I see, you would rather weigh up your own baseless opinion and possibly libelous assertions against a proven track record of integrity, honesty and professional excellence?
I realise that I'm as guilty as anyone at derailing this thread into a "is Targ a credible witness" thread where instead we should be considering the PK parties and whether they are credible.

I've already mentioned a number of times the issues with the experiments as described. I shall reiterate them here.

- The evidence offered is anecdotal
- Houck sets his own "success" levels and then doesn't back them up with evidence
- The account you offer by way of proof is clearly flawed because
- eyes were closed when bending occured
- the participants were asked to examine a completely different bar to that bent
- Houck appears to be in control of the items being bent, where this is not the case he complains:
Sometimes people bring ridiculous things to the party like crow bars, heavy chains, etc. They are really into challenging and fundamentally are not interested in experiencing the phenomena themselves

So yeah, I think there is room for healthy skepticism about this one.

[sackett]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
. . . . . the Japanese bent metal AND CHOPSTICKS. Aren't chopsticks usually made of WOOD? . . . .
You sometimes encounter steel chopsticks. I think the Koreans favor them. (Some martial arts types use them as weapons, but that's another story.) They're little things, not much harder to bend than a fork.

But in any case, I'd sure rather try to bend steel than wood! :crack!: and the sleight of hand is revealed. "Hey, you said you was usin' yer mind, palsy! Gimme our money back!"

No, I'm wrong about that: the faithful accept trickery as innocently as baby birds. Sad.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


With respect, the Houck parties are not the same thing at all.
I did some research for someone a few years ago on this very subject and during an interview with Dr Russell Targ he gave me this first hand account of the Houck party.:

"My co-author Jane Katra, a spiritual healer with small delicate hands, rolled up the bowl of a teaspoon at a PK party with Jack Hauk last year. She was quietly meditating (waiting for the party to end, so that we could go home) when she screamed!
The bowl rolled up 180 degrees in her closed fist, and frightened her. We took a picture of the spoon and put it, with its picture into a plastic bag. By the time we arrived home, the bowl had bent an additional 90 degrees, 270 in all.

I wouldn't know how to create such a smooth roll, even if I took a spoon to the lab. At the party, I later bent the bowl of a similar spoon by brute force, damaging my hand in the process. The bowl creased sharply as I broke the back of the bowl. It looked nothing like Jane's.

The following month we had another opportunity to go to a PK party. Northern California does have some advantages. At this party Houck (a metallurgist from Boeing) had one-foot long, 3/8 diameter aluminum rods as objects for bending. Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees.

Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever, without putting it over a knee, which is again quite a painful undertaking."



Ummm....

I thought that that sounded familiar ...

It was, it is from here: http://www.uri-geller.com/mindbending.htm

I asked Russel Targ to comment on his experiences resulting from the SRI experiments:


" Uri was at our laboratory at SRI for six weeks in 1973. He showed remarkable ESP perceptual ability to describe and draw hidden pictures. He was by no means the best person to visit our lab and carry out this type of remote viewing, but he was certainly better than the average bear in this capability. He did not bend any metal under acceptably controlled conditions, but I have since that time seen and done paranormal bending under excellent conditions."

He went on to give an account of his personal experiences of PK:

"My co-author Jane Katra, a spiritual healer with small delicate hands, rolled up the bowl of a teaspoon at a PK party with Jack Hauk last year. She was quietly meditating (waiting for the party to end, so that we could go home) when she screamed!
The bowl rolled up 180 degrees in her closed fist, and frightened her. We took a picture of the spoon and put it, with its picture into a plastic bag. By the time we arrived home, the bowl had bent an additional 90 degrees, 270 in all. I wouldn't know how to create such a smooth roll, even if I took a spoon to the lab. At the party, I later bent the bowl of a similar spoon by brute force, damaging my hand in the process. The bowl creased sharply as I broke the back of the bowl. It looked nothing like Jane's.
The following month we had another opportunity to go to a PK party. Northern California does have some advantages. At this party Hauk (a metallurgist from Boeing) had one-foot long, 3/8 diameter aluminum rods as objects for bending. Holding one of these rods in my two hands, I had the experience of it getting springy. As I bent it back and forth with my eyes shut, I finally had the impression that it froze in the bent position. This turned out to be about 30 degrees.
Neither I, nor my two athletic sons could bend a similar rod whatsoever, without putting it over a knee, which is again quite a painful undertaking."



So the question is, did you lie or plagerize or is that web site yours? If it is not yours then the author lies when he says I asked Russel Targ to comment on his experiences resulting from the SRI experiments

Which is it?

[Lucianarchy]

Here is an extract from 'Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi by Michael Prescott. Please resist the urge to have it censored, because it needs reading in context to some of the issue raised here against Dr Targ, and demonstratesand debunks some of the dysfunctional skeptical arguments being employed by pseudo-skeptics. I recommend reading the full article as it provides a unique insight into the development of true, honest skepticism.

"Years ago, when I was a full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist, I read James Randi's 1980 book Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions. Randi is an accomplished magician and a professional skeptic, dedicating to disproving any and all claims of what he considers pseudoscience. In line with this agenda, and as its title suggests, Flim-Flam is a concerted attack on miscellaneous purported irrationalities – everything from the pop-culture writings of Erich von Daniken to the more serious investigations of professional parapsychologists. I enjoyed the book, which reinforced my belief system at the time.
Recently I picked up Flim-Flam again. Having changed my mind about many things over the past twenty years, I responded to it much differently this time. I was particularly struck by the book's hectoring, sarcastic tone. Randi pictures psychic researchers as medieval fools clad in "caps and bells" and likens the delivery of an announcement at a parapsychology conference to the birth of "Rosemary's Baby."

...snip..."

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

This post has been reported for a breach of the copyright rule. The post has been edited to comply with the copyright rule. Anyone wishing to read the full article can follow the link.

[Ed]

from Uri's site:

The material on these pages is copyright Uri Geller 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,2003, 2004. Prior written permission is needed for any duplication of any of the material on any of these pages.

Luci, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Or...are you Uri Geller????????????????????????

The mind wobbles.:D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ed

So the question is, did you lie or plagerize or is that web site yours??

Neither. I have already explained that I did some research for a client which was commisioned for a well known periodical. Although (most of) the research was published elsewhere, and again, later on Mr Geller's site, the original copyright actually belongs to me and I have the original manuscript to prove it. Despite a disagreement over rights with the original client I have allowed the current publishing situation to remain in stasis. It was a hard learned lesson.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Neither. I have already explained that I did some research for a client. Although the research was published, and again, later on Mr Geller's site, the original copywrite actually belongs to me and I have the original manuscript to prove it. Despite a disagreement over rights with the original client I have allowed the current publishing situation to remain in stasis. It was a hard learned lesson.

Uri says it's his. Having the manuscript means nothing at all, it depends on whether it was contract work.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ed


Uri says it's his.

He is welcome to publish it. But the original copyright is mine.

[Ed]

Care to prove it?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by The Don

I realise that I'm as guilty as anyone at derailing this thread into a "is Targ a credible witness" thread where instead we should be considering the PK parties and whether they are credible.

I've already mentioned a number of times the issues with the experiments as described. I shall reiterate them here.

- The evidence offered is anecdotal
- Houck sets his own "success" levels and then doesn't back them up with evidence
- The account you offer by way of proof is clearly flawed because
- eyes were closed when bending occured
- the participants were asked to examine a completely different bar to that bent
- Houck appears to be in control of the items being bent, where this is not the case he complains:


So yeah, I think there is room for healthy skepticism about this one.

This seems like a fair argument. On the strength of Jack Houck's claims alone, one would not be able to accept such a phenomenon. Agreed.

But based on anecdotal evidence from several other sources (Universities, Crichton, Radin, etc.), and the apparent simplicity of hosting one of these, I think the best one can do is try it oneself. Nobody's going to convince anyone beyond reasonable doubt either way here (except, of course, for the people who have already made up their minds. But they're not here to discuss anyway).

I'll give it a go. Either way it turns out, I'll let you know.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Here is an extract from 'Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi by Michael Prescott. Please resist the urge to have it censored, because it needs reading in context to some of the issue raised here against Dr Targ, and demonstratesand debunks some of the dysfunctional skeptical arguments being employed by pseudo-skeptics. I recommend reading the full article as it provides a unique insight into the development of true, honest skepticism.

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

And this is relevent because ........

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy



LOL! I have just noticed that the following quote (highlighted) is one taken from the original I rough-wrote and researched....


"A posting I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: "Claims of poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand 'Chinese Whispers.'" (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game, Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on "anecdotal evidence," which is precisely what the bulk of Randi's argument consists of.



http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by flyboy217


I'll give it a go. Either way it turns out, I'll let you know.

I think you'll find the more participants involved, the better the effect. May I suggest doing this online, at a future given date and time allowing plenty of people to particiapate at the same time?

Perhaps we could host it live on one of the new forums. Tami, are you reading this?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I think you'll find the more participants involved, the better the effect. May I suggest doing this online, at a future given date and time allowing plenty of people to particiapate at the same time?

Perhaps we could host it live on one of the new forums. Tami, are you reading this?

I'm not sure how this will be useful. It would offer no evidence, people wouldn't actually SEE each other bending (the apparent purpose of getting that many people), and so on. Is this any better than doing it alone (which I must admit has failed for me)?

[Lucianarchy]

...snip..."

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

This post has been reported for a breach of the copyright rule. The post has been edited to comply with the copyright rule. Anyone wishing to read the full article can follow the link. [/B][/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: What is it with you, Ed? I mean, really. What harm was being done? It was only an extract and used as fair use to illustrate the dysfunctional nature of some of the arguments, suppositions and 'Chinese whispers' being employed in this thread.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by flyboy217


I'm not sure how this will be useful. It would offer no evidence, people wouldn't actually SEE each other bending (the apparent purpose of getting that many people), and so on. Is this any better than doing it alone (which I must admit has failed for me)?

I think you'll find that numbers of participants are important, Flyboy217. Yes, better results are achieved in groups. Doing an online experiment would at least be fun and interesting, if not proof. BTW, my eight year-old can do this better, more reliably than I can. Personally, putting mundane explanations aside for a moment, I'm inclined to follow the idea that personal / positive belief is an aspect of the effect.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
is[/i] it with you, Ed? I mean, really. What harm was being done? It was only an extract and used as fair use to illustrate the dysfunctional nature of some of the arguments, suppositions and 'Chinese whispers' being employed in this thread.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

Baby, the other, other white meat

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Personally, putting mundane explanations aside for a moment, I'm inclined to follow the idea that personal / positive belief is an aspect of the effect.
I agree with you 100%, someone going in expecting there to be an effect is far more likely to come out believing that they've experienced the effect.

Still doesn't mean that there was an effect.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...snip..."

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

This post has been reported for a breach of the copyright rule. The post has been edited to comply with the copyright rule. Anyone wishing to read the full article can follow the link.

:rolleyes: What is it with you, Ed? I mean, really. What harm was being done? It was only an extract and used as fair use to illustrate the dysfunctional nature of some of the arguments, suppositions and 'Chinese whispers' being employed in this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]

Luci, if I report something I say so. I feel that it is whiney and girly and rude and ballsless to not own up to it.

That said, I reported nothing on this thread.

Further, Uri clearly states that you need permission. I really don't think that citing the bulk of an article is "fair use".

Again, some ballsless wonder reported it, not I.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don

I agree with you 100%, someone going in expecting there to be an effect is far more likely to come out believing that they've experienced the effect.

Still doesn't mean that there was an effect.

Of course, and likewise, it doesn't mean that there wasn't an effect either.

[Ed]

Whoa... I thought you were referring to the Uri rip-off, not the Prescott rip-off. Anyway, I reported neither.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ed

Luci, if I report something I say so. I feel that it is whiney and girly and rude and ballsless to not own up to it.

That said, I reported nothing on this thread.

Further, Uri clearly states that you need permission. I really don't think that citing the bulk of an article is "fair use".

Again, some ballsless wonder reported it, not I.

OK. I apologise. Sorry for that.

BTW, the article in question came from Mr Prescott's site, not Mr Geller's.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


OK. I apologise. Sorry for that.



Good form, old bean.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by The Don

I agree with you 100%, someone going in expecting there to be an effect is far more likely to come out believing that they've experienced the effect.

Still doesn't mean that there was an effect.

Keep in mind the "putting mundane explanations aside for a moment." If we were to design a protocol for testing the hypothesis that people are bending spoons beyond their "normal" capacity, how would we do it?

As Luci states, apparently I will need a large group of people. This has been explained by Jack several times, and I intend to follow it.

The people will apparently not need to be believers, as Crichton, Radin, and in fact Houck himself didn't believe it beforehand. But an open mind is of course critical.

If I can find 50 people in my area to do this with, and I end up bending one of my own stainless steel spoons (which I have spent much time fruitlessly trying to bend with my bare hands), I will have something to report.

No doubt questions will arise regarding my own intelligence / rationality / gullibility / etc. if I do obtain a positive outcome, regardless of the tightness of the protocol. Also, no doubt I will get many pointless high-fives if it fails. With this in mind, I would like to hear suggestions on how to design it reasonably so that such accusations can be thwarted in advance.

Needless to say, there is no way to make the evidence perfectly airtight for either side--the true believers and the true disbelievers are already beyond hope.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

Are you referring to a standard "yale" type key made of whatever they are normally made of?


I don't know what a yale type of key is. I was just referring to a standard old house key, whihc might be a yale type, I don't know.


I’ve tried to bend one before with my hands and I could never get enough leverage with just my hand - how can you bend these with your just hands?


You just bend it using brute force.

You can also get larger luggage keys and keys for lock boxes for coin collectors that are much easier to bend.

[Ed]

Let's see: We can invoke the paranormal or we can do this. How can people be so stupid? It amazes me.

http://allmagicreviews.com/allmagicreview04.html


It's an *****' magic trick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed
Let's see: We can invoke the paranormal or we can do this. How can people be so stupid? It amazes me.

http://allmagicreviews.com/allmagicreview04.html


It's an *****' magic trick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That's brilliant! All of the participants of these parties (including Crichton and Radin) read "ARCHANGEL KEY ROUTINE" by NICHOLAS BENGTSON before coming to the party, and then applied the trick to their spoons!

The oft-used "How can people be so stupid? It amazes me." quote is my favorite. Both Feynman and Hawking are/were fond of claiming that only those who fail at math and science turn to mysticism. Did it ever occur to you that there may be extremely intelligent people out there who are merely trying to investigate, and haven't found all the answers yet?

Come off it, really. Your "ARCHANGEL KEY ROUTINE" does nothing to explain what these people believe they experienced. At least give something relevant, like "they're all lying lunatics and so are you." That would at least have bearing on the questions I asked.

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


That's brilliant! All of the participants of these parties (including Crichton and Radin) read "ARCHANGEL KEY ROUTINE" by NICHOLAS BENGTSON before coming to the party, and then applied the trick to their spoons!

Idiot, I was referring to the previous post on keys.

The oft-used "How can people be so stupid? It amazes me." quote is my favorite. Both Feynman and Hawking are/were fond of claiming that only those who fail at math and science turn to mysticism. Did it ever occur to you that there may be extremely intelligent people out there who are merely trying to investigate, and haven't found all the answers yet?

Certainly, but not for stuff as obvious as this. Tell me, if I could always guess your card and I said it was "paranormal" would you investigate any further than a magic store?

Come off it, really. Your "ARCHANGEL KEY ROUTINE" does nothing to explain what these people believe they experienced. At least give something relevant, like "they're all lying lunatics and so are you." That would at least have bearing on the questions I asked.

See my note above on keys. For spoons check out this fine man

http://www.themagicagency.com/closeup.htm

As far as the "parties" go, I think that you have your answer. Tell me, do you really think that all of those folks who get "hypnotised" are really "hypnotised" when a hypnotist does his thing? Why not? Now picture a party of woos, wouldn't you feel left out if your spoon was the only non-flaccid one?

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah, the spoon bending stuff doesn't impress me at all. It is just too easy to do by many methods, including just misdirection and bending it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed
Certainly, but not for stuff as obvious as this. Tell me, if I could always guess your card and I said it was "paranormal" would you investigate any further than a magic store?

Not at all. But if many people, none of whom had any magic training, were apparently able to do it, then I might start to wonder.


See my note above on keys. For spoons check out this fine man

http://www.themagicagency.com/closeup.htm


Surely you understand the difference between a performer doing it for a person and that person doing it himself? Again, this misses the point entirely.


As far as the "parties" go, I think that you have your answer. Tell me, do you really think that all of those folks who get "hypnotised" are really "hypnotised" when a hypnotist does his thing? Why not? Now picture a party of woos, wouldn't you feel left out if your spoon was the only non-flaccid one?


I'm not sure how I have my answer. If you're suggesting mass delusion, you're sidestepping the fact that the spoon heads really are buckled, as shown by pictures.

As far as mass hypnosis, I have no idea if, at those shows, every person is hypnotized. But I have hypnotized my friends, and hypnosis is very well accepted medically, so I'm not sure what that would tell me anyway. Clearly at least some people are hypnotized at hypnosis performances.

So far, we have:

Mass delusion (fails to account for bent heads)
Using excessive force (same)
Staged performance (these people were all holding their own spoons)
Special alloy
Missing any?


Of these, only the alloy one seems to hold any weight. Unless you think the other ones somehow apply, please refrain from listing them yet again (like #3).

Because Jack Houck suggests using stainless steel for these parties, I think there is sufficient cause for me to give it a try myself (with my own group, that is). Does this still seem unreasonable?

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Because Jack Houck suggests using stainless steel for these parties, I think there is sufficient cause for me to give it a try myself (with my own group, that is). Does this still seem unreasonable?

Nope. In fact I am going to try it tonight with my family.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, the spoon bending stuff doesn't impress me at all. It is just too easy to do by many methods, including just misdirection and bending it.

1) Get any metal spoon
2) Bend the head in half
3) Get back to me

Would misdirection and "just bending it" be able to accomplish this? Please see my prior post. The only reasonable hypothesis is that these spoons are made of some special alloy.

Please, people, try to stay with the argument.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed


Nope. In fact I am going to try it tonight with my family.

That's a fair reply. I feel sheepish saying this, but it's a point that needs to be made: he also suggests having at least 25 people, and fewer than 15 is worthless he says.

So now, to pre-empt what I know is coming as a response: perhaps go to one of these, sit in your own corner with your family, and use your own silverware?

That's sort of my plan anyway.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, the spoon bending stuff doesn't impress me at all. It is just too easy to do by many methods, including just misdirection and bending it.

Do you think Targ is lying / deluded? How about Houck, do you have reason to believe he is just scamming people?

[Lucianarchy]

www.fork-you.com

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Do you think Targ is lying / deluded? How about Houck, do you have reason to believe he is just scamming people? Targ is the poster boy for deluded. His daughter was the liar.

[Nucular]

Interesting discussion!

Having dabbled with some of the techniques magicians use for cutlery bending, etc., I've been quite interested in knowing how some of the bowl-bends in Houck's parties have happened. I've tried and tried to find a way to do that using tools subtler than pliers & a vice, but I can't find a way (though for the purposes of magic, this might be enough of course)...

Neither the 'group conformity' argument, or the 'permission to use force' argument as put by Randi, actually explain the bowl bends. They're quite impressive. Personally, I rather like the 'gimmicked cutlery' arguments on this thread; even if people are allowed to bring their own cutlery too, there is no reason to think it's these items which are bent in such a way.

In fact, come to think of it, is there any evidence that the actual bowl bends took place during one of the parties, performed by an unwitting guest?

The picture attached with this post is of a portion of Houck's Amazing Spoon Collection, demonstrating some of the bowl-bends. However, here (http://www.psipog.net/pkparty-feb2004.html) is a link to what appears to be several people's own souvenirs from Houck's parties - note the lack of bowl-bends.

The plastic cutlery bends are quite interesting, but through continued pressure I imagine one can deform them in a similar fashion anyway.

[Ed]

I wonder how much you would have to reduce the thickness of a spoon bowl to enable someone to bend it?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Ed
As far as the "parties" go, I think that you have your answer. Tell me, do you really think that all of those folks who get "hypnotised" are really "hypnotised" when a hypnotist does his thing? Why not? Now picture a party of woos, wouldn't you feel left out if your spoon was the only non-flaccid one?

And you have the proof in Michael Crichton's account. He says that at one point he was getting a bit p*ssed off that his spoon wasn't bending when everyone else's was, so he tried to bend it by brute force. And he couldn't (more on that in a moment). Then Houck came along, took it from him, did something, handed it back and then it started to bend.

There are other interesting things in Crichton's account. He mentions somewhere that people bring along their own spoons etc., and Houck asks them to put them in a big pile on the floor. Then, when everyone had donated their spoons, Houck dumped a drawerful of "silverware" on top of the pile. People were then encouraged to take an item from the pile and try it.

O.K. so there's this big pile of cutlery on the floor, everyone wants an item and are milling around the pile. I want to get a spoon or whatever. What do most people do? They take something from the top of the pile so as not to bring the proceedings to a complete halt while they rummage through the entire pile. But what's on the TOP of the pile? Why, the "silverware" dumped there by Houck....! Therefore, regardless of what anyone BROUGHT, the probability is that they end up choosing an item supplied by Houck. It doesn't matter if one or two get a "donated" piece, as long as the majority end up with supplied items.

And why the pile in the first place? If most people brought their own spoon etc., why couldn't they just keep that one and use it?

I commented earlier that I was surprised that someone couldn't bend a 3/8 inch aluminum bar. It depends on the length of course, but the commentator said that the bar could be bent over the knee, so it wasn't very short otherwise that would have been impossible. And if it was long then it's not exactly a hard or difficult metal to bend. Then we have Crichton saying that he couldn't bend a spoon by brute force. How likely is that with a normal spoon? And how do we know the bar is aluminium?

I then note that Houck was supposedly employed for 42 years by Boeing. Who do what exactly? They make aircraft. And they are particularly interested in materials stress research. But checking a bit further it turns out that Houck was apparently a project manager of an advanced research team at McDonnell Douglas. Researching what? He doesn't say... What do McDonnell/Boeing research most? Materials stress, particularly plastic deformation of metals under unusual circumstances. It's one of the most common causes of failure in jet engines.

I couldn't find much detail of what their research has revealed in simple terms but I did find some mention of metals with extreme hardness which suddenly become plastic under mild stress and heat. Three different types were mentioned in different reports, ones with microscopic air bubbles, ones with titanium dioxide powder and ones that had been saturated with hydrogen at high temperature and pressure. I also note from some general metallurgy sites that plastic metals often exhibit extreme resistance before becoming plastic and then they tend to suddenly harden into another extreme strength state.

Titanium is one of the strongest metals around, it's also light. Like aluminium. It's also a metal that is widely known for unusual plastic effects. It's one of the main components of shape memory alloys. And it's widely used in aircraft.

Now, none of the above proves anything of course, but it's certainly highly suspicious.

Finally, working on the Pragmatist principle that hard core woo's usually have something to sell, I thought it may be worth seeing if Houck had anything related to sell. He does. He just happens to sell a software program that is designed to "tune up" your psychic powers in preparation for remote viewing, spoon bending etc...

Definitely warrants a hmmm....!

On the positive side, the idea that the spoons etc., are some special material is unlikely if he lets people take them away, assuming that the material is somewhat expensive - it may not be, I wouldn't know.

I can't say that the whole thing is a trick or that psychic powers are NOT involved. But it definitely LOOKS suspicious.

Regarding a test, the first thing to do would be to use an item that is guaranteed NOT to have been supplied by Houck or anyone else involved. Secondly, seal it in a glass box or something and THEN bend it by "mind power" without anyone touching it at all. Also make sure the area is monitored for unusual radiation, magnetic fields etc. A tiny magnetic induction coil could be hidden in someone's sleeve that would rapidly spot heat a metal object brought close to it for example. There are probably many more things that need to be done, but I think those would be a good start.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Psiload
Targ is the poster boy for deluded. His daughter was the liar.

As you are someone who proudly uses a rapist for his avatar, your opinions are, to say the least, worthless.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Surely you understand the difference between a performer doing it for a person and that person doing it himself? Again, this misses the point entirely.

I can't speak for Ed, but did you notice the quote below at the site he linked to?

"He can even make a spoon bend when a member of the audience is holding it!"

It doesn't miss the point if the performer tells that person THEY are bending it with their own "psychic power" does it?

[LettristLoon]

Hey there!

Y'know, arguing the specifics of an event, when no one doing the arguing was present at said event, is fun, but fundamentally useless.

Lucianarchy: You've been here a long time, and people are very mean to you. That's because the average skeptic is annoyed by folks like you. So, jaded though you may have become, tell me:

If all known laws of physics and biology would be violated by the telekinetic bending of a spoon, doesn't it make sense that people demand more than anecdotal evidence to suddenly agree that such a thing took place? There's anecdotal evidence for absolutely everything--some of it's even pretty good (sounding)! But before we go flopping our paradigms around, shouldn't we have something more tangible than anecdotes?

I mean, check it out: The moment someone can bend a spoon of mine, without touching the damned thing, I will say, "Whoops, been wrong this whole time. Whattayaknow?" And I'm sure the same can be said for everyone here. But, c'mon, you're supplying ANECDOTES. That ain't evidence. I mean, if anecdotes were evidence, then Jesus of Nazareth did way more impressive things than bend a spoon--not sure how you stand on that. Also, Jews were attempting to take over Germany at some point in the 1920s. Not sure how you stand on that one, either, but we might as well be consistent: "It's been said--by college educated people! It must be so!"

Please, Lucian. Just send one of these people down here to Fort Lauderdale. He can impress me with his creative uses of silverware, take in a few days of fun and sun, and I'll swing him by the JREF offices, where his little vacation will more than pay for itself. I'll stand right there--I won't even let James dearest cheat. Deal? Deal.

Peace,
- B

[Mercutio]

There is a video in our University Library, The Second Coming of Science (http://www.lightworksav.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2463): In this presentation, former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor Brian O'Leary Ph.D. challenges us to go beyond the current limits of scientific inquiry and encourages the world's scientific community to start thinking outside the box Newtonian physics has drawn around our concept of what we believe our universe to be.

This talented and inspiring meta-physician fuses science with the paranormal -- exploring psychokinesis, telepathy, crystals, dowsing, UFOs, the Face on Mars, crop circles, free energy and the manifestations of Sai Baba -- in a credible, entertaining and visual-filled video.
At one point in the video (which is his lecture in front of a crowd of friendly believers), he pulls out a couple of spoons and proceeds to bend them. Of course, since he is merely learning, he bends them only with his hands, but to hear him talk about it, it is mostly his mind; clearly, his audience believes it is his mind. He begins by gently trying to bend the spoon back and forth...it will not move at all at first, but with time and effort, the spoon warms up and plasticises. O'Leary even describes it accurately as becoming more flexible, until it will reach a point where it bends easily. As it approaches that point, he announces it to the audience, and asks them to chant "Bend! Bend! Bend! Bend!". This they do with great enthusiasm. Finally the spoon reaches the plastic state, and he rapidly bends it into a corkscrew shape, 2 or 3 times around in a circle....then holds the finished product out for view. Again quite correctly, he notes that as the spoon cools down, it loses its plasticity again, such that bending it back is impossible.

He (and the audience) are quite convinced that it was their collective mind power that bent the spoon. I wish there was the opportunity to interview some of the participants these years later--it was quite obvious to me that his hands provided all the energy necessary (and his own narration confirms that!), but I wonder if the audience members remember it that way.

If you ever get a chance to see the movie...don't drink any soda just before that scene...

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


As you are someone who proudly uses a rapist for his avatar, your opinions are, to say the least, worthless. Actually, that's a picture of an actor who portrayed a rapist in a movie.


Poor Luci, still having trouble with the whole fantasy/reality interface thing, huh?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by LettristLoon


Please, Lucian. Just send one of these people down here to Fort Lauderdale. He can impress me with his creative uses of silverware, take in a few days of fun and sun, and I'll swing him by the JREF offices, where his little vacation will more than pay for itself. I'll stand right there--I won't even let James dearest cheat. Deal? Deal.

Peace,
- B

'You payin'? Seriously though, these things are for science, not carnival type side-show challenges, of which I am highly skeptical. Don't get me wrong, Randi's a great entertainer, showman and a superb intro to the world of skepticism. But as mature, knowledgeable skeptics, some of us have discovered there's more behind the curtain than we were perhaps lead to believe. We've moved on from 'Tom and Jerry' skepticism to the lab; scientific method and replication. Thanks for the offer though. :)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Psiload
Actually, that's a picture of an actor who portrayed a rapist in a movie.



Oh, right. You're just a McDowell fan then. I remain skeptical though, as you have never changed your avatar to any other of his characters, and your attitude towards Targ's deceased daughter smacks of the same mind-set and disregard for simple human dignity as that of a rapist, so perhaps you can understand the confusion. But as I said, I doubt it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...and your attitude towards Targ's deceased daughter smacks of the same mind-set and disregard for simple human dignity as that of a rapist, so perhaps you can understand the confusion. But as I said, I doubt it.

Hello? Lucianarchy?

Elizabeth Targ lied.

OK?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Oh, right. You're just a McDowell fan then. I remain skeptical though, as you have never changed your avatar to any other of his characters, and your attitude towards Targ's deceased daughter smacks of the same mind-set and disregard for simple human dignity as that of a rapist, so perhaps you can understand the confusion. But as I said, I doubt it.

Well, my avatar is a mass murderer, anti-semite, hypocrite, jew putter in large fish, jew turner to stone, jew boil causer, only begotten jew son crucifier, suborner of child murder, incest, rape, pillage and so on.

Targ's deceased daughter, the Late Targ, was a lieing weasel. She gave false hope to very ill people (and still does) because honesty and scientific integrity played second fiddle to making up evidence for her silly, and now thankfully dead, belief system. She was evil. About on a par with a priest who takes his position of propriety, authority and rectitude and uses it to bugger kids. A bit more subtle but of a piece. I hope her death was lonely.

edit... I don't really mean that. But this world is a better place with her out of it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


And you have the proof in Michael Crichton's account. He says that at one point he was getting a bit p*ssed off that his spoon wasn't bending when everyone else's was, so he tried to bend it by brute force. And he couldn't (more on that in a moment). Then Houck came along, took it from him, did something, handed it back and then it started to bend.


Houck came along and took it from him? Are you just making this up? Read:


I was sitting on the floor next to Judith and Anne-Marie. They had finished shouting at their spoons, and now were rubbing them between their fingers, but nothing was happening. I was also rubbing a spoon, but nothing was happening for me, either. I felt foolish. As we rubbed, a gloom descended over the three of us.

Rubbing her spoon, Anne-Marie said, "I don't think this is going to work. This is silly. I just don't see how it can work."

I looked down at her hands. Her spoon was bending.

"Look, Anne-Marie. . . ."

Anne-Marie laughed. Her spoon was like rubber. She easily twisted the spoon into knots.

Suddenly Judith's spoon began to bend, too. She was able to bend the bowl in half. All around me, spoons were bending. My spoon remained stiff and solid. I rubbed it dutifully, but it wasn't even getting warm.

I felt annoyed. The hell with it, I thought, Ill bend it with sheer force. I tried: the neck of the spoon would bend, of course, but the bowl itself wouldn't bend. I was hurting my fingers trying I relaxed. Perhaps it wasn't going to happen for me. Jack Houck had said a few people couldn't bend spoons. Maybe I was one.

"Congratulations," Judith said to me.

"What?"

I looked down. My spoon had begun to bend. I hadn't even reaised. The metal was completely pliable, like soft plastic. It wasn't particularly hot, either, just slightly warm. I easily bent the bowl of the spoon in half, using only my fingertips. This didn't require any pressure at all, just guiding with my fingertips.




Finally, working on the Pragmatist principle that hard core woo's usually have something to sell, I thought it may be worth seeing if Houck had anything related to sell. He does. He just happens to sell a software program that is designed to "tune up" your psychic powers in preparation for remote viewing, spoon bending etc...

I can't say that the whole thing is a trick or that psychic powers are NOT involved. But it definitely LOOKS suspicious.



Hmm, that is interesting. That could be a flag. Got a link?

I, too, cannot confirm anything either way. I wasn't there. That is why, as I keep saying, I'm going to (1) go to one myself or better (2) host one myself.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Hello? Lucianarchy?

Elizabeth Targ lied.

OK?

And here we have another example of pseudo-skeptics in action; Claus Larsen and co., defending the glamourisation of rape and attacking the dead.

Claus, let me remind you, Elizabeth Targ has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


And here we have another example of pseudo-skeptics in action; Claus Laresn, defending the glamourisation of rape and attacking the dead.

Claus, let me remind you, Elizabeth Targ has nothing to do with this discussion.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/prayer.html

I thought that you believed in survival, would that not make her fair game?

What ever happened to McDowel? Seems he is somewhere below the Lou(is) Gosset range now. Odd.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Nucular
In fact, come to think of it, is there any evidence that the actual bowl bends took place during one of the parties, performed by an unwitting guest?

If you consider the testimony of Crichton and Radin (and the professors at Arizona) to be valid, then clearly yes. Without that, I'd be pretty mum.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And here we have another example of pseudo-skeptics in action; Claus Larsen and co., defending the glamourisation of rape and attacking the dead.

What are you talking about? How do I defend "the glamourisation of rape and attacking the dead"? I point out that E. Targ lied. That is a fact, Lucianarchy.

I have no idea what you are talking about re. "the glamourisation of rape". I would like a clarification.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, let me remind you, Elizabeth Targ has nothing to do with this discussion.

Then don't bring up the subject of "Targ the liar".

But hey, if you want to talk about Russell, let's do that:

Is Targ a professional or amateur magician? By whom was he trained by?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Oh, right. You're just a McDowell fan then. I remain skeptical though, as you have never changed your avatar to any other of his characters, and your attitude towards Targ's deceased daughter smacks of the same mind-set and disregard for simple human dignity as that of a rapist, so perhaps you can understand the confusion. But as I said, I doubt it. I like you, Luci... you're silly.

I"d change my avatar to this:

http://www.kino.orc.ru/js/review/stills/caligula.jpg

But then you'd probably accuse me of having the mind-set of sexual deviant.

Anyhoo, as far as my opinion of Targ's deceased daughter... it isn't... opinion that is. She was, in fact, a liar.

***no rapists were glamourized during the editing of this post***

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Houck came along and took it from him? Are you just making this up? Read:

Apologies, I got two different accounts mixed up. I did a quick scan of several dozen web sites relating to Houck's exploits, one of which mentioned Crichton, another after that was from an account by Laura Lee:

From: http://www.lauralee.com/index.cgi?page=articles/threshol.htm

The woman sitting across from me was having trouble with her spoon, until
the instructor, Jack Houck (who gives spoon bending workshops across
the country) came by and held the spoon for a few seconds, which made
it pliable enough for her to easily bend it, and though the effect
didn&'t last long, she got it going again on her own.

There's another interesting account here:

http://starbulletin.com/2002/08/06/features/story2.html

Originally posted by flyboy217
Hmm, that is interesting. That could be a flag. Got a link?

I, too, cannot confirm anything either way. I wasn't there. That is why, as I keep saying, I'm going to (1) go to one myself or better (2) host one myself.

From: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jack+Houck%22+software&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2r1m42%24dhq%40search01.news.aol.com&rnum=1

Intuition Trainer (Psychic Reward) (Mfg. Sugg. $49.95) Fun and entertaining
like a computer game, this program is -- at the same time --the first
scientifically proven system for training your intuitive powers. Created by
researchers Alan Vaugn and Jack Houck, Psychic Reward increases your ability to
sense the future--the key to successful decisions in every area of life, from
investment to marriage.

It's also advertized on other sites as being a general "psi" developer.

There is an interesting reference to it here, in an article from Skeptical Inquirer:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_25/ai_74523980

[Lucianarchy]

Don, are you going to put your issues to Dr Targ, or not?

I can help you with this, and it'd be good to have some direct feedback on the forum, straight from the source, rather than the opinion of an arm-chair skeptic. Don't you agree?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


Apologies, I got two different accounts mixed up. I did a quick scan of several dozen web sites relating to Houck's exploits, one of which mentioned Crichton, another after that was from an account by Laura Lee:

From: http://www.lauralee.com/index.cgi?page=articles/threshol.htm


"Laura Lee is only half joking when she says she has always felt aliens must have abandoned her here by mistake; and that though she doesn’t quite get this world, or fit in she is trying to make the most of it now!"

Yes, I'll take what she says with a grain of salt. Also, what's the deal with her not capitalizing anything on that page? Hurts to read.

In any case, that's not what happened in Crichton's case. He and his family members were all holding theirs when they "spontaneously bent." I find his following account the most telling:


A year later, I mentioned to an M.I.T. professor that I had bent spoons. He frowned in silence for a while. "There's a way to bend spoons," he said, "by a trick."

"I think so," I said. "But I don't know the trick."

The professor was silent for a while longer. "You personally bent spoons?

"Yes."

Then he went through the whole thing. Where did I get the spoons? How did I know the spoons had not been previously "treated"? Did anyone help me to bend the spoons? Did anyone touch me while I was bending, or substitute a bent spoon into my hands... He went on like this for a while. I tried to explain the quality of the room that night, and how impossible it was that everyone could have been tricked.

"So you believe the spoons bent?"

"Yes."

"Did you investigate why the spoons bent?"

"No," I said.

"You mean you experienced this extraordinary phenomenon and you didn't try to explain it?"

"No," I said.

"That's very strange," he said. "I would say that your behavior is a pathological denial of what happened to you. This incredible experience occurs and you do nothing to investigate it at all?"

"I don't see why it's pathological," I said. "I don't go investigating why everything in the world happens. For example, I know that, if I bend a wire rapidly, the wire will get hot and break-but I don't really know why that happens. I don't think it's my job to rush out and find out why. In this case, spoon bending, the room was full of people doing the same thing, and it seemed very ordinary. Kind of boring."

In fact, this sense of boredom seem to me often to accompany "psychic" phenomena. At first the event appears exciting and mysterious, but very quickly it becomes so mundane that it can no longer hold your interest. This seems to me to confirm the idea that so-called psychic or paranormal phenomena are misnamed. There's nothing abnormal about them. On the contrary, they're utterly normal. We've just forgotten we can do them. The minute we do do them, we recognize them for what they are, and we think, so what? Spoon bending is like doing the laundry, or riding a bicycle. No big deal. Not really worth much conversation.


Crichton's full text can be found here:

http://www.uri-geller.com/mct27.htm

(Yes, I realize who is hosting it. But I've read the book itself, and the text is accurate).



From: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Jack+Houck%22+software&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2r1m42%24dhq%40search01.news.aol.com&rnum=1

Intuition Trainer (Psychic Reward) (Mfg. Sugg. $49.95) Fun and entertaining
like a computer game, this program is -- at the same time --the first
scientifically proven system for training your intuitive powers. Created by
researchers Alan Vaugn and Jack Houck, Psychic Reward increases your ability to
sense the future--the key to successful decisions in every area of life, from
investment to marriage.

It's also advertized on other sites as being a general "psi" developer.

There is an interesting reference to it here, in an article from Skeptical Inquirer:

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_25/ai_74523980

Wonder why he doesn't advertise this on his own site. Also, his PK parties cost next to nothing. It looks like whatever money is made is for renting out the place and flying him out (to such exotic locales as Columbus, Ohio).

[Nucular]

Originally posted by flyboy217


If you consider the testimony of Crichton and Radin (and the professors at Arizona) to be valid, then clearly yes. Without that, I'd be pretty mum. Right, I didn't read the accounts properly after wondering that, apologies.

That to me then - assuming the accounts are valid (and Radin has been pretty good regarding other 'psychic' phenomena in the past, IIRC, though that doesn't necessarily prove his reliability in this case) - reduces the explanation of the bowl-bending phenomenon to about two of the already suggested possibilities:

1a) Gimmicked spoon: spoons made of weird metal Houck worked with at Boeing

1b) Gimmicked spoon: as Ed suggested, a very thin bowl

2) An actual 'psychic' phenomenon

Something else, probably not so likely, that occurs is a less 'bowled' bowl, which, in thin metal, would make it much easier to bend - looking at the picture I attached before, I'm not entirely sure that they're a completely normal shape (apart from the bend), but that could be just my eyes.

I've been thinking about a cutlery bend I've seen advertised for sale, though I can't find it with a quick google - a vastly expensive (something like $700) gimmicked spoon (or fork?) that claims to be a self-working PK trick. Since I have no special knowledge as to how it's done, I think it's within the confines of the ethics board to speculate (though if it's not, I hope mods will edit this post) - I wonder if that's using one of those odd metals that someone found references to in the Boeing research literature? Any very rich posters familiar with this one?

(Edited to add the 'or fork?' bit)

[Mercutio]

Um...gee, it looks like the thread turned into a discussion of avatars for a moment there...my last post showed one small thing--that a Ph.D. physics professor/astronaut and an audience full of people could be convinced that a hand-bent spoon (a very obviously hand-bent spoon) had been bent by state of mind...no gimmicked spoon is necessary, when people are so willing to believe...

(of course, this does not preclude a gimmicked spoon, but if we don't need one, we don't need one)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Nucular
Right, I didn't read the accounts properly after wondering that, apologies.

That to me then - assuming the accounts are valid (and Radin has been pretty good regarding other 'psychic' phenomena in the past, IIRC, though that doesn't necessarily prove his reliability in this case) - reduces the explanation of the bowl-bending phenomenon to about two of the already suggested possibilities:

1a) Gimmicked spoon: spoons made of weird metal Houck worked with at Boeing

1b) Gimmicked spoon: as Ed suggested, a very thin bowl

2) An actual 'psychic' phenomenon


Yes, I believe these are the options we're left with (although, no doubt, another clown is likely to enter the thread with "You idiots, it was sleight of hand.").

In the case of Radin, he has posted close-ups of the spoon (http://www.psiresearch.org/spoonname.jpg). Of course, Houck could have manufactured a spoon with the print "Silver overlaid" and "Oneida" on the back. But if we consider the number of different spoon and fork types he presumably would have to manufacture so as not to look suspicious at a party, it seems at least less likely.

In addition, unless the Arizona professor (and apparently very many others) are in collusion with Houck, where did he get the special metal? (One could also ask why the professor, who was purportedly agnostic about the subject, would bother to fool his students, but that's all too easy to answer in any number of creative ways).

For a more down-to-earth (if less implicitly credible) source, check out http://www.fork-you.com/forkhow6.htm. She brought her own spoon to the party, and was only later able to bend it. Like Crichton, she sees nothing strange about it after the "initial euphoria" wore off and she ran out of spoons ;). I am not trying to use her as a credible source, but her entire account is very interesting nonetheless.

These arguments (especially #2) make option 1a seem less likely.

For 1b, again consider Radin's quote:


All of my attempts to repeat this effect later, both with and without the use of force, failed.

Or more pertinently, Crichton:


I felt annoyed. The hell with it, I thought, I'll bend it with sheer force. I tried: the neck of the spoon would bend, of course, but the bowl itself wouldn't bend. I was hurting my fingers trying.

This latter quote dissuades me from readily accepting 1b.

If anyone lives in or near Ohio, check out his party on July 16 and see what you can find out. If anyone's in SoCal, there's another one coming up in October. Oh yeah and if anyone is near Kansas City, MO/KS, maybe you can help me try to organize one to confirm or deny these admittedly strange claims.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
The described effects could be easily obtained with a shape memory alloy. And some indium alloys become plastic at just above body temperature but are very hard when cold.

The other thing that strikes me was the comment about not being able to bend a 3/8th inch aluminium bar - sounds a bit wussy to me! :)

I also noticed in the original description that Houck says something to the effect that "small ladies" can esily bend 1/2 inch steel rods, but then further on he says:

"Sometimes people bring ridiculous things to the party like crow bars, heavy chains, etc. They are really into challenging and fundamentally are not interested in experiencing the phenomena themselves."

So these crowbars are presumably NOT 1/2 inch steel? My crowbar at home is less than 1/2 inch and it's steel. Perhaps the real key there is the word "bring".

Further on there is a comment about Eldon Byrd in Japan where he says the Japanese bent metal AND CHOPSTICKS. Aren't chopsticks usually made of WOOD? And then near the end there are comments about bending plastic. Which is all very well except for the "explanation" in the middle about transdimensional forces affecting the grain structure of METAL. So does the wood and plastic turn into metal, get bent and then transmute back to wood or plastic? Hmmm....

Yes, and if you can psychically bend a spoon or an aluminum rod why can't you psychically bend railroad rail? In a much as we are talking about paranormal matters which have nothing to do with strength why is there some sort of limit to the magnitude of the object one can bend? The same applies to any supposed pyschic ability. Why would there be any sort of limit in as much as we are talking about trancending corporeal reality. If a pyschic healer can heal a perforated ulcer or deafness, why couldn't send a person through a blender and then reconstitute them paranormally? psychic phenomena are bull crap. It is all bull crap and people who believe in it simply have an affinity for bull crap.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by billydkid


Yes, and if you can psychically bend a spoon or an aluminum rod why can't you psychically bend railroad rail? In a much as we are talking about paranormal matters which have nothing to do with strength why is there some sort of limit to the magnitude of the object one can bend? The same applies to any supposed pyschic ability. Why would there be any sort of limit in as much as we are talking about trancending corporeal reality. If a pyschic healer can heal a perforated ulcer or deafness, why couldn't send a person through a blender and then reconstitute them paranormally? psychic phenomena are bull crap. It is all bull crap and people who believe in it simply have an affinity for bull crap.

Yes, and if you can bench press 150 lbs, why can't you bench press 1500 lbs?

Has anyone in this thread even hinted at "trancending [sic] corporeal reality" (whatever that random assortment of words might mean)? Has anyone here suggested that these purported abilities are not limited? Or are these just vague assertions you've made up (rather uncreatively, I might add) and attached to no particular argument? With no due respect, this is the most pseudoscientific pap I've heard yet in this thread.

As much as I'm trying hard not to flame you for your ignorant hubris, I daresay you should take this bilge elsewhere. If you are unable to follow a well-reasoned argument (from either side), your post has no place in either a skeptical or paranormal forum, let alone in this thread.

And before you try to counter with some vague attack ("those psychic-believing kooks sure get mad for nothing!"), keep in mind that my problem lies solely with your inability to reason critically, and not with your presumable disbelief of psi (which I myself, and most in this forum, have no real reason to believe).

If you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation in session, please, by all means contribute.

...

Now then, where were we?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Yes, and if you can bench press 150 lbs, why can't you bench press 1500 lbs?

Has anyone in this thread even hinted at "trancending [sic] corporeal reality" (whatever that random assortment of words might mean)?

Forgive me for saying so, but I for one was under the impression that YOU did just that:

Originally posted by flyboy217
teaches people to bend metallic objects that they are normally physically incapable of bending:

and...

Originally posted by flyboy217
This clearly fails to address the point that buckling the head of a spoon is beyond the physical abilities of most people (Crichton and Radin included).

Not to mention Houck's claims about small ladies and 1/2 inch steel bars.

The definition may be vague but the context of the question was reasonably obvious.

Originally posted by flyboy217
And before you try to counter with some vague attack ("those psychic-believing kooks sure get mad for nothing!"), keep in mind that my problem lies solely with your inability to reason critically, and not with your presumable disbelief of psi (which I myself, and most in this forum, have no real reason to believe).

If you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation in session, please, by all means contribute.

...

Now then, where were we?

Why do you think anyone's attacking you? Got something to defend?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


Forgive me for saying so, but I for one was under the impression that YOU did just that:
...
Not to mention Houck's claims about small ladies and 1/2 inch steel bars.

The definition may be vague but the context of the question was reasonably obvious.


The way I see it, there is a difference between bending spoons and "transcending corporeal reality." For if people are able to bend spoons in the way Jack Houck claims, they are in effect merely accessing something that is already a part of our corporeal reality.

My statement of "normally physically capable" was an attempt at phrasing something that is awkward to phrase correctly. How does one say "physically capable of bending other than at PK parties" succinctly? Because clearly they were physically capable of bending them at the PK parties, for whatever reason.

Do you believe that this implies that there should be no limit to such an ability? I don't think anyone has suggested it is limitless.


Why do you think anyone's attacking you? Got something to defend?

Please read it again--I don't think anyone is attacking me. I think he is going to try to attack me, based on my heated post.

I posted my question here with the intent of finding skeptical, but still reasonable and intelligent people to discuss it with. A quote like this


It is all bull crap and people who believe in it simply have an affinity for bull crap.

does nothing to contribute to the questions that have been raised. How can someone really believe he knows it all?

You and several others (e.g., nucular) have provided reasonable responses to my questions. Sorry for the hiccup in conversation.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Yes, and if you can bench press 150 lbs, why can't you bench press 1500 lbs?

Has anyone in this thread even hinted at "trancending [sic] corporeal reality" (whatever that random assortment of words might mean)? Has anyone here suggested that these purported abilities are not limited? Or are these just vague assertions you've made up (rather uncreatively, I might add) and attached to no particular argument? With no due respect, this is the most pseudoscientific pap I've heard yet in this thread.

As much as I'm trying hard not to flame you for your ignorant hubris, I daresay you should take this bilge elsewhere. If you are unable to follow a well-reasoned argument (from either side), your post has no place in either a skeptical or paranormal forum, let alone in this thread.

And before you try to counter with some vague attack ("those psychic-believing kooks sure get mad for nothing!"), keep in mind that my problem lies solely with your inability to reason critically, and not with your presumable disbelief of psi (which I myself, and most in this forum, have no real reason to believe).

If you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation in session, please, by all means contribute.

...

Now then, where were we?

You certainly have a lot of gall. Thank god for folks like you policing this forum and keeping guys like me in line. Who better than you to decide what is appropriate to post here or not.

The whole premise here is that the spoons are being bent "paranormally" - a nonsense term if ever there was one. If it were not so there would be no point in posting it on a paranormal forum would there? In fact, there would not be much point in posting in anywhere if all we were talking about is people bending spoons with their hands.

In what way would bending spoons paranormally be analogous to bench pressing weights? Do we have pyschic muscles? Are there pyschic body builders who can bend really big spoons? Are rest of mere amateurs who can only bend little things? In as much as we in the material world are constrained by things like gravity and mass, etc. and one would have to assume that these constraints are pretty much what define the physical world as distinct from the "paranormal" it's hard to imagine in what way physical characteristics could hinder or constrain paranormal phenomena.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by billydkid

You certainly have a lot of gall. Thank god for folks like you policing this forum and keeping guys like me in line. Who better than you to decide what is appropriate to post here or not.


Sorry. Not trying to tell you what to post or what not to, but it is a little disconcerting to find a post about reconstituting people from blenders amidst serious questions about alloys that display the noted properties.


The whole premise here is that the spoons are being bent "paranormally" - a nonsense term if ever there was one. If it were not so there would be no point in posting it on a paranormal forum would there? In fact, there would not be much point in posting in anywhere if all we were talking about is people bending spoons with their hands.


Did I ever use the term "paranormal?" If I did, I apologize. In particular, I've pointed to quotes from Crichton such as the following:


Because spoon bending obviously must have some ordinary explanation, since a hundred people from all walks of life were doing it. And it was hard to feel any sort of mystery: you just rub the spoon for a while and pretty soon it gets soft, and it bends. And thats that.
...
In fact, this sense of boredom seem to me often to accompany "psychic" phenomena. At first the event appears exciting and mysterious, but very quickly it becomes so mundane that it can no longer hold your interest. This seems to me to confirm the idea that so-called psychic or paranormal phenomena are misnamed. There's nothing abnormal about them. On the contrary, they're utterly normal.

However, I couldn't think of a better place to post it, as there is no "not yet well understood phenomena" category.


In what way would bending spoons paranormally be analogous to bench pressing weights? Do we have pyschic muscles? Are there pyschic body builders who can bend really big spoons? Are rest of mere amateurs who can only bend little things?


My point is that there is no way to draw analogies or indeed any conclusions about this just yet. That is why it does not make sense to ask questions such as "if they can bend spoons, why can't they flatten planets?" Nobody has presented a reasonable theory about such events, let alone one that purports infinite power.


In as much as we in the material world are constrained by things like gravity and mass, etc. and one would have to assume that these constraints are pretty much what define the physical world as distinct from the "paranormal"

I trust you see the problem with a statement like "constrained by things like gravity and mass, etc."? No reasonable scientist today believes that we have a complete list of that type. Unless you have a Grand Unified Theory hidden up your sleeve.

And even then, consider this example: electromagnetism is not "constrained by" mass or gravity. And still, it interacts with matter, as do mass and gravity. Yet it's not fair to say that, if lasers (which work through electromagnetic force) exist, then there should be lasers that are powerful enough to destroy planets. In principle, sure. In practice, no.

Also, are you claiming that any new addition to our physical theory that allows for the exhibited spoon bending effects must necessarily disregard all (not just some) of the rest of our understanding? Clearly this would be a faulty assumption to make.

Are you familiar with quantum tunneling? If you were to present this to a physicist 100 years ago, he might ask you why, if electrons can traverse small barriers, elephants aren't randomly tunneling to Mars. After all, if this purported quantum tunneling isn't constrained by mass or gravity (and indeed it's not), what limit is there? Later, you develop theories about the probability of several atoms tunneling simultaneously, etc., and come to the conclusion that elephants CAN teleport, but it's very very unlikely. So now what are you to do if you actually "see" (that is, measure) an electron tunneling? Are you to pretend it didn't happen because no elephants have teleported to Mars? Or because it doesn't fit your current theory? Or do you try to repeat it, get others to try it, and see if it's really as crazy as your peers are telling you?

The point I'm trying to get across is simple: let's deal with the empirical evidence now, and with the theories later. We can clearly see that the heads of spoons have been bent, and we're trying to determine which standardly available techniques could cause it. Either this is a repeatable phenomenon, or it's not. Before I can gain some ground on these questions, I'm putting all further speculation on hold.


it's hard to imagine in what way physical characteristics could hinder or constrain paranormal phenomena.

That's why I'm suggesting we avoid straying into imagination just yet. Look for repeatable emprical data now, work on theories and imagination later. Does it get any more fair than that?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
The way I see it, there is a difference between bending spoons and "transcending corporeal reality." For if people are able to bend spoons in the way Jack Houck claims, they are in effect merely accessing something that is already a part of our corporeal reality.

Fair enough, just bear in mind that there is no common definition of "corporeal reality". I took that to mean the normally accepted limits of the human body. You took it for something else, and perhaps billydkid meant something different still. I would simply suggest, if in doubt, ask.

Originally posted by flyboy217
My statement of "normally physically capable" was an attempt at phrasing something that is awkward to phrase correctly. How does one say "physically capable of bending other than at PK parties" succinctly? Because clearly they were physically capable of bending them at the PK parties, for whatever reason.

I understood what you meant, no problem there. I thought that was what billydkid meant too.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Do you believe that this implies that there should be no limit to such an ability? I don't think anyone has suggested it is limitless.

No, not at all. But the question was a legitimate one. Where IS the limit? Clearly, assuming this phenomenon to be anything other than some sort of trick, there is apparently an effect which in terms of its capacity to DO something, exceeds the normally accepted parameters of human muscular strength in doing the same thing "conventionally".

It's probably more instructive to look at it in a different way. Could I move 1 million tons of water using my own natural muscular strength? Not directly. But INDIRECTLY yes. I could throw a stone on to a mountain of snow and start an avalanche which would send 1 million tons of water (ice) cascading down. Therefore if one applies a similar logic and working from the (not yet justified) assumption that if however this metal is bent, does not involve DIRECT application of muscular force, then one has to ask, is there any reasonable limit to it? If a small lady can bend a 1/2 inch steel bar, then why CAN'T she also bend a steel girder or a rail? If it's not a question of muscular force that is.

I wouldn't expect anybody to have the definitive answer, but it may be an interesting point to discuss nonetheless. And if Houck has researched this as extensively as he implies then surely we could reasonably expect him to have some idea of where the limit lies?

Regardless of what YOU think it is, Houck says directly it's paranormal. Mind over matter. He goes on about psi and remote viewing, seeing into the past and the future. He advocates pendulums, dowsing rods and "psychic healing". Now, to my mind that does NOT make him a credible scientific observer. In my experience these kind of claims usually go hand in hand with some form of deception (of self, or others, or both). Therefore MY initial inclination is to look for the point of deception first (doesn't matter whether it's intentional or otherwise). By all means investigate it yourself, I think most here would agree that's a good course of action. But at the same time let's also discuss the reasonable possibility of deception/delusion as well.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Please read it again--I don't think anyone is attacking me. I think he is going to try to attack me, based on my heated post.

Yes, MY point was that I didn't understand WHY it was heated (your post). Just an observation, but barring direct attacks on people, or lying, doing harm to others by deception or something like that, my experience is that people tend to get heated when they think their belief systems are under attack. Hence my question. If your viewpoint is detached and critical as you claim then I can understand that you may disagree with a particular opinion but not why you would necessarily get heated about it...

Originally posted by flyboy217
I posted my question here with the intent of finding skeptical, but still reasonable and intelligent people to discuss it with. A quote like this does nothing to contribute to the questions that have been raised. How can someone really believe he knows it all?

I don't think anyone DOES believe he knows it all. I don't believe HE thinks he knows it all. But he's just as entitled to express his opinion as you are to express yours that you disagree with it! :) Don't you think that in the first instance it might be worthwhile to ASK why he holds that opinion? His opinion may be based on tens of thousands of experiences for all you or I know. How many is YOUR comment about his intelligence based on? Just something to think about!

Originally posted by flyboy217
You and several others (e.g., nucular) have provided reasonable responses to my questions. Sorry for the hiccup in conversation.

Thank you. You're welcome. And no problem, just expressing my opinion! :)

[flyboy217]

By all means investigate it yourself, I think most here would agree that's a good course of action. But at the same time let's also discuss the reasonable possibility of deception/delusion as well.


That has been the purpose of this thread. Since I can deal with deception/delusion myself at my own party, what else must I contend with? Bring my own stainless steel spoons (check), make sure nobody else touches them (check), make sure I can't buckle them beforehand (check), etc.


I don't think anyone DOES believe he knows it all. I don't believe HE thinks he knows it all. But he's just as entitled to express his opinion as you are to express yours that you disagree with it! :) Don't you think that in the first instance it might be worthwhile to ASK why he holds that opinion? His opinion may be based on tens of thousands of experiences for all you or I know. How many is YOUR comment about his intelligence based on? Just something to think about!


You are correct. The tone of the post upset me, when it really shouldn't have. Apologies all around :).

Anyways, I'll try to set up an experiment on my own, using what I've learned in this thread. I'll report back on my findings later.

[LettristLoon]

Lucian:

You're talking about "grownup skepticism" and trying to convince people of the reality of PK with anecdotal evidence.

Not saying you're wrong--just stating the situation as I see it. As you were!

- B

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Do you think Targ is lying / deluded? How about Houck, do you have reason to believe he is just scamming people?

I don't have any opinions about either of them; my stance is neutral.

What I am saying though is that bending spoons probably isn't as difficult has people think it is, and that possilby one could get good at it. Also that without actual evidence, we really can't say what occured.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Don, are you going to put your issues to Dr Targ, or not?

I can help you with this, and it'd be good to have some direct feedback on the forum, straight from the source, rather than the opinion of an arm-chair skeptic. Don't you agree?
By all means PM his contact details.

Of course there are the oustanding issues of his impartiality, his observational skills and his his critical reasoning skills but I guess I will have to address those once I have his testimony.

Another question which applies to everyone, not just Dr Targ, After several years of recounting an anecdote, how far has the anecdote strayed from reality. My family has an anecdote regarding my Father's poor grasp of the French language in an incident 20 years ago. Even though several of us were there, our erpeating of the anecdote separately has resulted in some quite different stories.


Claus,

In you opinion, is there anything I should be especially wary of when contacting Dr Targ ?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Psiload
I like you, Luci... you're silly.

Anyhoo, as far as my opinion of Targ's deceased daughter... it isn't... opinion that is. She was, in fact, a liar.

***no rapists were glamourized during the editing of this post***

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do
It's up to you, yeah you

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Instant Karma's gonna get you

At least we have the same taste in music, although I have never rated this one one of his best.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by flyboy217

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A year later, I mentioned to an M.I.T. professor that I had bent spoons. He frowned in silence for a while. "There's a way to bend spoons," he said, "by a trick."

"I think so," I said. "But I don't know the trick."

The professor was silent for a while longer. "You personally bent spoons?

"Yes."

Then he went through the whole thing. Where did I get the spoons? How did I know the spoons had not been previously "treated"? Did anyone help me to bend the spoons? Did anyone touch me while I was bending, or substitute a bent spoon into my hands... He went on like this for a while. I tried to explain the quality of the room that night, and how impossible it was that everyone could have been tricked.

"So you believe the spoons bent?"

"Yes."

"Did you investigate why the spoons bent?"

"No," I said.

"You mean you experienced this extraordinary phenomenon and you didn't try to explain it?"

"No," I said.

"That's very strange," he said. "I would say that your behavior is a pathological denial of what happened to you. This incredible experience occurs and you do nothing to investigate it at all?"

"I don't see why it's pathological," I said. "I don't go investigating why everything in the world happens. For example, I know that, if I bend a wire rapidly, the wire will get hot and break-but I don't really know why that happens. I don't think it's my job to rush out and find out why. In this case, spoon bending, the room was full of people doing the same thing, and it seemed very ordinary. Kind of boring."

In fact, this sense of boredom seem to me often to accompany "psychic" phenomena. At first the event appears exciting and mysterious, but very quickly it becomes so mundane that it can no longer hold your interest. This seems to me to confirm the idea that so-called psychic or paranormal phenomena are misnamed. There's nothing abnormal about them. On the contrary, they're utterly normal. We've just forgotten we can do them. The minute we do do them, we recognize them for what they are, and we think, so what? Spoon bending is like doing the laundry, or riding a bicycle. No big deal. Not really worth much conversation.


I do find this very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception somehow.

[Lucianarchy]

Don, check your PM box, the path to enlightenmnet is open to you...

[Lucianarchy]

Here's a little unpublished titbit from my previous research which some may find interesting in the PK discussion. It follows interviews with Dr Jack Sarfatti about signal non-locality and Eldon Byrd's research into PK and metallurgy:

Question: [...](Re: ) Dr Sarfatti's theoretical take on PK regarding "signal nonlocality". Would you be able to say a little on what the "new
information" is you mentioned?

Eldon Byrd: Jack and I disagree in some ways about this, although I like his basic ideas, and signal non-locality is preserved in my view, also. The discovery of the optical microtubule/centriole system in cells that control DNA and
make internal cell as well as nearby external interstitial water coherent was what I was refering to, including the ability of thewater to perform laser-like quantum communication with "hyperspace" positrons tunneling into them, annihilating electrons and creating photons that carry information into the subconscious, allowing the mind to create holographic images and
other functions in the microtrabecular lattice in cells. I know that is a mouthful. I gave a paper on the 23rd at a conference, and I will edit it for limited distribution so as to skirt the copyright. I wrote it, but share the copyright of the presentated paper per se with the organizers. However, they don't own my ideas.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Then don't bring up the subject of Targ [libel edited].



Claus, let me remind you, again, Elizabeth Targ has nothing to do with this discussion.

It is showing that you prefer to attack the dead than deal with the subject of PK.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Lucian:

You're talking about "grownup skepticism" and trying to convince people of the reality of PK with anecdotal evidence.

Not saying you're wrong--just stating the situation as I see it. As you were!

- B

Perhaps you are not seeing that the evidence being discussed is far more valid than the sort of personl opinion you have on the 'commentary' section of the JREF, just for the fact that we are dealing with the organ-grinder, rather than the monkey.

BTW, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. I am encouraging them to do follow the leads and do their own research.

[The Don]

Is this the Eldon Byrd who wrote, among other things, "URI GELLER'S INFLUENCE ON THE METAL ALLOY NITINOL " ?http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g6.htm

And whose work on this was critiqued here http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/gardner.htm

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Here's a little unpublished titbit from my previous research which some may find interesting in the PK discussion. It follows interviews with Dr Jack Sarfatti about signal non-locality and Eldon Byrd's research into PK and metallurgy:

Question: [...](Re: ) Dr Sarfatti's theoretical take on PK regarding "signal nonlocality". Would you be able to say a little on what the "new
information" is you mentioned?

Eldon Byrd: Jack and I disagree in some ways about this, although I like his basic ideas, and signal non-locality is preserved in my view, also. The discovery of the optical microtubule/centriole system in cells that control DNA and
make internal cell as well as nearby external interstitial water coherent was what I was refering to, including the ability of thewater to perform laser-like quantum communication with "hyperspace" positrons tunneling into them, annihilating electrons and creating photons that carry information into the subconscious, allowing the mind to create holographic images and
other functions in the microtrabecular lattice in cells. I know that is a mouthful. I gave a paper on the 23rd at a conference, and I will edit it for limited distribution so as to skirt the copyright. I wrote it, but share the copyright of the presentated paper per se with the organizers. However, they don't own my ideas.

Can anyone tell me what this means?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don
Is this the Eldon Byrd who wrote, among other things, "URI GELLER'S INFLUENCE ON THE METAL ALLOY NITINOL " ?http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/g6.htm

And whose work on this was critiqued here http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/gardner.htm

Indeed, and I am sure you have read Byrd's response to the 'critique'.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed, and I am sure you have read Byrd's response to the 'critique'.
Seeing as we're going back to original sources, do you have contact details for Dr. Byrd please ?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I do find this very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception somehow.

Very interesting. Do you not think the same also applies to skeptics?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don

Seeing as we're going back to original sources, do you have contact details for Dr. Byrd please ?

It's been along time. But I think I have got them on another system somewhere. If you check your PM box later today I might well be able to hook you up.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I do find this very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception somehow.

I find your post to be very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception.

;)

But seriously, folks...

99.9% of the claims out there are transparently BS. It's what you do with the remaining .1% that counts. After a bit of investigation, you can either dismiss them with an offhand "it's somehow bunk, I just don't know how" or think "it could still be bunk, but let's further investigate."

That's the crucial point that separates so-called pseudoskeptics from the skeptics. I hope I find more of the latter here.

[The Don]

Riiiiiight

So it goes like this:

- You post some information relalting to a PSI event endorsed by the usual suspects
- Skeptical members of the board point out flaws in the protocol and the evidence
- You claim that this falls into the other 0.1 %

And you claim to be skeptical. $1m awaits if this can be reproduced.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don


And you claim to be skeptical. $1m awaits if this can be reproduced.

I can get $1m for being skeptical!! Whoo-hooo! Hold the Front Page! where do I sign???

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I can get $1m for being skeptical!! Whoo-hooo! Hold the Front Page! where do I sign???
But you are woo-woo, don't forget! No million bucks for you :D

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by flyboy217
After a bit of investigation, you can either dismiss them with an offhand "it's somehow bunk, I just don't know how" or think "it could still be bunk, but let's further investigate."

That's the crucial point that separates so-called pseudoskeptics from the skeptics. I hope I find more of the latter here. Hey, thus far we have only an anecotal claim, and one which is, on the face of it, identical to what happened in the video I mentioned. Until there is more than an eyewitness account of a highly emotional group event with no controls to speak of....pardon me if I do not get excited. I don't need to dismiss this claim with a "it's somehow bunk...", because right now there is nothing there to dismiss! The burden of proof is squarely where it belongs--demonstrate the phenomenon first. Until that point, there is no reason to suppose it is in the .1%, or indeed any reason to waste time thinking about it at all.

(BTW, I really hate to bring up that video again--after all, no one has commented on it, and it is not a video of the people under question in this thread...but consider, it is a demonstration that very smart people can bend spoons purely through the power of their bodies, and still think it was by mind. That is precisely the experience that is being discussed here, and so we have a demonstration that one can believe that one has bent a spoon through the power of one's mind, and believe it honestly, when in fact nothing of the sort has happened. Even if we assume no trickery at all, this demonstrates that we need more evidence than eyewitness accounts, no matter how smart and reliable and numerous the eyewitnesses are.)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by steenkh

But you are woo-woo, don't forget! No million bucks for you :D

Ah, ha, but I am sceptical of your claim! Please make you cheque payable to 'Oxfam'. Thank you.

[Ed]

I find that taking a long view on claims of oddness is a far more useful strategy than trying to discern how a given faker did it.

In the present case the idea of altering the integrity of metal with some paranormal power would have certain implications. Mass thought in aircraft causing massive and catastrophic failures whenever one is in a thunder storm (don't tell me you don't picture the wings falling off), a sea change in defensive and offensive weapons (Gee wonder if Henry V got his troops to will the chains holding up the drawbridge at Heurfleur to "bend"). And the fraud in question works for Boeing and he did not sell out to them? Right.

The point is if this is a ubiquitious and potentially destructive a "power" as is contended we would be living in a very different world. Oh, but wait, it only occurs in woo parties under the auspicis of Mr. Whatshisname. Or....the guy is a fraud. You pick.

[Lucianarchy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mercutio
[B] [... my video...]

Your video, Merc, is not only a straw one, it remains your anecdotal subjective description of what went on. Can it be viewed online?

[The Don]

I'm sorry Mercutio,

Yes, I think that video is a perfect example of a group of people wanting something happen badly enough that they misremember what has happened. It's very similar to an audience's experience with a good cold reader who claims to be a psychic (as opposed to bad cold readers) in which the perception of what happened (bold assertions remembered, "fishing" questions actually happening).

Other examples of this kind of thing occuring (in my experience)

- Wildly differing witness accounts of almost any occurrence
- Two sets of supporters' reactions to the same incident
- Starting a story with "you remember the time....." the first few times they'll be polite after a whole they actually WILL remember
- The fact that neither Arsene Wenger or Alex Ferguson have ever seen their players commit a foul

What I do find illuminating is that while "skeptics" are quite willing to admit to the fallibility of human perception and memory (prefering to rely on "hard" evidence), those who support PSI are quite prepared to admit that there can be no such fallibility in "their guy"'s account

edited to fix a faulty Wenger

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Eldon Byrd: Jack and I disagree in some ways about this, although I like his basic ideas, and signal non-locality is preserved in my view, also. The discovery of the optical microtubule/centriole system in cells that control DNA and
make internal cell as well as nearby external interstitial water coherent was what I was refering to, including the ability of thewater to perform laser-like quantum communication with "hyperspace" positrons tunneling into them, annihilating electrons and creating photons that carry information into the subconscious, allowing the mind to create holographic images and
other functions in the microtrabecular lattice in cells. I know that is a mouthful. I gave a paper on the 23rd at a conference, and I will edit it for limited distribution so as to skirt the copyright. I wrote it, but share the copyright of the presentated paper per se with the organizers. However, they don't own my ideas.

This is pseudoscientific BS.

As far as I am aware nobody has shown "control of DNA" or that "water is coherent". The very first thing to ask would be how is the "coherece of water" defined? Throwing some techie sounding term into something doesn't make it scientific, it's meaningless.

"Hyperspace positrons". Nobody has demonstrated the EXISTENCE of hyperspace let alone that it has positrons. And positron electron annihilations create GAMMA rays! Why can't we detect these gamma rays being emitted? Not to mention how is that this highly ionizing/damaging radiation doesn't kill us?

"Carry information into the subconscious". Somebody had better define "the subconscious" for a start. And then show how photons interact with it exclusively.

"Allow the mind to create holographic images". An annihilation doesn't contain any holographic information.

"And other functions". When in doubt, fudge! :)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hey, thus far we have only an anecotal claim, and one which is, on the face of it, identical to what happened in the video I mentioned. Until there is more than an eyewitness account of a highly emotional group event with no controls to speak of....pardon me if I do not get excited. I don't need to dismiss this claim with a "it's somehow bunk...", because right now there is nothing there to dismiss! The burden of proof is squarely where it belongs--demonstrate the phenomenon first. Until that point, there is no reason to suppose it is in the .1%, or indeed any reason to waste time thinking about it at all.


Is the video you are talking about the one where a guy on stage does it? If so, it is clearly not anywhere near the same.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by The Don
Riiiiiight

So it goes like this:

- You post some information relalting to a PSI event endorsed by the usual suspects
- Skeptical members of the board point out flaws in the protocol and the evidence
- You claim that this falls into the other 0.1 %

And you claim to be skeptical. $1m awaits if this can be reproduced.

Since when is Crichton a "usual suspect?" He's a self-professed skeptic, and a Harvard-trained MD. Or the professor at Arizona? And do you mistrust Radin? Do you have any reason to? Can you provide examples of where he's cheated or lied? Or do you mean that all people are usually suspect?

As for flaws in the protocol and evidence, that's the point of this thread, as I keep saying. I'd like to conduct one with those parts fixed. My response was to the knee-jerk reaction that "it must be false because it's weird." I see that pretty often, and I think critical reasoning would be a better approach.

I didn't claim that this falls into the other .1%, did I? Just that it's important to investigate the other .1%.

Now for a matter of judgement. Are the claims sufficiently interesting to warrant my time and energy in testing this myself? Please re-read Crichton's account that was described as "very interesting." Rather than dismissing it as some kind of vague self-delusion on the part of a highly intelligent and respected man, I think it's worth a shot to look into first.

And you claim I'm not skeptical?

[The Don]

Posters who have found this exponent of PSI interesting may also be interested in the following practitioners:

- David Copperfield (he can fly!!!)
- Paul Daniels
- Ali Bongo

By all means investigate but do so with your eyes open:

- Your personal recollection of the evening may not be reliable, use videotape where possible
- The most likely explanation for the effects is still illusion so look for:
- swapping props
- misdirection
- insistence that there has been an effect
- requirement to pay money

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by The Don
Posters who have found this exponent of PSI interesting may also be interested in the following practitioners:

- David Copperfield (he can fly!!!)
- Paul Daniels
- Ali Bongo

By all means investigate but do so with your eyes open:

- Your personal recollection of the evening may not be reliable, use videotape where possible
- The most likely explanation for the effects is still illusion so look for:
- swapping props
- misdirection
- insistence that there has been an effect
- requirement to pay money

Since you've been oh-so-carefully following this thread, you alread know that

1) I intend to use my own stainless steel forks
2) I'm no magician, and won't allow anyone else to touch my forks
3) I'm hosting my own party
4) I'm not charging anything for it

If I gain a positive result, I'll videotape it on my second attempt.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


This is pseudoscientific BS.



Well, of course, that's your subjective opinion. And you are welcome to it.

You could do with being a little patient with a dictionary.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
That has been the purpose of this thread. Since I can deal with deception/delusion myself at my own party, what else must I contend with? Bring my own stainless steel spoons (check), make sure nobody else touches them (check), make sure I can't buckle them beforehand (check), etc.

Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the points that have been made. Mercutio's post sums it up pretty well. ANYBODY can be fooled. NOBODY is immune. Whilst you honestly believe that your precautions are sufficient, it helps to be aware just HOW frauds in this area can be perpetrated. For example, *I* wouldn't consider myself immune.

You may think everyone is unreasonably focussing on the fraud aspect. But there's a reason for that, it's because in practice these things have been investigated many times in the past and they have ALWAYS proved to be frauds - or so badly done that no reasonable conclusion could be made either way.

Now nobody may have tested Houck in particular. But it's still instructive to look at the bigger picture. This is what we have so far:

Houck makes a series of claims. Those claims do not simply challenge preconceived ideas about one aspect of scientific knowledge, they challenge ALL of science and ALL the previous experience of skeptical investigators. Nobody can simply dismiss that, particularly as the evidence of the latter far exceeds the evidence of the former.

Houck introduces a whole HOST of "strange" claims. As I mentioned before he brings in "remote viewing", pendulums, dowsing rods, clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis - in fact, the whole spectrum of "woo woo" for want of a better word. So far that follows the usual pattern of people who like to falsely claim that they are impartial investigators. No impartial investigator buys into the whole package without CONCLUSIVELY demonstrating one aspect of it first. And then each subsequent addition needs to go through the same process. Anecdotal information from parties doesn't count as conclusive proof.

Then he introduces the "usual suspects". People who have zero credibility in the skeptical community because of things they have done in the past that PROVE they are not reliable. Look at the pseudoscience of Eldon Byrd. Or the claims of Russell Targ. Or Uri Geller. As soon as these kinds of names start cropping up, alarm bells start ringing. You dismissed Laura Lee. So do you understand why I reject, Byrd, Targ, Geller and Houck himself?

We also have Crichton and Radin. Who may well be perfectly reliable people. But again, ANYBODY can be fooled. I don't know it for a fact, but I would bet that even Randi would accept that HE could possibly be fooled - and he knows most of the tricks inside out. And the circumstances under which Crichton at least had the experience are nowhere near controlled. So that only leaves Radin and the information we have about his experiments is way insufficient to draw any conclusion.

So in essence, we don't really have a lot to go on. We have the usual kind of claim, under the usual kind of circumstances, by the usual suspects, in the usual manner that has been shown to be some kind of fraud/self-deception in the past. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume (until proved to the contrary) that it is just the same as usual, i.e. fraud/self-deception. For the benefit of anyone who questions WHY that is reasonable, it is worth going over what has been observed from past events. This has nothing to do with whether you do the experiment yourself.

You said before you expect everyone to congratulate you if you don't get a result and to attack you if you do. That's not likely. If you get a negative result, the reaction will probably be more along the lines of "I told you so". And if you get a positive result the reaction will be, "O.K. another anecdote, so what?" And I don't think, taking past events into account that either reaction is unreasonable or unjustified. If you think it IS then perhaps you should look first at the existing evidence.

A valid question to ask is, why are you doing this? I don't mean performing the experiment, I mean, what do you hope to ACHIEVE by doing the experiment, and why are you discussing it here? Please don't assume that implies that you shouldn't do either. What I mean is an examination of what you hope to achieve would be valuable. If you hope to convince yourself either way and just that, fair enough. But if you want to convince anyone ELSE then what do you intend to do to make that possible? And of course, if that is the case, WHY would you want to convince anyone else? And be prepared for the fact that unless you can offer hard evidence to back up each and every claim, some will simply not believe you.

The danger in these situations always comes when someone believes that they know the truth and then goes out of their way to convince others. The sad fact is that human nature all too often leads to selective memory, extrapolation beyond the facts, and "infilling" of gaps to make the inconsistent, consistent! :) True research into this kind of area requires an exceptional level of integrity.

And also, at the end of the day, why should anybody believe anybody on here? You're just an anonymous poster. So am I. I have no special reason to trust your integrity over anyone else (and vice versa). So if you come back tomorrow announce that you performed the experiment and that it was a complete success, why should I (or anyone else) believe you? That's not any personal comment, I'm making a more general point. You could be anybody. You could be Jack Houck. Or you could be his best friend. If he is a fraud, you could be making a fortune out of deceiving people into believing this stuff, you might be a partner in the fraud - for all I know. All I'm saying is, bear in mind the facts of the situation before drawing any conclusions.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Very interesting. Do you not think the same also applies to skeptics?

Not sure what you mean there, Luci. I'm talking about Chriction in specific here.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Since when is Crichton a "usual suspect?" He's a self-professed skeptic

So is Lucianarchy! :D

[CurtC]

flyboy217 wrote:
The two explanations I can see are 1) there is "something interesting" going on at these parties, or 2) all of these people are liars.You conveniently left out the most likely explanation, which is that Houck is using magician tricks. Previous posts here have supported this explanation - the fact that Crichton handed his spoon to Houck before he could begin bending it, and that the silverware gets placed in a big pile at the beginning of the party.

And you keep pointing out that Chrichton is a "Harvard-trained MD." So what? That makes him an expert in detecting how a magician does his tricks? Have you never seen a magic trick that you can't figure out how it was done? When you did, did you then assume that it was some paranormal stuff going on?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Well, of course, that's your subjective opinion. And you are welcome to it.

It's objective fact, but thank you anyway! :)

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You could do with being a little patient with a dictionary.

Because you are? I think it would be better for all if they kept dictionaries out of the hands of little patients, it tends to give them delusions of grandeur! What are they treating you for anyway? :D

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by flyboy217


I find your post to be very interesting. As a knee-jerk reaction, it smacks of self-deception.

;)


Yeah, I've done the turnaround statement before myself. Very amusing.

What I'm talking about is that Chricton has this very unusual thing happen to him. And he doesn't do anything to check it out? Investigate it? Read about possible magic tricks that could duplicate the effect? Read books about psychic explanations? No, he doesn't do ANYTHING to follow up on it.

I dunno about him, but if I had a solid stainless steel spoon crumple in my hand seemingly from some power besides my elbow grease, I'd be checking into it!

Me, personally, with no further investigation that reading the linked article (so take it with a grain of salt, just as intended) I've got this mental image of a really great show, a convincing magic trick, and Chriction 'goes along' with the show. Suggestion is a powerful thing, and maybe he just didn't want to shatter the illusion. That's my personal take on it. I am allowed to have my own personal views on stuff, right? :P

99.9% of the claims out there are transparently BS. It's what you do with the remaining .1% that counts. After a bit of investigation, you can either dismiss them with an offhand "it's somehow bunk, I just don't know how" or think "it could still be bunk, but let's further investigate."

That's the crucial point that separates so-called pseudoskeptics from the skeptics. I hope I find more of the latter here.

There will always be that .1% or .001% or .0000000001%. You can't eliminate it. You will always have unresolvable investigations and people who stick to their claims even when shown that they're false. Stuff like that.
And you can investigate until you're blue in the face, have nothing to show for it, and believers will still have a .01% to point to and say 'What about that? Shouldn't we investiage that?' for ever, and ever, and ever...

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by CurtC
You conveniently left out the most likely explanation, which is that Houck is using magician tricks. Previous posts here have supported this explanation - the fact that Crichton handed his spoon to Houck before he could begin bending it,

That last bit was MY mistake, sorry for any confusion. Crichton DIDN'T say he handed the spoon to Houck, I got it mixed up with a different account. However, we can't rule out that Houck MAY have handled it at some point, there is insufficient detail to decide either way.

[Lucianarchy]

Re Dr Eldon Byrd.

I have just discovered that Dr Byrd died Dr. Byrd died of pancreatic cancer on Dec. 30, 2002. the last I heard from him was in 2000. My best wishes and condolences to his family and friends.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


Then he introduces the "usual suspects". People who have zero credibility in the skeptical community because of things they have done in the past that PROVE they are not reliable. Look at the pseudoscience of Eldon Byrd. Or the claims of Russell Targ.

Whoa, hang on there. Those myths smears have been busted quite comprehensively. Please don't automatically fall for the 'part line' and repeat misleading claims.

http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

Maybe there is some misunderstanding of the points that have been made. Mercutio's post sums it up pretty well. ANYBODY can be fooled. NOBODY is immune. Whilst you honestly believe that your precautions are sufficient, it helps to be aware just HOW frauds in this area can be perpetrated. For example, *I* wouldn't consider myself immune.

You may think everyone is unreasonably focussing on the fraud aspect. But there's a reason for that, it's because in practice these things have been investigated many times in the past and they have ALWAYS proved to be frauds - or so badly done that no reasonable conclusion could be made either way.

I do not think it's unreasonable at all. Which is why I'm trying to be "as sure as I can be" that I'm not deluding myself. Indeed, one can do no better than this. But at some point (that is, some level of control), it becomes foolish to NOT believe something. If I can achieve that through such a party, I'll have made a first step.

So then, tell me. Suppose I have some stainless steel spoons that I've been trying hard to bend physically for some time. Suppose I give them to my friends to bend, without telling them why I'm asking. Suppose none of us can bend them. Now suppose that at the party, nobody else is allowed to touch them, and suppose I somehow do bend them on that day, and take pictures of it. Am I to assume that I must have deluded myself? Suppose I can repeat this experiment at will. Am I still necessarily delusional? At some point, "self-delusion" will become no more than a scapegoat, a way for me to preserve my world view. And that is a liability.


Now nobody may have tested Houck in particular. But it's still instructive to look at the bigger picture. This is what we have so far:

Houck makes a series of claims. Those claims do not simply challenge preconceived ideas about one aspect of scientific knowledge, they challenge ALL of science and ALL the previous experience of skeptical investigators. Nobody can simply dismiss that, particularly as the evidence of the latter far exceeds the evidence of the former.

Houck introduces a whole HOST of "strange" claims. As I mentioned before he brings in "remote viewing", pendulums, dowsing rods, clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis - in fact, the whole spectrum of "woo woo" for want of a better word. So far that follows the usual pattern of people who like to falsely claim that they are impartial investigators. No impartial investigator buys into the whole package without CONCLUSIVELY demonstrating one aspect of it first. And then each subsequent addition needs to go through the same process. Anecdotal information from parties doesn't count as conclusive proof.

Then he introduces the "usual suspects". People who have zero credibility in the skeptical community because of things they have done in the past that PROVE they are not reliable. Look at the pseudoscience of Eldon Byrd. Or the claims of Russell Targ. Or Uri Geller. As soon as these kinds of names start cropping up, alarm bells start ringing. You dismissed Laura Lee. So do you understand why I reject, Byrd, Targ, Geller and Houck himself?


Of course I understand why you reject Byrd, Targ, and Geller. I never mentioned one of them (except for Geller, who I brought up only to dismiss). And rather than simply believing Houck, his is the one case I can test and easily assess for myself.


We also have Crichton and Radin. Who may well be perfectly reliable people. But again, ANYBODY can be fooled. I don't know it for a fact, but I would bet that even Randi would accept that HE could possibly be fooled - and he knows most of the tricks inside out. And the circumstances under which Crichton at least had the experience are nowhere near controlled. So that only leaves Radin and the information we have about his experiments is way insufficient to draw any conclusion.


I think we can take it one step further. There is no experiment that Randi could see, or indeed do himself, that would convince him of psi. If some effect were so powerful that nothing but self-delusion could explain it, then he'd leave it at that. He'd consider himself senile before accepting what he saw. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I might very well do the same myself. In the end, we're only trying to make our world make sense to us.


So in essence, we don't really have a lot to go on. We have the usual kind of claim, under the usual kind of circumstances, by the usual suspects, in the usual manner that has been shown to be some kind of fraud/self-deception in the past. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume (until proved to the contrary) that it is just the same as usual, i.e. fraud/self-deception. For the benefit of anyone who questions WHY that is reasonable, it is worth going over what has been observed from past events. This has nothing to do with whether you do the experiment yourself.


Again, close, but not quite. In addition to the usual suspects, we have a few (at least 3) new ones whose credibility has so far not been assailed, even though there has been plenty of opportunity to do so. Without that, I'd agree with you. But on the strength of their experiences, I'm willing to hear them out. That is all.


You said before you expect everyone to congratulate you if you don't get a result and to attack you if you do. That's not likely. If you get a negative result, the reaction will probably be more along the lines of "I told you so". And if you get a positive result the reaction will be, "O.K. another anecdote, so what?" And I don't think, taking past events into account that either reaction is unreasonable or unjustified. If you think it IS then perhaps you should look first at the existing evidence.

A valid question to ask is, why are you doing this? I don't mean performing the experiment, I mean, what do you hope to ACHIEVE by doing the experiment, and why are you discussing it here? Please don't assume that implies that you shouldn't do either. What I mean is an examination of what you hope to achieve would be valuable. If you hope to convince yourself either way and just that, fair enough. But if you want to convince anyone ELSE then what do you intend to do to make that possible? And of course, if that is the case, WHY would you want to convince anyone else? And be prepared for the fact that unless you can offer hard evidence to back up each and every claim, some will simply not believe you.

The danger in these situations always comes when someone believes that they know the truth and then goes out of their way to convince others. The sad fact is that human nature all too often leads to selective memory, extrapolation beyond the facts, and "infilling" of gaps to make the inconsistent, consistent! :) True research into this kind of area requires an exceptional level of integrity.

And also, at the end of the day, why should anybody believe anybody on here? You're just an anonymous poster. So am I. I have no special reason to trust your integrity over anyone else (and vice versa). So if you come back tomorrow announce that you performed the experiment and that it was a complete success, why should I (or anyone else) believe you? That's not any personal comment, I'm making a more general point. You could be anybody. You could be Jack Houck. Or you could be his best friend. If he is a fraud, you could be making a fortune out of deceiving people into believing this stuff, you might be a partner in the fraud - for all I know. All I'm saying is, bear in mind the facts of the situation before drawing any conclusions.

Of course I'm not trying to come here to convince anyone with my anecdotes. That's a bit like walking into Vatican City preaching Hinduism.

My whole life, I've been a very rational and down to earth person. I can supply you with my impeccable academic credentials, if you wish (they involve skipped grades and award-winning research in computer science, for starters). I feel that if there is anything to be found, I would like to find it. I've seen things that I cannot explain (yes, that sounds goofy, I know), and so now I'm trying to see if there might be a way to explain them.

I'm also not so busy that it would be a waste of time to conduct such an investigation every now and then. It doesn't take much of my time, I'm not afraid of being ridiculued, and a positive result might make life a bit more interesting. In general, I'd like to use my intelligence for something more interesting than developing software or designing the next microprocessor.

So, since there's no reason to dissuade me from giving it a try, I think I've learned what I need from this conversation. If I see a favorable result, perhaps others may be bold enough to hold a party of their own ;)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CurtC
You conveniently left out the most likely explanation, which is that Houck is using magician tricks. Previous posts here have supported this explanation - the fact that Crichton handed his spoon to Houck before he could begin bending it, and that the silverware gets placed in a big pile at the beginning of the party.

And you keep pointing out that Chrichton is a "Harvard-trained MD." So what? That makes him an expert in detecting how a magician does his tricks? Have you never seen a magic trick that you can't figure out how it was done? When you did, did you then assume that it was some paranormal stuff going on?

Boy, people just can't take the time to read these days, huh?

Crichton and his family members did not "hand their spoons" to Houck.

These people did not watch Houck perform the trick. They did it themselves. That leaves the option that the spoon they were holding (all by their lonesome!) was made of a special alloy, since 1) the spoon heads were bent, and 2) Crichton couldn't do it beforehand.

So, alloy or psi. Yeah?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CurtC


And you keep pointing out that Chrichton is a "Harvard-trained MD." So what? That makes him an expert in detecting how a magician does his tricks?

And a magician is not an expert in physics. However, if you get both together, you get - Hey Presto - Russell Targ. Now, enough with the bar raising and straw conjourers.

If you want to try to debunk, try to do it honestly.

[LettristLoon]

Lucianarchy:

You said...

"Perhaps you are not seeing that the evidence being discussed is far more valid than the sort of personl opinion you have on the 'commentary' section of the JREF, just for the fact that we are dealing with the organ-grinder, rather than the monkey.

BTW, I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. I am encouraging them to do follow the leads and do their own research."

Okay. Surely you see that when something REALLY OUTRAGEOUS is being discussed, seeing, touching, and experiencing is what's important. Not words on a page. I don't care who's testimony is involved: If Michael Shermer got together with James Randi and Penn & Teller and decided that this phenomenon was going on, the basic fact that it violates all the known laws of biology and physics (or, at least, one or the other) would make it so I, personally, would have to see to believe. 'Till then, I'd tell those folks that they were full of it. Grok?

So, no source is a good source, when it comes to this kind of thing. But I'd love to do my own research. Where can I check on the location of PK parties? Any chance they'll be going on in Fort Lauderdale any time soon? And if I bring my own damned spoons, can the man in charge avoid tinkering with them, as well as refrain from whipping out his own spoons? That's all it would take for me to be convinced, sugar. Eliminate the possibility of cheating, and let me see it with my own eyes. Where can I find these parties?

Thanks a bunch,
- B

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
I do not think it's unreasonable at all. Which is why I'm trying to be "as sure as I can be" that I'm not deluding myself. Indeed, one can do no better than this. But at some point (that is, some level of control), it becomes foolish to NOT believe something. If I can achieve that through such a party, I'll have made a first step.

So then, tell me. Suppose I have some stainless steel spoons that I've been trying hard to bend physically for some time. Suppose I give them to my friends to bend, without telling them why I'm asking. Suppose none of us can bend them. Now suppose that at the party, nobody else is allowed to touch them, and suppose I somehow do bend them on that day, and take pictures of it. Am I to assume that I must have deluded myself? Suppose I can repeat this experiment at will. Am I still necessarily delusional? At some point, "self-delusion" will become no more than a scapegoat, a way for me to preserve my world view. And that is a liability.

You originally mentioned two options, one of going to Houck's party and the separate one of holding your own. The latter is certainly the more "secure" option if that is the one you have now decided on. And if you make sure you hold on to your spoon or whatever and don't let go of it, let it out of your sight etc., then fine. But you also have to clearly define your "success" criteria first. For example, if everyone ELSE's spoon bends but yours doesn't, is that "success"? You can't possibly watch every person all of the time.

One of the concerns about this whole affair is the idea of "mass hysteria" at a party. That is an ideal breeding ground for fraud or delusion. It's one of the reasons why Houck looks that much more suspicious. The entire point of "magic" trickery is diversion and distraction, the idea is to get the audience so pumped up that nobody looks carefully any more, and to ensure that there are plenty of diversions. Now of course YOU won't be trying any intentional tricks (I hope! :) ). But if your guests get carried away, what might happen then? Is it possible that someone will just be tempted to "encourage" their spoon to bend? Is it possible that one person, carried away in the heat of the moment doesn't actually REALISE that they've put a lot of pressure on their spoon? I'm not suggesting any intentional deception in the latter case - but how will you control against something like that? Even in yourself? Imagine that you are holding a spoon. You put some mild pressure on it and you are sure it feels a bit soft and plastic. What will you do? Perhaps put just a little bit MORE pressure on it? And if it starts to bend...? The point I'm trying to make is that impression of "softness" can easily occur in all the excitement. But it may not be a real perception. The only way round that, that I can see is simply to hold the spoon in two fingers of one hand by the end of the handle and NOT to touch it with the other hand at all or to change the grip on it with the one hand. Of course I agree that "bowl bends" will be more convincing than any other kind.

The reason I mention this is because it relates to what you said above. At what point is self-deception ruled out? NOBODY is 100% reliable about their own perceptions. Which is why labs try to arrange things under controlled conditions with independent recording of evidence i.e. video. So in essence, what I'm asking is, what are your controls? Define your criteria, make your conditions explicit, explain what you will do to rule out particular sources of error.

By the way I never said that ANYBODY was delusional. I said (I think) that nobody can ever be certain that anyone ISN'T deluded (I don't like the word "delusional" per se), including themselves - unless there is some totally objective independent measuring system in place. There's a difference.

To answer your question explcitly, on the basis of what I said above, I couldn't possibly say when/if you are deluded or not. It would depend entirely on the specific circumstances/events and the actual hard evidence - if any.

Originally posted by flyboy217
I think we can take it one step further. There is no experiment that Randi could see, or indeed do himself, that would convince him of psi. If some effect were so powerful that nothing but self-delusion could explain it, then he'd leave it at that. He'd consider himself senile before accepting what he saw. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I might very well do the same myself. In the end, we're only trying to make our world make sense to us.

But that is the attitude of a believer not a skeptic. Why? Simply this, how can you POSSIBLY know Randi's mind? You are assuming a degree of knowledge that you couldn't possibly have - which is the act of a true believer. From my point of view I could accept the POSSIBILITY that might be the case, but I don't actually KNOW that, nor could I ever know it. Unless/until all possible proofs had been tried out on Randi!

Originally posted by flyboy217
Again, close, but not quite. In addition to the usual suspects, we have a few (at least 3) new ones whose credibility has so far not been assailed, even though there has been plenty of opportunity to do so. Without that, I'd agree with you. But on the strength of their experiences, I'm willing to hear them out. That is all.

That's O.K. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Of course I'm not trying to come here to convince anyone with my anecdotes. That's a bit like walking into Vatican City preaching Hinduism.

My whole life, I've been a very rational and down to earth person. I can supply you with my impeccable academic credentials, if you wish (they involve skipped grades and award-winning research in computer science, for starters). I feel that if there is anything to be found, I would like to find it. I've seen things that I cannot explain (yes, that sounds goofy, I know), and so now I'm trying to see if there might be a way to explain them.

I'm also not so busy that it would be a waste of time to conduct such an investigation every now and then. It doesn't take much of my time, I'm not afraid of being ridiculued, and a positive result might make life a bit more interesting. In general, I'd like to use my intelligence for something more interesting than developing software or designing the next microprocessor.

So, since there's no reason to dissuade me from giving it a try, I think I've learned what I need from this conversation. If I see a favorable result, perhaps others may be bold enough to hold a party of their own ;)

Again, that's fine. Your credentials are irrelevant here though. All that counts is hard evidence. Like I said before, nobody is trying to dissuade you from trying this test. But I think most hope that you won't get too carried away.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
That's all it would take for me to be convinced, sugar. Eliminate the possibility of cheating, and let me see it with my own eyes. Where can I find these parties?

Thanks a bunch,
- B

That's the spirit

http://www.jackhouck.com/uce.shtml

Unfortunately two are in Cali (one just passed) and another is in Ohio. I've got 4 (highly intelligent, mostly skeptical) friends driving down from Michigan to the Ohio party, to whom I've given explicit instructions (bring your own stainless steel utensils, let NOBODY touch them, etc.)

As of July 16th, I'll have a better indication of how much further investigation the claim might warrant.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

You originally mentioned two options, one of going to Houck's party and the separate one of holding your own. The latter is certainly the more "secure" option if that is the one you have now decided on. And if you make sure you hold on to your spoon or whatever and don't let go of it, let it out of your sight etc., then fine. But you also have to clearly define your "success" criteria first. For example, if everyone ELSE's spoon bends but yours doesn't, is that "success"? You can't possibly watch every person all of the time.


Then let me try to come up with some good measures. If the bowl of MY spoon bends, I'll file it under "success" and investigate further. If anyone else's bowl bends, or if I have a strong enough "feeling" that my utensil bent more easily, I'll file it under "maybe" (not success) and perhaps try again later.


One of the concerns about this whole affair is the idea of "mass hysteria" at a party. That is an ideal breeding ground for fraud or delusion. It's one of the reasons why Houck looks that much more suspicious. The entire point of "magic" trickery is diversion and distraction, the idea is to get the audience so pumped up that nobody looks carefully any more, and to ensure that there are plenty of diversions. Now of course YOU won't be trying any intentional tricks (I hope! :) ). But if your guests get carried away, what might happen then? Is it possible that someone will just be tempted to "encourage" their spoon to bend? Is it possible that one person, carried away in the heat of the moment doesn't actually REALISE that they've put a lot of pressure on their spoon? I'm not suggesting any intentional deception in the latter case - but how will you control against something like that? Even in yourself? Imagine that you are holding a spoon. You put some mild pressure on it and you are sure it feels a bit soft and plastic. What will you do? Perhaps put just a little bit MORE pressure on it? And if it starts to bend...? The point I'm trying to make is that impression of "softness" can easily occur in all the excitement. But it may not be a real perception. The only way round that, that I can see is simply to hold the spoon in two fingers of one hand by the end of the handle and NOT to touch it with the other hand at all or to change the grip on it with the one hand. Of course I agree that "bowl bends" will be more convincing than any other kind.


Which is why I spoke only of bowl bends. I place precisely zero trust in a person's feeling of "oh it took only about 1/3rd the normal force." Such a quote is utter garbage. I want to see something happen that a person is normally incapable of doing. In my case, something that I have been unable to do (bend a bowl).


But that is the attitude of a believer not a skeptic. Why? Simply this, how can you POSSIBLY know Randi's mind? You are assuming a degree of knowledge that you couldn't possibly have - which is the act of a true believer. From my point of view I could accept the POSSIBILITY that might be the case, but I don't actually KNOW that, nor could I ever know it. Unless/until all possible proofs had been tried out on Randi!


Not very dissimilar to a prior assertion that "anyone who believes in psi is crazy," is it? Merely my opinion; I'm not trying to pass this off as fact at all.


That's O.K. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Again, that's fine. Your credentials are irrelevant here though. All that counts is hard evidence. Like I said before, nobody is trying to dissuade you from trying this test. But I think most hope that you won't get too carried away.

My credentials aren't meant to make my claims any more believable (in fact, as of yet I don't really have any claims, I think). I was explaining why I'm investigating such things--I believe this is a better use of my intelligence, and I believe my critical thinking skills will be particularly useful there.

Moreover, I don't see many people who are both excellent at math / science / critical thinking and interested in investigating these kinds of things. Maybe there's a reason for this. I want to find out for myself.

And as long as we agree on reasonable protocols for my first attempt (and I don't cheat or lie), I'm not too worried about getting carried away just yet.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
These people did not watch Houck perform the trick. They did it themselves. That leaves the option that the spoon they were holding (all by their lonesome!) was made of a special alloy, since 1) the spoon heads were bent, and 2) Crichton couldn't do it beforehand.

So, alloy or psi. Yeah?

No. You can't rule out other options. At least not in Crichton's case. Crichton SAYS he did it himself. He believes that, he is a honest man. Fine. But we still only have his word for it. How long did that party last? How long was he there? What happened in all that time? We simply don't know. So we can't rule out other possibilities. They may be IMPROBABLE, but we can't rule them out. For example, mass hypnosis doesn't bend spoons. But it can distract someone long enough for someone to take away their spoon and change it, or bend it. Or it can give someone the impression that they saw something that didn't really happen. Did he drink anything? Could someone have slipped him a Mickey? Improbable perhaps, but not impossible. Did he spend the entire party walking around holding his bent spoon and fork? Or did someone hand them to him as he left? We simply don't know. So the matter is inconclusive.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


No. You can't rule out other options. At least not in Crichton's case. Crichton SAYS he did it himself. He believes that, he is a honest man. Fine. But we still only have his word for it. How long did that party last? How long was he there? What happened in all that time? We simply don't know. So we can't rule out other possibilities. They may be IMPROBABLE, but we can't rule them out. For example, mass hypnosis doesn't bend spoons. But it can distract someone long enough for someone to take away their spoon and change it, or bend it. Or it can give someone the impression that they saw something that didn't really happen. Did he drink anything? Could someone have slipped him a Mickey? Improbable perhaps, but not impossible. Did he spend the entire party walking around holding his bent spoon and fork? Or did someone hand them to him as he left? We simply don't know. So the matter is inconclusive.

You are of course correct. I can never rule out all possibilities. Similarly, at my own party, I could be hypnotized, the video camera could be tampered with, I could suddenly become much stronger in my arms, etc. I'm trying to present what I think are reasonable alternatives. Because Crichton examined the other scenarios you mention specifically (see his conversation with the MIT professor), they take a back seat to the 2 I mention. But yes, I agree, any number of other scenarios are still possible.

Anyway, again, I'm not trying to draw any conclusions here. I am going to wait for the verdict from my friends visiting Houck's party, and then will decide if I want to host one myself, and then will decide if there's anything to it from there.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Not very dissimilar to a prior assertion that "anyone who believes in psi is crazy," is it? Merely my opinion; I'm not trying to pass this off as fact at all.

Just for the record, *I* didn't say that. Nor for that matter, do I recall anyone else saying it either.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


Just for the record, *I* didn't say that. Nor for that matter, do I recall anyone else saying it either.

Of course you didn't say it. Anyway, the actual quote was


It is all bull crap and people who believe in it simply have an affinity for bull crap.

But this is beside the point. Nobody is claiming these opinions as facts.

[LettristLoon]

Okay, McFly.

May I call you McFly? Something within my soul is telling me to, because it's so GODDAMNED CUTE to do so.

I can't get to Ohio or Cali, because I am but a poor journalist/part time case worker for homeless youth, and I have noooooo cash. So I will remain exceedingly doubtful.

But I did the best I could. I used the techniques described on the page in question to try bending spoons, and so far, no good. But I'll keep going! 'Cuz, like, as circumstantial evidence goes, these guys have lots of it, and it's pretty good. So I'm remaining optimistic. Pray for the integrity of my cuttlery.

God bless.
- B

[The Don]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And a magician is not an expert in physics. However, if you get both together, you get - Hey Presto - Russell Targ. Now, enough with the bar raising and straw conjourers.

If you want to try to debunk, try to do it honestly.
Thanks for the info. about Dr. Byrd

I know I still owe Dr Targ an e-mail, I'm just trying to work out how to phrase it fairly.

For the record, at most, Dr. Targ can only be an expert in elements of physics. He may have a good understanding of broad ranges on physical theory but there's no way he can be an expert in all aspects.

You still haven't answered CFLarsen's questions regarding Dr.Targ's magic credentials.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Don

Thanks for the info. about Dr. Byrd

I know I still owe Dr Targ an e-mail, I'm just trying to work out how to phrase it fairly.

For the record, at most, Dr. Targ can only be an expert in elements of physics. He may have a good understanding of broad ranges on physical theory but there's no way he can be an expert in all aspects.

You still haven't answered CFLarsen's questions regarding Dr.Targ's magic credentials.

The best person to answer those questions, of course, is Russell Targ. I suggest you also ask him about his experiences as a performing stage magician and any issues you may have about his ability to spot trickery.

I look forward to your sharing these answers on the forum.

Best wishes.

[SezMe]

Go here (http://www.iigwest.com/investigate.shtml) and slide down to spoon bending to see a one paragraph report on an investigation of a spoon bending class in LA.

Although they are undoubtedly aware of it, I have alerted them to the next PK party and hope they attend that one as well.

[T'ai Chi]

So... why do people have to touch the metal objects at all?

Why do they tend to use both hands?

Any videotape of a spoon bending by these people?

[Darat]

Anyone read this? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14014&item=2252536732&rd=1&ssPageName=WD2V

If so is it worth it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Don
Claus,

In you opinion, is there anything I should be especially wary of when contacting Dr Targ ?

Why should you be wary of anything? If you have a question, ask the man. He will answer - or not.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I don't have any opinions about either of them; my stance is neutral.

Really? I'm confused.

If you are able to take a neutral stance, why did you insist that people either believed that mediumship was real, or that mediumship was fraud, when you tried to get people to help you with going through cold reading transcripts?

You denied me the possibility to help you out, specifically because I took the third option: That I was undecided. You insisted that I had to choose between the two.

It seems that you can be neutral, but others have to take sides.


Originally posted by flyboy217
And do you mistrust Radin? Do you have any reason to? Can you provide examples of where he's cheated or lied?

I can provide examples of where Radin has selected his data to prove his point (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm).

Trust is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And a magician is not an expert in physics. However, if you get both together, you get - Hey Presto - Russell Targ. Now, enough with the bar raising and straw conjourers.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The best person to answer those questions, of course, is Russell Targ. I suggest you also ask him about his experiences as a performing stage magician and any issues you may have about his ability to spot trickery.

Tell us what you know about Targ's magical career. Why has his magical skills convinced you?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If you want to try to debunk, try to do it honestly.

You should talk, you lying cheat...

In case you "forgot": I have no idea what you are talking about re. "the glamourisation of rape". I would like a clarification.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you are able to take a neutral stance, why did you insist that people either believed that mediumship was real, or that mediumship was fraud, when you tried to get people to help you with going through cold reading transcripts?


I was asked what I thought about people: "Do you think Targ is lying / deluded? How about Houck, do you have reason to believe he is just scamming people?", not what I thought about a subject like bending spoons, etc.

Please don't try to derail this thread agan.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I was asked what I thought about people: "Do you think Targ is lying / deluded? How about Houck, do you have reason to believe he is just scamming people?", not what I thought about a subject like bending spoons, etc.

No, you answered to whether Houck was scamming people or not. That deals with his abilities, his claims. You were neutral about that.

If you are saying that you are neutral about someone claiming to be able to bend spoons by paranormal powers, then you are able to take a neutral stance about a paranormal phenomenon.

Please explain why you are able to do that, while demanding that people are either believers in a paranormal phenomenon, or say that the phenomenon is not possible.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please don't try to derail this thread agan.

Hypocrite. You who has tried in many, many threads to get people to talk about you and your personal feuds?

[T'ai Chi]

Whatever.

Please don't derail this thread.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Whatever.

No, really. Please explain it: Why are you able to take a neutral stance on a paranormal phenomenon, while you demand that people are either believers in a paranormal phenomenon, or say that the phenomenon is not possible.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please don't derail this thread.

Hypocrite.

[LTC8K6]

I don't know if this has been posted before but I would have run out of the place laughing.

Finally, Houck picks up the milk crate and dumps about 1,000 perfectly good stainless-steel spoons and forks all over the floor. Guests are instructed to grab a handful of silverware in order to ascertain which ones will be suitable for manipulation.

To do this, each person picks up a "dowser," a pendulum-type device that looks like just a colored bead on a piece of white string. The next step is to ask the pendulum which direction it will swing when answering "yes" or "no" to the holder's questions.

"Show me yes," people ask the piece of string with a colored bead. Once that's determined, they hold the pendulum over individual spoons and forks and ask out loud, "Will you bend for me?"

Now, visualize the scene here: an entire room filled with people dangling pendulums over their spoons and asking, "Will you bend for me?" It feels like an episode of The Twilight Zone. I keep waiting for Rod Serling to chime in with the epilogue, but he never does.

Once we divine five utensils that produced a positive response from the pendulum, we move our chairs into a circle, two rows deep, and sit down.

"If you don't sit in the circle itself, you won't be able to bend the metal," Houck explains. He also explains that saying to ourselves, "I can't bend the spoon," would create a mental block. So we are forbidden from saying the word "can't."


http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.27.03/spoonbending-0348.html

Is the bead a magnet, perhaps?

[Psiload]

CFLarsen:

Tell us what you know about Targ's magical career. Why has his magical skills convinced you?

No, it's true. Russell Targ really does possess impressive skills of prestidigitation.

One time, he walked into a laboratory with Uri Geller and turned himself into an ass!

:roll:

I slay myself.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Psiload
CFLarsen:

Tell us what you know about Targ's magical career. Why has his magical skills convinced you?

No, it's true. Russell Targ really does possess impressive skills of prestidigitation.

One time, he walked into a laboratory with Uri Geller and turned himself into an ass!

:roll:

I slay myself.

(Rim shot)

Thank you ladies and germs, Mr. Load will be here all week.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I don't know if this has been posted before but I would have run out of the place laughing.


What better way to learn anything?


Is the bead a magnet, perhaps?

Yep, it's a magickal magnet that causes the bowl of the spoon to bend at some much later time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Psiload
CFLarsen:

Tell us what you know about Targ's magical career. Why has his magical skills convinced you?

No, it's true. Russell Targ really does possess impressive skills of prestidigitation.

One time, he walked into a laboratory with Uri Geller and turned himself into an ass!

:roll:

I slay myself.

Hehehehe......

[LettristLoon]

O McFly, you weren't present, you don't know that the spoons weren't ever tampered with, that the stories from the parties aren't spun by psychic spin doctors. All that was suggested is that maybe, maybe, something was done in order to surreptitiously select the spoons.

Which is, of course, more likely than the laws of physics being violated.

Not to say that the spoons weren't bent by psychic means, or whatever, but there you go.

Hey! Have we stopped to consider the mechanics of this thing?

Okay, first off: You got some spoons and forks and whatnot. They're made of metal. Then you've got some men and women and children and whatnot. They're made of all kinds of goo and bone. Right? Right.

Now, goo and bone, whether alive or dead, can move things around by coming into contact with those things and exerting some sort of force upon them. Right? Righteo!

Okay! Now, we're assuming that corpses cannot perform PK. No one has said that--I'm just assuming it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to, you know, disagree.

Right! Well! The difference between a corpse and a living person is something like this: Living people have a pulse, and all sorts of cool electrical/chemical activity going on inside of their bodies. The most interesting thing done by all of this electrical/chemical activity is called "consciousness." It happens in the brain.

Now, presumably, it is the "mind"--a function of the brain--which is performing all of this PK. So!

Basically, what you have, is a bunch of chemicals and a little bit of electricity moving in these erratic patterns inside of a large, mushy organ. PK is the subtle art of getting that stuff--those chemicals and that electricity--to somehow move matter that is not, in fact, touching it.

Somehow, the brain is supposedly the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of doing this sort of thing. Which is odd! Because it's also the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of conceiving of such a thing as PK! Coincidence? Nosir! It's also the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of thinking about how strange it is to be a self-aware combination of chemicals and electricity, which then, nevertheless, goes on to ignore the logical extensions of this idea--namely, that chemicals and electricity, just because they're "aware," don't violate the laws of physics any more than any chemicals or electricity anywhere else.

So, let's assume that PK ain't violating the laws of physics. If that's the case, then it goes something like this: The brain thinks about bending some silverware. Luckily, this particular kind of thinking causes some surge of energy to leap out of the brain from the brain's Super Secret Hidden Raygun--something near the frontal lobe which, mysteriously, disappears whenever it gets within slicing distance of an autopsy table. Dig it?

Okay. A word about this surge of energy:

It is powerful. More powerful than the force you can exert by your hands, apparently.

Interestingly enough, even though it's SO POWERFUL that it can bend the bowls of spoons, and zinc-plated steel rods, it doesn't damage the forehead of the person emitting this energy, nor disturb the air between the person doing the PKing and the object he or she is attempting to bend. That's because this is "time release energy." It's smart, see--it knows when it's approaching its target. When it gets there, it bends some damned metal, but it leaves all objects in the way utterly unblemished.

Clearly, this is VERY smart energy. How'd it figure all this out? How's it know the difference between "forehead," "air," and "spoon?" Where's this energy keep its brain? Amazing, non? Wonders never cease.

Paradoxically, New Agers most interested in using all of these energy-work techniques don't seem to burn any calories in doing so. They get this energy from nowhere, it seems (pay a bunch of them $100 an hour to spin a turbine at your local power plant, says I--damned near free energy!), because New Agers, as a whole, are mordantly obese. (ever been to a pagan festival? Dear GOD, they're enormous [though this is a generalization, it is pretty true. Go visit a Wiccan church sometime, or spend a few hours in a New Age bookstore. Avoid getting eaten long enough, and you'll wind up as spooked as me.])

ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a way for PK to exist and none of this Misty Mountain Raygun ***** would hold. That would involve something like:

You are NOT just a mass of bone and goo. There is a SPIRITUAL component to your mind, as well, which is not constrained by the laws of physics--and, in fact, is only constrained by the limitations of "the spirit world."

That seems to be the way most New Agers feel about this sort of thing, and to that, I say this: Show a single point of interaction between the "brain" and the "spirit," and I'll say, "Shizznit, you're right!" However, as near as we can tell, the brain seems to account for the whole of the mind, going in its merry, thinking, conscious way without any interference from some spooky, immaterial, astral whatevah. Ask my grandma. She has Alzheimer's--and unless Alzheimer's has a "spiritual component," like the organ it attacks, then the case seems pretty closed. Gram's disappearing, bit by bit, just 'cause kooky little tarry clogs are shutting down her neural pathways, a thousand at a time.

If the brain's physical actions--like thought and feeling--were being dictated by the spirit, wouldn't that spirit also have control over the other physical processes taking place in the brain? Like, you know, dementia?

So, both of these ideas seem pretty unlikely. But I'll accept either, or any other, theory regarding how these things might work, once again, if someone could just show up in my town with a decent demo. (but, beloved believers, 'till you have irrefutable evidence, ain't that a whole lot to swallow? C'mon, mang) 'Zat's all.

Yours in Christ,
- B

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I don't know if this has been posted before but I would have run out of the place laughing.

"To do this, each person picks up a "dowser," a pendulum-type device that looks like just a colored bead on a piece of white string. The next step is to ask the pendulum which direction it will swing when answering "yes" or "no" to the holder's questions."

Is the bead a magnet, perhaps?

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/11.27.03/spoonbending-0348.html

I've read two separate accounts like that about the pendulum. I also read an account by a journalist who was convinced that Houck was trying to hypnotize the "audience". He said that Houck talked for a long time in a low, monotonic, droning voice.

Think about a "magic" trick. They nearly always rely on misdirection. The first rule of misdirection is the actual "direction". You need to engage the audience's attention elsewhere or at least engage them into the premise of the trick in such a way that they temporarily suspend critical thinking. How do you do this? Three ways:

1. Hypnotize them (or at least bore them to the point where the attention starts to flag).
2. Do the opposite, ramp them up to hysterical excitement and/or anxiety.
3. Get them to believe that some unlikely aspect of the trick is true, once they accept one part, again critical thinking tends to shut down and belief takes over.
4. And finally, the clincher, get them to focus on something OTHER than the key object at the critical moment.

The droning voice is obvious. We also see the manic excitement in some of the accounts. And now we see element #3. Use the ideomotor effect to convince them that the "magic" has already begun even before they get to the spoons. And element 4 is present too. It's the "relaxed inattention", or the sudden shout from across the room where someone is encouraged to jump up wave a spoon in the air and shout, "It's bending, look!" And precisely that is described in at least one of the accounts I read, Houck encourages people to jump up and shout out when they think their spoon is bending.

Four classic precursors of a typical "magic" trick. I don't see how that could explain all the alleged effects of course apart from self-deception, but then I'm not a magician and they manage similar things all the time without me having a clue how they do it. And all the elements are there.

[LTC8K6]

Hey flyboy217!

Could a magnet on a string help a person decide which spoon was made of a certain alloy?

I know it could help me. Could it help you? :D

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
O McFly, you weren't present, you don't know that the spoons weren't ever tampered with, that the stories from the parties aren't spun by psychic spin doctors. All that was suggested is that maybe, maybe, something was done in order to surreptitiously select the spoons.

I believe we've been over this. Of course I don't know these things. Ergo, I hold my own party where I do.


Which is, of course, more likely than the laws of physics being violated.


Which laws might those be? Do you have a Grand Unified Theory up your sleeve?

Why don't we stick to what we know. The most we can say is "it is far more believable that some form of deception was used than that the purported activity actually took place." Then we don't have to worry about bending physics or calculating the probabilities of things about which we have no idea.

The very concept of violating physics disturbs me. Physics, after all, is no more than our way of describing observables. In the end, it is merely an empirical science. The most important point I can stress is that one cannot discard empirical evidence based on theories. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is not the way science is conducted. (I also trust you meant to say "the known laws of physics." But even then, laws are not proven. They are still theories, and as such, are liable to be knocked off by disagreeing observables.)

So, let's try to see if this purported anomaly is reproducible, shall we? And then we can worry about if we're hurting current physics' feelings.


Not to say that the spoons weren't bent by psychic means, or whatever, but there you go.
...
Hey! Have we stopped to consider the mechanics of this thing?
Somehow, the brain is supposedly the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of doing this sort of thing. Which is odd! Because it's also the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of conceiving of such a thing as PK! Coincidence? Nosir! It's also the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of thinking about how strange it is to be a self-aware combination of chemicals and electricity, which then, nevertheless, goes on to ignore the logical extensions of this idea--namely, that chemicals and electricity, just because they're "aware," don't violate the laws of physics any more than any chemicals or electricity anywhere else.


Aren't we missing something, Bill Nye The Science Guy? How about this: science is mum on the subject of the Schroedinger wavefunction collapse. The evolution of this probabilistic function is not what we observe. Instead, consciousness affects a collapse in a way that we can't even fathom putting into formulae just yet. That is to say, wavefunction collapse DOES in some sense violate known physics. And what causes it? Inanimate matter? No. Only one thing: consciousness.

Feel free to disagree with me there, as none of this is set in stone yet. But really now, there are reasonably mysterious things going on in modern physics that haven't yet been extricated from the goo we call our brains. Now, this isn't to say that quantum mechanics is related to psi in any way, no sir. That would be a foul of the first woo-woo degree.


Interestingly enough, even though it's SO POWERFUL that it can bend the bowls of spoons, and zinc-plated steel rods, it doesn't damage the forehead of the person emitting this energy, nor disturb the air between the person doing the PKing and the object he or she is attempting to bend. That's because this is "time release energy." It's smart, see--it knows when it's approaching its target. When it gets there, it bends some damned metal, but it leaves all objects in the way utterly unblemished.

Clearly, this is VERY smart energy. How'd it figure all this out? How's it know the difference between "forehead," "air," and "spoon?" Where's this energy keep its brain? Amazing, non? Wonders never cease.


Wondrous indeed. It will sound even more wondrous if indeed the party actually works, and will be entirely moot if it doesn't. In fact, I could regale you with even more frightfully ridiculous stories (Schroedinger's cat, the EPR paradox, quantum teleportation, the dual-slit experiment, etc.), but they serve only to make known physics all the more glamorous. So let's save the glamor of psi for a time we can actually appreciate it, no?


Paradoxically, New Agers most interested in using all of these energy-work techniques don't seem to burn any calories in doing so. They get this energy from nowhere, it seems (pay a bunch of them $100 an hour to spin a turbine at your local power plant, says I--damned near free energy!), because New Agers, as a whole, are mordantly obese. (ever been to a pagan festival? Dear GOD, they're enormous [though this is a generalization, it is pretty true. Go visit a Wiccan church sometime, or spend a few hours in a New Age bookstore. Avoid getting eaten long enough, and you'll wind up as spooked as me.])


Get this energy from nowhere, do they? That would be a neat trick. But since I haven't really read this anywhere else, I'll suppose you're making it up ;). (On an unrelated note, several observers at parties have noticed the air temperature dropping significantly in the vicinity. Sound crazy? Sure. I'll save my theories 'til later.)

That seems to be the way most New Agers feel about this sort of thing, and to that, I say this: Show a single point of interaction between the "brain" and the "spirit," and I'll say, "Shizznit, you're right!" However, as near as we can tell, the brain seems to account for the whole of the mind, going in its merry, thinking, conscious way without any interference from some spooky, immaterial, astral whatevah. Ask my grandma. She has Alzheimer's--and unless Alzheimer's has a "spiritual component," like the organ it attacks, then the case seems pretty closed. Gram's disappearing, bit by bit, just 'cause kooky little tarry clogs are shutting down her neural pathways, a thousand at a time.


Ah yes, the old consciousness debate. A material reductionist, are you? Luckily, cognitive neuroscience has a long way to go before making any ground on the topic. And let us not forget the mind's effect on quantum indeterminacy. The brain cannot yet account for that yet, can it? But I'm far ahead of myself. I'll leave that up to the cognitive scientists, quantum physicists, et al.


If the brain's physical actions--like thought and feeling--were being dictated by the spirit, wouldn't that spirit also have control over the other physical processes taking place in the brain? Like, you know, dementia?


I'm honored you'd ask me to solve such a puzzling question. I'm sorry to say I have no answer for you at the present time.


So, both of these ideas seem pretty unlikely. But I'll accept either, or any other, theory regarding how these things might work, once again, if someone could just show up in my town with a decent demo. (but, beloved believers, 'till you have irrefutable evidence, ain't that a whole lot to swallow? C'mon, mang) 'Zat's all.

Yours in Christ,
- B

Ah, and finally we get to the heart of the matter. As fun as it is debating gobbledygook with you, I say it's more fun to gather up 25 of my friends and go have a tootin' time at the good ol' spoon bending party! Yee haw!

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Hey flyboy217!

Could a magnet on a string help a person decide which spoon was made of a certain alloy?

I know it could help me. Could it help you? :D

Tricky tricky. I shall ban magnets, dowsing rods, and related paraphernalia from my party. Not that it will matter if I'm using only stainless steel forks and spoons, mind you.

[T'ai Chi]

It reminds me of my grandpa showing me how to take a beer cap and bend it in half just with a light squeeze using your thumb and finger.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by flyboy217

As fun as it is debating gobbledygook with you, I say it's more fun to gather up 25 of my friends and go have a tootin' time at the good ol' spoon bending party! Yee haw!

You go, Boy!

I love guerrilla science. Much more fun than monkey science!

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It reminds me of my grandpa showing me how to take a beer cap and bend it in half just with a light squeeze using your thumb and finger.

Touching story.

[Lucianarchy]

Is it possible to set up an online experiment using a number of webcam users. It is not always possible for people with limited mobility to participate in these things, a web cam party could over come this. Any ideas? Is it even possible to host 20 or so webcams feeding into one site? If so, could anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It reminds me of my grandpa showing me how to take a beer cap and bend it in half just with a light squeeze using your thumb and finger.

Anecdotal. ;)

[CurtC]

flyboy217 wrote:
How about this: science is mum on the subject of the Schroedinger wavefunction collapse. The evolution of this probabilistic function is not what we observe. Instead, consciousness affects a collapse in a way that we can't even fathom putting into formulae just yet. That is to say, wavefunction collapse DOES in some sense violate known physics. And what causes it? Inanimate matter? No. Only one thing: consciousness.You misunderstand quantum physics. It is extremely well understood, without consciousness having any effect on it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CurtC
You misunderstand quantum physics. It is extremely well understood, without consciousness having any effect on it.

No. The observed collapse of the wave function is not well understood at all. It is merely ignored or given a label. "Observation" itself has not been well defined.

[LettristLoon]

McFly:

Try observing something without being conscious. Nigh impossible. Quantum craziness seems to have less to do with the immediate observer being "conscious" than it does with "being observed at all." Which, you know, vastly increases the effect of whatever's going on with those nutty little waves and particles and all.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, try though I might to understand it through the reading of pop science lit. Listen, though! I don't mean to derail nothin, but if you really want to tell if wave function collapse has to do with consciousness, try this:

Go into a room. Set it up for an experiment! Set up all your machines to record exactly what goes on. Flip yer switches, get it all rolling, and leave the damned room.

Come back a year later. See what happened. Then repeat the experiment while you're in the room.

Note: This is NOT the same as Schroedinger's Kitty. We ain't talking about no SEALED room, from which no information can escape. We're talking about whether very, very tiny things can tell if they're being watched by a conscious brain or some unconscious metal thingamabobber.

Just a suggestion!

A Word on The Laws of Physics: You know, we're mostly intelligent folks, here. It's okay to use dialectical short-hand when talking. Let's assume we know basic definitions.

But I didn't say "Known Laws of Physics" for a very decent reason. An "unknown law" will not account for things which do not happen. "People teleport!" "Violins copulate!" "Spoons bend!" We know people don't teleport and violins don't copulate and spoons don't bend because they're not ruled by "unknown laws:" They're ruled by the ones we already understand.

Of course there are "unknown laws." Or, at least, there probably are. Or, who knows? Maybe there aren't. I'm just a journalist.

But those "unknown laws" would have to cover heretofore unsuspected objects, behaving in otherwise inexplicable ways. We know about metal. We can account for every little damned thing it does.

Controversially, I say--ditto brains!

Now, I know that, subjectively, there are a lot of things that brains do that we cannot fathom. Consciousness, for example. We cannot figure out why the subjective experience of consciousness is allowed for by the little machinations of brain tissues.

But!

BUT!

The key, here, is "subjective." The OBJECTIVE behaviour of a brain is nothing very strange. Complicated, yessir--complicated in the extreme. But the processes taking place in a brain are not, physically, especially mind-blowing. There's just a great many of them, and they happen very quickly. You dig?

That's all I'm saying. Bending a spoon or a bar or something would require something OBJECTIVELY EXTRAORDINARY to be happening, physically, in and around a brain. And brains don't do that. All of their mystery is tied up in the subjective experience they present to their owners.

Or, I could put this in question form. Do you suppose that what a brain does, physically, when thinking about bending a spoon, is all that different from what a brain does, physically, when it thinks about what it's going to order for dessert at The Cheesecake Factory?

I mean, who knows, it could be so. Maybe, as you hint, the brain sends out a hidden message (electrical? chemical? Swahili?) to all the aimless warmth in a room and says, "Hey there! Bend that damned spoon over there!" and this heat understands such a message and makes a beeline for said silverware (though how it can transport itself--what the cognitive mobility of heat might be--
is, maybe, debatable). Could be. And if that's the case, I'd like to see it. Which brings us to...

Lucianarchy. Yar, set something like that up. That'd be grand. You'd need a buttload of cameras, though, to make sure every piece of silverware stays on screen the entire time. And you'd have to get said silverware by way of mail, sealed in some interesting and distinct and non-reproducable way, by a skeptic, and open it on-camera at the beginning of the festivities.

Can you pull that sort of thing together? Love to help.

Faithfully Nude,
- B

[Lucianarchy]

Loon,

Re your observations. Go here and give it a go http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/bellcurve/

[LettristLoon]

Luci:

First off, _Dialer Proof Dreams_ is very cool, though the sales training at the beginning is frightening--used to be in sales, they give that sort of speech every freaking morning. It's horrible. It still haunts my dreams.

Stoner-techno's grand, though it's hard to find good examples. I just found a long-missing copy of Afro Celt Soundsystem's third album, forgot how much I loved it. Ever heard? You'd like.

Anyhoo, gave the test a test. Ran it ten times when I was out of the room, or viewing other webpages. Then I ran it ten times while actually attempting to move the silly little bar to the right, using all those old New Age techniques that I ran from in disgrace around my fourteenth birthday.

The results?

While Trying:

+16*
-12
0*
-3
+18*
+23*
-14
-19
+10*
-20

Not Trying:

-23
-13
-4
+14*
+10
+13*
+16*
+5*
-9
-16

The reason you see all those little asterisks is this: The browser window was maximized during those tests. It was minimized, and in the background, during all the others.

Now, I don't believe in PK, 'cause, you know, no good reasonably objective evidence has been presented to me, and all that.

But!

Even if there were such a thing, and I believed in it, this test is utter *****.

Because the prospective PKer is trying to move a line, which isn't a line at all. It's a bunch of different colored pixels.

But that's not it at all, either. It's actually supposedly hooked up to some object undergoing random radioactive decay, location undisclosed. WTF? The information is being produced elsewhere, and the claimant isn't even trying to, uh, psychically impact the causitive agent of what's appearing on the screen.

Is this, really, the best we can do?

Once again, you're a fine artist--your music is great. You're just a little crazy, is the thing.

mfdg;kfjs,
- B

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by LettristLoon

Now, I don't believe in PK, 'cause, you know, no good reasonably objective evidence has been presented to me, and all that.

But!

Even if there were such a thing, and I believed in it, this test is utter s**te.

Because the prospective PKer is trying to move a line, which isn't a line at all. It's a bunch of different colored pixels.

But that's not it at all, either. It's actually supposedly hooked up to some object undergoing random radioactive decay, location undisclosed. WTF? The information is being produced elsewhere, and the claimant isn't even trying to, uh, psychically impact the causitive agent of what's appearing on the screen.


- B

I agree. Weird, uh? How come I can repeatedly swing it though? Luck? I believe that Time will tell.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Luci:
...
Because the prospective PKer is trying to move a line, which isn't a line at all. It's a bunch of different colored pixels.

But that's not it at all, either. It's actually supposedly hooked up to some object undergoing random radioactive decay, location undisclosed. WTF? The information is being produced elsewhere, and the claimant isn't even trying to, uh, psychically impact the causitive agent of what's appearing on the screen.

Is this, really, the best we can do?

Once again, you're a fine artist--your music is great. You're just a little crazy, is the thing.

mfdg;kfjs,
- B

I am sad to see that this thread has degenerated into utter nonsense.

Let me try to rephrase it one last time, after which I will (do my best to) refrain from saying more here: before trying to give an explanation for any purported phenomenon, debunking the theory, and then making it sound even more silly, let the data for that experiment roll in. Then, analyze the data, and work on debunking THAT. If it generates no positive data, you can merrily rejoice with your "BUT! OMGWTF!" parties. I'll even join you. If it does produce data, and we can't explain that away just yet, we'll go from there (independenly verify it, re-run it, etc.)

I know it's hard to refrain from attaching ridiculous theories to these experiments. After all, how would you describe such an experiment as RPKP or spoon-bending other than "weird?" I feel the same. And I'm sure you can make the argument that "Oh, I'm just trying to explain why this isn't even a useful test of PK." But you have no ownership in it! Sit back, laugh at them, and let them do their thing. When the data are in, let's discuss matters of protocol, etc.

Or put it this way. If they do generate a positive outcome, what's at least one claim they might be able to make? "The colored pixels moved more to the right when people intended it to." That in itself is strange, without having to attack the process of how the pixels relate to the radioactive decay. And if, for some very strange reason, this positive outcome is reached? What's the most useful thing to do (after becoming thoroughly exhausted trying to debunk it, and failing in this case)? Explain it.

Anyway, my skull is throbbing from a terrible, terrible cold. Feel free to argue with anything I've said here, but... I will no longer argue with you why such silly-sounding experiments would produce results until such time as they do (or do not) produce them. Spoons included.

[flyboy217]

*sigh*. You have as much right to post whatever you like as anyone. Sorry :)

Just sad to see my thread go out this way.

[Lucianarchy]

It's all good, flyboy, all good.

As Terrence McKenna used to say; "It's the thinking that causes change."

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by LettristLoon

Because the prospective PKer is trying to move a line, which isn't a line at all. It's a bunch of different colored pixels.


Taken from another view (the Decision Augementation Theory), I believe it isn't about moving the actual pixels, per say, but subconsciously judiciously selecting (ie using 'psi') the best time to click "Start" that will select the data with a large amount of 1's, say, that will end up moving the line to the right.

[LettristLoon]

Right.

Or, also, weirdly, it seems as though positive results are obtained only when the broswer window stays open. That could be a weird coincidence, though. Check it out.

- B

[Anders W. Bonde]

Try bending a 3/8" rod of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy.

Then try bending a 3/8" rod of 5056-0 aluminum alloy of the same length.

Until the 5056 yields, they'll feel identical. After that point, the 5056 will work harden, especially after several "flexes", whereas you need to be pretty strong to get the 7075-T6 rod to yield at all (although I would've suggested something slightly thicker than 3/8" and/or shorter than 12").

FWIW.

BTW: If Targ is an experienced conjurer, then he is also quite capable of actually applying trickery in his experiments, even though he claims to be safeguarding against it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
O McFly, you weren't present, you don't know that the spoons weren't ever tampered with, that the stories from the parties aren't spun by psychic spin doctors. All that was suggested is that maybe, maybe, something was done in order to surreptitiously select the spoons.

Which is, of course, more likely than the laws of physics being violated.

Not to say that the spoons weren't bent by psychic means, or whatever, but there you go.

Hey! Have we stopped to consider the mechanics of this thing?

Okay, first off: You got some spoons and forks and whatnot. They're made of metal. Then you've got some men and women and children and whatnot. They're made of all kinds of goo and bone. Right? Right.

Now, goo and bone, whether alive or dead, can move things around by coming into contact with those things and exerting some sort of force upon them. Right? Righteo!

Okay! Now, we're assuming that corpses cannot perform PK. No one has said that--I'm just assuming it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to, you know, disagree.

Right! Well! The difference between a corpse and a living person is something like this: Living people have a pulse, and all sorts of cool electrical/chemical activity going on inside of their bodies. The most interesting thing done by all of this electrical/chemical activity is called "consciousness." It happens in the brain.

Now, presumably, it is the "mind"--a function of the brain--which is performing all of this PK. So!

Basically, what you have, is a bunch of chemicals and a little bit of electricity moving in these erratic patterns inside of a large, mushy organ. PK is the subtle art of getting that stuff--those chemicals and that electricity--to somehow move matter that is not, in fact, touching it.

Somehow, the brain is supposedly the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of doing this sort of thing. Which is odd! Because it's also the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of conceiving of such a thing as PK! Coincidence? Nosir! It's also the only popular combination of chemicals and electricity on earth capable of thinking about how strange it is to be a self-aware combination of chemicals and electricity, which then, nevertheless, goes on to ignore the logical extensions of this idea--namely, that chemicals and electricity, just because they're "aware," don't violate the laws of physics any more than any chemicals or electricity anywhere else.

So, let's assume that PK ain't violating the laws of physics. If that's the case, then it goes something like this: The brain thinks about bending some silverware. Luckily, this particular kind of thinking causes some surge of energy to leap out of the brain from the brain's Super Secret Hidden Raygun--something near the frontal lobe which, mysteriously, disappears whenever it gets within slicing distance of an autopsy table. Dig it?

Okay. A word about this surge of energy:

It is powerful. More powerful than the force you can exert by your hands, apparently.

Interestingly enough, even though it's SO POWERFUL that it can bend the bowls of spoons, and zinc-plated steel rods, it doesn't damage the forehead of the person emitting this energy, nor disturb the air between the person doing the PKing and the object he or she is attempting to bend. That's because this is "time release energy." It's smart, see--it knows when it's approaching its target. When it gets there, it bends some damned metal, but it leaves all objects in the way utterly unblemished.

Clearly, this is VERY smart energy. How'd it figure all this out? How's it know the difference between "forehead," "air," and "spoon?" Where's this energy keep its brain? Amazing, non? Wonders never cease.

Paradoxically, New Agers most interested in using all of these energy-work techniques don't seem to burn any calories in doing so. They get this energy from nowhere, it seems (pay a bunch of them $100 an hour to spin a turbine at your local power plant, says I--damned near free energy!), because New Agers, as a whole, are mordantly obese. (ever been to a pagan festival? Dear GOD, they're enormous [though this is a generalization, it is pretty true. Go visit a Wiccan church sometime, or spend a few hours in a New Age bookstore. Avoid getting eaten long enough, and you'll wind up as spooked as me.])

ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a way for PK to exist and none of this Misty Mountain Raygun s**te would hold. That would involve something like:

You are NOT just a mass of bone and goo. There is a SPIRITUAL component to your mind, as well, which is not constrained by the laws of physics--and, in fact, is only constrained by the limitations of "the spirit world."

That seems to be the way most New Agers feel about this sort of thing, and to that, I say this: Show a single point of interaction between the "brain" and the "spirit," and I'll say, "Shizznit, you're right!" However, as near as we can tell, the brain seems to account for the whole of the mind, going in its merry, thinking, conscious way without any interference from some spooky, immaterial, astral whatevah. Ask my grandma. She has Alzheimer's--and unless Alzheimer's has a "spiritual component," like the organ it attacks, then the case seems pretty closed. Gram's disappearing, bit by bit, just 'cause kooky little tarry clogs are shutting down her neural pathways, a thousand at a time.

If the brain's physical actions--like thought and feeling--were being dictated by the spirit, wouldn't that spirit also have control over the other physical processes taking place in the brain? Like, you know, dementia?

So, both of these ideas seem pretty unlikely. But I'll accept either, or any other, theory regarding how these things might work, once again, if someone could just show up in my town with a decent demo. (but, beloved believers, 'till you have irrefutable evidence, ain't that a whole lot to swallow? C'mon, mang) 'Zat's all.

Yours in Christ,
- B

What a complete tithead.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Try bending a 3/8" rod of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy.

Then try bending a 3/8" rod of 5056-0 aluminum alloy of the same length.

Until the 5056 yields, they'll feel identical. After that point, the 5056 will work harden, especially after several "flexes", whereas you need to be pretty strong to get the 7075-T6 rod to yield at all (although I would've suggested something slightly thicker than 3/8" and/or shorter than 12").

FWIW.


That's worth a lot, actually. Thanks. You're a metallurgist, I take it?

Mr. Houck has informed me he now buys all his spoons and forks for parties from the following website, and suggests I might do the same for mine:

http://www.acemart.com/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=AM&Category_Code=C3-11

They look like generic stainless steel flatware, yes? Also, when sites mention "silver-plated" flatware, what is the usual underlying metal? Is it usually copper? Such a spoon bowl would still be physically nearly impossible to bend with bare hands alone, right?

Mr. Houck is sending me videos of some of his own parties so that I may see how to conduct my own. I also have four friends driving out to his party in Ohio in 2 weeks. I've had them thoroughly review all the material I could find on the subject, including this thread. All are healthily skeptical, two are very well-versed in hypnosis, and all are bringing their own silverware. If they come back with a positive result, I'll feel pretty confident in further testing.

Either way, I'll post what they report here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
[B]McFly:

Try observing something without being conscious. Nigh impossible. Quantum craziness seems to have less to do with the immediate observer being "conscious" than it does with "being observed at all." Which, you know, vastly increases the effect of whatever's going on with those nutty little waves and particles and all.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, try though I might to understand it through the reading of pop science lit. Listen, though! I don't mean to derail nothin, but if you really want to tell if wave function collapse has to do with consciousness, try this:

Go into a room. Set it up for an experiment! Set up all your machines to record exactly what goes on. Flip yer switches, get it all rolling, and leave the damned room.

Come back a year later. See what happened. Then repeat the experiment while you're in the room.



What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying this proves the existence of a reality independent of consciousness?? If so you must be a retard.



A Word on The Laws of Physics: You know, we're mostly intelligent folks, here.



Who? Most of the people on here are impressively stupid.



It's okay to use dialectical short-hand when talking. Let's assume we know basic definitions.

But I didn't say "Known Laws of Physics" for a very decent reason. An "unknown law" will not account for things which do not happen. "People teleport!" "Violins copulate!" "Spoons bend!" We know people don't teleport and violins don't copulate and spoons don't bend because they're not ruled by "unknown laws:" They're ruled by the ones we already understand.



You know that people don't teleport and spoons don't bend? How do you know this?



Of course there are "unknown laws." Or, at least, there probably are. Or, who knows? Maybe there aren't. I'm just a journalist.



I can tell. Most journalists are mental retards.



Now, I know that, subjectively, there are a lot of things that brains do that we cannot fathom. Consciousness, for example. We cannot figure out why the subjective experience of consciousness is allowed for by the little machinations of brain tissues.



It's simply nopt possible; materialism is unintelligible, so is epiphenomenalism albeit for a differing reason. I can reproduce my refutation here if you wish.



But!

BUT!

The key, here, is "subjective." The OBJECTIVE behaviour of a brain is nothing very strange. Complicated, yessir--complicated in the extreme. But the processes taking place in a brain are not, physically, especially mind-blowing. There's just a great many of them, and they happen very quickly. You dig?

That's all I'm saying. Bending a spoon or a bar or something would require something OBJECTIVELY EXTRAORDINARY to be happening, physically, in and around a brain.



Why? Although I think most probably trickery of some nature is taking place at these parties, we nevertheless know that macropsychokinesis exists through the voluntary movements of our bodies.



And brains don't do that. All of their mystery is tied up in the subjective experience they present to their owners.



A brain is just a piece of meat, it can no more generate consciousness than any other physical thing or process.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying this proves the existence of a reality independent of consciousness?? If so you must be a retard. (snip)


Oh, dear. Couldn't you have just left it at "what a complete tithead?" Now this is going to launch into another several-page fruitless discussion, completely obscuring my original point. :(

Anyway, I like the post by Mr. Bonde. Anders Bonde. Ideas along those lines are appreciated.

[Ed]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Oh, dear. Couldn't you have just left it at "what a complete tithead?" Now this is going to launch into another several-page fruitless discussion, completely obscuring my original point. :(

Anyway, I like the post by Mr. Bonde. Anders Bonde. Ideas along those lines are appreciated.

I told you so. You will find that Ian has no knowledge of neuropsychology so any discussion of this area tends to the characteristic wastelands of philosophy.

Ask him if objects of different weight fall at the same rate, I wager that he is ignorant of the experiment too.

Sigh...

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ed


I told you so. You will find that Ian has no knowledge of neuropsychology so any discussion of this area tends to the characteristic wastelands of philosophy.

Ask him if objects of different weight fall at the same rate, I wager that he is ignorant of the experiment too.

Sigh...

This is not what I was getting at. After posting my response to Loon's post, I didn't even bother to read Ian's. I'm simply not interested as far as this thread goes.

I only care about one thing here: what should my friends be looking for at the party, to gain reasonable evidence for whether or not the purported claim has any merit? They're bringing their own spoons (both stainless steel and silver-plated), they're highly intelligent, two are well-versed in hypnosis, and they're skeptical but not cynical.

I think that covers most of it. I'll report back in 2 weeks.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


I told you so. You will find that Ian has no knowledge of neuropsychology so any discussion of this area tends to the characteristic wastelands of philosophy.

Ask him if objects of different weight fall at the same rate, I wager that he is ignorant of the experiment too.

Sigh...

What on earth has "neuropsychology" got to do with anything??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by flyboy217


Oh, dear. Couldn't you have just left it at "what a complete tithead?" Now this is going to launch into another several-page fruitless discussion, completely obscuring my original point. :(

Anyway, I like the post by Mr. Bonde. Anders Bonde. Ideas along those lines are appreciated.

Quit whining, I agree with absolutely everything you've said in this thread. Indeed one would have to be breathtakingly stupid not to.

I look forward to hearing about your friends experiences. I would gravitate towards supposing that it's trickery of some sort or other, but am willing to change my mind.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Try bending a 3/8" rod of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy.

Then try bending a 3/8" rod of 5056-0 aluminum alloy of the same length.

Until the 5056 yields, they'll feel identical. After that point, the 5056 will work harden, especially after several "flexes", whereas you need to be pretty strong to get the 7075-T6 rod to yield at all (although I would've suggested something slightly thicker than 3/8" and/or shorter than 12").

"No, metal is metal....it will bend the same way!"

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
BTW: If Targ is an experienced conjurer, then he is also quite capable of actually applying trickery in his experiments, even though he claims to be safeguarding against it.

Lucianarchy,

Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What on earth has "neuropsychology" got to do with anything??

He means some 'lumps of meat' are pickled with all sorts of substances, Ian. By the way you are writing at the moment, yours seems to be preserved by alcohol alone.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

Interesting dichotomy there, Claus. So, if Targ is good enough to detect trickery due to his experience as a performing stage magician, he is good enough to actually be the one doing the tricking. Considering Targ's main field is physics, and that he has an unblemished history of integrity and honesty, then the liklihood falls into the same realm as supposing Randi uses trickery to debunk the challenge applicants.

Can you guarantee that Randi does not use trickery to null the applicant tests?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[snipped] Considering Targ's main field is physics, and that he has an unblemished history of integrity and honesty... HAHAHAHAHAhahahah....oh gosh wait a second...

...AAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn, good one Luci. Pull the other leg, why don't you?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
HAHAHAHAHAhahahah....oh gosh wait a second...

...AAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Damn, good one Luci. Pull the other leg, why don't you?

No problem. Show where you get your belief that Targ does not have an unblemished history of integrity and honesty.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No problem. Show where you get your belief that Targ does not have an unblemished history of integrity and honesty. Okay.

here (http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/esp.htm):

"The SRI remote-viewing experiments: In the 1970's, physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ conducted experiments at SRI International that they claimed showed subjects could essentially "see" a remote place through the eyes of another person. The target team would randomly visit sites such as a shopping center or airport, while the experimenter asked the subject to describe his impressions. Obviously, deciding whether the subject's impressions matched the target scene involved some subjective decisions. Methodological flaws also plagued the research, and other experimenters were unable to replicate the results. As the National Research Council report puts it: "By both scientific and parapsychological standards, then, the case for remote viewing is not just very weak, but virtually nonexistent." (Druckman and Swets, p. 184)."

and here (http://teresi.us/html/writing/psi.html#blatant_phenomena):

"Examine, for instance, the somewhat dubious investigation of a high-profile performer, Uri Geller. After recently becoming famous in the early 1970’s, Geller submitted to scientific study at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) (Hansel, 1980). (Geller would often cite this research as proof of his ability.) Two physicists with strong interests in parapsychology, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, performed an investigation of Geller’s ability to bend spoons, draw concealed target pictures, and guess the uppermost face on a die. The results were reported in Nature (Targ and Puthoff, 1974) and The New Scientist (Hanlon). Geller’s claims of psychokinetic spoon bending apparently could not be proven–Targ and Puthoff did not document their findings or whether Geller submitted to any tests at all. In the interest of investigating Geller’s abilities, details of the failed experiments should have been just as clearly reported whether or not the experiments had succeeded."

and here (http://www.fact-index.com/u/ur/uri_geller.html).

'Geller has avoided scientific testing of his claims under controlled laboratory conditions, and has not taken the Randi challenge. For these reasons his claims of paranormal powers receive little support within the scientific community today, although during his early career he allowed some scientists to investigate his claims. An early study [1] by Stanford researchers Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ of Geller's claims regarding remote viewing was published in the British scientific journal Nature in 1974, along with reservations in an editorial. The paper is now widely considered to be methodologically flawed."


Do you really want me to go on?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Interesting dichotomy there, Claus. So, if Targ is good enough to detect trickery due to his experience as a performing stage magician, he is good enough to actually be the one doing the tricking. Considering Targ's main field is physics, and that he has an unblemished history of integrity and honesty, then the liklihood falls into the same realm as supposing Randi uses trickery to debunk the challenge applicants.

Trust has nothing to do with it, protocols have.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Can you guarantee that Randi does not use trickery to null the applicant tests?

Yes. Not only does Randi and the applicant agree on the protocol, Randi is not part of the actual testing. If you think he can use trickery, you need to prove it with a specific example.

Now, please answer my question: Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


"No, metal is metal....it will bend the same way!"



Can you prove your assertion? :rolleyes:

Or just trying to poke more fun where it's really not needed? Did you even read my response to his post?

[Ceinwyn]

I'm still waiting for Luci to refute my opinion that Russell Targ is a deluded woo-woo who couldn't devise a decent experiment if it would save his life.

Targ: I'm not dead, I can't be!

Death: Yeah. You are.

Targ: Impossible! I fudged the data!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


He means some 'lumps of meat' are pickled with all sorts of substances, Ian. By the way you are writing at the moment, yours seems to be preserved by alcohol alone.

Inform me of what "neuropsychology" has to do with anything, or desist with your asinine posts.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Inform me of what "neuropsychology" has to do with anything, or desist with your asinine posts. It means the same as "Shut up you ignorant drunkard who has yet to pick up an actual textbook" or "I'm Interesting".

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn

Do you really want me to go on?

Very much so. Please remember you are talking about an area of controversy, not least that all the data which was commissioned by the CIA has yet to be released. Not one of your opinions show anything which actually qualify Targ as being either without integrity or dishonest. In fact your three sources appear to rely heavily on what had previously been reported by Randi. Yet as we any honest sceptic can see, there is plenty of evidence to show that that information was, at the least, misleading.

"[...]Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. [...]" - http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes. .

Now, please answer my question: Can you guarantee that Targ does not use magical tricks, yes or no?

In scientific testing, observations, participation at Houck's events? Yes. In his scientific work, he is subject to peer review, which is more than can be said for Randi (also a magician). Observations are not magic tricks. Re: Houck, Targ does not mention that he is using magic tricks, so you would need to provide an example when he dishonestly employed magic tricks. Targ has no history of using deception for gain, whereas, Randi used to bilk the rubes at Carnivals and shows, when he went under the name of Prince Ibis.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


He means some 'lumps of meat' are pickled with all sorts of substances, Ian. By the way you are writing at the moment, yours seems to be preserved by alcohol alone.


Good 'un.

You know that that is not what it is about though, right? The "pickled" discipline is Histology, perhaps Ianology too:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Can you prove your assertion? :rolleyes:

It was a joke. Sorry if I find the claim to bend spoons with your mind a bit silly.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Or just trying to poke more fun where it's really not needed? Did you even read my response to his post?

Yes, I read it. Why can't one spoon be of a soft metal and another of a hard metal? Were analyses made of the spoons?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Very much so. Please remember you are talking about an area of controversy, not least that all the data which was commissioned by the CIA has yet to be released. Not one of your opinions show anything which actually qualify Targ as being either without integrity or dishonest. In fact your three sources appear to rely heavily on what had previously been reported by Randi. Yet as we any honest sceptic can see, there is plenty of evidence to show that that information was, at the least, misleading.

Ceinwyn has provided a heck of a lot more than you.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"[...]Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. [...]" - http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

This says nothing about Targ. We were discussing Targ, remember?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In scientific testing, observations, participation at Houck's events? Yes. In his scientific work, he is subject to peer review, which is more than can be said for Randi (also a magician). Observations are not magic tricks.

But Targ did more than merely observe, did he not? Did he not bend metal himself?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Re: Houck, Targ does not mention that he is using magic tricks, so you would need to provide an example when he dishonestly employed magic tricks. Targ has no history of using deception for gain

Targ doesn't cheat because he says he doesn't cheat? Targ has no history of deceit for gain? Targ has not gained by claiming that paranormal phenomena are real?

Fool.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
whereas, Randi used to bilk the rubes at Carnivals and shows, when he went under the name of Prince Ibis.

The difference is that Randi tells his audience that he is cheating them - that's what a magician does.

[Ceinwyn]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very much so. Please remember you are talking about an area of controversy, not least that all the data which was commissioned by the CIA has yet to be released. Not one of your opinions show anything which actually qualify Targ as being either without integrity or dishonest. In fact your three sources appear to rely heavily on what had previously been reported by Randi. Yet as we any honest sceptic can see, there is plenty of evidence to show that that information was, at the least, misleading.

"[...]Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul. [...]" - http://www.michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

Oh, that's odd. I thought my research had to do with facts, such as Russell Targ has not had a successful experiment in parapsychology ever. I didn't factor in the "CIA" or the "MIB" or any other foolish nonsense you care to promote. I just looked at the components of his experiments, and they are all failures.

You can blame Randi all you like. Russell Targ's failures are his own.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It was a joke. Sorry if I find the claim to bend spoons with your mind a bit silly.


Who wouldn't find it silly (assuming they'd never done it before, that is)? But come on, at least try to be helpful here.


Yes, I read it. Why can't one spoon be of a soft metal and another of a hard metal? Were analyses made of the spoons?


You read it? I'm asking those exact questions. I pointed out the very spoons he suggested buying... with a link no less. Precisely to find out as much as I can about them beforehand.

I'm trying to keep this as surgical as possible. Silly comments do not help.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
It means the same as "Shut up you ignorant drunkard who has yet to pick up an actual textbook" or "I'm Interesting".

First, that is a very nice helmet, the BM reconstruction of the example from Sutton Hoo, yes? Did you read Heaney's new translation of Beowulf yet?

To the topic of the moment: It is immensely frustrating dealing with people who have no understanding of the foundations of the current understanding of brain processes. It is as though one is dealing with a 14th century monk. And to substitute "philosophical" maunderings is simply pathetic and intellectually bankrupt.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn



Oh, that's odd. I thought my research had to do with facts, such as Russell Targ has not had a successful experiment in parapsychology ever.

I won't even bother addressing your subjective opinion. But even that does not say anything negative about Targ's honesty or integrity.

[Ceinwyn]

First to Ed:

I'm honoured. Yes, it is the Sutton Hoo helmet. If you want to know why I chose it, I've posted about it here before but you can always PM me.

To Luci:

I think my point was made. You cannot rebut your tenuous argument.

Sad for you.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn

I think my point was made.

Your third hand opinion against evidence to the contrary? Yes, well made.

[LettristLoon]

Flyboy:

Just don't let your friends get parted from their spoons, if they can avoid it. I mean, regardless of what they report, it's not a whole lot to go on, unless they bring video cameras and keep them trained on a piece of silverware as it bends. But, eh, it'll enjoy themselves. I hope they'll write a synopsis of their experience and post it here.

Ian:

You're rude. I'm just saying that, so far as I know, the brain can't move **** that the body ain't touching. That's all. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. What's yer beef?

- B

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
It means the same as "Shut up you ignorant drunkard who has yet to pick up an actual textbook" or "I'm Interesting".



Do not call me a drunkard, do you understand moonbeam?

I repeat: do you understand???.

Secondly, tell me what "neuropsychology" (whatever the f*ck that means) has to do with anything discussed in this thread.

Failure to answer this question I will take as confirmation that neither you, or your comrades in arms Luc and Ed, know what you're talking about.

In which case I suggest you shut the f*ck up.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed



Good 'un.

You know that that is not what it is about though, right? The "pickled" discipline is Histology, perhaps Ianology too:D

Hope you haven't got piles Luc.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
[B]

First, that is a very nice helmet, the BM reconstruction of the example from Sutton Hoo, yes? Did you read Heaney's new translation of Beowulf yet?

To the topic of the moment: It is immensely frustrating dealing with people who have no understanding of the foundations of the current understanding of brain processes.



You cannot use brain processes to vindicate materialism spastic. Any such correlations are equally explicable with transmission theory. How many times do you need to be f*cking told before it sinks into that sub-normal skull of yours??




It is as though one is dealing with a 14th century monk. And to substitute "philosophical" maunderings is simply pathetic and intellectually bankrupt.

Yeah, funny how you always back out of debating the issue. :rolleyes:

Thick cretin.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Flyboy:

Just don't let your friends get parted from their spoons, if they can avoid it.


Right, they've been instructed accordingly. They can and will avoid it.


I mean, regardless of what they report, it's not a whole lot to go on, unless they bring video cameras and keep them trained on a piece of silverware as it bends.


I'm not so worried about videotaping it just yet. If they can do it this once, then they better be able to do it again sometime later, and I can tape it then. Otherwise it's just a parlor trick, "real" or not.


But, eh, it'll enjoy themselves. I hope they'll write a synopsis of their experience and post it here.


Certainly.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Flyboy:

Just don't let your friends get parted from their spoons, if they can avoid it.



I agree that's essential. I somewhat doubt they will bend, but I'm not a Skeptic who a priori rejects any possibility they could bend. If we can't bend spoons by the mind alone, then that's just the way the world is. There is nothing inherently absurd about the idea at all.


.

Ian:

You're rude.



Indeed I am. I like being rude to people. At least those who spew forth vacuous cr@p.



I'm just saying that, so far as I know, the brain can't move s**t that the body ain't touching. That's all. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. What's yer beef?


We immediately experience our causal agency. I desire to move my body ( a mental event), then my body moves (a physical event). Why is this not macro-psychokinesis??

[Interesting Ian]

Repeat post.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn

Would I be presumptive to ask for any video documentation? Oh, heavens no. There will be none forthcoming.


Mr. Houck is sending me a VHS of several of his parties. With his permission, I would like to digitize it and try to find webspace to post it. I'm not sure what it will tell anyone, but maybe it will be interesting.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You cannot use brain processes to vindicate materialism spastic.

Ian, when you sober up, apologise.

You are completely out of order.

This post has been reported. I recommend that everyone take it easy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You cannot use brain processes to vindicate materialism spastic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ian, when you sober up, apologise.

You are completely out of order.

Ian, when you sober up, apologise.

You are completely out of order. [/B]

Lucianarchy, f*ck right off you complete and unbelievable retard. I dio not need to drink to use the language that I do to people on this board. Try to get that through your f*cking mental retarded skull.

If you want to have a philosophical debate with me, then fine. But don't tell me I'm f*cking wrong without argumentation.

Now f*ck off you complete and unadulterated ars*hole.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Lucianarchy, f*ck right off you complete and unbelievable retard. I dio not need to drink to use the language that I do to people on this board. Try to get that through your f*cking mental retarded skull.

If you want to have a philosophical debate with me, then fine. But don't tell me I'm f*cking wrong without argumentation.

Now f*ck off you complete and unadulterated ars*hole.

I think not.

Ian, how do you think people who are (before the days of PC) 'spastics' feel about that term being used as an insult?

I, otoh, am not calling you a drunkard to insult you. I am merely giving you feedback on your behaviour.

I'd love to have a philosophical debate with you about RPK, but not when you are drunk.

Now, sober up, go to sleep, and apologise.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Ian, when you sober up, apologise.

You are completely out of order.

Your post has been reported. I'm pig sick of dumbf*cks on here insinuating or accusing me of being an alcoholic. Not that they will do f*ck all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I think not.

Ian, how do you think people who are (before the days of PC) 'spastics' feel about that term being used as an insult?

I, otoh, am not calling you a drunkard to insult you. I am merely giving you feedback on your behaviour.

I'd love to have a philosophical debate with you about RPK, but not when you are drunk.

Now, sober up, go to sleep, and apologise.

You're just as much as a complete dumbf*ck as any of the Skeptics.

Now piss off and don't accuse me of having been drinking.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your post has been reported. I'm pig sick of dumbf*cks on here insinuating or accusing me of being an alcoholic. Not that they will do f*ck all.

Interesting, Ian, that you used the term 'alcoholic'. I just say that your behaviour here today is that of a common drunkard. An alcoholic has a pattern of use and a dependancy. If other people really are saying such things about you, you would do well to heed their advice. You used to be mildy interesting, yet recently you have turned into what Homer's Odyssey described as a 'rage-aholic'.

[Ceinwyn]

I never said anything about you being an alcoholic, Ian.

No, alcoholics generally deserve support and compassion. You're just an offensive drunk with no point to make, so the best you can do is spew insults.

Get it, sunshine?

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You're just as much as a complete dumbf*ck as any of the Skeptics.

Now piss off and don't accuse me of having been drinking.

We have the "woo woos", the "Skeptics", LOTS of drama between the two, and even in-fighting within the "woo woo" clan. Boy, this is a fun forum ;)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

...into what Homer's Odyssey described as a 'rage-aholic'.

Homer's Odyssey? I was under the impression that this was Homer Simpson:p

"I'm a rageaholic, I just can't live without rageahol!" - Homer Simpson

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Interesting, Ian, that you used the term 'alcoholic'. I just say that your behaviour here today is that of a common drunkard. An alcoholic has a pattern of use and a dependancy. If other people really are saying such things about you, you would do well to heed their advice. You used to be mildy interesting, yet recently you have turned into what Homer's Odyssey described as a 'rage-aholic'.

Right, that's it! To my ignore list you go.

[Interesting Ian]

That's the 4th person to go on my ignore list, the others being Unas, Tricky and Huntsman. Anyone want to join them?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Right, that's it! To my ignore list you go.

Make sure you tell him first. It's no fun to ignore someone if they don't know they're being ignored, right?

Loser.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by scribble


Make sure you tell him first. It's no fun to ignore someone if they don't know they're being ignored, right?

Loser.

Of course I'll tell him. I'm not a despicable scumbag like some people are :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
I never said anything about you being an alcoholic, Ian.

No, alcoholics generally deserve support and compassion. You're just an offensive drunk with no point to make, so the best you can do is spew insults.

Get it, sunshine?

I honestly do not believe myself to be any more offensive or rude whether I am drunk or sober. I have not been drinking, I do not f*cking lie. Now you can believe me or not, I really don't care.

Call me obnoxious, but don't accuse me of lying or of being drunk.

[Ceinwyn]

Fine.

You're obnoxious.

Happy now?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Call me obnoxious, but don't accuse me of lying or of being drunk.

There's a fine line between delusion and lying. I think the only difference is in whether you know you're doing it.

I'd call you either -- I can't prove you know what a fool you are, but I suspect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
Fine.

You're obnoxious.

Happy now?

Yes, I just get pissed off with people telling untruths about me and effectively saying I'm lying. You're more than welcome to your opinion of me.

It's certainly not what I'm like in real life though, but that's probably because I do not generally discuss the subjects discussed here.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's certainly not what I'm like in real life though,

Wake up! This is real life!

And considering how much time you've spent posting nonsense online, I'd wager it's more "real" than the time you've spent off the internet.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by scribble


There's a fine line between delusion and lying. I think the only difference is in whether you know you're doing it.

I'd call you either -- I can't prove you know what a fool you are, but I suspect.

A fool?? After all the contributions I've seen you make in the past 2 years. You really haven't got a clue. And you are just too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

You're an incorrigible idiot whom I really do not wish to discuss anything with.

So kindly piss off.