Does anyone care if mediums are fake?

[tonyyouens]

Okay I know that many on this forum do indeed care, but just how bad do you have to be, to be finally exposed? Is there ever a case when a medium caught bang to rights just says, "Fair cop" and calls it a day?

Colin Fry was caught actually holding a trumpet during a seance in which he was supposed to be tied up. Did it finish his career? Fat chance, he's now got his own TV show (6ixth Sense).

All this is history but now another medium has been caught with his cheesecloth hanging out. Last week in the UK we had a show called 'Most Haunted Live' which I know some of you are familiar with. It was supposed to be from a 'lunatic asylum' when in fact it was just a convalescent home. Despite this Acorah still managed to get in touch with an entirely imaginary group of inmates. Amongst other things he said,

" To me mental, mental and almost physical cruelty combined. It’s like a treatment given out and they’re suffering from it. I feel this big, big property has housed people who had mental disorders and a lot of them … they did have these mental disorders, but a lot of them were treated so harshly at times in a vain attempt to heal and it went wrong. They felt like guinea pigs – they felt caged; they felt trapped. It was like a jail to them."

I have exposed this nonsense of my own site here (http://www.tonyyouens.com/Commentary030805.htm#asylum).

Do newspapers run this story? None that I know. It's not even newsworthy. I'm beginning to feel that those of us who are skeptics are wasting our time. Mediums can spew out as much nonsense as they like and get away with it.

I know it's not the most pressing issue in the world today but each time they get away with this the world gets a little bit darker.

Rant not nearly over.

Tony Youens

www.tonyyouens.com (http://www.tonyyouens.com)

[CFLarsen]

Yes, people care. They care, if they know what is really going on, and how much hurt the psychics do.

It isn't just a case of explaining what they do, and catching them cheating. We also need to emphasize the harm they do.

Psychics are grief-sucking vampires. People are being kept in a perpetual state of grief, so the psychics can get as much money from them as possible, by giving them phony readings, pretending to pass on messages from their dead relatives.

That's what we need to show people. Then, they'll care, because nobody likes to be cheated, and nobody likes others to be cheated.

I'll run your story, if you like.

[John de Combe]

I'm 100% behind you on this Tony.

Mediums and psychics do real damage. They replace real, fond memories with fraudulent memories, and personally I find this reprehensible. They give false hope that missing relatives are still alive. That's worse.

I've seen them described as emotional rapists and I think that's pretty close to the mark.

I remember just after the great UK magician and comedian Tommy Cooper died, Doris Stokes really scraped the barrel. She gave an interview to a tabloid saying she was in contact with him from beyond the grave.

This story caused Cooper's wife and family terrible distress - particularly as Stokes had "seen" Cooper saying and doing things that he would never say and do.

Rival tabloids gave Stokes a good kicking, but that was more to do with the normal jealously of scooped rivals than any true outrage at what Stokes had done. Which was, frankly, evil.

And as for how bad psychics can be - well, Stokes claimed that people say and do different things in the spirit world. Woos make sure they win when they're right and win when they're wrong.

I also doubt many people in the UK care anymore, OfCom is a toothless wonder, we have the education minister in Opus Dei, the PM is a closet Catholic who patronises woo-woo practicioners, a monarch that uses homeopathy, an heir to the throne who is a halfwit, and cokehead presenters sticking up for woo-woos on the radio and TV. And as for what's happened to science in UK shools in the last 20 years...

When I was growing up, popular science was a staple of British Television - an important and popular element of peak time viewing. Science was seen as something entertaining and inspiring. BBC1 had "Tomorrow's World", and ITV had "Don't Just Sit There" with Prof. Magnus Pike, Prof. David Bellamy and Dr. Rob Buckman. Oh, on BBC2 we had Prof. Heinz Wolf and Prof. Ian Fell doing the "Great Egg Race" and Patrick Moore hosting "The Sky At Night". Only Patrick is left now...

If the Royal Society wasn't hopelessly out of touch it would invite James Randi to do their Christmas lectures this year on debunking woo.

[laura]

first...just came off your site Tony...Excellent keep it up.

I care.......there are too many vunerable people out there,and i can quote chapter and verse on people who believe such things are true and make very bad decisions based on those beliefs.

In fact i think we need to be on these peoples case more.

a member of this forum has a web site..stopkaz.com (i think) where he takes apart a womans false claim to have been in the 9/11 disaster.

Now thats not a paranormal claim,but he has researched and taken her lies one by one and debunked them...and he has her on the run. She knows that he has been looking into her, and eventually maybe she will give up because of this.

This is what we need to do with the psychics. Of course it will take up a lot of time.

it seems to me,on reading accounts of public psychic sessions,that in fact audiences are becoming more skeptical. I have read accounts where the audiences have been very subdued when the psychic struggles to make a connection,and seem less ready to "fit their stories to the psychics waffling.
although the television programmes that I have seen, the opposite is true...the five minutes of fame perhaps,or good editing.

[c4ts]

Fat chance, he's now got his own TV show (6ixth Sense).

"Gixth Sense?" What's a Gixth? This is worse than that movie title "Thirleen Ghosts."

[tsg]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
I'm beginning to feel that those of us who are skeptics are wasting our time. Mediums can spew out as much nonsense as they like and get away with it.


The fundamental problem is trying to use rationality and reason on people who are largely immune to it. There are a large number of people for whom belief equals knowledge and anecdotes equals evidence.

I, myself, I am a little shamed to admit, have fallen victim to this. It was a simple probability problem ("The Monty Hall problem", if anyone cares), but the person trying to convince me I was wrong was using probability mathematics that I was unfamiliar with to do it. He was entirely correct, and had the evidence to prove it to me, but I didn't understand it. Because I didn't understand it, I didn't believe him. It was all very clear and obvious to me, how could I be wrong? It wasn't until I wrote a computer program to simulate the problem that I realized where I was wrong. It was a very obvious mistake that I just couldn't see through my convictions. I now understand the mathematics that was being used, but it was unconvincing at the time.

If they don't understand the evidence, or even that the lack of evidence is significant, there's little chance of changing their mind. "I've seen it work" is much more compelling than "the evidence doesn't support the claim". And people who want to believe will go to great lengths to maintain that belief. "It could be true" is enough support for them.

As far as exposing a cheat goes, as long as they can convince enough people that they are real, which isn't terribly hard if the people want to believe, it won't be very effective. Having read of Randi's exposé on psychic surgery, I can imagine the psychic surgeons defending their "art" with "that it can be faked does not prove I am a fake". Not being able to prove it false is enough for some to believe it is true. Their standards for belief in a claim are simply much lower than ours.

[John Jackson]

I think that the vast majority of people have an extreme apathy to this sort of thing.

Those who believe: believe. Those who don’t: don’t. The rest just don’t care.

I think that those who are apathetic are the ones at risk of being harmed the most. The one unfortunate day that they do lose a loved one is the day that they could get suckered into the false claims of these charlatans. Having never cared or thought about it, they could get dragged into something that they are neither prepared for nor understand.

There’s some good work being done at badpsychics.co.uk (http://www.badpsychics.co.uk) but more exposure in the media would help; even if it’s just enough to show that there’s a downside to psychics and their extravagant claims. It’s more than mere entertainment.

Better still, an explanation of the harm they can do would make a good, informative documentary series. OK, the commercial channels are seeking viewers and the paranormal sells, but why can’t the BBC do it?

[Bronze Dog]

One of the sorts that really get me angry: "It wasn't suicide... *dramatic pause* ...it was MURDER!... and for $99.95 an hour, I can find the murderer for you."

[Dubium]

Networks make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on programmes like Most Haunted, Tony, so they have a vested interest in not publicising frauds that have been exposed. But never give up the fight to expose frauds (well really they're all frauds - it's just some of them don't realise they haven't got powers). A voice crying in the wilderness is still a voice. Your site is great.

[tonyyouens]

Thanks for the replies. Like I say on this site there are bound to be those that care passionately not least the gentleman (Randi) who started the JREF.

I guess we all keep chipping away but a large part of the media seem intent on promoting this crap whilst largely ignoring the skeptical argument. What I mean is they broadcast stories that are plainly ridiculous but by way of 'balance' invite a skeptic along to comment. The sort of programme that actually explores the skeptical argument is a much rarer animal.

In the 'Most Haunted Live' programme I mentioned they have a 'skeptic' Ciaran O'Keefe whose role seems to be confined to walking about with a ruck sack (which I assume contains sandwiches and a flask of coffee) with a couple of pointless instruments in his hand taking 'readings'. He must know the whole show is a huge pile of BS and the only point to his presence seems to be to give the show the illusion of objectivity. He should be ripping the show apart but chooses not to. Why is that I wonder?

I recently took part in a debate with an audience of ghostie believers and I think some of them had a complete misunderstanding of what a skeptic actually is. Why would a skeptic follow a medium about making nitpicking little statements when it's obvious to all that the medium is a fake? The mere presence of a skeptic gives a sort of psychological endorsement.

I was once contacted by Living TV about commenting on a psychic reading. The researcher said that they didn't want me to pull it apart so as to upset the feelings of the person actually having the reading. I told them that if they expected me to make some feeble comments about how some aspects of the reading were 'interesting' or somehow inexplicable then they've called the wrong person. I never heard from them again.

I realise I'm probably preaching to the converted but I'm looking on this as therapy. Perhaps Randi should start charging?

Best to all,

Tony
www.tonyyouens.com

[phenomenon]

What I mean is they broadcast stories that are plainly ridiculous but by way of 'balance' invite a skeptic along to comment. The sort of programme that actually explores the skeptical argument is a much rarer animal.

Almost as bad as investigating the claims of a Woman's African Grey being Telepathic....don't ya think? ;)

[Dubium]

On the ABC in Australia, we have a programme called Media Watch On one memorable occasion, one of the commercial networks tabloid current affairs shows did a piece about a psychic who believed she could tell who was the killer in a particularly shocking murder case. The 'psychic' went around the murder site picking up all sorts of stuff which was relayed to the murder victim's mother who seemed distraught, responding with things like, 'How could she have known that'.

Media Watch often criticises the commercial half hour current affairs shows, because they appeal to the masses and show all kinds of racist and everything elseist garbage.

On this particular occasion, the host of Media Watch pointed out that there was an easy way for the 'psychic' to have known what she knew - it had all been featured on the news previously, in shots of the murder scene and the victim's family photos.

The reason I remember this so well is that I worked (in the government) with the woman who was this so-called psychic and knew her rather well. At that time I had an open mind. I now know she was talking fraudulent garbage.

And she still is. here's (http://www.hark.net.au/gabby.htm) a link to her site. The murder she talks about helping to solve is the one referred to above.

I've also found a forum where various psychics (including Gabby) post their predictions.

Gabby's latest predictions (http://www.healthmaker.info/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1381)

She predicted a very bad hurricane in America. Still - most scientists could have told her that one.

[tonyyouens]

Almost as bad as investigating the claims of a Woman's African Grey being Telepathic....don't ya think?

Ouch!

But no I don't agree. First because at no time was I equivical in my views and didn't waffle on about it might be 'worthy of further investigation' or say the results were 'interesting'. Second the purpose of the test was to evaluate the methodology of Rupert Sheldrake's experiment with N'Kisi, and in doing so I made an 'interesting' discovery that didn't come out in the programme. Thirdly the woman involved was not a professional psychic and didn't deserve being held up to ridicule. In fact she was a really nice person who cared deeply about her numerous animals.

The programme also went out of its way to give skeptics a chance to explain what was going on.

I don't say skeptics should not appear in TV programmes what I'm trying to suggest is their role is often reduced to mere commentary rather than taking a more active and/or pivotal role.

The parrot thing involved actually replicating a previous experiment in which Sheldrake concluded the ridiculous idea that a parrot could receive messages telepathically. The idea deserved a rebuttal.

Tony

[phenomenon]

Good points Tony!

Does it matter what an individuals standing is when it comes to their claims of psychic phenomena? Surely a skeptics view of someone claiming telepathic links with a parrot and those claims of a medium should be treated with the same skeptical eye?

I have no doubts that she loves her pets and that she is probably a fine individual, But surely mediums can be nice people? My point is that no matter how grand an individuals claims are, the mere fact they make false claims should be seen in the same light. Be it a medium claiming spirit contact or a houswife speaking to a parrot, surely they are as bad as each other?

Obviously the fact that mediums are seen to dupe innocent people and make financial gains in the process should be treated with the contempt it deserves. But to a skeptic the important points are validation of phenomena, not the benefits false claims give.

I do disagree slightly with your views on Dr O'Keeffe. I agree that his manner and methodology as a skeptic is somewhat restricted by the shows format, nobody watching wants to see their hero's ripped to pieces by a skeptic, so at times there is a slight feel of bias towards the believer; leaving Dr O'Keeffe in quite an awkward position.

How is he to analyse and conclude when the entire team and those producing it want to convince the viewers the show is "genuine"?

I did speak to Dr O'Keeffe last week and not wishing to divulge too much, I do think that there was a real attempt by the production team to seriously question the events on the show, including the information of both mediums.

At one point Dr O'Keeffe was like a dog with a bone as Derek Acorah produced one of his classic possessions for his adoring fans. He asked question after question with very little coming back in the way of substantiating information from Acorah. That to me was a very active role, let's see if it continues as MH welcomes its new medium in to the fray.

Unfortunately my views of MH tell me that his efforts are wasted on that show. It's pretty much accepted by most that the show is run by a bunch of over the top amateurs whose acting skills leave a lot to be desired.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I care.

If no one cared then these frauds and delusional idiots would be dragging us back to the dark ages just as quickily as they could, and I'm damned sure I'm not going to stand around and watch all of mankinds advancements made a fool. The more of this nonsense that there is, the less room for science, logic and real advancement in the minds of the public. I'd put them all behind bars if I could.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
I guess we all keep chipping away but a large part of the media seem intent on promoting this crap whilst largely ignoring the skeptical argument. What I mean is they broadcast stories that are plainly ridiculous but by way of 'balance' invite a skeptic along to comment. The sort of programme that actually explores the skeptical argument is a much rarer animal.

Check out National Geopgraphic Channel's "Is It Real" series. They are quite excellent.

Originally posted by tonyyouens
In the 'Most Haunted Live' programme I mentioned they have a 'skeptic' Ciaran O'Keefe whose role seems to be confined to walking about with a ruck sack (which I assume contains sandwiches and a flask of coffee) with a couple of pointless instruments in his hand taking 'readings'. He must know the whole show is a huge pile of BS and the only point to his presence seems to be to give the show the illusion of objectivity. He should be ripping the show apart but chooses not to. Why is that I wonder?

That is a good question, because usually, programs about frauds being exposed are very popular. A couple of years ago, Danish TV had 4 shows about testing various paranormal claims, but all but a couple turned the offer down. Both failed, of course. However, the replies from the other Superstitious were very revealing. Their excuses not to take the test were downright pathetic. The shows were a great success.

Originally posted by tonyyouens
I recently took part in a debate with an audience of ghostie believers and I think some of them had a complete misunderstanding of what a skeptic actually is. Why would a skeptic follow a medium about making nitpicking little statements when it's obvious to all that the medium is a fake? The mere presence of a skeptic gives a sort of psychological endorsement.

I was once contacted by Living TV about commenting on a psychic reading. The researcher said that they didn't want me to pull it apart so as to upset the feelings of the person actually having the reading. I told them that if they expected me to make some feeble comments about how some aspects of the reading were 'interesting' or somehow inexplicable then they've called the wrong person. I never heard from them again.

You have the right attitude, Tony. There's no point in meekly pointing out that what they believe in is false. That only comes across as if we merely disagree with them. We should definitely be much more direct and make it clear just how much harm superstition causes.

I loved it, when Shermer called the actions of psychics like John Edward "immoral". Not only is it true, it needs to be said in a straigh-forward manner. Penn & Teller - when they leave their politics at home - are brilliant in their "Bulls**t" series.

[tonyyouens]

Does it matter what an individuals standing is when it comes to their claims of psychic phenomena? Surely a skeptics view of someone claiming telepathic links with a parrot and those claims of a medium should be treated with the same skeptical eye?

You're right that the individual doesn't matter as far as the veracity of the claim goes. I think the woman with the parrot is every bit as wrong as Sheldrake and the likes of Acorah. However I nonetheless treat them differently. I see the owner of the parrot more as a victim of this drivel than as a cause of it, as indeed I see those who visit mediums in a similar light. They can be driven by grief and I don't feel able to condemn them outright.

Sheldrake is an academic who really should know better but I make the assumption that he is at least sincere.

As for mediums they can either really believe in what they do or they can be outright fakes. If I'm not sure then I tend to take the charitable view assume the former. Basically I disagree with the lot of them but adapt my response to the situation. As for mediums I have met some that I regard as very nice people indeed. I don't assume they are all stupid and/or evil. That said they all suffer from a certain intellectual dishonesty for not having the courage to be properly tested. They could even earn a $1million by doing so. Even when they are tested, and fail, they still don't change their minds - and they accuse us of being close-minded.

At one point Dr O'Keeffe was like a dog with a bone as Derek Acorah produced one of his classic possessions for his adoring fans.

Marvellous wasn't it? His finest hour for sure but I think O'Keeffe has done himself no favours (academically) by taking part in this show. He is a lot smarter than the rest of them put together but apart from his usually impotent role he must now be aware that the show is a fake. Acorah has been caught out and the show itself has likewise been found to have misrepresented the true location. Okay the show is daft and generally, until now, I've just ignored it. My estimation of O'Keeffe would shoot up immediately if he left the show as a protest. Alas he doesn't look like doing so. Both he and Matthew are pretty much redundant on the show.

Cheers,

Tony

[tonyyouens]

Penn & Teller - when they leave their politics at home - are brilliant in their "Bulls**t" series.

Got both series on DVD (watch out it's regional). Marvellous! If only we did something like that here!

Tony

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by phenomenon
Good points Tony!

..snip..
Obviously the fact that mediums are seen to dupe innocent people and make financial gains in the process should be treated with the contempt it deserves. But to a skeptic the important points are validation of phenomena, not the benefits false claims give.
.

Or alternatively give mediums a free forum on your site and promote their tour.Hardly contempt they deserve.

I am quite baffled by your presence on here phenomenon.Maybe JREF members would like to read dome of your comments.In light of them I wonder why you are here.
[B] To start off with, I hardly know anything at all about Randi. Ive heard about his challenge, but havent searched more in-depth about either that or the person himself. I know you can win a million and that's about it.
However I was at my parents' place the other day watching tv,about to head to the garage to work on my little darling,when this programme comes on called "Man who paints the future" (edited out waffle about the show,we all know it)
My point about that show was they talked to James Randi about it,and he gave his view on it.He was in the programme for maybe 45 seconds, in total.And during those 45 seconds,the first 45 seconds Ive ever seen of the man, I came to dislike him more than anyone Ive seen on tv for 45 seconds.Sure ,he has his points now and again.But really watching the program you could actually see and hear ,he would never accept the slightest possibility about there being something more to it than we can see.
He had an attitude that really gets me in a bad mood.I can see where 7th son gets his attitude from{my username on SNW forum}.
As for his test,they asked Randi if Mandell would be allowed to try out for the million."Sure" Randi said "he would make a valid participant"But the way he said it,he made it clear that
1. Randi was convinced Mandell would never pass(wonder why)?
2.He was not happy about the question at all.Bothered might be a good word(wonder why)?
There's my view on him,45 seconds and it didnt start off very well


Then this.

John,I have no doubt that Randi and his test gives you constant erections on a daily basis.Randi's test is designed that nobody passes it,its as simple as that.
Randi has made a fortune trying to debunk paranormal phenomena, his test would destroy everything he has worked for, to cynically destroy peoples beliefs based on his own logic and not their own personal experiences.Who is he to say that soemone s experience was psychological and not paranormal when he hasn't even met the person?
Its old news m8,even skeptics frown when they hear his name

[Darat]

phenomenon - are those quotes your words?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Darat
phenomenon - are those quotes your words?
Trust me darat they are .They are quotes he made on his site.No disputing copyright this time.;)

[echolima]

That certainly sounds like Phenomenon, Darat.

Phenomenon doesn't hesitate to lie, and write libellous and defamatory articles to attack others, either. He has displayed such an article about me on his website since 26 July.

He refuses to make a single free phone call as it would verify that his claims are untrue.

To get back on topic, Tony's comments about Ciaran O'Keeffe are, in many ways, well-founded. Ciaran's questioning of Derek Acorah was wonderful to watch and I believed it was the start of something big.

Unfortunately, the fake 'asylum' was not commented on by him, or indeed, by anyone else. Of course, that's assuming they were aware it was a fake location.

Maybe they just believed Most Haunted / LivingTV / Antix when they said it was an asylum.

Irrespective, heads should roll over the debacle, but whose?

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Check out National Geopgraphic Channel's "Is It Real" series. They are quite excellent.
As a matter of fact, tonight's (Monday, Sept 12, 8:00pm EDST) installment is "Police Psychics." This ought to be a good one:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/isitreal/index.html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
As a matter of fact, tonight's (Monday, Sept 12, 8:00pm EDST) installment is "Police Psychics." This ought to be a good one:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/isitreal/index.html

It is. Be sure to watch it.

[phenomenon]

That certainly sounds like Phenomenon, Darat.

Phenomenon doesn't hesitate to lie, and write libellous and defamatory articles to attack others, either. He has displayed such an article about me on his website since 26 July.

He refuses to make a single free phone call as it would verify that his claims are untrue.

To get back on topic, Tony's comments about Ciaran O'Keeffe are, in many ways, well-founded. Ciaran's questioning of Derek Acorah was wonderful to watch and I believed it was the start of something big.


Miss Gee, you know fine well not to bring outside disputes on to another forum. Calling the kettle black springs to mind. As for the article, That coincides with your forum dedicated to me. I have no intentions of dragging this on here!

The comments regarding Dr O'Keeffe were made by me I believe, so thank you for agreeing. ;)

And yes, that is a quote of mine. A reflection on how pre-occupied he seems to be with this test. Reading other threads on here it almost seems tame in comparison, especially when it is compared to comments made against people by Azrael 5.

[Ashles]

Well, well, this is certainly turning into an interesting and informative thread.

[echolima]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
In the 'Most Haunted Live' programme I mentioned they have a 'skeptic' Ciaran O'Keefe whose role seems to be confined to walking about with a ruck sack (which I assume contains sandwiches and a flask of coffee) with a couple of pointless instruments in his hand taking 'readings'. He must know the whole show is a huge pile of BS and the only point to his presence seems to be to give the show the illusion of objectivity. He should be ripping the show apart but chooses not to. Why is that I wonder?

Tony
www.tonyyouens.com

I apologise if I didn't make myself clear earlier, when I said that I agree with Tony's comments. These are the comments to which I referred.

Echolima
www.doublexposure.co.uk

[phenomenon]

To get back on topic, Tony's comments about Ciaran O'Keeffe are, in many ways, well-founded. Ciaran's questioning of Derek Acorah was wonderful to watch and I believed it was the start of something big.


I think Tony was worried that his effect was minimal, it was me who thought his effect had substance.

[echolima]

He must know the whole show is a huge pile of BS and the only point to his presence seems to be to give the show the illusion of objectivity. He should be ripping the show apart but chooses not to.

I really don't see how I can make it any plainer. I say again that I agree with Tony's comments (above).

I went on to say that Ciaran's handling of Acorah was wonderful (on Friday night), and had hoped it was the start of something big. It wasn't.

Echolima
www.doublexposure.co.uk

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by phenomenon
..snip...

And yes, that is a quote of mine. A reflection on how pre-occupied he seems to be with this test. Reading other threads on here it almost seems tame in comparison, especially when it is compared to comments made against people by Azrael 5.

Its a test for a million dollars not two dollars,I feel its important so I mention it where needed.But by the same token,I have also listed every other award out there.As for comments made against people? I have an opinion,terribly sorry if you don't like it(evidently you don't as you banned me from your site)however brusque it may be Im always right though. ;)

[phenomenon]

No John, you're not always right...far from it.

You seem to think that unless a person insults, angers or threatens people they are not a skeptic. Get used to it John, I handle my beliefs my way. They are at times softened in a bid to let both sides argue their points.

You are one of a handful of skeptics to be banned by me...you know the others. 90% of bans are believers. Hardly censorship John.

[MoonDragn]

I agree that there are alot of fake psychics out there. Anyone who claims they know everything thats going to happen is lying. From a scientific perspective, I believe precognition is like a human ability to calculate probabilities. Some people have a good grasp of how events are going to go depending on what you tell them.

As for mediums, that involves actually channeling a spirit or a ghost. While I've met alot of fakes, I've also met a few that frankly scares the heck out of me. When they channel you can literally feel some kind of presence in the room. I personally believe people shouldn't mess with spirits period.

Having been in the psychic field for a while now observing other psychics and checking accuracy, I would say most psychics are somewhere around 67% accurate. Thats only like a little bit better than 50/50. But any advantage you can take in real life you take right? I think thats why most people go to psychics.

How much of psychic ability is luck? How much can humans affect luck? We still don't know even 1/10th of the secrets of the universe, so until you win some nobel prize in physics don't claim you are an expert in how our universe works.

[Azrael 5]

Thsi is getting boringly off topic,but where on your forum have I threatened or insulted people.Angered I'll agree with,but so what? If people get angry when you demand evidence for silly claims and ridiculous beliefs then they should stick to knitting.
Feel free to email me you reply.Ah,sorry you can't :D

[Azrael 5]

While I've met alot of fakes, I've also met a few that frankly scares the heck out of me. When they channel you can literally feel some kind of presence in the room. I personally believe people shouldn't mess with spirits period

Scare you? With accuracy I assume you mean? Care to name them.How would you go about messing with spirits,Id like to try it.

[phenomenon]

You seriously want me to paste your comments in here...many made in email? I have no intentions of doing such a thing, this site and its admin have nothing to do with your petty complaints regarding your being thrown off my site...for a second time.

Understand this John, this is a topic, stick to it! I have no intentions of answering you when all you seem to do is get off on arguing.

As for email...Grow up and get back on topic. I own my own server John, not a hard to tell when an email gets through or not. When you offer some well manned debate then I'll respond, so please don't waste your time or mine rebutting and dragging this out.

I'll apologise to admin for derailing this topic, John, however, doesn't apologise, he just assumes and gets angry. ;)

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Scare you? With accuracy I assume you mean? Care to name them.How would you go about messing with spirits,Id like to try it.

Accuracy wouldn't have scared me, and one of them was accurate. How do you explain a feeling though? Before they even started talking I felt the hair on the back of my neck stand up. There was a menacing atmosphere in the room while they were channeling. The feeling was like the same feeling you get when you're watching an argument between two people getting serious and they are about to beat each other up.

There is no scientific basis for these feelings. Nothing proven anyway. There are millions of theories out there on how it would work though.

Personally I think human brains are capable of communication on a non verbal bandwidth, conciously or subconciously. Kind of like what jung called the collective conciousness. Imagine an organic internet built by a network of brains. Psychics then are just web surfers who often look up the wrong info on the web.

[Azrael 5]

Hairs on the back of your neck rising is hardly credible evidence for anything really is it?
Names?

phenomenon your emails never get to me:
Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the From line contains 'webmaster@thesupernaturalworld.co.uk'
Delete it from server

Last word on it.;)

[phenomenon]

Personally I feel the human brain is capable of far more than we are aware of at the moment. That said It's only speculation. To claim that you have discovered or unearthed some telepathic or psychic pathway would need some pretty damning evidence.

Your description is apt, but doesn't offer reasoning.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by phenomenon
Personally I feel the human brain is capable of far more than we are aware of at the moment. That said It's only speculation. To claim that you have discovered or unearthed some telepathic or psychic pathway would need some pretty damning evidence.

Your description is apt, but doesn't offer reasoning.



Yeah exactly. While I have seen a bunch of positive hits so to speak, I've also seen those that were wide off the mark. So the question is, is it a real ability? or is it just random chance?

I have seen/heard many things that couldn't be explained. Unfortunately sometimes your eyes don't believe what you see, and the ears don't believe what they hear.

For example... I was dating this woman in canada a while back, I was walking past the kitchen, she was at the counter chopping vegetables on the far side of the room, while on the near side of the room her daughter was playing in front of the refrigerator drawing a picture. As I walked just out of sight, I heard her scream followed by a loud scrapping sound. As I ducked back to look, I saw her at the far counter still sucking on her finger, the little kid in front of the fridge had these large eyes staring at the refridgerator that was now 2 feet away from the wall on TOP of the picture she was drawing.

Facts :
1. There was noone near the fridge except the little kid(6 yr old)
2. There were no sounds of running, and the room was only out of my sight for 1 sec.
3. It took 3 adults to push the refridgerator back against the wall. If you ever tried pulling on a full fridge you know how hard it is to do it by yourself.
4. There was no water under the fridge to indicate it might have been sliding on water.
5. There was no evidence of an earthquake or shifting of any other objects in any of the rooms.
6. When I asked the little kid what happened she said "the fridge moved".


Given those facts, the only conclusions I could draw was :

1. The mother(who claimed she had telekinesis) moved the fridge with her mind when she cut her finger.
2. The 6 yr old girl was alot stronger than she looked
3. By some cosmic chance all the molecues of the fridge decided to move in one direction.
4. Alien space craft or top secret government experiment decided to fly by at that moment with a giant electromagnet and pull this refridgerator a short distance.
5. Ghosts

Really any of those explainations are rediculous. Yet, it happened.

[Azrael 5]

Or the fridge was already away from the wall to start with and you jsut never realised.Seeing as there is no proof of telekenisis it cannot be that.Or your ex bird was called Carrie.:p

[Chaosium]

Originally posted by phenomenon
Personally I feel the human brain is capable of far more than we are aware of at the moment.Like what, for example?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Really any of those explainations are rediculous. Yet, it happened.
Or another explanation is that it didn't actually happen exactly as you are describing it and perhaps exaggeration or incorrect recall are at work.

I know, you're going to tell me it happened exactly as you describe it. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing that.

We set up experiments and use recording equipment so we can have examples where these phenomena can be observed without personal bias or memory errors.
But nothing ever seems to happen then.

I for one am very interested to know where you acquire your figure of 67% accuracy from. That would imply some form of tersting and analysis, and it has been our experience that no psychic has ever performed above chance in properly conducted testing.

But we would be happy to be wrong about this. Is the 67% figure based on anything other than a general guess?

And as far as I am aware Jung's theories of collective unconscious are not taken as literally true by psychologists these day. There is no evidence backing the theory up.

[John Jackson]

Originally posted by Ashles
Or another explanation is that it didn't actually happen exactly as you are describing it and perhaps exaggeration or incorrect recall are at work.

I know, you're going to tell me it happened exactly as you describe it. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing that.
I was sent an amusing story which shows this effect up quite well: The bird in the loft. (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_bird_in_the_loft.php)

If you misinterpret an event, then subsequently can't explain it, it has a tendency to become "paranormal".

Cognitive errors must be responsible for much of the "unexplainable".

I for one am very interested to know where you acquire your figure of 67% accuracy from.
Interestingly, good cold readers are often subjectively judged as being 90% plus accurate.

[MoonDragn]

Well at the time I was near a computer so I typed everything that happened at that moment. I also went to examine the floor and tried to move the fridge myself... It was not possible and this woman was definately weaker than I am.

Telekinesis - Carrie! Yeah I know I didn't believe it either if I didn't see it. Other events I saw around her could have been explained but this one just defies logic.

As for the 67% that is an estimation based on the results of someone who was psychic who at different times went to a track, and to atlantic city casino with us. She won about 2/3 of the time so somewhere around 66.6% accuracy.

I was told by a psychic in the field for a long time that even the best can only give about a 80% accuracy. On a given day its very lucky if you hit that.

Call it chance but I've hit that type of accuracy before on zener tests, but not consistently, because sometimes I predict 2 cards ahead instead of 1 and sometimes one symbol simply looks like another in my mind like the star and the cross.

Another problem with psychic tests that I see is what if psychic ability is something that is of a limited charge. For example you can only use it so much in a given amount of time. Then any large clinical trial would fail because the ability would give diminishing returns.

For me personally I always start to second guess myself. I don't think zener tests are very accurate, what is more accurate is to describe a random picture someone is concentrating on etc. I've had more success with those. I don't consider myself anything but normal though, I think every human can do it.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Given those facts, the only conclusions I could draw was :

1. The mother(who claimed she had telekinesis) moved the fridge with her mind when she cut her finger.
2. The 6 yr old girl was alot stronger than she looked
3. By some cosmic chance all the molecues of the fridge decided to move in one direction.
4. Alien space craft or top secret government experiment decided to fly by at that moment with a giant electromagnet and pull this refridgerator a short distance.
5. Ghosts

Really any of those explainations are rediculous. Yet, it happened.

And yet it is interesting that you chose only ridiculous explanations for an event that you, by your own admission, did not see. Having not seen the event myself, I can come up with a slightly less ridiculous explanation that is no less reasonable: the floor under the fridge isn't level and some vibration (or the six year old) caused the fridge to slip which startled the mother causing her to cut her finger, and it was hard to push back because the floor isn't level. No magic necessary, just a sequence of possible events. It may be unlikely, but much more likely than ghosts, aliens, telekinesis, super-strong six-year-olds, or simultaneous molecular movement.

[Azrael 5]

As for the 67% that is an estimation based on the results of someone who was psychic who at different times went to a track, and to atlantic city casino with us. She won about 2/3 of the time so somewhere around 66.6% accuracy.

How do you know they were psychic? Can we see the tests you did that provided 67%?

I was told by a psychic in the field for a long time that even the best can only give about a 80% accuracy. On a given day its very lucky if you hit that.

A psychic tells you this? On what grounds do you believe them? What are the names of these psychics(again)?

[tonyyouens]

Just to get slightly back on topic, what prompted me to start this thread was that I consider Derek Acorah has been caught bang to rights and yet outside what you might call skeptical circles (and perhaps even within then) this has not caused so much as a ripple.

I accept that scientifically speaking catching someone out once doesn't by itself mean that they are always cheating. But by the same token I personally have yet to witness any medium doing anything remotely convincing. On TV they can look great but live they're crap. I've seen the likes of Acorah live and at the other end of the spectrum I've seen mediums at our local spiritualist church and really there's not a lot to choose between them as far as ability goes.

So just to recap Acorah was at a site which he thought was an asylum and got in touch with people who were obviously suffering from some severe mental illness. He also stated quite clearly that it was an asylum. It wasn't any such thing, it was a convalescent hospital. I won't drone on about the full details as they're already on my site but as a fist step can everyone agree that given the known facts Acorah's ability must be called into question? If you consider what went on I cannot think of a charitable explanation that gets him off the hook.

If that is the case then given that he is what we might call a celebrity medium isn't it at least worthy of some kind of media reaction?

Tony

[tonyyouens]

And just to go back off topic again...

Well at the time I was near a computer so I typed everything that happened at that moment. I also went to examine the floor and tried to move the fridge myself... It was not possible and this woman was definately weaker than I am.

This doesn't make telekinesis anymore likely. PK is not scientifically proven but people moving fridges is within the realms of possiblity. If a kid open a fridge door and started to climb up it, it would topple over, if someone, even a weak person sits on the floor and pushes it with their feet it's quite easy to move (that's how you get the washing machine back under the worktop).

The point is you cannot assume a paranormal event such as PK. It might have been moved by invisble gnomes or an as yet undiscovered breed of super mice who were after the cheese.

Tony

[MoonDragn]

Sorry for getting off the topic,

back on topic...
In my opinion most psychics on TV etc are fakes cause no psychics I've ever met could do what they do with a consistency necessary for television. This means that at least some part of it is faked.

Also, how do you separate coincidence from accuracy?

To answer your questions :

I did go back and check if the floor was level. If it was not level it would have been easy to pull that fridge back out. It was not. I tried to pull it and managed to move it about an inch with alot of difficulty. It made a similar noise to what I heard but much much slower. To have pulled it out that fast would require a very strong person.

Believe me I considered other possibilities. I didn't see it actually move but I heard it. I saw the results. I considered other logical possibilities and checked for them afterwards. The fridge was full, no amount of climbing by a kid or an adult could move it. She was a small 6 yr old child, the most she could have done was tip it over.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Well at the time I was near a computer so I typed everything that happened at that moment. I also went to examine the floor and tried to move the fridge myself... It was not possible and this woman was definately weaker than I am.
Again we only have your claim about any of this.
This is, unfortunately, why anecdotal evidence carries no weight in science.

As for the 67% that is an estimation based on the results of someone who was psychic who at different times went to a track, and to atlantic city casino with us. She won about 2/3 of the time so somewhere around 66.6% accuracy.[./b]
Again this is anecdotal. But if you know someone who wins 2/3 times at any form of gambling I suggest you contact a University for further testing as that is highly significant.

And it's nice to see that, contrary to the claims of many 'psychics', you are alowed to use the gift for personal monetary gain.

[b]I was told by a psychic in the field for a long time that even the best can only give about a 80% accuracy. On a given day its very lucky if you hit that.
So the 80% figure is merely something someone told you?
Okay.

Call it chance but I've hit that type of accuracy before on zener tests, but not consistently, because sometimes I predict 2 cards ahead instead of 1 and sometimes one symbol simply looks like another in my mind like the star and the cross.
So it couldn't possibly be that you just got it wrong? It had to be you were sensing the correct card, but incorrectly?
Much like Eric Morecambe - "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order".

Another problem with psychic tests that I see is what if psychic ability is something that is of a limited charge. For example you can only use it so much in a given amount of time. Then any large clinical trial would fail because the ability would give diminishing returns.
And what we would see in testing would be initial high rates of accuracy followed by lower accuracy. But we don't see that.
And surely your gambling friend would be winning all the time to start with, then just getting worse and worse. So she should just gamble a bit then stop.

For me personally I always start to second guess myself. I don't think zener tests are very accurate, what is more accurate is to describe a random picture someone is concentrating on etc. I've had more success with those. I don't consider myself anything but normal though, I think every human can do it.
We hear this a lot - you don't think your 'ability' is anything other than normal, yet no-one can ever do it under proper testing. Why do you think that is?

Would you consider applying for the challenge?
And why not?

[tsg]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
I accept that scientifically speaking catching someone out once doesn't by itself mean that they are always cheating.

Well, since the majority of paranormals use "it couldn't happen any other way" as proof of their abilities, I think it is very significant when another more mundane way it could happen can be demonstrated. The other thing is, if they could do it without cheating, why did they have to resort to cheating that one time? Why risk getting caught and undermining your credibility when you can do it for real?

Yes, technically it's not proof that they can't do what they claim, but it makes their evidence that they can all the more suspect.

It reminds me of a scene in Mostly Harmless by Douglas Adams: a member of the tribe Arthur Dent is living with had caught a two-headed fish which brought him much attention. When that attention was supplanted by another event, he claimed to have caught a second two-headed fish. Except this one had been made by sewing together the heads of two separate fish. Sewn so badly, in fact, that not only did it not get him the attention he desired, but cast aspersions on the origin of the first fish.

[Edited to fix my grammar]

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Also, how do you separate coincidence from accuracy?

Repeatability: if the person making the claim can consistently predict better than random chance allows. This means many, many tests that, ideally, eliminate all other possible causes for being correct. Picking a few winners at a race track is no big deal.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by Ashles
Again we only have your claim about any of this.
This is, unfortunately, why anecdotal evidence carries no weight in science.


Again this is anecdotal. But if you know someone who wins 2/3 times at any form of gambling I suggest you contact a University for further testing as that is highly significant.

And it's nice to see that, contrary to the claims of many 'psychics', you are alowed to use the gift for personal monetary gain.


So the 80% figure is merely something someone told you?
Okay.


So it couldn't possibly be that you just got it wrong? It had to be you were sensing the correct card, but incorrectly?
Much like Eric Morecambe - "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order".


And what we would see in testing would be initial high rates of accuracy followed by lower accuracy. But we don't see that.
And surely your gambling friend would be winning all the time to start with, then just getting worse and worse. So she should just gamble a bit then stop.


We hear this a lot - you don't think your 'ability' is anything other than normal, yet no-one can ever do it under proper testing. Why do you think that is?

Would you consider applying for the challenge?
And why not?

I agree, anecdotal evidence is tainted by memory and personal opinion, I didn't offer it as proof, just relating it as a event that happened.

I never understood the whole personal gain thing. If its an ability based on a function in the brain, the only reason it wouldn't work under personal gain situations is when its psychological.

Yes 80% is just a number someone stated, I never claimed that was the actual accuracy amount. I have no idea what it could be, since if anyone had anything better than 50% documented they would have won this million dollar by now.

It could be possible that I simply got it wrong. However I wrote down all my guesses and matched them with the answers and if I shifted it one position down they were all correct except the first one that was on the leading edge.

I don't think zener cards are accurate for psychic testing. The way I understand how this ability works is by seeing what card will come next. Unfortunately theres this little thing called memory. After the first few attempts you're not sure whether you're actually seeing the card in your mind or remembering it.

Another thing I noticed is when I try to guess the card, the more clear my mind was, the better I could guess it, but the longer I took to guess, the longer in the future the card would show up... IE instead of next card, it would be the 2nd card, or the 3rd card etc. There are so many variables because its a repetitive process.

Can I do this under test, maybe maybe not. I don't understand how the ability works. Sometimes I get whats called negative results. For example 1 number out of 10, I would guess every number first BUT that one.

We have so many definitions of psychic ability but what exactly is it? We give different names to different abilities like Telepathy, precognition, telekinesis etc, but are they actually related at all? What is the trigger mechanism? How can you consistently repeat your success. I've been trying to puzzle this out for over 20 years. I have gotten alot better at it, but I still can't confidently say, ok, Im gonna do it accurately in the next minute. That just doesn't seem to happen.

You see what Im saying? Its like drawing a horse. If I was really bad at drawing, sometimes you can recognize the horse, sometimes you can't. It seems like this ability is more of an art than a science.

Someone is thinking now... ok well what am I thinking now?
I see a house... with alot of water around it like a flood. This could be something related to what happened with katrina...

[tonyyouens]

How can you consistently repeat your success. I've been trying to puzzle this out for over 20 years. I have gotten alot better at it, but I still can't confidently say, ok, Im gonna do it accurately in the next minute. That just doesn't seem to happen.

Go to a good magic dealer. It takes practice but not 20 years. As Randi once said if you're using psychic powers you're doing it the hard way.

Tony

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
Go to a good magic dealer. It takes practice but not 20 years. As Randi once said if you're using psychic powers you're doing it the hard way.

Tony

I agree.I can do ESP matching 10 out of 10.Would it win me the million? Doubt it.;)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I never understood the whole personal gain thing. If its an ability based on a function in the brain, the only reason it wouldn't work under personal gain situations is when its psychological.
But if it is just a mundane function of the brain, why does it have a 'charge' and runs out (as you have described it elsewhere)? What other function of the brain behaves like that?

But if it is a function of the brain, why does it contravene so many physical laws?
And why can nobody reproduce the effect reliably?
And why has this ability not been hugely genetically selected for?
And why don't we see it in other animals?

Yes 80% is just a number someone stated, I never claimed that was the actual accuracy amount. I have no idea what it could be, since if anyone had anything better than 50% documented they would have won this million dollar by now.
It seems a bit odd to me to just accept a figure someone tells you that has no evidence backing it up or likelihood of being true.
But I guess that's why I describe myself as a sceptic.

It could be possible that I simply got it wrong. However I wrote down all my guesses and matched them with the answers and if I shifted it one position down they were all correct except the first one that was on the leading edge.
Again it is hard to know how seriously to take your claims.
The ability to correctly guess cards accurately one in advance would be every bit as impressive as any other paranormal claim.
And would be worthy of the challenge.

But it appears that your guesses are incorrect as much as we would expect by chance. The fact that you can retrospectively look at the results and perceive a pattern doesn't really mean anything if it is inconsistent.

If you can't recognise the pattern before you see the results then it is, by definition, not precognition.

I don't think zener cards are accurate for psychic testing. The way I understand how this ability works is by seeing what card will come next. Unfortunately theres this little thing called memory. After the first few attempts you're not sure whether you're actually seeing the card in your mind or remembering it.
That doesn't really matter. The idea of testing is to tell whether you can perceive what will happen at a future point in time. If you can't then you don't have the ability.

If someone asks me to predict the next card drawn from a standard deck and I say the Queen of Hearts and it is any other card... I am incorrect. Any later attempts to retroactivbely fit my result to another card chosen at a different time is just delusion.
I failed to pick the correct card.

Another thing I noticed is when I try to guess the card, the more clear my mind was, the better I could guess it, but the longer I took to guess, the longer in the future the card would show up... IE instead of next card, it would be the 2nd card, or the 3rd card etc. There are so many variables because its a repetitive process.
Again retrospective pattern matching.
And if this were the case you could be tested only when your mind was 'clear'. That way we would know the first few would be almost certain to be correct.

Can I do this under test, maybe maybe not. I don't understand how the ability works. Sometimes I get whats called negative results. For example 1 number out of 10, I would guess every number first BUT that one.
So once again your results match what the rest of us refer to as 'chance'.
Calling it 'negative results' is no more convincing than all the other times we have heard that excuse.

We have so many definitions of psychic ability but what exactly is it? We give different names to different abilities like Telepathy, precognition, telekinesis etc, but are they actually related at all? What is the trigger mechanism? How can you consistently repeat your success. I've been trying to puzzle this out for over 20 years. I have gotten alot better at it, but I still can't confidently say, ok, Im gonna do it accurately in the next minute. That just doesn't seem to happen.
But how can you say you have got better at it when your results still match chance?
Is it just that you have found more creative excuses to explain the random patterns?

You see what Im saying? Its like drawing a horse. If I was really bad at drawing, sometimes you can recognize the horse, sometimes you can't. It seems like this ability is more of an art than a science.
But art is real and actually produces things. Paintings, songs...
Predictions are just empty words. Madmen, politicians and estate agents can produce the same with very little effort.

What is the point of precognition when it is indistinguishable from chance?

Someone is thinking now... ok well what am I thinking now?
I see a house... with alot of water around it like a flood. This could be something related to what happened with katrina...
So someone on the internet is possibly thinking about the most currently talked about natural disaster in the world?
Goodness, that's amazing.

Any chance you could tell us about the next disaster so we could have some warning instead?

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by Ashles
But if it is just a mundane function of the brain, why does it have a 'charge' and runs out (as you have described it elsewhere)? What other function of the brain behaves like that?

But if it is a function of the brain, why does it contravene so many physical laws?
And why can nobody reproduce the effect reliably?
And why has this ability not been hugely genetically selected for?
And why don't we see it in other animals?



First of all, what physical law are you talking about? Every one of those psychic abilities can be explained by the laws of physics once you know the mechanism. For example, take telekinesis and pyrokeneis. They have discovered an effect called quantum teleportation where it is possible to copy a subatomic particle from one location to another. From my interviews of people who claim to have telekinesis, they always mention vibration, and translocation from one place to another. They don't actually think about MOVING an object but actually think about vibrating an object and having it appear somewhere else. Theres definately a relationship somewhere here. I wonder if its possible for the brain to control molecues on a subatomic level. Pyrokenesis would be moving molecues fast enough to cause its temperature to rise.

Of all of the people online I have interviewed that claimed to have psychic powers. Almost all of them had celtic ancestry. Most of them also had some kind of brain disorder like dyslexia or ADD or had it in their children. That seems to indicate a genetic relationship.

There was one show on Ripley's believe it or not where they showed a horse that could do math. When they tested it further, they found that the horse somehow could read what his owner was thinking instead. They did a test where the only thought of a different number other than the correct answer to the problem and the horse matched the owner every time. So animals do exhibit psychic abilities also.

Originally posted by Ashles
It seems a bit odd to me to just accept a figure someone tells you that has no evidence backing it up or likelihood of being true.
But I guess that's why I describe myself as a sceptic.



Again, I never said I accepted a figure. But look at the field of cosmology for example, alot of assumptions are made of our universe based on the color of the light coming from the stars. Think how many figures we are assuming there! Dark matter is more fantastic than psychic powers I assure you.

Originally posted by Ashles
Again it is hard to know how seriously to take your claims.
The ability to correctly guess cards accurately one in advance would be every bit as impressive as any other paranormal claim.
And would be worthy of the challenge.

But it appears that your guesses are incorrect as much as we would expect by chance. The fact that you can retrospectively look at the results and perceive a pattern doesn't really mean anything if it is inconsistent.

If you can't recognise the pattern before you see the results then it is, by definition, not precognition.



But thats where it gets muddled. How do you define a pattern. Predicting something in the future could be 1 card or 10 cards away. Restricting it to just 1 card ahead is really not accurate. I took an online zener test and had first 6 in a row correct and then all of a sudden all the answers after that was wrong out of 20. What caused that? I have no idea, but it is still a statistical anomaly. I am suggesting that a proper precog test would look at every anomaly that occurs not just the obvious one. Something specific like drawing a picture of something someone is concentrating on in another room, or describing it. Or writing down words that pop into your mind etc.

The problem with zener test is that each question is the same as the one before. If you really wanna do a proper test, have each question's shapes be different from the ones before. The repetitiveness of the shapes is affecting the accuracy of the results.

Originally posted by Ashles
That doesn't really matter. The idea of testing is to tell whether you can perceive what will happen at a future point in time. If you can't then you don't have the ability.

If someone asks me to predict the next card drawn from a standard deck and I say the Queen of Hearts and it is any other card... I am incorrect. Any later attempts to retroactivbely fit my result to another card chosen at a different time is just delusion.
I failed to pick the correct card.



I am saying that as long as you limit each trial to a low number then the results are more accurate. I don't understand it but thats how it seems to work. A low number of guesses over a long period of time seems to be better for me than a high number of guesses in a short period of time.

Originally posted by Ashles
Again retrospective pattern matching.
And if this were the case you could be tested only when your mind was 'clear'. That way we would know the first few would be almost certain to be correct.

So once again your results match what the rest of us refer to as 'chance'.
Calling it 'negative results' is no more convincing than all the other times we have heard that excuse.

But how can you say you have got better at it when your results still match chance?
Is it just that you have found more creative excuses to explain the random patterns?



Because you're still stuck on the idea of pattern matching and its more than that. Its the ability to predict ONE accurate result sometimes in the future at an indeterminable moment. This is almost like heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can accurately predict only the position or the velocity of an electron at any given moment but not both. Seems precognition works on a similar level.

Originally posted by Ashles
But art is real and actually produces things. Paintings, songs...
Predictions are just empty words. Madmen, politicians and estate agents can produce the same with very little effort.

What is the point of precognition when it is indistinguishable from chance?



Then the Bible is just a rant by madmen because its full of predictions. Art is real because we have the ability to appreciate art. What distinquishes a mad squibble drawn by some famous elephant as art and not just some random mess? (that elephant's paintings is selling for thousands of dollars btw). Precognition is only recognizable after some event in the future matches your prediction. But what if there are multiple futures? Would it just be the ability to correctly guess the most likely possibility? How can we test something we have no idea what the parameters are for?

Originally posted by Ashles
So someone on the internet is possibly thinking about the most currently talked about natural disaster in the world?
Goodness, that's amazing.

Any chance you could tell us about the next disaster so we could have some warning instead?

Im not talking about a specific event, I was talking about a specific image I was seeing. Someone here was thinking of a white or off white house, possibly victorian, which had alot of water around it. The house I saw was mostly intact. I don't know what the significance of it was, nor what it had to do with anything at all. I simply mentioned katrina cause that was the most talked about subject atm. It may have nothing to do with it.

As for events. I wish I could find my post on another board. I mentioned that we were going to have some major earthquake about 2-3 days before the 9.0 Tsunami quake that happened in south east asia a while back. The date of the post was clearly before the event.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I am saying that as long as you limit each trial to a low number then the results are more accurate. I don't understand it but thats how it seems to work. A low number of guesses over a long period of time seems to be better for me than a high number of guesses in a short period of time. Seems, Why not record them ?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
First of all, what physical law are you talking about? Every one of those psychic abilities can be explained by the laws of physics once you know the mechanism. For example, take telekinesis and pyrokeneis. They have discovered an effect called quantum teleportation where it is possible to copy a subatomic particle from one location to another. From my interviews of people who claim to have telekinesis, they always mention vibration, and translocation from one place to another. They don't actually think about MOVING an object but actually think about vibrating an object and having it appear somewhere else. Theres definately a relationship somewhere here. I wonder if its possible for the brain to control molecues on a subatomic level.
As has been explanied in gret detail in a great many places the behaviour of subatomic particles does not scale up to real world objects - the micro and macro world operate differently.

Throwing around quantum physics buzzwords does not constitute an actual scientific theory about telekinesis and pyrokinesis.

So whatever properties subatomic particles might display is irrelevent hen you are talking about the physics of observable real world objects.
Which is exactly what Schrodingers thought experiment with the cat was supposed to demonstrate - i.e. the fact that it wasn't a performable experiment.

So I'm afraid that your coment "Every one of those psychic abilities can be explained by the laws of physics once you know the mechanism" is completely incorrect within the framework of current scientific theory.

I am no expert on the subject, but I have actually tried reading some of it - if you had you would understand why attempting to use Quantum Physics to back up paranormal claims merely demonstrates that you don't really undertand the basic principles of QM.

Again, I never said I accepted a figure. But look at the field of cosmology for example, alot of assumptions are made of our universe based on the color of the light coming from the stars. Think how many figures we are assuming there! Dark matter is more fantastic than psychic powers I assure you.
How many figures are we assuming exactly? The speed of light is pretty well known, as is the details of colour shifting.
What figures involved in the calculations are you disputing?

And dark matter is a compelling theory created as a result of observed facts.
Psychic powers are not.

But thats where it gets muddled. How do you define a pattern. Prediction something in the future could be 1 card or 10 cards away. Restricting it to just 1 card ahead is really not accurate. I took an online zener test and had first 6 in a row correct and then all of a sudden all the answers after that was wrong out of 20. What caused that? I have no idea, but it is still a statistical anomaly. I am suggesting that a proper precog test would look at every anomaly that occurs not just the obvious one.
So basically you are suggesting a methodology which refuses to allow the possibility of failure.
If you predict a card incorrectly, it isn't wrong, you just predicted a card from the future?

This isn't science Moondragon.

How are you supposed to differentiate between your random 'accurate' predictions and actually not having any precognitive ability?
Where is the falsifiability in your test?

I am saying that as long as you limit each trial to a low number then the results are more accurate. I don't understand it but thats how it seems to work. A low number of guesses over a long period of time seems to be better for me than a high number of guesses in a short period of time.
And this demonstrates your lack of understanding of probability and statistics.

I could toss a coin 10 times and get heads 8 times. I would not consider this an indication of my ability to effect the coin toss, merely that the smaller the data set, the larger random clustering of results will appear.
It has very well known statistical terms which I'm afraid I can't remember.

Because you're still stuck on the idea of pattern matching and its more than that. Its the ability to predict ONE accurate result sometimes in the future at an indeterminable moment. This is almost like heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can accurately predict only the position or the velocity of an electron at any given moment but not both. Seems precognition works on a similar level.
It is absolutely nothing like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which, again, applies only to subatomic particles).

If you attempt to predict a card and you get another card, in what way are you anything other than incorrect?

If I say you are fat with black hair and a tattoo on your face and you say that does not describe you, am I still correct?
Even if I say maybe you will be fat later in life, or maybe, by 'Heisenberg's uncertainty principle' you would have chosen to get the tattoo had I not mentioned it to you...

With a tiny amount of incorrect information about QM it is possible to create all sorts of wild theories. But they bear little relation to real QM which, let's not forget, is essentially a mathematical way of modelling the physical universe.
I don't see you using any maths to back up your theories.

Then the Bible is just a rant by madmen because its full of predictions.
What predictions that have come true?
And since when was an allegorical guide to living morally a 'rant by madmen'?
Was Gulliver's Travels an equally insane rant by a madman?

Art is real because we have the ability to appreciate art. What distinquishes a mad squibble drawn by some famous elephant as art and not just some random mess? (that elephant's paintings is selling for thousands of dollars btw)
What distinguishes good art from bad? Opinion.
What does opinion have to do with scientific theories about the world?
To paraphrase someone's sig:
Reality is that which exists regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

Im not talking about a specific event, I was talking about a specific image I was seeing. Someone here was thinking of a white or off white house, possibly victorian, which had alot of water around it. The house I saw was mostly intact. I don't know what the significance of it was, nor what it had to do with anything at all. I simply mentioned katrina cause that was the most talked about subject atm. It may have nothing to do with it.
And someone else is thinking about a 2 bedroom flat that they are considering buying, but they are unhappy with the size of the second bedroom especially as they are thinking about having children soon.
But the street has good parking.

We can all make guesses. Some will be correct.

As for events. I wish I could find my post on another board. I mentioned that we were going to have some major earthquake about 2-3 days before the 9.0 Tsunami quake that happened in south east asia a while back. The date of the post was clearly before the event.
Are you aware of how many earthquakes there are per year?
And how often 'psychics' predict natural disasters?

I wonder why you don't think it is strange that there is never a great clusering of 'psychic predictions' before major events.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by Ashles
As has been explanied in gret detail in a great many places the behaviour of subatomic particles does not scale up to real world objects - the micro and macro world operate differently.

Throwing around quantum physics buzzwords does not constitute an actual scientific theory about telekinesis and pyrokinesis.

So whatever properties subatomic particles might display is irrelevent hen you are talking about the physics of observable real world objects.
Which is exactly what Schrodingers thought experiment with the cat was supposed to demonstrate - i.e. the fact that it wasn't a performable experiment.

So I'm afraid that your coment "Every one of those psychic abilities can be explained by the laws of physics once you know the mechanism" is completely incorrect within the framework of current scientific theory.

I am no expert on the subject, but I have actually tried reading some of it - if you had you would understand why attempting to use Quantum Physics to back up paranormal claims merely demonstrates that you don't really undertand the basic principles of QM.


Well I took two years of it in college. I don't think YOU really understand it or you'd not have made those comments. Everything relates in physics no matter how small. Normal physics is actually a simplification of QM. I think maybe you better go back to reading as you missed the entire point of schroedinger's cat.
Its not that it wasn't performable, its that we cannot predict the outcome without some kind of controled feedback. Read up more about it. There is one thing I agree with you, is that our current laws of phsyics does not allow the ability to predic the future.

As for microscopic not scale up... Boy did you fail chemistry? Most of the properties of an element is based on its subatomic structure.

Originally posted by Ashles

How many figures are we assuming exactly? The speed of light is pretty well known, as is the details of colour shifting.
What figures involved in the calculations are you disputing?

And dark matter is a compelling theory created as a result of observed facts.
Psychic powers are not.


Speed of light was said to be a constant. Now they discover that it isn't actually a constant but affected by gravity.

The details of color shift was based on the speed of light being a constant. If they were wrong about that, they could be wrong about alot of things including dark matter. Its a compelling theory. But so is psychic powers. Observed fact? Without knowing more about the universe that is just a stab in the dark at best. forgive the pun.

Originally posted by Ashles

So basically you are suggesting a methodology which refuses to allow the possibility of failure.
If you predict a card incorrectly, it isn't wrong, you just predicted a card from the future?

This isn't science Moondragon.

How are you supposed to differentiate between your random 'accurate' predictions and actually not having any precognitive ability?
Where is the falsifiability in your test?

And this demonstrates your lack of understanding of probability and statistics.

I could toss a coin 10 times and get heads 8 times. I would not consider this an indication of my ability to effect the coin toss, merely that the smaller the data set, the larger random clustering of results will appear.
It has very well known statistical terms which I'm afraid I can't remember.

It is absolutely nothing like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which, again, applies only to subatomic particles).

If you attempt to predict a card and you get another card, in what way are you anything other than incorrect?


Looks like you missed my point entirely. This is exactly what Im talking about when I say that western doctors look at a small area and miss the big picture. I am not talking about statistics. This whole test is flawed because its based on repetitive patterns. You need an unique event to predict every single time to get accurate results not some stupid repetitive pattern match.
This is exactly why people like you can't be doing the tests. You try to relate everything to statistics and it just doesn't work that way.

What are the parameters to define precognition? It is the ability to predict an event sometimes in the future. Details? What time? what location? How? Why? I am saying that its impossible to know ALL of the parameters. Precognition is when somehow most of the parameters is known to you.

Think of it like an algebra problem with different variables. X, Y, Z etc. When you do a test like Zener, you are reducing the problem down to only 1 variable. Except that precognition is the ability to predict ONE or more of those variables. Sometimes you may accurately predict X, sometimes Y, sometimes Z. That just isn't reproducable because we still know what the triggers are, how to determine which parameter is accurate and which is not til AFTER it occurs.

Thats why, its a novel ability, but nobody in their right mind would ever rely on it, nor go into a laboratory to get tested for it.

Originally posted by Ashles

If I say you are fat with black hair and a tattoo on your face and you say that does not describe you, am I still correct?
Even if I say maybe you will be fat later in life, or maybe, by 'Heisenberg's uncertainty principle' you would have chosen to get the tattoo had I not mentioned it to you...

With a tiny amount of incorrect information about QM it is possible to create all sorts of wild theories. But they bear little relation to real QM which, let's not forget, is essentially a mathematical way of modelling the physical universe.
I don't see you using any maths to back up your theories.


If I said you were stupid with very limited mental abilities and you say thats does not describe you, am I still incorrect? Even if I said you would be stupid later in life, by some sort of accident of birth, would you attribute it to statistical probability?

Originally posted by Ashles
What predictions that have come true?
And since when was an allegorical guide to living morally a 'rant by madmen'?
Was Gulliver's Travels an equally insane rant by a madman?

Allegorical guide that seems to contain alot of predictions. Wasn't the bible written by so called "prophets"? What differentiates these prophets from someone ranting about end of the world who ends up in the insane asylum?
Have you ever seen god? Have you ever witnessed a miracle? How do we know god's will if we've never met him?
How do you know hell exists? have you ever gone there?

The problem is not everything in the world can be proven by our current level of science. We take the existence of god by faith. Does it make it any less real to some people? Yes, its not in our current realm of science. Not til we find a relationship that we can someday understand. That doesn't mean there isn't some scientific principle out there to explain god. Being ignorant is no excuse for being close minded.

Originally posted by Ashles

What distinguishes good art from bad? Opinion.
What does opinion have to do with scientific theories about the world?
To paraphrase someone's sig:
Reality is that which exists regardless of whether you believe in it or not.


exactly, and what distinquishes a good prediction from a bad one.. Opinion. Thats why its more like art than science.

You are wrong however about reality. Reality exists only in your mind. What you perceive defines your reality. Not everyone's reality is exactly the same because they do not perceive it the same way. You can't force your reality on someone else because both of your realities are different. To do so is to be a regid close minded person who thinks only his ideas are correct.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles

And someone else is thinking about a 2 bedroom flat that they are considering buying, but they are unhappy with the size of the second bedroom especially as they are thinking about having children soon.
But the street has good parking.

We can all make guesses. Some will be correct.

In this instance, it would be correct if someone reading this post was thinking about that exact senario. Yes we can all make guesses and yes some will be correct. But you are bringing statistics into it again. Chance is not a good measure of ability. Stop relating the two. If I threw a multi-dimensional coin into the air with infinite sides, what are the chances of me predicting which side it will land on. Do your math. Now do you still think its chance? Time is infinite. So are the possiblities. You cannot reduce it to a 3 dimensional problem.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles

Are you aware of how many earthquakes there are per year?
And how often 'psychics' predict natural disasters?

I wonder why you don't think it is strange that there is never a great clusering of 'psychic predictions' before major events.

Absolutely, I am quite aware, but this was a post about an earthquake of high intensity which I saw the number 9. I was posting about a dream and its symbolism. I wasn't trying to predict anything and was just relating what I saw. Take it however you like.

What exactly is your point btw, I think its kind of odd that you are arguing with me about something I stated as an opinion.
Didn't you say that opinion is not science?

[Darat]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
...snip...

Everything relates in physics no matter how small. Normal physics is actually a simplification of QM.


...snip...

When did this happen?!

[Azrael 5]

Ashles ol boy,your posts get deeper! Ill stick to arguing small points with my limited scientifc education-a CSE in Applied science! :p

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I think maybe you better go back to reading as you missed the entire point of schroedinger's cat.
Its not that it wasn't performable, its that we cannot predict the outcome without some kind of controled feedback. Read up more about it.

Maybe you ought to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat)

Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment used to show how quantum mechanical theory does not apply to macroscopic systems. The idea that a particle that can exist in two states exists in both states simultaneously until it is observed is incomplete without a definition of "observed". When is the state of the particle in the experiment observed, when the box is opened or the particle hits the detector? The point of the experiment is not to show that the cat would be both alive and dead, but that the rules of quantum mechanics need to be refined before they can be applied to macroscopic systems.

Schroedinger's Cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by tsg
Maybe you ought to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat)

Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment used to show how quantum mechanical theory does not apply to macroscopic systems. The idea that a particle that can exist in two states exists in both states simultaneously until it is observed is incomplete without a definition of "observed". When is the state of the particle in the experiment observed, when the box is opened or the particle hits the detector? The point of the experiment is not to show that the cat would be both alive and dead, but that the rules of quantum mechanics need to be refined before they can be applied to macroscopic systems.

Schroedinger's Cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.

If you read any recent articles about the nature of light, you'll find that they have indeed explained some of the duality of light. Light is indeed composed of particles, but because there is a distribution of photons in the pattern of a wave form it has properties of a wave. Light has been discovered to be composed of different types of photons. It is actually possible to speed up light by altering the composition of the photon types. I can't find the link or I'd paste it here.

Quantum mechanics is used to explain the properties of subatomic particles, yet the philosophy of quantum mechanics carries much further than the microscopic. Read the book The Dancing Wu Li Masters By Gary Zukav. It explains how eastern philsophy and quantum mechanics has alot in common and how it can be used to describe things on a macroscopic scale.

[John Jackson]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
From my interviews of people who claim to have telekinesis, they always mention vibration, and translocation from one place to another. They don't actually think about MOVING an object but actually think about vibrating an object and having it appear somewhere else.
I have no problem accepting that people can think about such a thing. Can they actually do it though? That's the important question.

There's little point in theorising as to the mechanism (vibrations, energies, quantum this or that) of this phenomenon if can't actually be demonstrated.

We'd actually need to see telekinesis (or whatever) working before discussing its mechanism.
Originally posted by MoonDragn
There was one show on Ripley's believe it or not where they showed a horse that could do math. When they tested it further, they found that the horse somehow could read what his owner was thinking instead. They did a test where the only thought of a different number other than the correct answer to the problem and the horse matched the owner every time. So animals do exhibit psychic abilities also.
You mean just like Clever Hans (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=clever_hans.php)

The answer to animals with psychic ability was found in 1907.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by John Jackson
I have no problem accepting that people can think about such a thing. Can they actually do it though? That's the important question.

There's little point in theorising as to the mechanism (vibrations, energies, quantum this or that) of this phenomenon if can't actually be demonstrated.

We'd actually need to see telekinesis (or whatever) working before discussing its mechanism.


Gee if we could do that we'd win that million dollars wouldn't we?

I think each one of those phenomenon should be treated as a unique case though and not lumped together as one "Psychic Phenomenon" There may well be some phenomenon there that can be demonstrated and proved.

Originally posted by John Jackson
You mean just like Clever Hans (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=clever_hans.php)

The answer to animals with psychic ability was found in 1907. [/B]

You know I wish I could remember the episode again, its been a long time but I think I remember they mensioned clever hans and had the horse in another tent to eliminate any kind of visual cues from the owner. I don't remember if the results were positive or negative.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Well I took two years of it in college. I don't think YOU really understand it or you'd not have made those comments.
Appeal to false authority.

Some of your comments imply you may have slept through those two years.

Everything relates in physics no matter how small. Normal physics is actually a simplification of QM.
It's hard to tell what you are trying to say here.
I think perhaps you mean Newtonian physics describes the behaviour of macroscopic objects approximately, but in detail is inaccurate and totally inapplicable to the subatomic world.
QM describes the macro and micro scale extremely well, but for the macro world would be so astonishingly complicated that we generally stick to Newotnian physics as it does the job well enough.

None of this means that properties of the subatomic world can be scaled up to the macroscopic world. real life objects do not display indeterminacy etc.

I think maybe you better go back to reading as you missed the entire point of schroedinger's cat.
Its not that it wasn't performable, its that we cannot predict the outcome without some kind of controled feedback. Read up more about it.
You say you did two years of QM and yet you claim that my statement was incorrect?
I have read about Schroeinger's Cat many times and the comments are always the same. Here (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCHRCAT.HTM) is an example:
Schroedinger's Cat is a good example of a "thought experiment," a device often used in physics to investigate the consequences of hypotheses. It is a great heuristic device that illustrates some of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics while sharpening our inquiries. But problems arise from the many people who take it too literally. These include some scientists who should know better and a lot of would-be philosophers of science who believe esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived).
Clearly, we rapidly end up with absurdities if we assume that conscious observing determines the state of a system. What is important are the changes that occur in the system, and any physical object that is potentially capable of being influenced by the event is an "observer". The atomic decay has already been "observed" because the nucleus that decayed has changed. The system whose quantum state "collapses" is the particle in the atomic nucleus that changes during a radioactive decay.
Where is the 'controlled feedback'?

The experiment is not a real experiment - it is a thought experiment.
Or are you claiming Schroedinger was wrong?

There is one thing I agree with you, is that our current laws of phsyics does not allow the ability to predic the future.

As for microscopic not scale up... Boy did you fail chemistry? Most of the properties of an element is based on its subatomic structure.
And how does that lead you to assume that the properties of sub atomic particles can be scaled up?
Just because the number of subatomic particles give a chemical its identity and properties, how does that mean that the element will subsequently be capable of everything that the subatomic particles are capable of?
Because, they just aren't.

This isn't my opinion it is fairly well documented in all relevent sites and publications.

Speed of light was said to be a constant. Now they discover that it isn't actually a constant but affected by gravity.

The details of color shift was based on the speed of light being a constant. If they were wrong about that, they could be wrong about alot of things including dark matter. Its a compelling theory. But so is psychic powers. Observed fact? Without knowing more about the universe that is just a stab in the dark at best. forgive the pun.
But theories are all fairly irrelevant if they are formulated to explain something that has never been reliably observed.
Dark matter had been theorised to explain observed discrepancies in galaxy mass.

But what are paranormal theories explaining? Nothing that has been reliably observed.

The first step is to demonstrate that these abilities exist, but after years of repeated and intense testing, there is still no evidence.

I am at work and wil have to repond to the rest of your post at another time.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
If you read any recent articles about the nature of light, you'll find that they have indeed explained some of the duality of light. Light is indeed composed of particles, but because there is a distribution of photons in the pattern of a wave form it has properties of a wave. Light has been discovered to be composed of different types of photons. It is actually possible to speed up light by altering the composition of the photon types. I can't find the link or I'd paste it here.

Quantum mechanics is used to explain the properties of subatomic particles, yet the philosophy of quantum mechanics carries much further than the microscopic. Read the book The Dancing Wu Li Masters By Gary Zukav. It explains how eastern philsophy and quantum mechanics has alot in common and how it can be used to describe things on a macroscopic scale.

Neither the wave-particle duality of light nor the wrapping of quantum mechanics in eastern mysticism have anything to do with your misrepresentation of Schroedinger's Cat.

If you have a point, I'm afraid I missed it entirely.

[MoonDragn]

A controlled feedback would relate to something that can tell you what the state of the cat is in the box. Yes it was a thought experiment. It in a way is philosophical in nature. Like the old question about a tree falling in the forest and theres noone there to hear it, did it make a sound? With telekinesis it would be easy to show an effect because something moved. With precognition though I don't think the results are quite as clear cut.

Read my above comment about the book Dancing Wu Li masters. Quantum theory can be thought of in very macroscopic ways.

I agree with you about needing to demonstrate something observable. Currently the only "proof" we have of any of these phenomenon is by accounts of other people which could have had any number of factors that tainted the results. Yet the question I am asking is, how can we provide the right kind of conditions to achieve an observable result?

As for dark matter, if we made an incorrect assumption based on an incorrect observation, it would still be as plausable as psychic phenomenon. There is something observable here, we just need to figure out what.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by tsg
Neither the wave-particle duality of light nor the wrapping of quantum mechanics in eastern mysticism have anything to do with your misrepresentation of Schroedinger's Cat.

If you have a point, I'm afraid I missed it entirely.

I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain it to get my point across. How am I misrepresenting schroedinger's cat? We cannot be certain if its state because we have no way of measuring it correctly. Isn't that what led to heisenberg's theory? Isn't that what we're talking about here? The inability to measure psychic phenomenon because we really don't have an accurate way to measure it.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain it to get my point across. How am I misrepresenting schroedinger's cat? We cannot be certain if its state because we have no way of measuring it correctly. Isn't that what led to heisenberg's theory?

Schroedinger's Cat had absolutely nothing to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment showing the ridiculousness of the idea that the state of a particle was undetermined until someone knew what it was. The cat is either alive or dead whether or not anybody knows. And we can measure it correctly, simply open the box.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that there is a lower bound to the accuracy in measuring both the speed and position of a particle. It does not state that you can't know anything about both, only that your accuracy is limited. It also does not apply to simply measuring one of those characteristics.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle was discovered in 1927 while Schroedinger's Cat wasn't around until 1935.

Isn't that what we're talking about here? The inability to measure psychic phenomenon because we really don't have an accurate way to measure it.

If someone claims to be able to predict future events or read minds, it is entirely possible to test those claims. How much that supports the existence of psychic abilities is entirely dependent on how specific and accurate those predictions are. But you've imposed so many constraints and excuses on why those predictions may not be accurate that it seems having psychic abilities, if they do indeed exist, is of little use. If that is the case, then what is the big deal about them existing? If the claim "I'm psychic" means little more than "I'm right slightly more often than random guessing", where's the miracle?

If psychic ability means being able to predict the flip of a coin 50.01% of the time then it's a not much of an ability and certainly doesn't live up to the claims.

[Temp3st]

Originally posted by phenomenon
Personally I feel the human brain is capable of far more than we are aware of at the moment.

I'm still waiting for phenomenon to give us some examples for the above.

I'm also interested as to why he thinks this is the case?


....oh and to keep it on topic - I ******* hate Achora!

[69dodge]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I am not talking about statistics. This whole test is flawed because its based on repetitive patterns. You need an unique event to predict every single time to get accurate results not some stupid repetitive pattern match.

This is exactly why people like you can't be doing the tests. You try to relate everything to statistics and it just doesn't work that way.

What are the parameters to define precognition? It is the ability to predict an event sometimes in the future. Details? What time? what location? How? Why? I am saying that its impossible to know ALL of the parameters. Precognition is when somehow most of the parameters is known to you.

Think of it like an algebra problem with different variables. X, Y, Z etc. When you do a test like Zener, you are reducing the problem down to only 1 variable. Except that precognition is the ability to predict ONE or more of those variables. Sometimes you may accurately predict X, sometimes Y, sometimes Z. That just isn't reproducable because we still know what the triggers are, how to determine which parameter is accurate and which is not til AFTER it occurs.It would be easy to develop a test that has multiple pictures on each card, and where the person being tested doesn't have to get them all right. Do you think that would be a better test?

Any test is fine, as long as the expected outcome when taken by someone who has precognition differs from the expected outcome when taken by someone who doesn't have precognition.

It's important to be clear about what we'd expect from someone who doesn't have precognition, too, not just what we'd expect from someone who has precognition. Otherwise, how could we hope to tell them apart based on the result of the test?

Someone who doesn't have precognition might anyway be expected occasionally to make some lucky guesses that happen to turn out to be correct. So you can see that we need to be somewhat careful in developing a test.

[MoonDragn]

Schroedinger's Cat had absolutely nothing to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment showing the ridiculousness of the idea that the state of a particle was undetermined until someone knew what it was. The cat is either alive or dead whether or not anybody knows. And we can measure it correctly, simply open the box


Bingo! I never mentioned Schroedinger's cat in my original posts, it was brought up by ashe when I brought up heisenberg's.


It's important to be clear about what we'd expect from someone who doesn't have precognition, too, not just what we'd expect from someone who has precognition. Otherwise, how could we hope to tell them apart based on the result of the test


What if everyone had precognition to a certain degree? How do humans "Guess" ? I've always wondered about the process in which we chose a random number etc. On a computer, the random number generator is pseudo random cause it uses a seeded value based on the system clock. What do humans use?

It is possible on a computer to predict a future "random" number that will be generated based on past numbers. I wonder if precognition is just an ability of the human mind to calculate something similar.

Either way, in my opinion, a zener type test designed with unique pictures for each question would be better. I think that the basis line should be answers given randomly by a computer to simulate something without the ability.

Incidentally has anyone ever tested how a computer fares on a normal zener test against a probabilities table?

[tonyyouens]

Okay well thanks for all that. I think we can now agree that the Acorah uncertainty principle did not enable him to get in touch with a mad dead cat as the cat was still alive in the box at the time although it was born in 1935.

Some of you may recall that I asked if anyone cared if mediums were fake. I consider this has now been answered.

Tony

[MoonDragn]

I am sorry for sidetracking your topic tony. I personally don't think theres much we can do about fake mediums. It is very much similar to blind faith. People believe what they will no matter how much evidence you give them. Like PT Barnum said "Theres a sucker born every minute'.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Bingo! I never mentioned Schroedinger's cat in my original posts, it was brought up by ashe when I brought up heisenberg's.

You said that the point of Schroedinger's cat was "that we cannot predict the outcome without some kind of controled feedback." It's not. You then claimed that it led to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It didn't.

What if everyone had precognition to a certain degree? How do humans "Guess" ? I've always wondered about the process in which we chose a random number etc. On a computer, the random number generator is pseudo random cause it uses a seeded value based on the system clock. What do humans use?

Humans are very poor random number generators. That's why cryptography always uses some random process to choose them.

It is possible on a computer to predict a future "random" number that will be generated based on past numbers. I wonder if precognition is just an ability of the human mind to calculate something similar.

This is because a computer uses a mathematical equation to choose the next number. Given the inputs, the output is easy to find. Being able to predict the outcome of a "truly" random event, such as the tossing of a coin or the throw of a die, without being able to "see the future" would require knowledge of all the factors and how they will affect the outcome. Most of these won't be knowable until just before the outcome is decided and would require so much calculation as to make it near impossible to predict. But even if it were possible, it doesn't translate into psychic ability.

Either way, in my opinion, a zener type test designed with unique pictures for each question would be better. I think that the basis line should be answers given randomly by a computer to simulate something without the ability.

The computer isn't necessary. In a standard Zener deck there are five cards each of five unique designs. Provided the test is performed with replacement, he will be able to predict the next card correctly by chance alone 20% of the time in the long run. Someone with more knowledge of statistics will have to tell me how many trials are needed before the results are statistically significant.

Incidentally has anyone ever tested how a computer fares on a normal zener test against a probabilities table?

I've done a number of probability models on a computer and have yet to see one with better success rates than random chance would allow. I'm not sure what a zener test of a computer's abilities would accomplish.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by tsg
You said that the point of Schroedinger's cat was "that we cannot predict the outcome without some kind of controled feedback." It's not. You then claimed that it led to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It didn't.



I didn't mean it directly led to the principle but is a related thought process. Please read this

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html

It explains the wave/particle duality references I keep giving about light etc. It explains the principle in a more technical way and the whole relationship of micro/macro etc. Its a good read.

Originally posted by tsg
Humans are very poor random number generators. That's why cryptography always uses some random process to choose them.

This is because a computer uses a mathematical equation to choose the next number. Given the inputs, the output is easy to find. Being able to predict the outcome of a "truly" random event, such as the tossing of a coin or the throw of a die, without being able to "see the future" would require knowledge of all the factors and how they will affect the outcome. Most of these won't be knowable until just before the outcome is decided and would require so much calculation as to make it near impossible to predict. But even if it were possible, it doesn't translate into psychic ability.

The computer isn't necessary. In a standard Zener deck there are five cards each of five unique designs. Provided the test is performed with replacement, he will be able to predict the next card correctly by chance alone 20% of the time in the long run. Someone with more knowledge of statistics will have to tell me how many trials are needed before the results are statistically significant.

I've done a number of probability models on a computer and have yet to see one with better success rates than random chance would allow. I'm not sure what a zener test of a computer's abilities would accomplish. [/B]

Well I believe that in a Zener psychic test, we're dealing with a collapsed model of the actual probabilities. We reduced several of the variables in attempt to isolate an "ability" to predict only ONE of those variables.

What I'm stating is that precognition is an ability similar to the uncertainty principle in philosphy, in that you can not accurately predict all of the variables in one session.

I believe its like a set of infinate probabilities that change at every moment. In any moment, the exact path of probabilties meet where the human mind can gain insight, however its a possiblity in an undetermined point in the future. Therefore, we know a card will show up, but we don't know when. This is why I suggested unique cards for every question. This will eliminate that variable and give a more accurate result.

At what point do we determine that its precognition and not simple chance? better than chance is 50% so in order for precognition to be a properly accurate ability, it should perform better than 50%. The reason I mentioned a computer is because a computer should be without this ability. Therefore over a big enough distribution of trials it should perform at exactly 50%.

If we do have a test for a human, I believe it should be a small number questions with unique cards for each question given in short sessions til the total number of questions given equals that of the number of questions required for the computer to reach 50%.

We then compare the results. If we do this test with enough people and tabulate the results we should see some kind of trend.

If we take the variance of the computer's results then we can determine a range of chance. Anything outside of that range would be an indication of a extra factor. Another words the numbers outside of the bell shaped curve should indicate something other than random chance.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I didn't mean it directly led to the principle but is a related thought process. Please read this

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html

It explains the wave/particle duality references I keep giving about light etc. It explains the principle in a more technical way and the whole relationship of micro/macro etc. Its a good read.
It is a good read. It backs up what we have been saying:

Note that the indeterminacy of the microscopic world has little effect on macroscopic objects. This is due to the fact that wave function for large objects is extremely small compared to the size of the macroscopic world. Your personal wave function is much smaller than any currently measurable sizes. And the indeterminacy of the quantum world is not complete because it is possible to assign probabilities to the wave function.
The modern view of quantum mechanics states that Schrodinger's cat, or any macroscopic object, does not exist as superpositions of existence due to decoherence. A pristine wave function is coherent, i.e. undisturbed by observation. But Schrodinger's cat is not a pristine wave function, its is constantly interacting with other objects, such as air molecules in the box, or the box itself. Thus a macroscopic object becomes decoherent by many atomic interactions with its surrounding environment.

Decoherence explains why we do not routinely see quantum superpositions in the world around us. It is not because quantum mechanics intrinsically stops working for objects larger than some magic size. Instead, macroscopic objects such as cats and cards are almost impossible to keep isolated to the extent needed to prevent decoherence. Microscopic objects, in contrast, are more easily isolated from their surroundings so that they retain their quantum secrets and quantum behavior.
(Bolding mine)

Anyone who has read some Quantum Physics is familiar with these concepts.
Consciousness is not involed - an observer can be anything, like air molecules.

What I do not understand is how you are attempting to link precognition to any of this.

Merely saying that predictions are uncertain and the behaviour of subatomic particles is uncertain is not a logical link.

And you have never at any point explained what would actually constiotute an incorrect prediction to you.
To the rest of us if you say a card will be a star and it is a circle, that is incorrect. But you are saying that basically any result will be correct by your defintiion. So how can you distinguish preecognition from chance? Your definitions of what is 'correct' make that impossible.

And I also don't understand the relevance of your claims about predictions in the Bible. What predictions are correct from the Bible?

[MoonDragn]

Ahh I understand your confusion, I was not trying to reference a direct relationship between QM theory and the macro. I was using it as an example of something that works in a similar fashion but may have totally different mechanics. Since we don't know, I can only guess.

Anything else I have said on the topic of QM was purely in response to your responses and doesn't tie in directly with the subject in hand.

If I said that a ball is blue just like the sky is blue, I'm not saying that the sky is related to the ball.

The only logical link is that they are both blue, just as in both cases there is an uncertainty involved. How do I know this? I don't, it is purely conjecture. If you refuse to move beyond this basic assumption then its pointless to continue this discussion as it is the basis for my theories about how or why it works.

As I stated in my previous post, because we could guess a circle 10 times, and it could be a circle any of those 10 times, we're not really predicting, but just by chance thats possible. An incorrect prediction would be to guess a circle on the only time that it could possibly be a circle IE in a unique set for every question.

I also stated that its not just correct answers that could indicate an anomaly but an unusual amount of incorrect answers could also indicate it. Getting 2 questions out of 2 wrong is not hard, but 100 questions out of 100 wrong? Thats better than chance. Thats what I'm talking about.

Why did I make the Bible reference? I asked someone once who wrote the Bible, and how is it a true word of god. They told me that it was by prophets and they were given visions by god. Well, that means in order to accept the Bible as a valid source of the divine, one has to believe in prophets. Prophets make predictions. If one believes in the Bible, one must by logic believe in precognition. One cannot exist without the other.

Whether or not predictions in the Bible are correct or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

PS. BTW I often proofread my posts, therefore sometimes i will edit them to correct any spelling mistakes/grammer and any sentences that are confusing. If you are responding to my posts immediately after I post them, please reread them to make sure I wasn't in the process of editing them.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
I didn't mean it directly led to the principle but is a related thought process.

It isn't. They have nothing to do with each other except that they both relate to quantum physics. And your reference doesn't even mention Schroedinger's Cat in the context of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Well I believe that in a Zener psychic test, we're dealing with a collapsed model of the actual probabilities. We reduced several of the variables in attempt to isolate an "ability" to predict only ONE of those variables.

What I'm stating is that precognition is an ability similar to the uncertainty principle in philosphy, in that you can not accurately predict all of the variables in one session.

I've read these two paragraphs six times and I'll be damned if I can figure out what you're trying to say.

I believe its like a set of infinate probabilities that change at every moment.

The probabilities are not infinite and do not change at all. The odds of correctly predicting the next card by random chance are 1 in 5 every time.

In any moment, the exact path of probabilties meet where the human mind can gain insight, however its a possiblity in an undetermined point in the future. Therefore, we know a card will show up, but we don't know when. This is why I suggested unique cards for every question. This will eliminate that variable and give a more accurate result.

The point of a forced-option test is to prevent ambiguity from influencing a correct/incorrect decision (eg. "I see a sailboat", "it's the number 4", "well it looks like a sailboat so I was right"). Short of having the test subject memorize the names of hundreds or thousands of different images I don't see how you can eliminate this ambiguity from your test.

At what point do we determine that its precognition and not simple chance?

If the subject can consistently show a success rate significantly better than random chance allows, and no other factors can be shown to explain that success, it would suggest that he might have precognitive abilities. That's all the test can do.

better than chance is 50% so in order for precognition to be a properly accurate ability, it should perform better than 50%. The reason I mentioned a computer is because a computer should be without this ability. Therefore over a big enough distribution of trials it should perform at exactly 50%.

It's not 50%. For a standard zener test, the probability of correctly predicting one card is 20%.

If we do have a test for a human, I believe it should be a small number questions with unique cards for each question given in short sessions til the total number of questions given equals that of the number of questions required for the computer to reach 50%.

We then compare the results. If we do this test with enough people and tabulate the results we should see some kind of trend.

If we take the variance of the computer's results then we can determine a range of chance. Anything outside of that range would be an indication of a extra factor. Another words the numbers outside of the bell shaped curve should indicate something other than random chance.

Whatever your protocol, you will have to eliminate the ambiguities that can lead to arguing over whether a response is correct or incorrect. How far into the future is the subject allowed to predict and still be considered correct? Does he still get it right if the card isn't dealt to him but to the next subject in the test? Does the order matter? The more allowance you make for being correct the harder the test is going to be to evaluate. If the predicted card being dealt ever is going to qualify as a success then your test is going to suggest that everyone tested has may have precognitive abilites whether they actually do or not.

The computer is extraneous. Showing a significant success rate better than chance allows would be sufficient.

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
People believe what they will no matter how much evidence you give them. Like PT Barnum said "Theres a sucker born every minute'.
Sorry for the hijack, but no, he didn't. P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute" (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html)

[MoonDragn]

TSG, either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or I'm just speaking in a different language.

Let me put it in a term you can understand then. QM talks about uncertainly in measurement due to problems with measurement affecting results. I am saying that by trying to predict an event in an universe that we exist in, we affect our measurements also.

Drop the semantics, I used QM as an example period. Whatever references I made to it is irrelevant. If it makes you feel better I will use an analogy with chickens. If I tried to count the number of times a chicken pecks by putting down worms to count. I cannot possibly get a correct result as I don't know whether the chicken is pecking because i put down a worm or just pecking for another reason.

How do I solve this? by using something else to count. Thats why I'm using different shapes, to eliminate a variable. Yes, I realized that ambiguity could affect the results also, we would need to have distinct unique recognizable shapes. This is another reason why I suggested multiple sessions. If we do multiple sessions of tests, the previous test should not affect the next one if enough time passes for our short term memory to forget those shapes.

If you want to quote me, then answer in the context it was given, If you pick out individual sentences, then the meaning is lost.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by The Kilted Yaksman
Sorry for the hijack, but no, he didn't. P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute" (http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html)

This is a very good example of what people have been doing in their responses. Stop concentrating so much on who said it or if it was accurate but try to understand the context in which was said and the concept being conveyed. Anyway I think we veered way off topic completely. If you want to continue this discussion please make another thread. I am going to stop replying to this one.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
TSG, either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or I'm just speaking in a different language.

When you speak in vague terms that you don't define, this is going to happen. What a "collapsed model of the actual probabilites" means is beyond me. Probabilities of what? And how is it collapsed? "[P]recognition is an ability similar to the uncertainty principle in philosphy" is equally meaningless. How do you compare predicting the future with a limit on how accurately you can measure two conjugate characteristics of a subatomic particle, even philosophically? Are you suggesting that precognition is a result of particle flows? Or that the measurement of the accuracy of the prediction somehow affects the accuracy of the prediction? If that is the case it is little more than the "you can't test God" arguments fundamentalists use refute the evidence that prayer is ineffective. There's little point to having precognitive abilities if you can't check to see if they're right.

Let me put it in a term you can understand then. QM talks about uncertainly in measurement due to problems with measurement affecting results. I am saying that by trying to predict an event in an universe that we exist in, we affect our measurements also.

This is a popular misconception. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not state that the measuring affects the results.

Drop the semantics, I used QM as an example period. Whatever references I made to it is irrelevant. If it makes you feel better I will use an analogy with chickens. If I tried to count the number of times a chicken pecks by putting down worms to count. I cannot possibly get a correct result as I don't know whether the chicken is pecking because i put down a worm or just pecking for another reason.

How do I solve this? by using something else to count. Thats why I'm using different shapes, to eliminate a variable. Yes, I realized that ambiguity could affect the results also, we would need to have distinct unique recognizable shapes. This is another reason why I suggested multiple sessions. If we do multiple sessions of tests, the previous test should not affect the next one if enough time passes for our short term memory to forget those shapes.

Like I said, whatever your protocol you will have to eliminate the ambiguity (not only in the shape predicted, but when it occurs) of whether the prediction is a hit or a miss. Increasing the number of images is going to introduce problems with the subject being able to name them correctly.

If you want to quote me, then answer in the context it was given, If you pick out individual sentences, then the meaning is lost.

I took nothing out of context. The two paragraphs I quoted were as they were written and made absolutely no sense. Your statements about Schroedinger's Cat and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle were incorrect in any context.

[MoonDragn]

They were not incorrect in any context. My statements were valid. What you read back to me in that one example was an OPINION of someone's conclusions of what that experiment means. There is in fact various different points of views introduced that most websites don't go into great detail on. The points I stated were based on discussions during physics class about the subjects with our physics professor. Heisenberg's DOES have to do with measurement problems. Refer to the paragraph from the link I posted before :

Any attempt to measure precisely the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will knock it about in an unpredictable way, so that a simultaneous measurement of its position has no validity. This result has nothing to do with inadequacies in the measuring instruments, the technique, or the observer; it arises out of the intimate connection in nature between particles and waves in the realm of subatomic dimensions.


The measuring AFFECTS the results because we have no means to measure anything on that scale that will not affect the results.

It is one thing to read some scientific text and interpret the results. Its another to actually get someone who understands the text to discuss it with you. I didn't just read about these principles, there were lengthy discussions about them and I DO understand them better than you apparently.

As for schroedinger's cat : I'll quote the same paragraph ashe did :


It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks. We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the collapse of the wave function problem and Schrodinger's cat is a simple and elegant explanation of that problem.


This whole thought experiment was used to explain something in ways that you can clearly relate to. It had no basis in the macroscopic world because we know that cats have only two states, dead or alive.

Who brought up schroedinger's cat? Ashe did, I replied to something that he said, not something that you said. Therefore the context of what I typed to him was greatly distorted by you when you replied to it. What do I have to say about it? Well, I agree, it is a thought experiment. Just like what we are doing, Thinking of impossible situations as an attempt to explain something we know nothing of... Like precognition.

Why do I think precognition has infinite probabilities? again, because time is something that cannot be taken into account in any of our tests. Prediction of a future event requires at least two variables. Time and effect. I believe predicting both the time and the effect is impossible. I believe that people can only guess what time it will occur but not accurately.

This is just personal opinion. So don't get all bent out of shape.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
They were not incorrect in any context. My statements were valid. What you read back to me in that one example was an OPINION of someone's conclusions of what that experiment means. There is in fact various different points of views introduced that most websites don't go into great detail on. The points I stated were based on discussions during physics class about the subjects with our physics professor. Heisenberg's DOES have to do with measurement problems. Refer to the paragraph from the link I posted before :

The measuring AFFECTS the results because we have no means to measure anything on that scale that will not affect the results.

It is one thing to read some scientific text and interpret the results. Its another to actually get someone who understands the text to discuss it with you. I didn't just read about these principles, there were lengthy discussions about them and I DO understand them better than you apparently.

False appeal to authority. Your discussions with a physics professor don't make you an expert. And it doesn't support your assertion that quantum mechanics can be applied on a macrosopic level in general or to the measurement of psychic ability in particular. And you can take your indignant elitism and shove it. The most outrageous, insulting, and stupid argument you can make is that I must not understand simply because I disagree with you. Who the hell are you?

Why do I think precognition has infinite probabilities?

Probabilities of what? And what do you mean by "infinite probabilites"? That it's infinitely probable or there are an infinite number of discrete probabilities, or what? Define your terms, because otherwise it makes no sense.

again, because time is something that cannot be taken into account in any of our tests. Prediction of a future event requires at least two variables. Time and effect. I believe predicting both the time and the effect is impossible.

Time is not an issue if you restrict the predictions to discrete events, even if it's the next n events. If you don't, all your doing is making your conjecture non-falsifiable, which, while convenient for arguing about it, is not scientific.

I believe that people can only guess what time it will occur but not accurately.

Then it's not much of an ability, is it? I mean, how much value is it to know that sometime in the next four hours, somebody at my poker table is going to hold the Jack of Spades? I can make that prediction without any supernatural abilities. I predict an earthquake will hit California sometime in the future. I must be psychic.

If there is no way to distinguish supernatural precognition from simple intuition or random guesswork, there's little point in discussing whether the former actually exists, let alone whether it can be measured.

[RayG]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
Personally I think human brains are capable of communication on a non verbal bandwidth, conciously or subconciously.

Ah, but what you think has little bearing on whether or not it's true.

RayG

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Well put Ray.

He also needs to learn that each and every brain is wired up completely differently, the connections and chemistry varying in each one of us due to our environment, what we eat, injuries we sustain, disease, growth, experiences, teachings, etc. Our brains network of connections adapts and changes as needed, so each one of us is unlikely to be able to understand anyone elses brainwaves, even if they did travel further than the skull. Rejoice in the fact that we are unique, and that we developed speech to communicate at a distance.

[Chateaubriand]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You have the right attitude, Tony. There's no point in meekly pointing out that what they believe in is false. That only comes across as if we merely disagree with them. We should definitely be much more direct and make it clear just how much harm superstition causes.

Hi Claus!

This is an excellent point. Nevertheless, I fear that the dominating attitude is that, as a skeptic, you are supposed to "hide" your conviction behind a "benevolent" and "understanding" approach when discussing with believers. In reality, you are supposed to suppress your arguments based on reason, for the benefit of the believer's arguments based on faith and superstition; fruitful debate is possible only when the skeptic is intellectually crippled.

As far as stating what psychics are really doing, it is bad to call it fraud, it is more "strategic" and "rewarding" to carefully argue about less "sensitive" issues, such as endlessly repeating "no testing has ever proved....", etc., etc. As a skeptic, you are not supposed to cause conflict.

And, please note, this is marketed, not by psychic unions and such, but by national skeptic organizations.

When people like Randi and Penn & Teller state "B*LLSH*T!", they are celebrated by the skeptic movement. When I call a TV psychic "fraud", I am considered to be a "hard core skeptic" with an "attitude problem" by the same movement.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by tsg
False appeal to authority. Your discussions with a physics professor don't make you an expert. And it doesn't support your assertion that quantum mechanics can be applied on a macrosopic level in general or to the measurement of psychic ability in particular. And you can take your indignant elitism and shove it. The most outrageous, insulting, and stupid argument you can make is that I must not understand simply because I disagree with you. Who the hell are you?



Probabilities of what? And what do you mean by "infinite probabilites"? That it's infinitely probable or there are an infinite number of discrete probabilities, or what? Define your terms, because otherwise it makes no sense.



Time is not an issue if you restrict the predictions to discrete events, even if it's the next n events. If you don't, all your doing is making your conjecture non-falsifiable, which, while convenient for arguing about it, is not scientific.



Then it's not much of an ability, is it? I mean, how much value is it to know that sometime in the next four hours, somebody at my poker table is going to hold the Jack of Spades? I can make that prediction without any supernatural abilities. I predict an earthquake will hit California sometime in the future. I must be psychic.

If there is no way to distinguish supernatural precognition from simple intuition or random guesswork, there's little point in discussing whether the former actually exists, let alone whether it can be measured.


BINGO! took you long enough to finally get the point. Who the hell am I? Who the hell are you. What makes your arguments any more valid than mine. You have your own experiences and so do I. With varying degrees of education and different influences. We don't think alike and we don't agree. Lets leave it at that. Your explainations to your points so far have no more validity than mine. You claim to have knowledge yet you quote drivel from obscure websites. Stuff that any student of physics can see is a misinterpretation.

Yes I agree with you, its not much of an ability. This is why normal people don't take prophets and people who can predict the future seriously. I don't. I said infinite probabilities because the future is infinite. You can't restrict an ability that can span infinity to a discrete event. I'm not even sure its an unique ability and not just a side effect of us being in the universe.
But never mind my opinion. As for some reason everyone loves to argue on this board about someone's opinion.

I believe the Cubs suck and will never win another pennant.

[tsg]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
BINGO! took you long enough to finally get the point. Who the hell am I? Who the hell are you. What makes your arguments any more valid than mine.

I'm not the one arguing that a discussion with a physics professor makes me an expert in quantum mechanics.

You have your own experiences and so do I. With varying degrees of education and different influences. We don't think alike and we don't agree. Lets leave it at that. Your explainations to your points so far have no more validity than mine. You claim to have knowledge yet you quote drivel from obscure websites.

Yeah, obscure websites like widipedia.org. Real obscure. While yours were only reliable, well-known sources that actually backed up what you said. Whatever.

Stuff that any student of physics can see is a misinterpretation.

Go to hell.

Yes I agree with you, its not much of an ability. This is why normal people don't take prophets and people who can predict the future seriously. I don't. I said infinite probabilities because the future is infinite.

Obviously a use of the word "probabilities" of which I was not aware. Must be your superior education. I suppose you had a discussion with a mathematics professor once, too.

You can't restrict an ability that can span infinity to a discrete event. I'm not even sure its an unique ability and not just a side effect of us being in the universe.

So, in other words, your conjecture is untestable and therefore there is no reason to discuss it further.

But never mind my opinion.

Done.

As for some reason everyone loves to argue on this board about someone's opinion.

For the record, I took issue with your reasoning behind your opinion. But, whatever....

[tonyyouens]

Open season on spirit guides!

Well speaking as someone who is entirely fed up with mediums putting rubbish into the mouths of the dead I've decided it's time to turn the tables. For those of you who may not know 'Sam' (Masuami) is Acorah's 'spirit guide'.

I've written a piece here: Sam (http://www.tonyyouens.com/Acorah.htm#addendum)

But to save you clicking here's most of it....

Sam (Masuami?)
Although there are no historical records about Sam I have uncovered previously unknown facts using a Ouija board which led to Sam's temporary possession of my body.

It seems Sam was cast out from his village after he repeatedly exposed himself to local women. This was the last straw and followed a reign of terror perpetrated on the rest of his village. Tribal elders had often expressed concern about Sam’s rather unnatural relationship with the tribe’s sheep but this was never proven as none of the sheep dared to bleat out.

He was implicated in the brutal murder a local chief by boiling him alive in oil and then chopping up the remains and serving them to his cat. He also ran the local brothel and developed a range of hallucinogenic drugs from a cactus which he sold to the village children.

All this paled into insignificance compared to his appalling record as a healer and medium. Although he claimed to heal people, for a price, they died anyway. However using his talents as a medium he claimed that after they had “passed over� they got in touch to say how pleased they were with him and that they would like to leave all their worldly belongings (including sheep) to him.

After his expulsion from the village he spent the rest of his life wandering from place to place until he met an unfortunate end involving an unusually angry sheep that had apparently taken an excessive amount of a cactus based narcotic. All that was found was one of his partially eaten sandals.

[Darat]

Bloody hell Tony, have you let Derek know he's involved with such an unsavoury character?

[tonyyouens]

have you let Derek know...

No I haven't but I think it's only fair that someone tells him. I imagine Sam has kept him in the dark.

Knowing what a nasty piece of work Sam is would perhaps explain why Acorah gives such lousy readings.

Tony

[Darat]

Originally posted by tonyyouens
No I haven't but I think it's only fair that someone tells him. I imagine Sam has kept him in the dark.

Knowing what a nasty piece of work Sam is would perhaps explain why Acorah gives such lousy readings.

Tony

Well I have no reason to doubt what you've told me, but somehow I just have a tiny suspicion that Derek won't believe you. But that is probably because as you say Sam is preventing him from knowing the truth.

Slightly related I've often wondered what language Sam and Derek use. It can’t be English because Derek in a reading will pause and say "what's that?" to his guide and less then a second will pass before Derek is saying “OK, right..�, and yet in that second or two Derek gets enough information to be able to speak to the sitter for at least 30 seconds (or if he gets a hit even longer..) without having to go back to Sam for more information. It must be a very compressed language!

[Dubium]

And why does this 'guide' have the sort of name often given to Africans as a racist joke - ie Sam-Sambo etc. Hilarious, Derek.

[echolima]

It could be that, when reversed, Masumai happens to spell "I am u Sam" :D

[Ashles]

Originally posted by echolima
It could be that, when reversed, Masumai happens to spell "I am u Sam" :D
I was about to point out that you had slightly altered the spelling so that it was only an anagram, not an exact reversal, but then I checked Derek's own website (http://www.derekacorah.org/aboutsam.html).
His name was Masumai.
You are right - it is an an exact reversal of 'I am u Sam'.

I find that quite amazing.

Is this a cry for help? A subtle in joke? Or does he really not know?

[MoonDragn]

It could also be reverse of I am, Us am. Who cares?

[echolima]

I've never heard him called "Us am", though ...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
It could also be reverse of I am, Us am. Who cares?
Well if Derek is a fraud then many people here would care.

Apparently you wouldn't.

I guess you don't care if someone is telling people they can talk to the dead and making thousands from that deception if they really can't.

How strange.

[MoonDragn]

If people are that stupid, they don't deserve to hold on to that money. You need to find a legal reason to prosecute someone on fraud.

If you want to talk about millions of dollars scammed every day. Look no farther than those evangelists asking people to send in money every day. How is it any different?

[Darat]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
If people are that stupid, they don't deserve to hold on to that money. You need to find a legal reason to prosecute someone on fraud.


So if a manufacturer claims something about their product and that turns out not to have been true they deserved to be conned out of their money?


Originally posted by MoonDragn

If you want to talk about millions of dollars scammed every day. Look no farther than those evangelists asking people to send in money every day. How is it any different?

It isn't any different.

[MoonDragn]

Originally posted by Darat
So if a manufacturer claims something about their product and that turns out not to have been true they deserved to be conned out of their money?

It isn't any different.

If the consumer could prove without a doubt that their service was not delivered as promised or their product was defective then yes, they can get their money back or sue the company. I think a similar process would need be be in place for mediums. Didn't Houdini go around debunking mediums?

Unfortunately, most mediums and psychics are listed under the general category of entertainment and what their service provides is a form of entertainment. You certainly got your money's worth in that respect.

I went to one of those gypsie psychics once at a renn faire, and she foretold the usual gloom and doom. She even offered to come to my house and dispell those evil spirits for $100. For other activities I might have let her come over for $100 but dispelling evil spirits? LOL. Stuff did happen that year, but it wasn't due to anything she said. Life went on and things got better. People who are foolish with their money are bound not to hang on to it. No amount of blame on other people would help.

[echolima]

In the UK we have the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951, which replaced the Witchcraft Act.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find out who to actually report a suspected offence under the FMA, for the simple reason there's only ever been seven people prosecuted under it, so the average policeman has absolutely no idea what you're talking about!

[John Jackson]

Originally posted by MoonDragn
If people are that stupid, they don't deserve to hold on to that money.That is precisely the attitude of a con man: if people are daft enough to be conned then they deserve to lose their money. It is an amoral attitude.

Of course, people do not willingly allow themselves to be conned; there’s always a deliberate deception going on.

Whilst I accept that some mediums genuinely believe in their ability and try to use it for good, I think that for the most part, the psychic industry is nothing more than a huge confidence trick. That means that the people who are being conned do not actually realise it.

The proliferation of “for entertainment only� psychic shows on television doesn’t exactly help. It only serves as an advertisement for the psychic industry.

Skeptics care about this because people are being hurt by it. That’s the bottom line.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by echolima
In the UK we have the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951, which replaced the Witchcraft Act.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find out who to actually report a suspected offence under the FMA, for the simple reason there's only ever been seven people prosecuted under it, so the average policeman has absolutely no idea what you're talking about!
So if next time I see a medium cold reading-i.e fraudlient-then I shall contact a solicitor and persue a fraud case.Insisting the medium pays my costs. ;)

[Azrael 5]

Scroll to the bottom of Tonys page and click on the egg!!
Click (http://www.tonyyouens.com/Commentary030805.htm#asylumgate) ;)

[echolima]

Excellent, isn't it ?? :D :D