Feet In Both Camps? Psychic Challenger

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi All,
Having for years admired the work of James Randi with his logical and well thought exposures of the varied shysters and fraudsters of the psychic world, I decided it was time that I joined this forum.
I am unfortunately standing with my feet in either camp on the question of the existence of real psychic phenomena. On one side I realise only too well that there are a lot of clever conmen and women who walk the psychic plank. I have had unfortunate dealings with some and know only too well the lengths that these individuals will go to in their quest for personal or financial gratification.
I hold no subscription of belief in any of the established or `new age` religions, and in fact view the majority as being created by the same type of individuals who now adorn many mystic mags and TV programs as `mystics` or `mediums`.
To me, religion is all about mind control, with the imposition of a minority viewpoint upon a gullible majority.
However I digress. On the other foot, I know that all life and our existence are not plainly and easily explainable with quick scientific fixes.
An easy illustration is the age old mind bender which asks, `Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist?
Not even a sceptic can answer that one.
Another problem I have to contend with rails firmly against sceptical opinion or indifference. That simply is the fact that I have a `gift` or ability that allows me to `heal` or improve peoples physical ailments by the action of simply touching their fingers on point of contact.
I have been aware of this ability for some considerable time and have much anecdotal evidence which I gathered over the years to satisfy my own scepticism.
I have to tell you that I am a retired cop with 28 years service in the British Police. A number of those service years were spent as a detective and later as a police crime analyst and researcher. That type of work involved intelligence scepticism until I could finalisemy investigations by producing hard facts which could be used in police operations against organised or local criminal activity. So there is the sceptic in me. Until I can satisfy any claim, I have to have hard facts.
That’s where Mr Randi`s challenge intrigues me.
I am not drawn by financial reward to his challenge, but am motivated simply by the fact that not all alleged psychic phenomena are false. To dismiss this entirely is not scepticism but ignorance.
A true sceptic keeps an open mind, and I have always endeavoured to adhere to that notion.
I first discovered this ability around 10 years ago when a partner complained of a re-occurring pain in her knee joint. On one occasion I placed my hand over the knee to rub it, and she reported that energy from my hand had travelled to the affected area and had warmed an area deep inside her knee which completely removed the pain.
I naturally thought it pure chance but decided to follow through by testing this ability on other people’s ailments. Within a year, I had managed to work with 10 people from work to friends who although at first sceptical stated that a warm energy had travelled through their bodies to soothe away muscular pains or swellings.
The strangest experience was a woman police officer with a badly swollen hand which literally disappeared after five minutes. That in a way shocked me as I (despite evidence to the contrary) still didn’t fully believe in my own ability!
Anyway, after satisfying my own curiosity, I didn’t return to healing until very recently when a guest speaker at a conference I was attending didn’t show.
I volunteered to talk about healing to a fifty plus adult audience to entertain them. I was approached by five volunteers, four women and a man.
The first was complaining of a long term pain in her swollen wrist and shoulder.
After literally a few seconds of finger contact she reported the same healing energy moving up her hands and into her shoulder. She claimed that the pain her gone. Also her wrist had returned to normal from its swollen state.
The second volunteer – the man had a sharp pain in his shoulder allegedly from an old motorcycle accident. On point of contact he exclaimed the pain had disappeared. I found that implausible from previous experience but not impossible.
The third had pain under her right arm which had persisted for some months. That too went after a few seconds. By the time I started on the 4th – a lady with a stomach ulcer, the others I had previously dealt with claimed that as I touched a new volunteer, they could feel the healing energy return as though I was touching them again. This was something very new to me. - This lady’s pain incidentally, went as quickly as the others. The last volunteer was a lady with short rasping breath who was emotionally upset and complained that diagnosed growths or `polyps` in her throat was impeding her breathing and that she awaited an operation to remove them. As I touched her, she exclaimed that the energy was in her throat having travelled up her arm from finger contact, and that she `felt` her throat being widened to a degree that she could now breath clearly. To date, I none have reported a relapse with the exception of the lady with the wrist injury who informed me that although her shoulder was fine, some pain had returned to her wrist – but not as painfully as before. She explained further that she had engaged in heavy work with her hands that involved bending her wrist whilst holding heavily weighted items. I am certain that had she allowed her hand to recuperate properly, the pain would have gone.
So to round things up, Where does this lead me? Am I deluded, are were they deluded? Was it as they say, a `placebo effect`, or is it genuinely possible that this healing is real, and more importantly, another natural aspect of the human process?
I can add that since I first started healing, my palms are permanently red, and they feel incredibly hot. When measured by a thermometer, they are registered at normal body temperature. As I type this open response they still feel very hot indeed.
So, should I take up the Randi challenge? If I did it would not be simply a quest for a million bucks, but an illustration that not all life on this planet is without some form of `spiritual` - call it what you will, experience.
Your thoughts please would be appreciated. I am quite willing to demonstrate this process. Whether I `win` or `lose`, is quite immaterial to me, but even if I could demonstrate this process I doubt whether I would succeed - after all, no one else has..

[Loss Leader]

Your thoughts please would be appreciated. I am quite willing to demonstrate this process. Whether I `win` or `lose`, is quite immaterial to me, but even if I could demonstrate this process I doubt whether I would succeed - after all, no one else has.

PP, I assure you that if you can demonstrate this process, you will indeed succeed. Not only will you win a million dollars but you will help usher in an entirely new understanding of medicine and physics.

It is usually impractical to create a protocol where you actually heal people, however. Do you think that if you held your hand behind a screen, a friend of yours could determine whether your hand was there or not? If you are giving off energy, this might be possible. Then it would be simple to place you behind a screen, have it randomly determined whether you place your hand out or not, and then ask your friend if it is there or not. I am sure something along the lines of 9 right guesses out of 10 would be sufficient to guarantee you a million dollars.

Let's see what others think.

[Steven Howard]

The strangest experience was a woman police officer with a badly swollen hand which literally disappeared after five minutes.

How terrible for her.

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi Loss Leader,
Thanks for your response. If (by a miracle) I could succeed in a controlled demonstration, the money would be given to charity. I am more interested in opening awareness that some psychic ability is real. I know it works, but the public need to be assured that it is possible, and not ridiculed by the idle ramblings of lunatics and opportunists.

[Thinktoomuch]

Steven Howard: is comments like yours that debase discussion. I had a chuckle also, but what purpose does your comment serve?

As regards the protocol: what if the ailment is actually a requisite to perceive the healing? It would appear to me that Loss Leader's proposed protocol would be inconclusive. Maybe 10 or possibly more patients touched at random by the claimant and a control person in a setting able to exclude other sensory clues (heath, sight etc.) would be more decisive. You can work out the statistics.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You should absolutely take up the Randi challenge. Read and learn about how the challenge works and how you can contact the JREF (Jeff Wagg apparently) and start discussions on a meeting and a challenge. You will likely be directed to one of the local British skeptic groups that works closely with the JREF for a preliminary challenge. (Which no one has ever passed).

Do you know a lot about how the challenge works? How the procedure of applying works? The rules for applying? If not then you should read up on it from the randi.org main page which links to info about the challenge including FAQ's and whatnot.

[CLD]

The presence or absence of pain can be highly subjective. Perhaps as ThinkTooMuch suggests, a protocol might be designed like a small scale "clinical trial". X number of subjects suffering from headache (or similar noncritical ailment) X number of controls, and a double blind methodology?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Though I may disagree with the assertion that the supernatural must exist because science cannot easily answer everything, I think you should take the challenge. As for the exact circumstances of the test, it would depend on if you need to physically touch people, but Loss Leader's idea is good, and you would be able to agree on the specifics of the challenge.

[Dogdoctor]

Something occurred but the question is did you actually heal anyone? To define this you would need to have a specific diagnosis and then specific proof they were actually healed. I think the majority of healers are like you who think they are doing something but once studied will be shown to not be doing anything other than making people feel better about themselves.

[Ladewig]

Though I may disagree with the assertion that the supernatural must exist because science cannot easily answer everything, I think you should take the challenge.

My sentiments exactly.

Follow the advice that previous posters have given and come up with a precise description of what you can and cannot do.

[Jeff Corey]

...An easy illustration is the age old mind bender which asks, `Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist?Not even a sceptic can answer that one...

Sure I can. When I read a load of gibberish like your post, I stop when it meets my bull manure threshold and say to myself, "This cretin knows nothing about logic or presenting an arguement."

[Jeff Corey]

How terrible for her.
Losing a hand like that must have been horrible, indeed

[Thinktoomuch]

Jeff, since when insulting is a knowledgeable way of presenting an argument? This appears to me as the pot calling the kettle black. Are all your >4000 posts of this quality?

[Flange Desire]

... I know that all life and our existence are not plainly and easily explainable with quick scientific fixes....
Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist?

Hi and welcome to the forum Psychic Physicist.

Yes, many things are currently unexplained,
but this is not a reason to invent weird explanations, you see ...
I exist; and "We don need yer stinkin universe!"
Regardless of our comprehension or definition of the universe, we exist.

LossLeader proposes an excellent test.
What do you think about it PP?
Lets get focussed on that easy million.

[hellaeon]

First off welcome to the forum!
Your on a wild world of discovery and great discussion here.

However I digress. On the other foot, I know that all life and our existence are not plainly and easily explainable with quick scientific fixes.

But remember science is constantly refining itself. It evolves as we evolve and discover new ways to measure and record more accurate and reliable data. You must remove thoughts that science is some evil big brother, arrogant and ignorant. Science is completely and utterly neutral. Its not something with feelings or morals, its a method to understand things. I dont like this sentence because most people who say it repeat this mantra because they dont understand and appreciate the real method behind science and how important the method is.


An easy illustration is the age old mind bender which asks, `Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist? Not even a sceptic can answer that one.

Its not so simple. There is evidence that suggests things started at a specific point. How that became to start with and how it progressed further is beyond my understanding, but that does not mean the information is non existant. What you dont know is what you dont know, not what no one else knows. I think I just confused myself.

Another problem I have to contend with rails firmly against sceptical opinion or indifference. That simply is the fact that I have a `gift` or ability that allows me to `heal` or improve peoples physical ailments by the action of simply touching their fingers on point of contact...have much anecdotal evidence...

Anecdotal yes, factual it is not. It's a bold claim that you posess an ability that will rewrite the science books. But im all eyes and ears.

I have to tell you that I am a retired cop with 28 years service in the British Police. A number of those service years were spent as a detective and later as a police crime analyst and researcher. That type of work involved intelligence scepticism until I could finalise my investigations by producing hard facts which could be used in police operations against organised or local criminal activity. So there is the sceptic in me. Until I can satisfy any claim, I have to have hard facts.

This does suprise me. One of the appealing things I find with this line of work is to get to the facts. However I think your trying to appeal to authority to add weight to your arguement. Its going to hit a brick wall under scientific scrutiny. Check out what einstein himself said was his biggest blunder, and thats einstein - and he would have thanked science for showing him.

...but am motivated simply by the fact that not all alleged psychic phenomena are false. To dismiss this entirely is not scepticism but ignorance. A true sceptic keeps an open mind, and I have always endeavoured to adhere to that notion...

I dont like these grey lines people like to blur in order to make a claim sound more credible. Evidence not philosophy. Im completely open but after 60 years of research, im starting to wonder why people persist.


I first discovered this ability around 10 years ago when a partner complained of a re-occurring pain in her knee joint. On one occasion I placed my hand over the knee to rub it, and she reported that energy from my hand had travelled to the affected area and had warmed an area deep inside her knee which completely removed the pain.

If I said you rubbing my knee made me feel some sort of sexual advance, would that be your healing power or some other weird power. This is completely vague evidence explainable is many mundane and unfortunately boring ways. I have seen elsewhere on here about tests using prayer etc and how a nice voice and soothing touch can make a big difference.

...<stories of healing>...So to round things up, Where does this lead me? Am I deluded, are were they deluded? Was it as they say, a `placebo effect`, or is it genuinely possible that this healing is real, and more importantly, another natural aspect of the human process?...So, should I take up the Randi challenge? If I did it would not be simply a quest for a million bucks, but an illustration that not all life on this planet is without some form of `spiritual` - call it what you will, experience...I am quite willing to demonstrate this process. Whether I `win` or `lose`, is quite immaterial to me, but even if I could demonstrate this process I doubt whether I would succeed - after all, no one else has..

I have a proposal.

1) 20 volunteers. They are told and are believers in faith healing.
you and someone else - like me (I think its just emotion and a kind heart that is helping)

2) the 20 dont see each other but are told a faith healer will come in and help them with their various ailments.

3) We would take it in turns to approach the people. one at a time, no one repeated - so I would take 1, you 2, me the third, you the 4th etc, so we get 10 each, making sure none of the volunteers can give away anything about their suspicions by...using seperate rooms? They should not have any idea if its done properly and well out of sight, in a good test they will think you or I are the person they want to heal them.

4) We both use a same method - whatever that is - perhaps pretend to pray to god or whatever. A touch on the knee etc. Be sure its exactly the same.

5) Record results. Have a results grading sheet (level of healing felt), same for every person on test.

6) Now do the same for 20 more this time, you give them what they believe is a healing device. Lets say a simple iron rod. We will need 20 of these to ensure there is no mixing of 'powers' For each second person you get, you touch this device, the other time its left alone. Every person is told the iron rod has been touched by a healer.

7) Record results. Have a results grading sheet (level of healing felt), same for every person on test.

8) Another 20 people. Given an iron rod again, this time Neither of us touch it. They people are all told the rods are bestowed with magic healing powers.

9) Record results. Have a results grading sheet (level of healing felt), same for every person on test.

The only hassle is the amount of people :(

My thoughts
Cheers

[hellaeon]

Hmmm I just thought of an easier way.
20 people all believers

Frist run of 20, you touch and heal. Second run of the same 20, given untouched iron rods, told that you enforced some powers of yours onto it during some amazing ritual. See if they feel your presence.

I know someone will think of a better way. Perhaps this thread should be in the million dollar challenge?

Compare results.

[Apathia]

PsyP,

Your talent is in a difficult place for testing. A bit in the gray area due to the subjective elements of it. I lot of it is relational in nature, having to do with the interpersonal elements between you and the person you are touching.
Touch when given with confidence, care, and a nonjudgemental acceptance of the other, engages the parasympathetic nervous system to varying degrees. The nervous system opporates in two complementary fuctional areas: The Sympathetic and the Parasympathetic. The Sympathetic controls stress functions such as fight or flight in danger, and exertion. The Parasympathetic controls relaxation, sleep, digestion, intimacy, and the release of endorphins that block pain and some cases create feelings of euphoria.

This adds up to what I call a "heightened placebo effect." It's not merely that the individual believes you are helping him or her, but you have a charisma about you and your touch that relaxes, sooths, resolves painful tension. When the body isn't in fight or flight, it puts more attention on recovery.

As I said, it's touchy to test this, because we are dealing with individual emotional responses. Tests on this in regard to Theraputic Touch have shown merely that peole tend to react positively to nice personal contact. Beyond that results have been marginal.

This subject usually gets sidetracked by talk of mysterious "energies."
People do have feelings that they describe as electric like or heat like. These are subjective experiences. One person will describe the touch as electric, another as warm, another as a kind of pressure or movement. Some even go into more relaxed states and see or hear things. Never mind that sort of stuff for now. Testing for mysterious energies misses what's actually afoot.

What you are doing is great. Keep it up. Just understand that it's not actually something paranormal or supernatural.

[hellaeon]

PsyP,

Your talent is in a difficult place for testing. A bit in the gray area due to the subjective elements of it. I lot of it is relational in nature, having to do with the interpersonal elements between you and the person you are touching.
Touch when given with confidence, care, and a nonjudgemental acceptance of the other, engages the parasympathetic nervous system to varying degrees. The nervous system opporates in two complementary fuctional areas: The Sympathetic and the Parasympathetic. The Sympathetic controls stress functions such as fight or flight in danger, and exertion. The Parasympathetic controls relaxation, sleep, digestion, intimacy, and the release of endorphins that block pain and some cases creta feelings of euphoria.

This adds up to what I call a "hightened placebo effect." It's not merely that the individual believes you are helping him or her, but you have a charisma about you and your touch that relaxes, sooths, resolves painful tension. When the body isn't in fight or flight, it puts more attention on recovery.

As I said, it's touchy to test this, because we are dealing with individual emotional responses. Tests on this in regard to Theraputic Touch have shown merely that peole tend to react positively to nice personal contact. Beyond that results have been marginal.

This subject usually gets sidetracked by talk of mysterious "energies."
People do have feelings that they describe as electric like or heat like. These are subjective experiences. One person will describe the touch as electric, another as warm, another as a kind of pressure or movement. Some even go into more relaxed states and see or hear things. Never mind that sort of stuff for now. Testing for mysterious energies misses what's actually afoot.

What you are doing is great. Keep it up. Just understand that it's not actually something paranormal or supernatural.


I take back that its explained in mundane and boring ways!
Is this an evident nervous system effect?

[Apathia]

I take back that its explained in mundane and boring ways!
Is this an evident nervous system effect?

Indeed mundane. It happens all the time between mothers and children, friends and lovers. Massage Therapists use this all the time. Some people inspire more confidence with their touch, and people who make it an intent touch others in a "healing" way have more stories and experiences to share. You could do this yourself. It's really not that special.
Just that our culture isn't touchy-feely.

NB I'm not talking about miracle healing here. This is common garden variety ease of aches and pains brought on by muscle tension and contraction, and other things the body does when it is in trama.

This is a simplification, but do a little online research about the parasympathetic nervous system and endorphins.
As I said, all this gets mystified. All we need here is some dimystification.

[Jeff Corey]

Jeff, since when insulting is a knowledgeable way of presenting an argument? This appears to me as the pot calling the kettle black. Are all your >4000 posts of this quality?

Yes and yes.

[Flange Desire]

... I know that all life and our existence are not plainly and easily explainable with quick scientific fixes....
Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist?

Hi and welcome to the forum Psychic Physicist.

Yes, many things are currently unexplained,
but this is not a reason to invent weird explanations, you see ...
I exist; and "We don need yer stinkin universe!"
Regardless of our comprehension or definition of the universe, we exist.

LossLeader proposes an excellent test.
What do you think about it PP?
Lets get focussed on that easy million.

[steve s]

]An easy illustration is the age old mind bender which asks, `Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Not even a sceptic can answer that one.


The surface of a sphere has no beginning or end. Does that mean the sphere doesn't exist?

Steve S.

[Questioninggeller]

Losing a hand like that must have been horrible, indeed

Guys, play nice. New people who feel welcomed will stay, read, and learn.

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi Again,
Some interesting comments and suggestions but also some very puerile remarks which are totally unnecessary in an arena supposedly based on intelligent thoughtful debate.
Firstly, (to reiterate for those sexually focused on touching knees or swollen hands) I am not interested in making this challenge for the money. Yes, I know others have said that before, and they were no doubt unable to make the challenge or had failed miserably. All I would ask for as payment, is James Randi`s original check (cheque) for $10,000 which has been signed `cancelled` by the said James Randi. The money should be distributed equally to 5 hospices in Britain, Europe and America.
Secondly, I am not a fool making wild or irrational claims. My ability - call it what you will, is not delusional. It has worked and continues to work for me. I sincerely do not think, nor would I be foolish to think that I am the only person in the world that can do this. I suspect that some potentially genuine challengers may have been dissuaded previously by some of the vitriolic commentators on this forum. If you view my offer as an excuse to point ridicule at me, then you have defeated your own argument, surely?
Thirdly, my method of working involves making fingertip contact with a subject. Being behind a curtain, or whatever means may look impressive, but that is outside the realms of experience for me. That kinda strikes me more as a showmanship demonstration rather than as an example of my alleged ability. - I say `alleged` because that is all it is to any rational `open`mind at this stage. If we can keep the debate open-minded and impartial I am prepared to take it further. As I have stated originally, I am a sceptic regarding many outrageous claims on paranormal matters debunked in the past, and commend anyone like Randi that can expose them.
How should the test be performed?
Well, believe it or not, I actually feel drained and very tired after a period of time when performing this ability. It is visually evidenced by very dark rings that appear around my eyes which illustrate this fatigue. - Please no sarcastic one liners!
I can work per session for around 30 minutes, no more. I don`t set the rules, I become very tired and emotionally drained after this period.
I would respectfully suggest 10 volunteers, all chosen impartially by a third party not associated with me or with any sceptics group.
The volunteers should be open minded individuals who (despite previous mainstream medical treatment) are still suffering with pain or some form of discomfort.
The 10 volunteers should be divided into two groups. One group should be assigned to a `placebo healer`, i.e a person with no history or claim to be a healer. Preferably, a total sceptic or avowed non-believer. The other group are then assigned to me. Both groups are placed in separate rooms with the placebo group and `healer` having no direct knowledge of me and my group, or the true reason of the experiment. The placebo healer is instructed to try and heal these peoples ailments following the same procedures in my group. At the end of the experiment - 30 mins, - no more, the results from both groups are compared. There should I hasten to add, be a medical doctor present to evaluate the subjects before and after each demonstration.
Caveat - I would also request that I choose discretely the placebo healer to eliminate the possibility that this person may have the same abilities as me. Why? Well, if he or she is not be a placebo, that would invalidate this experiment totally. Lastly, both groups should be filmed during the process as a matter of public record to show complete rigidity to the governing rules of this demonstration to remove from the most ardent sceptics mind any suggestion of trickery or malpractice by the Randi organisation or those nominated by the said Randi organisation.Conversely, that too would also apply to me.
I would also suggest that this same experiment is repeated on separate occasions 3 times using different volunteers and placebo healers in three different locations across (preferably) the U.K.
At the end of this `trial`, the results can be compared.
If, out of 15 people, 10 state a removal of pain or major reduction during the demonstrations then I feel vindicated. I personally am aiming at 15/15, but can say through experience that it does not work for everybody. I believe the figure of 10 to be a good pass rate as an average would be around 40 to 60%.
So there are the suggested rules for this challenge. I believe them to be completely fair and totally above board in establishing whether the phenomenon of contact healing works. I don`t presume this ability to be a miracle, its simply an ability outside the norms of conventional medical science.
Please leave sensible comments.

[Mojo]

It is usually impractical to create a protocol where you actually heal people, however. Do you think that if you held your hand behind a screen, a friend of yours could determine whether your hand was there or not? If you are giving off energy, this might be possible. Then it would be simple to place you behind a screen, have it randomly determined whether you place your hand out or not, and then ask your friend if it is there or not.
There's a description of just such an experiment here (http://www.ukskeptics.com/documents/EmilyRosa_paper.pdf), showing how simply and cheaply something like this can be set up.

[Mojo]

The 10 volunteers should be divided into two groups. One group should be assigned to a `placebo healer`, i.e a person with no history or claim to be a healer. Preferably, a total sceptic or avowed non-believer. The other group are then assigned to me. It is important, though, that the "placebo healer" is able to convince the patient that they are a real healer, otherwise it wouldn't be an adequate control. In a test featured in a recent BBC series about alternative medicine, they used an actor, who studied the healer's technique and accurately reproduced it.

[KarlQuigley]

Hi Again,
Some interesting comments and suggestions but also some very puerile remarks which are totally unnecessary in an arena supposedly based on intelligent thoughtful debate.
<snip>
If we can keep the debate open-minded and impartial I am prepared to take it further. As I have stated originally, I am a sceptic regarding many outrageous claims on paranormal matters debunked in the past, and commend anyone like Randi that can expose them.
How should the test be performed?
Well, believe it or not, I actually feel drained and very tired after a period of time when performing this ability. It is visually evidenced by very dark rings that appear around my eyes which illustrate this fatigue. - Please no sarcastic one liners!
<snip>
Please leave sensible comments.

Hello and a warm welcome to you,

I cannot comment on your suggestion for the test, I will leave this to others with more experience in such matters.

I can tell you that when I joined this forum, I was quite shocked and annoyed by those who were downright rude to anyone suggesting that they had any belief considered paranormal.

Although I have only been here a short time, I have discovered the majority to be intelligent, polite, patient and accommodating. Unfortunately, I suspect that you will have to endure the minority who think a smart quip adds to debate and those that are just insulting.

Please be open to harmless humour designed to illustrate an opinion and please ignore humour designed to ridicule (like the "losing a hand" jokes).

Thank you for your courage. Please stick around.
Karl Quigley

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi Mojo and Karl Quigley.
Firstly Mojo. I am quite happy to perform, as it were, behind a screen. But therein for me lies a problem. I view the energy subject of this controversy like a spark between a battery and a terminal. If my hand is too far from the subjects hand then the likelihood of it working could be rendered ineffective. I would need to ensure that it is just above the subjects hand. I cannot see the point of whether my hand is behind a screen or not. Why not simply blind-fold the subject and allow me to position my hand at a distance comfortable with what I do? Equally, what`s wrong with simple finger contact? I think in fairness to myself and the James Randi Foundation the experiment group should be doubled to encompass contact and non contact healing. If necessary, I have no objections to either experiment participants being blindfolded or not.
Secondly regarding the placebo healer. Yes, of course why not allow the placebo to convince them he is a healer. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Sorry, I should have covered that in my outline - that`s why I welcome suggestions from forum members.
If at the end of the day people view my ability as a `soothing placebo effect and nothing more` - as I suspect it will be, why am I rendered so tired and visibly weakened? Surely, there must logically be more to this.
Lastly, if I am imagining my ability through sub-conscious psychology and it works in making peoples lives a little more comfortable then what`s the harm in that? However, I don`t feel the latter to be a true reflection of this type of ability.

Karl, Thanks also (as with other forum members) for your support and encouragement.

[Psychic Physicist]

Just one final point. On the subject of volunteers. Surely they can be raised with the participation of press involvement?

[Mojo]

Firstly Mojo. I am quite happy to perform, as it were, behind a screen. But therein for me lies a problem. I view the energy subject of this controversy like a spark between a battery and a terminal. If my hand is too far from the subjects hand then the likelihood of it working could be rendered ineffective. I would need to ensure that it is just above the subjects hand. I cannot see the point of whether my hand is behind a screen or not. Why not simply blind-fold the subject and allow me to position my hand at a distance comfortable with what I do? Equally, what`s wrong with simple finger contact? Ah. I think we were a bit at cross purposes. It appears from your O/P that it is the patient rather than the "healer" who feels the "energy". I first discovered this ability around 10 years ago when a partner complained of a re-occurring pain in her knee joint. On one occasion I placed my hand over the knee to rub it, and she reported that energy from my hand had travelled to the affected area and had warmed an area deep inside her knee which completely removed the pain.
I naturally thought it pure chance but decided to follow through by testing this ability on other people’s ailments. Within a year, I had managed to work with 10 people from work to friends who although at first sceptical stated that a warm energy had travelled through their bodies to soothe away muscular pains or swellings.

Are you saying that they will only feel the "energy" when you are touching them and not when anyone else is? If that is the case. what I would suggest is that, rather than a test involving a degree of subjective judgment, like pain relief, you blindfold the subjects, and get them to tell whether it is you or somebody else that is touching them. This is a test that gives a simple yes/no result: either they correctly identify you or they don't.

[Mojo]

Secondly regarding the placebo healer. Yes, of course why not allow the placebo to convince them he is a healer. He has to convince them that he is a healer, otherwise there will be no placebo effect acting on the control group, and therefore no way of knowing that any positive results in the group you treat over the results for the control group are not a result of the placebo effect.

If at the end of the day people view my ability as a `soothing placebo effect and nothing more` - as I suspect it will be, why am I rendered so tired and visibly weakened? Surely, there must logically be more to this. Again, this could well be the placebo effect: you think you have done something strenuous, so you feel tired. Do you remember feeling tired in a similar way before peiople reported to you that you were transmitting a "warm energy" to them (i.e. when you might have done this without being aware that it was happening)?

Lastly, if I am imagining my ability through sub-conscious psychology and it works in making peoples lives a little more comfortable then what`s the harm in that? What if the pain you treat is an early symptom of some potentially serious underlying problem that you are not able to diagnose or treat?

[Thinktoomuch]

Mojo expressed better and more simply what I tried to say before: the yes/no test cuts through all the other difficulties. Either your touch is "different" in whatever way or it is not. What could be simpler?

[Dr Richard]

It is important, though, that the "placebo healer" is able to convince the patient that they are a real healer, otherwise it wouldn't be an adequate control. In a test featured in a recent BBC series about alternative medicine, they used an actor, who studied the healer's technique and accurately reproduced it.

I would also suggest that 10 people is way too low for a definitive test. Ok for a pilot maybe, but I would suggest that the placebo response rate would likely be 20-30% anyway, making an effect difference hard to pick up in a sample of 10, unless you cured 90%+ of the subjects in your healing group.

[Ladewig]

Hi Again,
Some interesting comments and suggestions but also some very puerile remarks which are totally unnecessary in an arena supposedly based on intelligent thoughtful debate.

Just ignore them. If you feel compelled to respond to them, then please consider opening another thread (perhaps in the religion/philospher sub-forum) to talk about those issues.

Well, believe it or not, I actually feel drained and very tired after a period of time when performing this ability. It is visually evidenced by very dark rings that appear around my eyes which illustrate this fatigue. -
I can work per session for around 30 minutes, no more.

How long does it take you to "recharge" and heal other people?

There should I hasten to add, be a medical doctor present to evaluate the subjects before and after each demonstration.

Why is a medical doctor necessary in a test where people describe their pain as reduced or not reduced? Can you reduce or eliminate physical symptoms that a doctor would recognize? If so, then that might be a better topic for the test.

Caveat - I would also request that I choose discretely the placebo healer to eliminate the possibility that this person may have the same abilities as me. Why? Well, if he or she is not be a placebo, that would invalidate this experiment totally.

How are you able to tell if another person does or does not have the power you claim?

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi again,
Let me try to address some of your concerns or questions.
Regarding the `energy` disclosure.
I feel it, and hopefully so does the subject. I never contradicted myself. Without sounding inflammatory, some of you are `nit-picking` portions of what I have written as literal or definitive responses without thoroughly taking in what I am saying. Mojo, I`m sorry, but you are the worst offender in that department! :-) Further Mojo it logically goes without saying that the placebo has to convince them. It would be pointless otherwise.
The reason that I feel tired is simply that when I touch a subject - and depending on their symptom's I feel literally drained of energy after a while. I realise that concept seems incredulous with some of you, but that`s what happens. Causation and effect. In a day, I can normally work with two people in total of sessions (per individual) ranging from 30 minutes to an hour. I need at least 3 hours in between to recuperate. That normally involves sleep and rest.
A doctor should be present to note any obvious change to a persons condition. This generally involves observations in reduced swellings, or for example someone that had earlier difficulty bending a limb and so forth. The mere observation of an untrained non-medical eye would not be sufficient particularly if the doctor had some record of the patients prior medical state. Surely that seems logical?
With regard to the question of whether I can tell if someone is a healer or not is acceptedly difficult, and here you can jump all over me when I say that I can sense it. Don`t ask me how or why, I really don`t know, I have no way of showing or illustrating this point, but I can feel it, like a third sense.
With regard to `Dr Richard`s` comments. For me in any one session 5 people are as many as I can work with. The reasons have been described previously. I will be too tired. That`s why I suggested three sessions involving 15 people for me, and 15 people for the placebo.
In general there have been some good responses here from you, and I appreciate that. Many points raised have been helpful to me immensely and I thank all of you for that.

Just one final point. I have been reviewing the alleged abilities of some claimants for the money prize. I can now understand why you are very suspect of anyone who claims to perform something which is outside the realms of normal science. Some of these `claimants` are completely bonkers! I sincerely hope that you do not place me in that category, although I feel a minority here do. I am perfectly sane and quite rational, I don`t hear voices, I am not an emissary of god, and I don`t believe in devil`s, goblins or black magic spells, et al. As I said twice earlier, I am a sceptic in all matters until I can experience it myself, and commend the sceptics viewpoint in challenging for the truth. But at some-point you really have to concede that I am genuine and sincere with my own beliefs, and perhaps I can prove I am not deluding you or myself.
It has taken a lot of courage for me to sit on this forum and talk about this subject. I knew that I would be subject to some indifference and ridicule, but I feel compelled to try and show that life is not black and white. It is very often tinged with shades of grey. As I have said, if I could win the challenge then perhaps the money on offer could be used to make less fortunate peoples lives a little more comfortable. But for the challenge to succeed I feel would itself be a minor miracle.
I`m sure that if you really wanted to, you too could achieve what I claim to achieve, I believe it exists in everybody. Just lighten up a little, and peer outside the metaphorical box. You never know what you might find out there.
I now have printed off the entry form, no doubt my real name will soon appear in your chamber of horrors!

[Mojo]

Without sounding inflammatory, some of you are `nit-picking` portions of what I have written as literal or definitive responses without thoroughly taking in what I am saying. Mojo, I`m sorry, but you are the worst offender in that department! :-) What I'm trying to do is to take a claim from your O/P (that people you treat can feel the energy flowing into them) and point you towards a test that might be more acceptable in a challenge application than the one you are proposing. Note that the challenge requires a test giving a self-evident positive or negative result, with no judging required on the part of any participant. Further Mojo it logically goes without saying that the placebo has to convince them. It would be pointless otherwise. OK, fine. I just wasn't sure if you appreciated that (you wouldn't be the first...)

[Cuddles]

But at some-point you really have to concede that I am genuine and sincere with my own beliefs, and perhaps I can prove I am not deluding you or myself

I doubt any of us believe you are not sincere in your beliefs, or that you are trying to delude us. The question of whether you are deluding yourself is an entirely different matter however, and I expect most of us believe this is the case, as it has been for every test so far.

On a different note, there are major changes happening to the challenge, to be announced shortly - see this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64917). It may be worth holding off from applying until we see where Randi is going with this.

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi Mojo,
Well Cuddles has a point there on test aspects. I`ve posted the application so I`ll wait and see what cooks.
I cannot be deluding myself when in the case of swellings I have seen them disappear or reduce in size. If it were a delusion or surely, an `illusion` then that made two of use - both myself and the subject.
Regarding every test, yes you are right, and yes you are also right to remain sceptical.
Anyway, back to the real world! I might forward an interesting photo at some point for comments. I`d rather not continue with this debate as my application is pending. But I`ll be there for other discussions and probably taking your viewpoints - but with an open mind in view of my experiences.
See you all later, I have enjoyed this discussion.

[Apathia]

PsyP,

I want to again encourage you to continue your practice, though a controled test may yield only marginal results, due to, as I pointed out before, the very subjective, personal, and individual thing you are doing. Unless, that is, you are wanting solid evidence that Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, Craniosacral Threrapy, and the like are therapeutic to the same degree and in the same catagory as medicine, so that a practicioner of these arts can claim the titile "Healer" and enhance a professional practice of them.

It is possible though, that a controled study would show the benifits of touch, as I indicated in a previous post. Indeed there is already a consensus out there in the medical world that touch and personal attention are benificial, and its one of the reasons Concord Hospital (in Concord NH) still provides Reiki (from volunteer practitioners) to patients who ask for it as a service.
I'm not sure then, that this would be paranormal enough for the Challenge. But if your agreed on results were relief from pain and swelling it would be doable.

But people are looking for something flashier than feel good touch to make a paranormal challenge over. Most of the respondents this thread don't have any experience of what you are talking about, so they frame it as energies that can be detected behind curtains and blinds. All tests of that sort that I've read of have come up blank. Also tests involving subjects with specific medical conditions to be healed, don't make a good show. Say we chose breast cancer. I think you understand how your assitance would be benificial in the contect of ordinary medical treatments and the patient's recovery, as an outright cancer cure, it would make no showing at all.

As for a "placebo control guy" who would mimic what you do, the chances are very good that he would be doing what you do.
Our culture is so removed from gentle attentive touch or interpersonal touch in most any circumstance except in sexual intimacy, that what ordinary happens between individuals looks mysteriuos and supernatural.

Here's something for the readers of this thread to do to get a little experience of what this feels like. Set down, count your out breaths for a little while to relax. Then hold your palms facing each other about six inches or a third of a meter apart. On inbreath focus on center of your palms and imagine you are breathing in through them. On outbreath imagine you are breathing out them.
Do this for a while, thenbegin to slowly move your palms toward each other.
Move them toward and away again and agiain maintaining your focus on your palms and what you feel between them. Practice this a few times on your own and explore the sensations you experience. Then get a friend or family member, or a stranger if you like. "Charge" up your palms again and do the same motions with their palms or foreheads or at chest level. Ask them what they feel. This engagges the parapympathetic nervous systems of both yourself and the other and we get sympathetic and in deep attention empathetic feelings.

Let me repeat. There isn't some mysterios energy that we ought to be able to detect by some instrumentation. These are subjective feelings associated with being in a light altered state of consciouness. And there's nothing wrong with being in such a relaxed and receptive place provided you aren't driving a car at the same time.

This is an anybody can do thing, Though some folks are more tactile oriented, and have more body awareness, and naturally exude more of a calming presence.

PsyB,

Regarding feeling drained after giving sessions:
I suggest you learn to meditate. This will help you contain yourself and maintain yourself. There are a lot of way woo-woo books on this subject but they do contain workable excercises of intent that you can do to avoid getting whacked out. Look into the woo-woo subject of "energetic boundaries." It's natural that after three or more sessions, you'd begin to feel tired, but one session as a stand alone should be invigorating as opposed to draining.

Confessions from my woo-woo past:
I'm a Reiki master. I've practiced "healing" touch for years. (It's not the sort of thing you admit on a skeptics board for reasons evident in this thread.) I don't do much of it these days, because I tend to "mesmerize" people a tad more than they are comfortable, especially in staid New England. As you can read in my posts, I've come to a perspective of this that recognizes why people like giving and recieving the so called "energy" modalities and feel its a good thing for themselves and others. It really is a nice thing to do and has its place in the human experience. However, it becomes bunk when exagerated claims are made about healings and cures.

[Dogdoctor]

If you are going to just be relying on the subjective opinion of a doctor it would probably be better to have the subjective opinion of 3 or more to try to control the subjectiveness of the evaluation. All patients should be examined before and after the treatment by the same doctors who have been blinded as to which treatment group each patient is in. A doctor, no matter how skilled still is making a subjective evaluation without objective data collection. You opinion of "healing" that occurs is a subjective evaluation as is the opinion of the subject who were "healed". In addition why is it not appropriate just to pick someone who claims not to have any healing powers? There should be no connection between you and the second person.

[RSLancastr]

Psychic Physicist, perhaps it has already been mentioned here, but I find your posts very difficult to read.

You might consider spacing in between your paragraphs. Otherwise, it's just page after page of dense text, which is hard for many (like myself) to read.

Just a thought.

[Jeff Corey]

... On the other foot, I know that all life and our existence are not plainly and easily explainable with quick scientific fixes.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
An easy illustration is the age old mind bender which asks, `Where does the universe end or begin – in terms of size and distance?` Because logically, if there is no comprehendible end or beginning, how can we exist?
Not even a sceptic can answer that one.

I still can't believe that only two posts have addressed this silly statement, which was part of the OP.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

[RSLancastr]

I still can't believe that only two posts have addressed this silly statement, which was part of the OP.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.It is indeed silly and pointless, but I don't know that it is truly a link in the "chain."

The guy either has "healing powers" or he doesn't. Any pseudo-philosophical statements he makes are beside the point.

[Jeff Corey]

But they are as indicative of a certain mindset as quantum qi energy healing can be.

[RSLancastr]

Agreed.

[Jeff Corey]

Thank you. Certain others here didn't seem to get it.

[Thinktoomuch]

Let us forget for a moment all the side issues about what healing principle is involved, what is normal or not, what is acceptable for the challenge or not etc. and take this as an exercise in basic logic.

A person claims to be able to produce beneficial effects to another person who displays a physical ailment just by touching the affected part. The most effective results are obtained in series of 5 sessions or less of up to 60 minutes each.

Therefore if:

· A suitable number of patients in groups <= 5 is selected on the basis that they state their belief in touch healing;
· each patient is told that a test is being conducted to check the effectiveness of various healers and they will be touched by a healer or a non-healer, but they will not be told which;
· the claimant touches all patients;
· after the session, unbeknown to the claimant, each patient states whether he/she felt the healing power or not;
· the number of patients who felt “healed” is significantly above placebo

then the claimant has a healing power.

Is there any fault in this logic?

[Jeff Corey]

Yes, if you are going to use a statistical test to evaluate the results, you need more participants (formerly called "subjects"). At least 10 in each group to give it a fair test. And if the claimant touches all, where's the placebo?

[Ladewig]

I still can't believe that only two posts have addressed this silly statement, which was part of the OP.


When newer posters consider making claims for the JREF prize, they often have philosophies or beliefs that seem to lack critical thinking. Engaging such posters in discussions about such beliefs (in a thread devoted to testing procedures) really slows down discussion of test design.

I think everyone noticed the observations and the faults with them. Perhaps the best solution would be to move this thread to the Challenge sub-forum and ask P.P. if he has time to outline his beliefs in a new thread in the Religion/Philosophy sub-forum.

[Jeff Corey]

Sorry, I didn't know this thread was only about testing procedures. I thought it was about the OP, which evolved into issues about how to test the extra-ordinary claim.

[Thinktoomuch]

Yes, if you are going to use a statistical test to evaluate the results, you need more participants (formerly called "subjects"). At least 10 in each group to give it a fair test. And if the claimant touches all, where's the placebo?

I am starting to think that my English is the problem here.

"suitable number" = N adequate to produce statistically significant results

N is the population (10, 20, 30, whatever, tested in s sessions where N/s <= 5 as requested by the claimant)

X patients (subjects) blindly evaluate the claimant as "healer", N-X as "non-healer"

P subjects (20-30% has been suggested) may feel "healed" because of placebo anyway.

If X significantly >P the claim is proven.

Clearer?

[Pup]

X patients (subjects) blindly evaluate the claimant as "healer", N-X as "non-healer"

P subjects (20-30% has been suggested) may feel "healed" because of placebo anyway.

If X significantly >P the claim is proven.

You're saying that the real healer touches all the subjects, correct? Then how do you determine what P would normally be?

It's necessary to run a trial on similar subjects, duplicating the treatment as closely as possible but without the "active ingredient" (in this case, the actual healer's touch). That's the only way to establish accurately what P would be. Otherwise, there's no way of telling whether X is significantly greater than P, because you don't know what P would be.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding?

[Thinktoomuch]

maybe I have misunderstood a previous post as suggesting that P could be given on the basis of previous studies. Assuming that this is a red herring, let say that the claim is proven if X is significantly larger than N-X. Even more stringent.

[Ladewig]

Sorry, I didn't know this thread was only about testing procedures. I thought it was about the OP, which evolved into issues about how to test the extra-ordinary claim.

I was just making a suggestion. If you feel the need to address the ridiculousness of the philosophical assertions, have at it.

[Jeff Corey]

I thought I did.This guy is an idiot.

[JLam]

PsyPhy,
It would make things very easy for everyone to understand if you answered these three simple questions in one or two sentences:

1) What do you claim to do?

2) Under what circumstances are you able to do it? (for example, "I can only do it on Thursdays after having eaten a turkey sandwich" or something like that.)

3) What degree of success do you claim?

Two sentences maximum for each answer...that will really help us boil down what, exactly, we're talking about here.

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi,
This is the man that Corey refers too as an `idiot`. Also the same person that `lacks critical thinking`. Also the same person `that writes bunched up` or whatever, obviously making his claim too difficult for minds the size of Einstein to understand.

Your perception of me clearly speaks volumes. I don`t think that I am an idiot, but then I don`t claim to `think too much` either.

J Lam is so intelligent that despite the copious amounts of text, he/she still cannot understand what I claim to do.
Even better, having left some of you for a period on your own, you tear into each other! Obviously, my absence makes the heart grow fonder.

I am not going to fuel some of your prejudices by repeating everything I have said. I personally don`t feel I am an idiot, but like my healing claims, it all boils down to belief and opinion.

What a bland empty life-scape some of you must dwell in. A world of black and white, a world where everything is rationally understood (according to your own rules) and any challenge to your beliefs is treated with the same zeal and hysteria as the the Spanish inquisition?

Because I claim something that is beyond your personal understanding of the world in which you exist, does it mean therefore that it cannot exist?

Does it also give you the right to rubbish this persons opinion because you feel so smugly right?

I on the contrary am open minded, I do not discount everything out of hand because I haven`t experienced it personally, but instead try to seek answers rather than dismiss everything.

As I have said, I respect people like Randi who expose liars and fraudsters because of the damage that some of these people cause to other peoples lives. But equally, I have had experiences in my life that have no predetermined logical explanation, and am therefore trying to seek the truth about these things. Does that make me a complete fool because it is outside your own terms of reference?

To conclude, I really don`t give a toss what you think, I suggest that you show respect for others that don`t subscribe to your alleged empirical assertions of anything you really don't understand. That is made plainly obvious by the manner under which you feel these tests should be made.

So much for thoughtful debate. I`ve obviously arrived at the wrong forum!

PS: I haven`t referred to it, but the statement made concerning the universe - that was a deliberate red herring. You certainly passed the test and satisfied my own curiosity. Thankyou..

[Psychic Physicist]

Just a final thought.. Try to get out more. You might find that the outside world is more challenging than you think.

[StewartP]

Hmmm. This thread seems to have followed EXACTLY the same life cycle as the "Pink Lady (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1819124#post1819124)" thread. Linda left the forum in a huff and it was decided that it was because JREFrs had been too rude to her.

Now Psychic psychiatrist is getting miffed too, and so far he has had quite a gentle ride.

I can't find the post, but someone once described the life cycle of these posts, going something like:
1. Person makes a vague claim of abilities
2. JREFrs try and condense this to a few simple testable sentences
3. Person leaves in a huff

[Ladewig]

Hi,

I am not going to fuel some of your prejudices by repeating everything I have said. I personally don`t feel I am an idiot, but like my healing claims, it all boils down to belief and opinion.

See, right here is the problem. You say that your healing claims boil down to belief and opinion. We say healing claims should never consist of belief and opinion but rather should always consist of evidence and properly conducted trials. Many of your posts indicate that you, too, see the usefulness of a properly-controlled study.

What a bland empty life-scape some of you must dwell in. A world of black and white, a world where everything is rationally understood (according to your own rules) and any challenge to your beliefs is treated with the same zeal and hysteria as the the Spanish inquisition?

If you feel that what you were exposed to is somehow akin to the Spanish inquisition, I would suggest that it is you and not us that needs to experience more of the outside world.

Because I claim something that is beyond your personal understanding of the world in which you exist, does it mean therefore that it cannot exist?

No. Because you claim a power that, if true, would start a scientific revolution as far-reaching as Copernicus's or Einstein's, we ask for evidence. At the beginning of the thread when we talked about what specific kind of evidence is required, you seemed to agree that carefully controlled evidence was necessary. Now you seem to have switched you position.

I on the contrary am open minded, I do not discount everything out of hand because I haven`t experienced it personally, but instead try to seek answers rather than dismiss everything.

And,like you, the majority of posters in this thread "tried to seek the answers" by helping you design a protocol for a JREF Challenge test.



- [more angry accusations snipped for length] -

Of course, the best possible way to give us our comeuppance would be to take the test and pass it. That will really show us how right you are and how wrong we are. I do hope you'll apply.

[Mojo]

I do hope you'll apply.Actually, he did say that he'd applied, and would therefore "rather not continue with this debate". Then made two more "farewell" posts, including the one you replied to.

[Mojo]

I haven`t referred to it, but the statement made concerning the universe - that was a deliberate red herring. You certainly passed the test and satisfied my own curiosity. Thankyou..What were you trying to test? The proposition that if you deliberately and prominantly included a piece of utter bollocks in your first post on the forum some people might not take you seriously?

Perhaps the fact that you admittedly started this thread with a post that was not in good faith tells us more about you than people's reactions to it tells you about "skeptics".

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi Ladewig,

No, I`m not angry, just saddened by some of the rude responses of the forums contributors. Is there a need to trade insults?? That doesn`t strike me as a logical response?
I realise that my claims need to be properly analysed, but there has to be a measure of understanding of how I can best demonstrate it, and the suggestions I have detailed here ( seem to me), to best cover that. I don`t think them unreasonable and they can be tailored to suit some aspects of what has been proposed.
It seems perfectly fine to be rude and insulting by some of the sceptic contributors, but if I offer a robust defense, I am the one who is out of line. An example of your post - `more angry accusations snipped for length` Huh? Was I shouting and banging my fists?
Another observation of mine is that there is a tendency to place some contributors into pre-defined boxes by comparing me, for example, to other previous contributors rather than to accept that we as humans are all individually dfferent.
That is the fundamental flaw with some scientific doctrine. Rather than open minds to new arguments or views, it is easier to pre-categorise everything and everyone.

As I have said, I am only too happy to take part in a test but it has to be in an acceptable format to both parties.
I used this forum as a soundboard, and I am satisfied with what I have learnt. But as you and the others here won`t individually be testing me on the big day, any argument over the criteria laid down for evaluating my claims is as they say, quite academic.
The point of my challenge is not to give a two fingered salute to academic opinion, but to open up the possibility that there are other facets to our existence rather than a bland boring ideological view point that there isn`t.
I will say Ladewig that your opinions have generally been well balanced and impartial, but the comments of some others here have been insulting and exhibiting extreme prejudice. Anyway, I must move on and await what happens further on this proposition.

[Psychic Physicist]

To Mojo.

I found this thread from another forum on existence. More enligtening than your response of `bollox`.

Ask yourself this question. Why does anything exist at all? Since we exist, was there ever a point where it didn’t exist? In other words, was there a point where nothing existed at all? If that is so, why and how did something ever come about? In other words if it is truly absolute nothingness, how could something ever come about? For something to come about there would seem to have to be some kind of burbling causation, a vortices or minimal 'something' that gave rise to further complexity, ultimately yielding the complex universe we have today. The question can be summed up as this:

How do we get something from nothing?

Part of the problem with the above thinking is that it implies the existence of time. Yet, we know that time, as least as we understand it is a function of space. According to the big bang/inflationary theory of the origin of our universe, both time and space were created simultaneously with the big bang. This of course always brings up the question, of what happened before the big bang? If time was created at the big bang, then there was no ‘time’ before the big bang. If that is the case, then what that implies is that the big bang is an extrusion out of an always existent, simultaneous, no-time (eternity) super-space. Or we could say that the big bang simply popped out of void. So did it either pop out of Void, or did it pop out of eternal everythingness? Either way, we are still caught in this ‘time’ thing. And that is the trap that we must transcend. So what are we left with? No time.

Therefore if the underlying meta-reality is that there is no time, then concepts like beginning and end have no meaning. Time is something that pops in and out of existence. Existence then is grounded in no time. Without time, what you are left with is something that has always existed and always will. It is the eternal now.

Now to our next topic – the laws of the universe. We again start with the same question. Why does anything exist at all? Since it does exist, why does it have the shape and form it does? Why not a different shape? We can of course say these shapes and forms are determined by physical law. But then the question becomes where did these physical laws come from? Why did our universe with all of its complexity come out of the big bang exactly as it did, and not some way else? When you examine in detail our physical laws, it quickly becomes apparent just how damn arbitrary it all is. For example, why is it that the electron to proton mass ratio is 1836, and not 1835, or 478? For one thing, if it weren’t exactly that ratio, matter as we know it would fly apart, and we would not have the periodic table of elements. No carbon, no humans. No humans, we don’t exist to even ask these questions. In other words, only those universes in which intelligent life can evolve, exist in the first place to even ask themselves how amazingly fine-tuned the constants are for them to exist! What this implies is that there billions, trillions of other universes where intelligence never evolves. Where the constants are arranged in such a way, that complexity can never emerge. This line of thinking is what is called The Anthropic Principle. I recommend reading up on it – it’s fascinating.

The opposite of this is that only those universes that evolve complex life exist? Why? Is there some greater intelligence guiding or designing it that way? Perhaps. But then where did that intelligence come from? Either way we are back to the utter arbitrariness of anything existing at all. So what we are left with, since we have ‘no time’ as a backdrop, is that everything already exists, has existed and will always exist.

[wombatwal]

Psychic Physicist
I don't know if you are genuine or not, but we should give you a fair go.
I do find unfortunately some skeptics are as dogmatic and close minded as any believer in superstition, Creationist, fundamentalists etc, etc.

[KarlQuigley]

I thought I did.This guy is an idiot.

This is the man that Corey refers too as an `idiot`.


This is exactly why Psychic Physicist went off in a huff. I don't blame him, I would do the same.

As soon as PsyP read this comment, then all other comments /debates appeared hostile.

I thought for one moment that we may have a thread that was unique from the normal sceptic arguing with sceptic.

We all have a right to an opinion and to voice that opinion. We do not have the right to insult someone just because their beliefs differ from ours - whatever we think of that belief.

I know that it was just one insult from one person but that's all it takes.

What happens to Jeff Corey? Anything or nothing? Is the forum policy to tolerate different beliefs or to tolerate the intolerant? I just want to know whether I should find somewhere else to hang out.

The proposition that if you deliberately and prominantly included a piece of utter bollocks in your first post on the forum some people might not take you seriously?

Mojo, you know as well as I that PsyP is upset. PsyP is just angry and reacting angrily. If he wasn't so angry he might have said something like "On second thoughts maybe I could have used a better example." Just read his reaction to the request to space out his paragraphs. The guy is just pissed.

I can't find the post, but someone once described the life cycle of these posts, going something like:
1. Person makes a vague claim of abilities
2. JREFrs try and condense this to a few simple testable sentences
3. Person leaves in a huff

Stewartp, this is not what happened. The guy was insulted and reacted like a person who had been insulted. And you know this!
He was called an idiot and had to suffer niggling comments like
for example, "I can only do it on Thursdays after having eaten a turkey sandwich" or something like that.

This is the reason for the short life cycle, perhaps the same happened on previous occasions.

He has been pissed off and he has pissed off.

Whatever my personal opinions, I was hoping to learn something from PsyP. Now I cannot.

So now what can I learn? Nothing.

Karl Quigley

[KarlQuigley]

Oh hang on PsyP's back. Perhaps I was somewhat hasty.

[StewartP]

Stewartp, this is not what happened. The guy was insulted and reacted like a person who had been insulted. And you know this!
He was called an idiot and had to suffer niggling comments like

This is the reason for the short life cycle, perhaps the same happened on previous occasions.

He has been pissed off and he has pissed off.

Whatever my personal opinions, I was hoping to learn something from PsyP. Now I cannot.

So now what can I learn? Nothing.

Karl Quigley
Karl, perhaps you are right. We went thru the same autopsy and analysis after the PinkLady thread. People would have liked to have had a longer and deeper dialogue to find out more about her beliefs and thoughts and processes. We went through much soul searching and chest beating about how we could have better responded. believe me, this thread has been positively ladies tea party in comparison.

Perhaps it is the insult that the cause, or perhaps it is the insult that is gratefully taken as an excuse to leave in high dudgeon when as the logical application of test protocals start to make it apparant that reality is drawing too close.

I too think it would be helpful if diologue was continued in a civilised, calm and respectful manner.

But I suspect we could get to the same conclusion, only it would take 200 posts instead of 30

[Apathia]

But I suspect we could get to the same conclusion, only it would take 200 posts instead of 30

And in the 200 posts, we'd have the opportunity to get over the sound bytes and misleading frames.
In the case of this subject, ordinary human psycho-somatic effects that could use a lot more investigation are paranormalized or chalked up as mere delusion.
"Paranormal" is more sensational. "Delusional" is more sensational. People get excited with the frames. A Skeptic wants to know, "What's really going on here?"

[KarlQuigley]

Psychic Physicist, I think you should know that there are going to be changes in the acceptance of the applicants for the challenge. As I understand it (someone correct if I'm wrong) the applicants are going to be chosen based on their public profile. The more in the public eye the applicant is, the more chance of acceptance.
If I am right about this, you may find that you are not accepted for the challenge. Although, as you have applied before the changes have been announced, this might not apply.

My point in telling you this is that should your application not be accepted (or if you decide not to take the challenge after all), I would like you to keep a presence here for further discussions.

One other thing I thought about was, as you seem quite sceptical in other matters; had you thought about actually testing yourself? You seem clear as to the necessary procedures required to give a fair result. If you could find someone to act as placebo and found some volunteers who did not know you. It's just a thought, especially as you agree that there might be "conventional" reasons for your healing abilities. Should you find that your abilities are not actual healing powers you would save yourself the hardship and scrutiny (and listing in the "chamber of horrors"). If your self testing reaffirmed your belief in your healing abilities, you may find this beneficial to your confidence when facing the challenge (if accepted).

Kind regards

Karl Quigley

[tsig]

First off welcome to the forum!
Your on a wild world of discovery and great discussion here.



But remember science is constantly refining itself. It evolves as we evolve and discover new ways to measure and record more accurate and reliable data. You must remove thoughts that science is some evil big brother, arrogant and ignorant. Science is completely and utterly neutral. Its not something with feelings or morals, its a method to understand things. I dont like this sentence because most people who say it repeat this mantra because they dont understand and appreciate the real method behind science and how important the method is.



Its not so simple. There is evidence that suggests things started at a specific point. How that became to start with and how it progressed further is beyond my understanding, but that does not mean the information is non existant. What you dont know is what you dont know, not what no one else knows. I think I just confused myself.



Anecdotal yes, factual it is not. It's a bold claim that you posess an ability that will rewrite the science books. But im all eyes and ears.



This does suprise me. One of the appealing things I find with this line of work is to get to the facts. However I think your trying to appeal to authority to add weight to your arguement. Its going to hit a brick wall under scientific scrutiny. Check out what einstein himself said was his biggest blunder, and thats einstein - and he would have thanked science for showing him.



I dont like these grey lines people like to blur in order to make a claim sound more credible. Evidence not philosophy. Im completely open but after 60 years of research, im starting to wonder why people persist.



If I said you rubbing my knee made me feel some sort of sexual advance, would that be your healing power or some other weird power. This is completely vague evidence explainable is many mundane and unfortunately boring ways. I have seen elsewhere on here about tests using prayer etc and how a nice voice and soothing touch can make a big difference.



I have a proposal.

1) 20 volunteers. They are told and are believers in faith healing.
you and someone else - like me (I think its just emotion and a kind heart that is helping)

2) the 20 dont see each other but are told a faith healer will come in and help them with their various ailments.

3) We would take it in turns to approach the people. one at a time, no one repeated - so I would take 1, you 2, me the third, you the 4th etc, so we get 10 each, making sure none of the volunteers can give away anything about their suspicions by...using seperate rooms? They should not have any idea if its done properly and well out of sight, in a good test they will think you or I are the person they want to heal them.

4) We both use a same method - whatever that is - perhaps pretend to pray to god or whatever. A touch on the knee etc. Be sure its exactly the same.

5) Record results. Have a results grading sheet (level of healing felt), same for every person on test.

6) Now do the same for 20 more this time, you give them what they believe is a healing device. Lets say a simple iron rod. We will need 20 of these to ensure there is no mixing of 'powers' For each second person you get, you touch this device, the other time its left alone. Every person is told the iron rod has been touched by a healer.

7) Record results. Have a results grading sheet (level of healing felt), same for every person on test.

8) Another 20 people. Given an iron rod again, this time Neither of us touch it. They people are all told the rods are bestowed with magic healing powers.

9) Record results. Have a results grading sheet (level of healing felt), same for every person on test.

The only hassle is the amount of people :(

My thoughts
Cheers



Take 20 people and whack em in the knee with an iron rod, but tell them that the rod is a rod of god's power and they will be better for it in the end.


Now take 20 people and touch them on the knee and tell them that the warmth they feel is the breath of satan.


Who will walk away without a limp?

[tsig]

Just a final thought.. Try to get out more. You might find that the outside world is more challenging than you think.

condescend much?

arrogance and ignorance

are mached in perfect harmony

(ebony and ivory)

[KarlQuigley]

Take 20 people and whack em in the knee with an iron rod, but tell them that the rod is a rod of god's power and they will be better for it in the end.


Now take 20 people and touch them on the knee and tell them that the warmth they feel is the breath of satan.


Who will walk away without a limp?

condescend much?

arrogance and ignorance

are mached in perfect harmony

(ebony and ivory)

PsyP, you can see by the above quotes that unfortunately there are the few who hop from thread to thread, sprouting out inane comments in the belief that they are contributing. They believe that they can throw out one-liners all over the forum in the belief that we will gasp at their comprehension and deep knowledge in every subject. They believe we are in awe of their fast thinking meaningful abilities. They believe we do not think they are full of it.

...and these very same people will criticise your beliefs.

Mind you, anyone who does not take the time to read over what they have typed, or knows how to use a spell-checker, does not really deserve much attention. And that is exactly my advice, ignore the few and concentrate on those with intelligent input.

We feel the same way as you do about them.

Kind Regards

karl Quigley

[Jeff Corey]

...Mind you, anyone who does not take the time to read over what they have typed, or knows how to use a spell-checker, does not really deserve much attention...

You might want to read that over again.

[Thinktoomuch]

Yes, Jeff, we are all human. Ask yourself this, though, and be honest: would the forum be better without Karl or without you?

[Mojo]

Mojo, you know as well as I that PsyP is upset. PsyP is just angry and reacting angrily. If he wasn't so angry he might have said something like "On second thoughts maybe I could have used a better example." Just read his reaction to the request to space out his paragraphs. The guy is just pissed.But what reason did he have to be pissed off with me? I have no control over what anyone else posts. Until he became actually hostile, all I did was to try to suggest ways he could present an acceptable challenge, based on what he had posted. When I realised I had misread what he had posted, I admitted this, and changed my suggestion accordingly. I assumed that he was sincere, and responded accordingly.

What else can you do?

[Mojo]

Who will walk away without a limp?A limp what? :boggled:








:D

[Jeff Corey]

Yes, Jeff, we are all human. Ask yourself this, though, and be honest: would the forum be better without Karl or without you?

I don't know, but anyone who fails to see the irony of making a mistake while criticizing others for making the same mistake is incredibily dense.

[Thinktoomuch]

Absolutely true. But most people who see the irony do not feel the need to prove to themselves how smart they are by making an unproductive sarcastic comment.

[The Atheist]

I personally don`t feel I am an idiot, but like my healing claims, it all boils down to belief and opinion......

........To conclude, I really don`t give a toss what you think, I suggest that you show respect for others that don`t subscribe to your alleged empirical assertions of anything you really don't understand. That is made plainly obvious by the manner under which you feel these tests should be made.

So much for thoughtful debate. I`ve obviously arrived at the wrong forum!

PS: I haven`t referred to it, but the statement made concerning the universe - that was a deliberate red herring. You certainly passed the test and satisfied my own curiosity. Thankyou..(Bolding mine)

Ok, Mr. Pommy, ex-Cop Psychic Healer bloke.

You come into a sceptics' forum, start off by telling us you're a psychic healer, make idiot statements about the universe, slag off all the "fraudulent psychics" and then expect to gain respect? I thought you were psychic! (joke, mate!)

Only one way to gain respect around here - take and pass the challenge. I'll leave it with JREF for now as you've already completed an application, but I have my doubts that it will ever be sent in. If it is, and you have trouble sorting out protocols, I'm sure we can overcome them, so let me know.

Meanwhile, my reading shows:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377451f74d05e792.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1714)

but I'll give you a fair go. Being a pom, you'd have heard the old expression about enough rope? I'll make damned sure you have plenty!

[KarlQuigley]

But what reason did he have to be pissed off with me? I have no control over what anyone else posts. Until he became actually hostile, all I did was to try to suggest ways he could present an acceptable challenge, based on what he had posted. When I realised I had misread what he had posted, I admitted this, and changed my suggestion accordingly. I assumed that he was sincere, and responded accordingly.

What else can you do?

I did not detect any real hostility from either of you. My intention was to try to calm the situation, or to prevent it from worsening. I apologise, I probably overreacted to the situation.
I wonder if you can help me out here, I feel I may have made a fool of myself.

“Mind you, anyone who does not take the time to read over what they have typed, or knows how to use a spell-checker, does not really deserve much attention.”

What is wrong with this sentence? I’ve looked and I’ve looked, but I cannot see the mistake(s).

All the best

Karl Quigley

[StewartP]

“Mind you, anyone who does not take the time to read over what they have typed, or knows how to use a spell-checker, does not really deserve much attention.”

What is wrong with this sentence? I’ve looked and I’ve looked, but I cannot see the mistake(s).



Should be:
"Mind you, anyone who does not take the time to read over what they have typed, or does not know how to use a spell-checker, does not really deserve much attention.”

[KarlQuigley]

Got it thanks. That'll teach me.

Thanks

Karl Quigley

[KarlQuigley]

(Bolding mine)

Ok, Mr. Pommy, ex-Cop Psychic Healer bloke.

but I'll give you a fair go. Being a pom, you'd have heard the old expression about enough rope? I'll make damned sure you have plenty!

(Bolding mine)
The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent men without racism, and rascist men without intelligence.

Actually, I thought slagging of "fraudulent psychics" DID gain you respect round here.

Oh well, I tried my best but it just gets worse. In future, I'll keep quiet and see if this helps.

My apologies to everyone if this is all my fault.

Karl Quigley

[Apathia]

When whacking woo's isn't an outlet for anger or an expression of disgust and frauds, it's just one of those things some people do to show they belong in this community. In the heat of the whacking there is no listening.
True we get some people who have nothing coherent to listen to (OP not an example) but you can ignore them unless you are looking for someone to kick in the teeth.

PsyP,

If you are still following, this forum has a feature called Ignore. You can make unhelpful person's posts and threads invisible, so you can focus on posts that are giving you practical and helpful information.
Expect, of course, that people won't for the most part take to what you are saying about this subject. The main function of a skeptic is to call stuff into question and ask for substanial evidence. Sometimes it's like a skeet shoot here, but just take the good criticism and ignore people who aren't listening and are just rude.

I'm still not seeing the path to a clear testing of your ability. I think I'll go back and dig around for some of the TT studies that were done in the past.
As for testing to see who felt or didn't feel sensations upon your touch,
Most people will. Most of the time we aren't paying attention to the sensations that are occuring in our bodies. Set down for a moment and begin paying attention to how your body feels in various places, and you'll find some intersting sensations. Here's someone with little body awareness and who is usually oblivious to how their body feels except in pain. Along comes a Reiki practioner who calls their attention to a place on their body and asks what they feel. Amazing! They do feel stuff. Is it "Healing Power" that they feel?
And there's even more stuff to feel in the context of human contact and the intimacy of trusting someone's touch (and yes it is a touch, even though a l skin to skin contact isn't made. Are these sensations and psychological responses "Healing Power?" Just what is the Healing Power as opposed to feeling? It takes amuch more complex study with many participants involving many research hours tracking the recovery of sick and injuired patients who have recieved so-called "Energy Work."
In my opinion it's a more involved investigation than suitable for the simple demonstration approach the $1 million challange is seeking.
Now if you were claiming to be able to make chronic illnesses vanish on contact without any other medical attention or treatments, that would be game.

[The Atheist]

(Bolding mine)
The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent men without racism, and rascist men without intelligence.

Actually, I thought slagging of "fraudulent psychics" DID gain you respect round here.

Oh well, I tried my best but it just gets worse. In future, I'll keep quiet and see if this helps.

My apologies to everyone if this is all my fault.

Karl Quigley
Karl. You live in England and therefore you are probably a pom. You should know very well that "pom' and "pommy" are NOT terms of abuse in any way. It's exactly the same as "Aussie" or "Kiwi".

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[KarlQuigley]

Karl. You live in England and therefore you are probably a pom. You should know very well that "pom' and "pommy" are NOT terms of abuse in any way. It's exactly the same as "Aussie" or "Kiwi".

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Go to Google.com, type in define: pom and then define: pommy

Find a definition that doe not include the word "derogative" or "disparaging".

Also, try and convince anyone,after reading your post, that you did not mean to use this expression in a disparaging or derogative way. I know you will fail.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Karl Quigley

[The Atheist]

Go to Google.com, type in define: pom and then define: pommy

Find a definition that doe not include the word "derogative" or "disparaging".

Also, try and convince anyone,after reading your post, that you did not mean to use this expression in a disparaging or derogative way. I know you will fail.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Karl QuigleyOh, Google says it - it must be true! I suppose you believe everything you see on tv as well.

Let me quote from a DICTIONARY. The Oxford one, that is. The definitive authority on the English language:

pom, pommy, Pommy. n NZ & Austral. sl. British person, esp. recent immigrant. [shortening of pommygrant, obs. var. of (after IMMIGRANT) of POMEGRANATE + -Y]

Now, you tell me how there's anything abusive in that!

Have no fear, Karl, when I abuse someone, I don't hide behind euphemisms, I come right out with it - go check my other posts if you doubt me.

Since I was offering the aforementioned pommy the opportunity of claiming a Kiwi Million as well as the JREF Million, I think I'd know what I meant. Bubble completely intact.

[KarlQuigley]

Oh, Google says it - it must be true! I suppose you believe everything you see on tv as well.

Let me quote from a DICTIONARY. The Oxford one, that is. The definitive authority on the English language:

pom, pommy, Pommy. n NZ & Austral. sl. British person, esp. recent immigrant. [shortening of pommygrant, obs. var. of (after IMMIGRANT) of POMEGRANATE + -Y]


Now read the rest of the definition, the bit you deliberately omitted. - "Often used derogatory."

Or Oxford Online (for an up to date definition)
Pommy


(also Pommie)
• noun (pl. Pommies) Austral./NZ informal, derogatory a British person. — ORIGIN said by some to be short for pomegranate, as a near rhyme to immigrant

Let's try Collins "...offensive word used by Australians..."

For your information, Google is a SEARCH ENGINE and not a dictionary. It SEARCHES for definitions. Get it?

You ignored my second suggestion; have you tried to convince anyone yet?

Karl Quigley

[The Atheist]

Now read the rest of the definition, the bit you deliberately omitted. - "Often used derogatory."Oh, the tedium.

Here, Karl, is the actual page of the Oxford dictionary. Find the term "derogatory" in it! Sorry to not need to use descriptions via the internet, but I prefer to use an actual dictionary - you may have heard of them.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377452043683071c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1723)

As to convincing anyone, I don't need to. Take it as you wish - I repeat, when I abuse people, they know they've been abused.

[KarlQuigley]

Oh, the tedium.

Here, Karl, is the actual page of the Oxford dictionary. Find the term "derogatory" in it! Sorry to not need to use descriptions via the internet, but I prefer to use an actual dictionary - you may have heard of them.
As to convincing anyone, I don't need to. Take it as you wish - I repeat, when I abuse people, they know they've been abused.

I took it as it was intended. Your manner was abusive. Your dictionary is out of date. Oxford online is up to date- you cannot dispute that.

The Internet,as you are no doubt beginning to discover, is a wonderful source of accurate information providing you look in the right places. You'll get the hang of it.

As it now seems obvious that you did not fully understand the terms "Pom" or "Pommy", I'll move on to more intellectual discussions.

Karl Quigley

[Brainache]

I took it as it was intended. Your manner was abusive. Your dictionary is out of date. Oxford online is up to date- you cannot dispute that.

The Internet,as you are no doubt beginning to discover, is a wonderful source of accurate information providing you look in the right places. You'll get the hang of it.

As it now seems obvious that you did not fully understand the terms "Pom" or "Pommy", I'll move on to more intellectual discussions.

Karl Quigley

Just to continue the derail here, I was quite surprised the first time I heard an Englishman describe the word Pommie as racist.

I was working on a broadcast of the last Ashes cricket series. Our two resident experts (Dean Jones and Greg Matthews) kept referring to the English team as "The Poms" and during the break our English presenter said Pom was a racist term equivalent to calling someone from Pakistan a "Paki" or an Aboriginal an "Abo".

We all laughed at him and called him a stupid whingeing pommy b*stard.

When I was a kid my dad called the English "Chooms" an extinct term now which was derived from "New Chums" referring to recently arrived fellow convicts.

Either way the word Pommy is not usually used in an agressively derogatory fashion. It is used in the same sense that we call New Zealanders Kiwis, Americans Yanks and Canadians Yanks( we can't tell the difference). If it was a racist term we would, I assume, be of a different race. Given that the term is used mainly by people of European descent we would be being racist towards our own race.

[Dogdoctor]

Isn't posting a picture of a page from a dictionary a violation of rule 4?

[The Atheist]

I took it as it was intended.Oops! No, you mean that you took it as you assumed it was meant.Your manner was abusive. Wrong. Belittling; sure, abusive; not even close. Maybe you can look the difference up online!Your dictionary is out of date. Oxford online is up to date- you cannot dispute that.:dl:
Mate - don't you think those of us who use Antipodean colloquialisms might best know what they mean? The Aussie who posted next certainly did, and so does my totally up-to-date dictionary. And, sorry to burst another bubble of yours, but the online Oxford is by no means definitive. The NZ/Australian versions are, as regards local colloquial usage.The Internet,as you are no doubt beginning to discover, is a wonderful source of accurate information providing you look in the right places. You'll get the hang of it.Is that right? Maybe that will happen some time after you realise that just because a web site says so, it isn't necessarily true or correct. As it now seems obvious that you did not fully understand the terms "Pom" or "Pommy", I'll move on to more intellectual discussions.

Karl QuigleyYou mean like the first thread you started? Yessiree, highly intellectual!

Mate, you must be fair dinkum short of bubbles at this stage!

[The Atheist]

Isn't posting a picture of a page from a dictionary a violation of rule 4?Nope, not even close. Go read it (rule 4, rather than the dictionary - I'll leave that to Karl!)

[The Atheist]

And a final thought regarding the "pommy" saga - I use the exact same term with both andyandy and brodski, and they are both people whose opinions I am on record as respecting.

[Thinktoomuch]

So you respect them and do not abuse them but you are happy to belittle them. "Oh, the tedium!"

[Flange Desire]

derail
Yes, down here many of our ancestors are poms from the 'old country'.
We love em all - except for the winging pommy barstarges!
It is true that the term may come across as a bit derogatory,
but it is not really meant that way
- because we tend to diss everybody equally - especially ourselves!
btw, dictionaries are alway playing 'catch up' with language evolution. They are not definitive of a live langauge - they are a snapshot of a language at a particular time and place.

back on track
I hope Psychic Physicist returns to the thread.
I doubt that any protocol will be developed, when it becomes more evident to PP that the so-called healing touch is in fact a combination of placebo, warm fuzzies and delusion.
PP could speed this along by reading some good stuff available on this.

By the way PP, some of the rudeness you will see around here is directed at the false use of the word 'healer', which is seen as a serious matter by many here. A common theme heard from 'healers' is that it is no big deal - if people get some good out of it then that is great - not hurting anybody - etc, etc.
But it is seen by many (including me) as plain fraud. No offence intended PP.

[The Atheist]

So you respect them and do not abuse them but you are happy to belittle them. "Oh, the tedium!"Well, honey, when you start putting up a million, you'll be able to belittle the frauds who attempt to take it, too!

Respect - no.

[The Atheist]

.....But it is seen by many (including me) as plain fraud....Ditto that from me, in spades.

[Thinktoomuch]

I am totally confused:

"And a final thought regarding the "pommy" saga - I use the exact same term with both andyandy and brodski, and they are both people whose opinions I am on record as respecting.

"... frauds ...! Respect - no."

WTF?

Well ...when you start putting up a million, you'll be able to belittle...

Even more confusing. Are you putting up a million?

..., honey,...

I sure hope you are female and good looking... your place or mine?

[The Atheist]

I am totally confused:
I can see why - you're getting two separate statements mixed up. I have respect for brodski and andyandy, but not for nutters who think they can heal people with the power of their [whatever it is it comes from].

Even more confusing. Are you putting up a million?Yes (http://www.atheist.co.nz)

I sure hope you are female and good looking... your place or mine?Nope. On both counts.

[Thinktoomuch]

P.S.
I have looked at the web page. Your organisation does put up a million. No mention of where the money is though. And in any case, you are not really worried that anybody could take it, so what is the justification of your "risking money entitles me to belittle" statement?

My apologies to all other readers, my love for logic has got the best of me. I will try to restrain myself.

[The Atheist]

P.S.
I have looked at the web page. Your organisation does put up a million. No mention of where the money is though. And in any case, you are not really worried that anybody could take it, so what is the justification of your "risking money entitles me to belittle" statement?We run a different system to JREF, mainly because nobody's given us a mio to play with, so we have an arrangement with a consortium of bookmakers at odds ranging between 1,000:1 and 10,000:1. That's why I suggested earlier making the JREF challenge $10M instead of the measly $1M.

Actually, I don't need any reason to get stuck into frauds, but I thought it sounded like a good excuse! :) (My other name is Arrogant_B_Stard, but they won't let me use it in here) But hey, I did offer him a crack, do I need to patronise him as well?

My apologies to all other readers, my love for logic has got the best of me. I will try to restrain myself.Nah, don't do that, derailing threads is excellent, especially when they're as dead as this one appears to be.

[Azrael 5]

Whats with all the bitching in here today? Play nice children. ;)

[Thinktoomuch]

The Atheist: this is great idea!

We run a different system to JREF, mainly because nobody's given us a mio to play with, so we have an arrangement with a consortium of bookmakers at odds ranging between 1,000:1 and 10,000:1. That's why I suggested earlier making the JREF challenge $10M instead of the measly $1M.

If 100 JREF members put up $100 each with 100 bookmakers at 10,000 to 1 odds we would have $100 million to play with! I have heard a (Oz?) saying that "if the price of eggs is high enough even the roosters will start laying"... we might get some real scientists (yes, some do believe in supernatural things) doing real research of the type advocated by Hyparxis here to sort the sheep from the goats (just keeping the Oz/NZ flavour...) in the hope to get it. It would be all a different ball game, possibly in line with the "watch this space" changes afoot, and cut across many of the excuses for refusing to play.

We have to be honest with ourselves though. Is this what we want or is exposing small time charlatans just too much fun to give up?

[Thinktoomuch]

The Atheist: this is great idea!

We run a different system to JREF, mainly because nobody's given us a mio to play with, so we have an arrangement with a consortium of bookmakers at odds ranging between 1,000:1 and 10,000:1. That's why I suggested earlier making the JREF challenge $10M instead of the measly $1M.

If 100 JREF members put up $100 each with 100 bookmakers at 10,000 to 1 odds we would have $100 million to play with! I have heard a (Oz?) saying that "if the price of eggs is high enough even the roosters will start laying"... we might get some real scientists (yes, some do believe in supernatural things) doing real research of the type advocated by Hyparxis here to sort the sheep from the goats (just keeping the Oz/NZ flavour...) in the hope to get it. It would be all a different ball game, possibly in line with the "watch this space" changes afoot, and cut across many of the excuses for refusing to play.

We have to be honest with ourselves though. Is this what we want or is exposing small time charlatans just too much fun to give up?

[Apathia]

A red flag goes up when anyone claims to be a "Healer." And this red flag attracts some bullish responses. Even when I was active in Reiki, TT, Shiatsu, etc., I refused to call myself any kind of healer, not because of potential bull horn gorings, but because it's just wrong. Healing is something the body does, not someting done to it. Doctors proper only facilitate a recovery from an injury or disease.

A former boss of mine was getting sessions from an "energy/psychic healer." He marketed himself as such. He told her her breast cancer was in complete remission and she believed him. That cost her her life. I don't mind at all belittling and more, frauds like that.

Unfortunately its hard to keep this word "healing" out of a discussion about Therapeutic Touch, because there is a claim that these modalities facilitate, and hasten recovery and healing. And then most practitioners, especially those who want to make some kind of career of it, use the word in the worst possible way.

Because I have personal experience helping people using the so-called "energy" modalities, I listen first before dismissing them as frauds.
Had the OP come on board claiming to be able to cure and heal chronic diseases and marketing his healing services, I'd have kept my mouth shut and let the bulls gore him. But it seemed he was someone open to learning and the examples he gave a pretty much the same kinds of effects I've seen myself.

It is my opinion that these modalities assist and hasten recovery from illness to some extent. Not to the extent claimed by the majority of the people who sell them (especially Reiki which lends itself so well to racketeering). But enough to encourage it as a helpful, harmless supplement to healthcare under the benificialilty of Massage Therapy.
research in this area has yielded mixed results so far, partailly because of focus on the detection of supposed "energies" rather than on the physiology of
nervous system, immune system, and hormonal responses to caring touch.

Here are a couple of links for anyone intersted in the pros and cons.
http://www.phact.org/e/tt/
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSS/8513/34968/358873.html?d=dmtContent

[The Atheist]

The Atheist: this is great idea!

If 100 JREF members put up $100 each with 100 bookmakers at 10,000 to 1 odds we would have $100 million to play with! I have heard a (Oz?) saying that "if the price of eggs is high enough even the roosters will start laying"... we might get some real scientists (yes, some do believe in supernatural things) doing real research of the type advocated by Hyparxis here to sort the sheep from the goats (just keeping the Oz/NZ flavour...)Just a quick correction - for Oz, that would be, "sorting the sheep from the women":D in the hope to get it. It would be all a different ball game, possibly in line with the "watch this space" changes afoot, and cut across many of the excuses for refusing to play.

We have to be honest with ourselves though. Is this what we want or is exposing small time charlatans just too much fun to give up?No question that this is possible, although I think $100M might be pushing it a little - remember that bookies assess risk and offer odds accordingly. At that kind of risk, they're going to offer average odds of far less that 10k:1. I'd suggest that the average would be around 1000:1(and maybe less that that, 100M is a lot of risk), so 100M prize would need to be funded by 100k. And that money is gone forever each time someone reaches the actual challenge stage, so it would become quite an expensive exercise at that level. Also, the UK and international bookies who take this kind of bet on isn't large in numbers and any bookie is going to get queasy about exposure to large losses as they aren't sceptics or scientists who can be confident that a claimant isn't going to win it. I'd suggest there is a danger if that kind of level is offered, JREF would be open to smart people with an agenda figuring ways of getting past the initial stages in an effort to bankrupt JREF by making challenges, even though they would know that those challenges are bound to fail.

Far better to use $10M - which is still a huge amount. At that level, the risk can be spread nicely - say 20 bookies at 500k exposure each, an amount they handle daily and will be very confortable with. One thing I found setting up EA's $1M is that some bookies think it's great fun and are keen to be in, while others are a little scared and only take the risk at all because they don't want to be seen as complete wimps. We're lucky that we have a lead bookie who's happy to take 500k at 10k:1 - pretty easy to accept a $50 loss if someone makes the challenge stage.

Another option would be for JREF to consult its members and members of this forum as to whether they'd put their money where their mouths are and offer to underwrite the risk themselves to at least some of the new amount required. After all, there are plenty of people here who are happy to jump all over psychics, faith healers, dowsers etc., but would they be willing to put up actual money of thier own at risk? I have no idea what the average net worth of forum members is, but I'd be picking quite a high number. The beauty of self-funding is that it could be done in conjunction with 10M cover by bookies, arriving at a much higher figure.

On the other hand, a lot of people are great at talking the talk, but not so flash at action. In fact, as I'm writing this, I have an idea for a thread - so I'll start one on that very subject!

[fls]

No. Because you claim a power that, if true, would start a scientific revolution as far-reaching as Copernicus's or Einstein's, we ask for evidence.

I am an infrequent poster, but I just wanted to add my two bits as a physician. I do not see anything paranormal about this claim. Certainly the demonstration of his claim would not represent a scientific revolution of the type described. We already know that touch, massage, relaxation, etc. can have a significant effect on how someone feels. I think you were sidetracked because he used the word "healing" when what he was referring to was "symptom relief". We also already know that swelling can be reduced with pressure. Even if he demonstrated an effect better than a "placebo" person, it wouldn't be paranormal, as we already know that some people are more persuasive or charismatic than others.

It is reasonable to believe that he can do as he claims, but there is nothing about the nature of the claim that suggests one must jump to a supernatural explanation.

Linda

[StewartP]

I think you were sidetracked because he used the word "healing" when what he was referring to was "symptom relief".
Linda - I think you're on the money here.

It explains why many flakey folk refer to themselves as "healers". It is also releated to what these healers perceive as being the "disease" in the first place.

If the healer thinks I suffer from blocked chi, and manipulates my energies via Remote Touch, and I feel that I have benefitted from the treatment, then a healing will have said to have taken place. Are there protocols to test this?

. . .

No, because there is nothing to test.

But, it has been pointed out before that skeptics and woos are talking two different languages. In many cases, both groups are sincere in their desire to help their fellow man, but neither group can understand the viewpoints and rationales of the other. I read an excellent report of a mystic and healer that had realised that her beliefs were not founded on rationality. Having been brought up, and educated, and trained and worked in the "alternate medicine" culture she could see how there were two different worldviews that failed to communicate.
I can't remember if I read that here at JREF or elsewhere.

[Ladewig]

Because you claim a power that, if true, would start a scientific revolution as far-reaching as Copernicus's or Einstein's, we ask for evidence.

I am an infrequent poster, but I just wanted to add my two bits as a physician. I do not see anything paranormal about this claim. Certainly the demonstration of his claim would not represent a scientific revolution of the type described. We already know that touch, massage, relaxation, etc. can have a significant effect on how someone feels. I think you were sidetracked because he used the word "healing" when what he was referring to was "symptom relief". We also already know that swelling can be reduced with pressure. Even if he demonstrated an effect better than a "placebo" person, it wouldn't be paranormal, as we already know that some people are more persuasive or charismatic than others.

It is reasonable to believe that he can do as he claims, but there is nothing about the nature of the claim that suggests one must jump to a supernatural explanation.

Linda

Yes, swelling can be reduced with pressure, but PP's accounts of the events do not involve applying pressure and his accounts also involve changes far, far quicker than any physical application of pressure could produce.

The first was complaining of a long term pain in her swollen wrist and shoulder.
After literally a few seconds of finger contact she reported the same healing energy moving up her hands and into her shoulder. She claimed that the pain her gone. Also her wrist had returned to normal from its swollen state.

If he touched her fingers and the swelling in the wrist disappeared within seconds, then what PP is doing is much more than touch, massage, or relaxation. Furthermore PP, himself, doesn't describe his technique as being any of those things. PP claims that energy is actually flowing from his body into the other person's body. I see no reason to believe he is speaking metaphorically in that he describes himself as feeling the energy flow out of him (to the point of being unable to continue the healing) and the recipients describe the energy as flowing into them (some actually describing the energy flowing up the arm to the location of the illness or disorder). If his claim of energy transfer is true, then he is indeed stepping beyond the borders of science into an unknown area. While it might be possible that this newly discovered energy could eventually be described and understood by science, right now such an energy transfer is outside the scientific realm.

[Flange Desire]

A red flag goes up when anyone claims to be a "Healer." And this red flag attracts some bullish responses. Even when I was active in Reiki, TT, Shiatsu, etc., I refused to call myself any kind of healer, ...

Just a small compliment - great posts Hyparxis.

[Cuddles]

A red flag goes up when anyone claims to be a "Healer." And this red flag attracts some bullish responses. Even when I was active in Reiki, TT, Shiatsu, etc., I refused to call myself any kind of healer, not because of potential bull horn gorings, but because it's just wrong. Healing is something the body does, not someting done to it. Doctors proper only facilitate a recovery from an injury or disease.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. If I have a bacterial infection and am given antibiotics, it is them, not the body, that cures it. If I have a gangrenous finger amputated it is the surgeon who cured it (or at least stopped it spreading). Yes, the body is good at healing itself and some medicine simply helps it, or reduces the syptoms while it heals itself, but there is a lot of medicine that genuinely cures things, either in conjunction with the body, or without its help at all.

I am pleased to see you no longer pratice "energy healing", but it seems you still believe many of the things such practioners say to belittle real medicine.

[EHocking]

Just a quick correction - for Oz, that would be, "sorting the sheep from the women":D Re-correction. NZ or Wales.

Sideline, heard an American comedian in Scotland with the following opener.
"I've heard about you Scotsmen and sheep!".

[audience response]

"That's Wales".

[comedian]

"Whales?! I am impressed!"

[EHocking]

... I`d rather not continue with this debate as my application is pending. But I`ll be there for other discussions and probably taking your viewpoints - but with an open mind in view of my experiences.
See you all later, I have enjoyed this discussion.
If you need a volunteer for a preliminary test and you're based near London - PM me.

Does an effective "cure" hinge on me being a believer?

And when you say "cure", we're talking pain and swelling gone - that sort of thing?

[Psychic Physicist]

I decided to leave this thread for a couple of days mainly because of the heated comments from some posters. My thanks to those that stood their ground and tried to add some balance and neutrality to the arguments.

I am prepared to continue, but if this thread reverts once more to a lion pit, I will stop altogether.
All I am trying to share with you is something that I consider as a gift - call it what you like, and it works on certain types of ailments.

Let me explain exactly what I do again, and what I can’t perform.

If I make finger tip contact with another`s I feel a hot energy leave my hands and travel into the body of a person receiving this energy. All people receiving this treatment feel tingling initially, followed by transference of energy along their arms to the parts or part of their body where the injury is. They always report that the energy of warmth remains in the affected area for some time before it fades away, and leaves the subject without anymore pain, or reduces the amount of pain they were suffering with. In the case of swellings to the body, this energy or if you prefer, "energy" will reduce or remove it.

Okay, when I first witnessed this phenomena for myself, it shocked me. It really shocked me. I find it just as staggering to believe as you do, but it actually works.
It has been suggested that the healing process is somatic in the sense that I am psychologically enforcing a belief that the patient will feel better, and as a result the recipient’s natural healing process takes over making them feel relieved of the pain.
If that were true, why does it not work with people say, suffering from a common cold?

It was earlier suggested on this post that as part of a test, I could energise a metal rod for evaluation. That is beyond my capabilities. The heat transfer works on organic flesh, not metal or some inanimate article.

I don’t claim to be a "miracle healer", I cannot cure cancer, I cannot cure virus infections, and I cannot make broken bones heal themselves.

Another point covering my limitations. Say is someone has a long term injury where the subject is suffering from multiple injuries caused from a road accident or such like. I can relieve the pain for a maximum of three months - no more, without further treatment.

How do I feel when using this energy? As I already explained, it drains me, and makes me very tired.

Since I have been away, I have been reviewing a number of `Faith Healers` videos on YouTube. That is not what I do, there is no religious base context to my way of working, and I treat these individuals with the same scepticism that you do of me.
I could go on here forever, but to get to the point.

I have a challenge for any of you sceptics that live in the home counties of England, preferably Essex, London, Herts, or Suffolk.
I am prepared to demonstrate my abilities on any person that you know who is suffering from swellings or pain discomfort. It matters not whether they believe or disbelieve, I will be more than willing to show you.
Anyone willing to take me on?

[fls]

Yes, swelling can be reduced with pressure, but PP's accounts of the events do not involve applying pressure and his accounts also involve changes far, far quicker than any physical application of pressure could produce. If he touched her fingers and the swelling in the wrist disappeared within seconds, then what PP is doing is much more than touch, massage, or relaxation.

To elaborate on this point....swelling is arguably the only component of what he claimed that could be objectively observed. And even the observation of swelling can be influenced by subjective perceptions. Plus it is a dynamic process where one can expect variation even in the absence of any "treatment". And his description reflects his explanation of what he thinks is happening. We do not know whether an observer that is knowledgeable would see (and describe) the process differently, but we do know that that (a knowledgeable observer) commonly eliminates the allegedly inexplicable.

Furthermore PP, himself, doesn't describe his technique as being any of those things. PP claims that energy is actually flowing from his body into the other person's body. I see no reason to believe he is speaking metaphorically in that he describes himself as feeling the energy flow out of him (to the point of being unable to continue the healing) and the recipients describe the energy as flowing into them (some actually describing the energy flowing up the arm to the location of the illness or disorder). If his claim of energy transfer is true, then he is indeed stepping beyond the borders of science into an unknown area. While it might be possible that this newly discovered energy could eventually be described and understood by science, right now such an energy transfer is outside the scientific realm.

But this claim is not based on anything unusual or unexpected. The sensation of "energy" or "warmth" or "electricity" flowing into and out of someone is common and does not depend upon an actual flow of energy. The sensation of being drained is common and not necessarily related to the type or kind of exertion. Pain and relief of pain are not necessarily indicative of pathology and subsequent reversal of that pathology. Subjective sensations are influenced and generated by processes which may have nothing to do with the actual functioning of the body. Subjective sensations provide no support one way or the other for a claim that defies the known laws of nature.

Yes, any demonstrable supernatural claim would have the power to revolutionize science. Which makes stating it here in this thread redundant.

Linda

[Psychic Physicist]

[/quote]
But this claim is not based on anything unusual or unexpected. The sensation of "energy" or "warmth" or "electricity" flowing into and out of someone is common and does not depend upon an actual flow of energy. The sensation of being drained is common and not necessarily related to the type or kind of exertion. Pain and relief of pain are not necessarily indicative of pathology and subsequent reversal of that pathology. Subjective sensations are influenced and generated by processes which may have nothing to do with the actual functioning of the body. Subjective sensations provide no support one way or the other for a claim that defies the known laws of nature.

Yes, any demonstrable supernatural claim would have the power to revolutionize science. Which makes stating it here in this thread redundant.

Linda[/quote]

Hi Linda,
Please could you validate the above comment based upon proven medical research and not say, someone elses opinion. What you appear to be saying is precisely that.

To EH Hocking.

You are offering yourself as a volunteer? I will PM you today. Just one more detail. Whoever I demonstrate this ability on has to have. a) A noticeable medical condition such as swelling, or..
b) Some medical record to validate that they are indeed ill with the condition I am asked demonstrate on.
That request is simply there to prevent someone claiming they have a condition which is not visually obvious with the intent to claim I am a fraud.
I am not suggesting for one moment that is anyones intent. But I need to ensure fairness.

[StewartP]

Psychic Physicist.

I had predicted earlier in the thread that you would disappear, indignant, in the face of suggested protocols to test your abilities.

I was wrong. You're still here and still arguing your corner and trying to communicate.

Good on you mate. I'd love to see something thrashed out and get a result.

[Apathia]

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. If I have a bacterial infection and am given antibiotics, it is them, not the body, that cures it. If I have a gangrenous finger amputated it is the surgeon who cured it (or at least stopped it spreading). Yes, the body is good at healing itself and some medicine simply helps it, or reduces the syptoms while it heals itself, but there is a lot of medicine that genuinely cures things, either in conjunction with the body, or without its help at all.

I am pleased to see you no longer pratice "energy healing", but it seems you still believe many of the things such practioners say to belittle real medicine.

Thank you for the qualifiers. I agree medicine does cure. Now, after the antibiotic and the amputation, the body still engages in a process called recovery that is its own work. I believe that TT is useful here in hastening the recovery process. And that it does as described by the OP reduce various symptoms.

"Energy Healing" is such a problematic term. I still from time to time do give Reiki or TT sessions. It's helpful and harmless provided people aren't decieved into thinking it's a substitute for medicine and medical treatments. It's not an alternative.

Is it medicine? Some will strongly insist it's not and others that it is, depending on presuppositions of what medicine is and how it works. I don't really care to get into that argument, but because of the subjective nature of the matter, I'd say it falls more towards the "Chicken Souo for The Soul" arena.

[Ladewig]

I believe that TT is useful here in hastening the recovery process. .

I have a question about Theraputic Touch. From what I've read about it, TT practicioners identify the area that needs healing and then "smooth the energy" across this area. How do the TT folks know that smoothing or balancing the energy improves the healing process more than redirecting more energy to the effected area? How do they know that removing excess energy from this area is better than adding energy to this area?

[Psychic Physicist]

Stewart P - Thanks, I appreciate your comments upon my return.

Just another thought.. Whenever I have `treated` anyone with a medical condition, I always insist that they continue with any prescribed medication and report back to their GP if they no longer feel further medication is necessary. Sometimes my treatment of such cases is purely complimentary to the medication prescribed.

Many people I have worked with have come to me out of desperation when conventional treatment has failed them. I don`t think my techniques involve some form of hypnotherapy. I wish I could! I`d be down to the bank today withdrawing cash from a `hypno` influenced cashier, with no debit on my account.. Ahh, what a dream! :-)

[fls]

But this claim is not based on anything unusual or unexpected. The sensation of "energy" or "warmth" or "electricity" flowing into and out of someone is common and does not depend upon an actual flow of energy. The sensation of being drained is common and not necessarily related to the type or kind of exertion. Pain and relief of pain are not necessarily indicative of pathology and subsequent reversal of that pathology. Subjective sensations are influenced and generated by processes which may have nothing to do with the actual functioning of the body. Subjective sensations provide no support one way or the other for a claim that defies the known laws of nature.

Yes, any demonstrable supernatural claim would have the power to revolutionize science. Which makes stating it here in this thread redundant.

Linda


Hi Linda,
Please could you validate the above comment based upon proven medical research and not say, someone elses opinion. What you appear to be saying is precisely that.

I think there is a good chance that you can demonstrate your claim. I cannot see why your claim requires a supernatural explanation, though. Can you specify what you want me to provide references for? I usually refer to research articles - will this be something that you will find useful?

If you consider that your gift is real, does it matter whether it is on the basis of something natural vs. supernatural?

Linda

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi again Linda,

I think the real problem here is by what something is defined as `supernatural`.
Clearly, what I wish to demonstrate falls into two separate schools of opinion.
One, such as yourself, would argue that it isn`t `supernatural`, because you feel - and that`s all it is, an opinion that what I do is not.
Others would refute that I can do it, so in their minds any claim to perform such acts is allegedly, `supernatural` - meaning impossible or ridiculous.

Wikipedia defines Supernatural as thus:
The word supernatural is used for things that some people believe are real, but that are not part of nature (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature). Because we cannot prove whether these things are real, people often disagree about these things.
Scientists (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist) say that we should talk about things without talking about the supernatural, because we cannot prove that supernatural things are real. Other people say that although we cannot prove supernatural things in a scientific way, they are real. Many ideas like religion (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), magic (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic), miracles (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle), spirits (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit), ghosts (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost), angels (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel), devils (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil), gods (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God), and God (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) are supernatural.


So there are many schools of opinion as to what supernatural means or represents.


Another ability that aligns itself to my healing is that I can `feel` where the seat of a person’s pain lies.
I cannot tell you how I know, but I sense it in some way that is not apparent to me. Is that `supernatural`? Or is it easily explained?
This area is problematical for me simply because on occasions, the seat of the pain is sometimes away from the point that the subject feels the pain.
It is only when I give my `treatment` or energy, that the subject feels where the heat actually goes, and that is normally where I first sensed it.
You can appreciate my dilemma.
I don’t believe that what I perform is truly `supernatural`, nor do I attribute it to the alleged mechanisms that you have described.
I believe that the human brain is capable of achieving feats outside of our understanding, and that in time these acts will be understood by medical science.
That’s my view, and I’m sure some will agree or beg to differ. Either way, it is not fully understood.
I am hoping that my demonstrations of this ability will actually be looked at in greater depth and not dismissed as hocus pokus, or here, the `Woo Woo`s`.

[rwp]

I am only too happy to take part in a test but it has to be in an acceptable format to both parties.
After participating in an acceptible test, what would be your reaction if such a test indicated that you did not have the abilities you claim? Would you be willing to consider a more natural explaination for the events you have experienced?

[fls]

I think the real problem here is by what something is defined as `supernatural`.

That's a good point. Some people use the word "supernatural" as equivalent to "not thoroughly explained" or "not demonstrated to exist". When I speak of supernatural, it is in contradistinction to the domain of science which assumes that the natural world is material, lawful, and scrutable. So supernatural refers to ideas or phenomena that would be immaterial, lawless or inscrutable. For the purposes of the Challenge, from the FAQ's, the definition given (from Webster's Online dictionary) is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature; attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)"

Since you are talking about the Challenge, I have been using the word "supernatural" in that spirit.


Clearly, what I wish to demonstrate falls into two separate schools of opinion.
One, such as yourself, would argue that it isn`t `supernatural`, because you feel - and that`s all it is, an opinion that what I do is not.

I am simply informing you that your description does not transcend what is usual or normal in that it corresponds to what we have already observed and studied in medicine. It did not appear that you were aware of this. You may say this is just my opinion if you like.


Another ability that aligns itself to my healing is that I can `feel` where the seat of a person’s pain lies.
I cannot tell you how I know, but I sense it in some way that is not apparent to me. Is that `supernatural`? Or is it easily explained?
This area is problematical for me simply because on occasions, the seat of the pain is sometimes away from the point that the subject feels the pain.
It is only when I give my `treatment` or energy, that the subject feels where the heat actually goes, and that is normally where I first sensed it.
You can appreciate my dilemma.
I don’t believe that what I perform is truly `supernatural`, nor do I attribute it to the alleged mechanisms that you have described.
I believe that the human brain is capable of achieving feats outside of our understanding, and that in time these acts will be understood by medical science.
That’s my view, and I’m sure some will agree or beg to differ. Either way, it is not fully understood.
I am hoping that my demonstrations of this ability will actually be looked at in greater depth and not dismissed as hocus pokus, or here, the `Woo Woo`s`.

What we already understand in this area is vast and I did not mean for my brief listing to be exclusive or representative. I do not think pursuing the Challenge (even if you were accepted) will accomplish your stated goals.

Linda

[Apathia]

I have a question about Theraputic Touch. From what I've read about it, TT practicioners identify the area that needs healing and then "smooth the energy" across this area. How do the TT folks know that smoothing or balancing the energy improves the healing process more than redirecting more energy to the effected area? How do they know that removing excess energy from this area is better than adding energy to this area?

Before I attempt to give an acceptable answer to that, there are a few loose ends to tie up.

1. I'm using TT or Therapeutic Touch for lack of a better term for a number of different so-called "energy work" therapies. Personally I might call this kind of thing Caring Touch, not to deny its therapuetic value, but to try to affiirm the value it has without the garbage that's usually attached to this activity.

2. I agree with Linda. This isn't about something supernatural, and is only paranormal in the sense that its an effect most people in our culture don't ordinarily notice and use, though how many millions of times have moms made an ouchy go away with a kiss, and lovers have eased pain and other sypmtoms with kisses. (Perhaps I should start a new modality: "Therapeutic Kissing." Then at least I could get some kisses for a change.) As I said before, I don't think it's really Challenge material and would like to see good research that doesn't get sidetracked by supernatural claims.

3. "Energy" in the context of TT, in my opinion isn't an energy in the physical sense, such as the four forces. It's just a discriptive term. People feel "energetic" effects. For example, an aquaintance was suffering eye fatigue and asked me to "run some energy" into her eyes. I focus on my palms and held them before her eyes. She told me that she felt a great deal of heat going into her eyes. Thinking that my hands must be way hot she touched one of them and found they weren't. So I explained to her where this heat energy was coming from. Two things: On in reponse to the focused attention on her eyes, more blood was flowing into them. Where there's more blood there's a slightly higher body temperature. Two, such a focusing of attention often brings heightened sensitivity. If you are good at holding attention, you can raise your body temperature at the place you put that attention upon. This is a simple example, but it shows that the so-called energy is not something PsyP could use to heat up an iron bar.
After a short time the aquaintance felt the heat flow away and her fatigue, not only in her eyes, but in general, was gone.

There are differences in electrical resistance as well as body temperature in areas TT would call "Congested." When I took my first class in Shiatsu, I was easily able to feel where the acupressure points were. These are the same points as used in Acupuncture and you can many of them with devices used to measure electrical conductivity and resistance on the skin. I think I simply was sensitive in that way. The more you use your tactile senses the more sensitive they become and the more your brain learns to process the information.
But what are these poits anyway? According to the Massage Therapy modality called Trager, they are simply places of stress and tension along a muscle.
Whe the muscle tone is good, they don't stand out, but when there's a tightening tension there, that spot is sore and tender and feels to the Shiatsu therapist as being "jitsu," or having an excessive charge. When the tone is weak and empty, the Shiatsu word is "kyo." with practice you can tell the difference by touch. Theraputic Touch practitioners can simply feel when an area is "Imblanced" and needs "smoothing out," I can feel when there is too much "energy" or too little.
Our culture mostly ignores the tactile senses and most people have little body awareness. I got into this when I begin meditating and was instructed to be alert to my senses. There were a number of different "energy" effects that arose in that process and I began to study what they were about and if they had any use.

I know this is still vague and strange. It makes more sense if you let yourself experince it or at least talk to some Massage Therapists about their touch sensitivity.

[Jeff Corey]

Therupetic Touch doesn't involve physical contact with the body.
Only the imaginary undetectable energy fields around it.

[chillzero]

Another ability that aligns itself to my healing is that I can `feel` where the seat of a person’s pain lies.
I cannot tell you how I know, but I sense it in some way that is not apparent to me. Is that `supernatural`? Or is it easily explained?
This area is problematical for me simply because on occasions, the seat of the pain is sometimes away from the point that the subject feels the pain.
It is only when I give my `treatment` or energy, that the subject feels where the heat actually goes, and that is normally where I first sensed it.
You can appreciate my dilemma.

I used to believe I could do this too.
Until I learned about how I could (not conciously) read other people's body language in most instances. In other instances I believed the pain originated elsewhere and the other person, on having this suggested to them, would agree that the heat directed from me to them would indeed go to where I 'knew' the seat of the pain actually was.

It's placebo, body language and other minute signals being interpreted, and the power of suggestion all neatly combined.

[Apathia]

Therupetic Touch doesn't involve physical contact with the body.
Only the imaginary undetectable energy fields around it.

Imaginary or not, skin contact or not, it's touch and in somecases can be more intimate in nature than an actual physical contact.
The recipiant's reaction to the contact is physical.

Now if you put up a screen, so that the individual doesn't know she's getting personal attention, then there won't be contact.

[Apathia]

I used to believe I could do this too.
Until I learned about how I could (not conciously) read other people's body language in most instances. In other instances I believed the pain originated elsewhere and the other person, on having this suggested to them, would agree that the heat directed from me to them would indeed go to where I 'knew' the seat of the pain actually was.

It's placebo, body language and other minute signals being interpreted, and the power of suggestion all neatly combined.

Yes, and these things add up to an activity that in my experience is rather nice.
It's worth exploring and sharing. No need to throw it all out when we explain how it really works.

[chillzero]

Yes, and these things add up to an activity that in my experience is rather nice.
It's worth exploring and sharing. No need to throw it all out when we explain how it really works.

Of course you need to throw it all out, when you realise you are conning people. You don't magically sense where their pain is - you can tell from how they move or hold a part of their body, or something else more subtle. If you can't tell it correctly, then you just claim that what you feel is really the actual source of the pain. They won't argue with you. You wave your hands about, hold their hands gently, whatever form your 'healing' takes, and they honestly believe that you are sending energy and heat into them. They will back up your claim about where the energy is going, and if they don't you just forget it, and remember the hits instead.

[Psychic Physicist]

Hi Everyone,

If medical science has known about this for years, why is it nor available on the NHS? Further, why does so much `informed` medical opinion rail against it?

I have spoken in the past to a number of GP`s and their view was this was either utter rubbish, or a placebo effect.
I accept there must be others that do think otherwise.
I personally feel there is much more to this which has hitherto not been explained or examined properly. I accept I am talking about matters beyond some peoples experiences, and expect you to stand in your corner with your view point, and mine in my own.
I`ve just uploaded a photo which I would like your opinion on, but hey, where`s it gone?????

[Jeff Corey]

Imaginary or not, skin contact or not, it's touch and in somecases can be more intimate in nature than an actual physical contact.
The recipiant's reaction to the contact is physical.

Now if you put up a screen, so that the individual doesn't know she's getting personal attention, then there won't be contact.

But Therapeutic Touch, as still practiced in some places in the US, involves no contact whatsoever. We understand what TT is, and isn't. Most of us are familiar with Emily Rosa's study.
So what are you talking about?

[Apathia]

Hi Everyone,

If medical science has known about this for years, why is it nor available on the NHS? Further, why does so much `informed` medical opinion rail against it?

I have spoken in the past to a number of GP`s and their view was this was either utter rubbish, or a placebo effect.
I accept there must be others that do think otherwise.
I personally feel there is much more to this which has hitherto not been explained or examined properly. I accept I am talking about matters beyond some peoples experiences, and expect you to stand in your corner with your view point, and mine in my own.
I`ve just uploaded a photo which I would like your opinion on, but hey, where`s it gone?????

As I pointed out in an earlier post there is more to it than the classical placebo effect but not the regularity of tested and appoved medications for various symptoms.
As to why this hasn't recieved the attention and study it deserves is in part the claims of healing of chronic illnesses that has been attached to it.
Whenever it's touted as a substitute, competitor, or alternative of established medical practices, the whole topic becomes an untouchable to anyone who cares about actaully helping people rather than taking their money for a dubious if not fraudulent service.

Also there is a place in the healthcare industry where caring touch is an established and recognized matter, and that is Massage Therapy.
It's in the Massage Therapy industry that you'll find it taken almost for granted.

[Apathia]

But Therapeutic Touch, as still practiced in some places in the US, involves no contact whatsoever. We understand what TT is, and isn't. Most of us are familiar with Emily Rosa's study.
So what are you talking about?

Read my posts in this thread.
A personl contact needn't necessarily involve a physicak skin contact. I'm talking about personal contact. The term "Therapeutic Touch" was coined by its practitioners. They understand that touch is a bit more involved than just a skin to skin contact.

[Jeff Corey]

Read my posts in this thread.
A personl contact needn't necessarily involve a physicak skin contact. I'm talking about personal contact. The term "Therapeutic Touch" was coined by its practitioners. They understand that touch is a bit more involved than just a skin to skin contact.

Listen, I don't need to be told to read your posts. I did and I'm telling you that you are using the term Therapeutic Touch incorrectly, as the TT people don't actually touch other people.

[Apathia]

Listen, I don't need to be told to read your posts. I did and I'm telling you that you are using the term Therapeutic Touch incorrectly, as the TT people don't actually touch other people.



You arre right. They don't physically touch other prople. They emotionally touch them. I will refrain from using the term in further posts. It's hard to find a term for this that isn't tainted by the usual "Energy" mythology. For the time being I'll use the term I cobbled up, "Caring Touch."

For the sake of some lost clarity here:

What is called "Therapeutic Touch" by its practitioners generally doesn't make skin contact. They say they are touching "energy fields." Reiki makes the same claim but does make physical contact with the body.
I'm looking to understand what is really going on with these modalities, since experiments like the one Jeff mentioned have shown no energy fields.
I was using "Therapeutic Touch" as a generic for the various modailties of "energy work." That was confusing.
And one thing I forgot to say when I was talking about Shiatsu's 'kyo' and 'jitsu' was that I didn't need to make physical contact with the points to access them. A quarter of an inch away I could tell. And yes I can do your ordinary Therapeutic "Touch" thing and sense a "congestion" at a greater distance. But I'm not claiming to feel a mysterious energy field.

[Beth]

Psychic Physicist and Hyparxis, I just to want to say Thanks. I've appreciated your taking the time to discuss dispassionately what you've experienced. Hyparxis - did you experience the same fatigue after sessions that PP did?

[Thinktoomuch]

I have known about Shiatsu for 30+ years (useful to recover from judo training - I can still fix a stiff neck with it) but had no idea that it was "energy" therapy. I have a book (Tokujiro Namikoshi, Shiatsu, Japan Publications Inc. Tokio 1969) where the author, self-proclaimed number 1 of Japanese shiatsu teaching, claims its ability to improve a lot of bodily functions but attributes its effectiveness to the pressure of muscles enabling the dispersion of lactic acid. No mention at all of acupunture points.

Was this just pandering to western ideas to make money out of the gaijin?
Is this explanation scientifically sound?

[Apathia]

Psychic Physicist and Hyparxis, I just to want to say Thanks. I've appreciated your taking the time to discuss dispassionately what you've experienced. Hyparxis - did you experience the same fatigue after sessions that PP did?

At times, but mostly not. After most sessions I'd feel invigorated myself.
I don't know enough about PsyP's practice to understand why he would feel drained most of the time. There are a number of factors in this. One is becomming too emotionally identified with the client. Most Massage Practioners will tell you that have to maintain emotional boundaries, so as not to get drawn into a client's "stuff." Also the intensity of it seems to require one be in a good state of health and hormonal balance. Speaking figurativly one shouldn't be draining their own "energy," but resourcing it from the cosmos. That kind of talk doesn't coresspond to any objectively existing forces , but I do find that using my imagination that way helps give me an attitude that doesn't leave me whacked out. Another absurd but useful exercise is to imagine a grounding cord that draws off the so-called "negative energy."
This works for me as well. But again understand I'm not talking science here. I'm talking about emotional interactions and the imaginative metaphors that are used in connection with them. All this enhealing energy talk is a contextual language not a discription of physical realities. It requires no more surrender to woo-woo than reading Harry Potter.

[Apathia]

I have known about Shiatsu for 30+ years (useful to recover from judo training - I can still fix a stiff neck with it) but had no idea that it was "energy" therapy. I have a book (Tokujiro Namikoshi, Shiatsu, Japan Publications Inc. Tokio 1969) where the author, self-proclaimed number 1 of Japanese shiatsu teaching, claims its ability to improve a lot of bodily functions but attributes its effectiveness to the pressure of muscles enabling the dispersion of lactic acid. No mention at all of acupunture points.

Was this just pandering to western ideas to make money out of the gaijin?
Is this explanation scientifically sound?

It soumds like he's looking for a way to distance himself from the traditional Chinese framwork about Acupuncture, Acupressure, and Shiatsu that it works with points of qi flow on meridians. I can well understand his desire to abandon the Qi stuff.

I was taught Shiatsu Qi and all including the Five Elements Theory.
It's all rather occult with its system of associations. In the end it's another kind of emotional code. These are all, in my opinon, somatic therapies having to do with the relationships between emotions and the body. They do influence each other back and forth, sometimes to remarkable degrees.
The immune system is very sensitive to emotional attitude. However, when there's a bad bug around, a happy face won't necessarily keep you from getting it. There is enough medical research now that verifies emotions do influnence rate of recovery. Also people with chronic depression do tend to be more suspectible to physical pathologies. But of course, we've known about psycho-somatics for over a hundred years.

Our emotional lives make languages of their own for purposes other than Physics. It's one of the reasons we have poetry, music, and art.

[EHocking]

To EH Hocking.

You are offering yourself as a volunteer? I will PM you today. Just one more detail. Whoever I demonstrate this ability on has to have. a) A noticeable medical condition such as swelling, or..
b) Some medical record to validate that they are indeed ill with the condition I am asked demonstrate on.
That request is simply there to prevent someone claiming they have a condition which is not visually obvious with the intent to claim I am a fraud.
I am not suggesting for one moment that is anyones intent. But I need to ensure fairness.
Just a quick response to the thread. Psychic Physicist and I have been exchanging PMs to see if we can tee up a demonstration. I've suggested that an independent observer would be handy to cover just the sort of qualms he's mentioned above.

Without pre-empting any further correspondence between us, is there anyone out there in London area that would be willing to observe?

I think it would be better that it was someone from the forum that neither of us know - and I'd like to discuss the nature of the demonstration in public too, since a number of people here have been involved with Challenge protocol discussions.

Note - this is only a "private" demonstration for my own curiosity, unrelated to PP's Challenge application. On that score, I'd hope that any discussion on "protocol" is approached "in good faith" and we go for a simple demonstration of what he proposes he can do.

I have further questions on just what we might be able to test/demonstrate but want to straighten that out in PMs with PP first, so as not to misrepresent his case, in my enthusiasm.

So - first - anyone available for "impartial observer"?

[fls]

If medical science has known about this for years, why is it nor available on the NHS? Further, why does so much `informed` medical opinion rail against it?

I don't know if you are referring to what I said, but I'm going to assume you are (at least in part). Why pass up an opportunity? <grin>

In a way, the NHS does offer the same treatment that you describe. The placebo effect is part of every therapeutic relationship regardless of whether the therapy also has a specific physiologic effect.

I think that what is being railed against is claims that do not have evidence to support them. The claim that you have a therapeutic effect on your clients is not so much under dispute. The claim that this is through an unrecognized mechanism is disputable. And it's not that exploring the possibility of an unrecognized mechanism is not legitimate - these possibilities are constantly explored in medicine and it's how we make progress. It's that we know to our chagrin that if this is not done in a systematic manner, we can and will fool ourselves. We have all had to go through the experience of believing that we were doing something useful and then discovering that, with more and better evidence, we were wrong.

Also, while it is reasonable to question information given to you, even that coming from someone whose knowledge and experience gives them expertise, simply putting quotes around the word "informed" does not suffice to invalidate the information.


I have spoken in the past to a number of GP`s and their view was this was either utter rubbish, or a placebo effect.

It is a placebo effect, though. Everything that we do has at least some placebo effect. In fact, that which falls under the umbrella of "placebo effect" forms a large chunk of the therapeutic effect. The question is not whether your therapy depends upon the placebo effect - it does - but rather whether there is any effect left over after the placebo effect is taken into account.

What falls under the umbrella of "placebo effect" is actually a number of different things, some of which I can already tell are taking place just from your description. The first is regression to the mean. You always have to ask yourself "what happens in the absence of any treatment?" Chronic pain varies. If you ask someone at random times to rate their level of pain, it will vary around the mean - sometimes it will be higher than average, sometimes lower. This will vary over minutes, hours, days and weeks. If on one occasion, the rating falls at the extreme of the range (high or low), it is very likely that the next time you ask for a rating it will be closer to the mean just by chance. That is what is meant by regression to the mean. Someone who on one occasion complains of severe pain, is likely to complain of moderate pain the next time you ask them *regardless of any therapeutic intervention*. Going the other direction, someone who has no pain on one occasion is likely to complain of mild or moderate pain the next time you ask.

The problem is that most of the time this is not what we do - systematically figure out the mean and variance. What is usually done is just what you describe - ask for a rating at one point in time, provide a treatment, and then ask for a rating after the treatment. If you are choosing when to offer the treatment on a random basis, the results may still be valid. Just by chance, the first rating is likely to be reasonably close to the true (and unknown) mean. So that your post-treatment rating, which is also likely to be reasonably close to the true mean by chance, should only differ significantly from the first if there is a specific treatment effect.

However, you are not choosing people to treat at a random time. People who have failed conventional treatment, who present themselves for healing at a seminar, who are complaining about their pain, etc. are all more likely to be experiencing a time when they fall above average or even at the extreme high end of the range. Even if your therapy had no effect, most of them would complain of less pain when asked a day, week or month later.

The second component is the influence over subjective findings rather than objective findings. The placebo effect consistently shows the greatest effect on those symptoms where subjective perception can vary greatly depending upon the mental state of the patient. It is difficult to demonstrate that the placebo effect makes any difference to objective findings. And you specifically state that you have an effect on pain but not on things like the common cold and cancer. We already have a lot of research documenting that pain perception (especially in chronic pain) can vary (greatly) depending upon the mental state of the patient. In addition, the sensation of fatigue is also highly influenced by mental state. And while you stated several times that these people were non-believers, actions speak louder than words. As a group, people that are willing to try to be healed through touch are more likely to be suggestible, regardless of what they say. Even if this wasn't backed by research, I have experienced over and over again the statement "I am a skeptic, but....." followed by an explicit demonstration that the speaker is not a skeptic - this thread included.

Third, the stress response can have a detrimental physiologic effect on healing. Those methods which reduce stress - reassurance, meditation, bio-feedback, etc. - can help with healing by removing the suppressive effects of stress. I don't doubt that you provide reassurance to those you have helped.

Those three components explain the bulk (if not all) of the placebo effect. We know that these effects are operating in your treatment. What has to be demonstrated is what effect is left over after you take all of that into consideration.

Which brings us back to my initial point. Even if, after all that, you demonstrate an effect that does not seem to be explained by any recognized mechanism, there is no reason to think that that unrecognized mechanism is supernatural in nature. We've encountered new mechanisms in medicine before and likely will continue to do so. While your description suggests that there may be an unrecognized mechanism at work, it does not suggest features that would place that mechanism outside the range of natural. Since the purpose of the Challenge is to demonstrate something that would revolutionize our scientific understanding - something that seems like it couldn't be due to a natural explanation - I would advise that Randi not accept your challenge. It is not what he is looking for. Also, the process of the Challenge is not the kind of process that you would follow if you were seeking to truly understand what it is that you can do. The Challenge is designed to help sort phenomena into "explainable through natural methods" and "not explainable through natural methods". It is not designed to "fully elucidate a natural process" which rather falls under scientific inquiry.


I accept there must be others that do think otherwise.
I personally feel there is much more to this which has hitherto not been explained or examined properly. I accept I am talking about matters beyond some peoples experiences, and expect you to stand in your corner with your view point, and mine in my own.

This is not a matter of differing viewpoints. It is a matter of recognizing that we are heavily influenced by cognitive biases - confirmation, attribution, selection, recollection, etc. And that scientific progress has only come about because we were willing to admit to those biases and take steps to eliminate them. The bulk of our scientific knowledge represents that which we did not want to believe and that which is counter-intuitive. Which makes "I believe this" and "this is intuitively obvious" unreliable criteria for assessing whether or not something is real or true. It is not sufficient to say, "it is my viewpoint that this is not the case." It is always the case. Which is why a major part of the design and write-up of a research project involves explicitly stating any possible biases and the steps taken to eliminate or reduce them.

Linda

[Blue Bubble]

... snip ...



Thank you Linda.

That was so well written, and extremely clear. It is much appreciated.

(Is Linda the new Rolfe ?)

[Cuddles]

Thank you Linda.

That was so well written, and extremely clear. It is much appreciated.

(Is Linda the new Rolfe ?)

I second this.

(What's a Rolfe ?)

[Blue Bubble]

(What's a Rolfe ?)



Rolfe (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=1424)is one of the most respected members of the JREF forums.

She is sorely missed (no, she's not dead, at least I hope not ... just that she hasn't posted in quite a while). :(

And Cuddles, she's a fellow Scot, frae Bellshill or Wishaw, IIRC.

[Apathia]

Thank you Linda.

That was so well written, and extremely clear. It is much appreciated.



I third this!

[Yahzi]

Canadians Yanks
Showing off our lack of erudition, are we?

Everyone knows you call Canadians "Canucks." (pronouced can-nook).

:D

[Yahzi]

I'm looking to understand what is really going on with these modalities,
It's the same reason guys will drop hundreds of dollars for lap dances in a topless bar. There's no touching there, either; just mechanics of inter-personal contact.

People need attention. So much so, they'll pay for it.

What else do we need to learn about this modality?

[Yahzi]

I cannot tell you how I know, but I sense it in some way that is not apparent to me. Is that `supernatural`? Or is it easily explained?
It's easily explained. When it's the product of long experience, it's called "intuition." In your case, it's called "guessing."

I believe that the human brain is capable of achieving feats outside of our understanding, and that in time these acts will be understood by medical science.
On the one hand, this is a trivial statement: we don't understand grammar processing, for example, and yet the brain clearly achieves it.

On the other hand, it is a statement of sheer faith, backed up nothing more than wishfuly thinking. Claiming that the brain can violate the laws of physics that constrain all other objects is just the same old "soul" in a different bottle, the same tired religoius infantile screed: "But... we're SPECIAL!"

We're not special, the brain is a material object, the mind is a production of brain, there is no privilged position for your personal sense of self.

I am hoping that my demonstrations of this ability will actually be looked at in greater depth and not dismissed as hocus pokus, or here, the `Woo Woo`s`.
Since your entire epistimology rests on the standard woo-woo rejection of self-evident reality, your hopes seem rather unfounded. But hey... pass the Challenge, and we will definitely take you seriously.

[Thinktoomuch]

the mind is a production of brain,



is also "a statement of sheer faith, backed up [by] nothing more than wishful thinking."

See the thread about free will.

Are you sure about achieving grammar processing?

[Flange Desire]

is also "a statement of sheer faith, backed up [by] nothing more than wishful thinking."

See the thread about free will.

Are you sure about achieving grammar processing?

IMO, yahzi is right on the money.
Ref Pinker

[Flange Desire]

...
I have spoken in the past to a number of GP`s and their view was this was either utter rubbish, or a placebo effect.
I accept there must be others that do think otherwise.
I personally feel there is much more to this which has hitherto not been explained or examined properly. I accept I am talking about matters beyond some peoples experiences, and expect you to stand in your corner with your view point, and mine in my own.
...

Why would you doubt the experts?
Do you know more about it than them?

Did you take the time to read up on placebo and self delusion WRT to TT as previously suggested in this thread? (You ARE serious about this aren't you?)

In an earlier post, you talked about treating medical conditions.
Seems you do not have any medical qualifications, so this may be dangerous and fraudulent.
Do you get your car fixed by the local piano tuner?

No offence PP, but you are kidding yourself if you think this is not quackery.

[Thinktoomuch]

IMO, yahzi is right on the money.
Ref Pinker

I'm not saying he is not, only that he can not prove it. Plenty of highly qualified posters seem to concur.

[fls]

(the mind is a production of brain,)

is also "a statement of sheer faith, backed up [by] nothing more than wishful thinking."

It seems that the mind as separate from the body has consistently been the obvious assumption throughout human history. And it is only in very recent history that serious consideration has been given to the idea that materialism can apply to the mind. Wishful thinking on this idea has been almost exclusively in one direction - i.e. almost every person, if asked, feels that their mind/thoughts direct their actions.

It can be said that the idea that we can explain all of the natural world through materialism is wishful thinking. And I agree even though that happens to be the direction of my wishful thinking. But then why single out the human mind?


See the thread about free will.

I will admit that I didn't read that whole thread, but I have had lots of "free will" discussions and they always seem to centre around the same few issues, so I hope I am not missing something critical in my reply here.

How do other people handle this? I usually skim the forum looking for topics that catch my eye. And I often come across posts (at the start of the thread) that I want to reply to, but don't have time to read the entire 261 posts that followed. And I don't feel like I should jump in with both feet without knowing whether what I want to say has already been said. So I end up saying nothing and remain strangely unsatisfied.

Linda

[Cuddles]

How do other people handle this? I usually skim the forum looking for topics that catch my eye. And I often come across posts (at the start of the thread) that I want to reply to, but don't have time to read the entire 261 posts that followed. And I don't feel like I should jump in with both feet without knowing whether what I want to say has already been said. So I end up saying nothing and remain strangely unsatisfied.

Linda

I find generally in the science and skepticism forums you are fine just jumping straight in. These forums tend to stay on topic, or at least try to, so even if they have drifted off you won't be attacked for bringing it back. If your point has been covered people will usually just refer you to the relevant post. Just don't try this in the politics forums. I think I'm scarred for life. :D

[Apathia]

PsyP said

I have spoken in the past to a number of GP`s and their view was this was either utter rubbish, or a placebo effect.
I accept there must be others that do think otherwise.
I personally feel there is much more to this which has hitherto not been explained or examined properly. I accept I am talking about matters beyond some peoples experiences, and expect you to stand in your corner with your view point, and mine in my own.

I go with the placebo interpretation, but not the "rubbish" apraisal. Linda's post pointed out that the placebo effect includes the benifits of reduced stress. In my opinon that is heightened by engaging the individual's parasypathetic nervous system. It's not just a patient believes therefore placebo, therefore no value. Yes it is psycho-somatic and very subjective, which is why it can't be an alternative or substitute for tested and apporved medical tratments. However, these effects are still valued in Massage Therapy and warrant more research.

We are not just "meat machines." Our thoughts and feelings and feelings are major players in being healthy persons.
My personal opinion (and opinion it is, because there is no way to prove or disprove it using Science) is that we have no supernatural selves and metaphysical free wills. In the Buddhist understanding self has no inherent existance. What you see is what you get. We function with the fiction of an ego decider. That fiction isn't a representation of some metaphysical soul beyond the realm of experience. Of course in Buddhism there is nothing behind the apprerances of experience, so we creatively make do with our fictional egos, and that is part of being a healthy person. We neither cling to our egos nor deny their conventional sort of existance.

One of the main reasons people turn to so-called alternatives is that their HBO regards them as merely part of the profit making machinery and their hospital regards them as merely muscles, bones, and internal organs.
Something gets dropped, and so-called healers pick it ip and abuse it in their own way.

We don't need to dismiss the benifits of caring touch and attention because the frauds abuse them. But if we don't understand and can't explain to people why Reiki, TT, or whatever was able to help them within limitations, then they will again and again be struck with the wonder of their subjective experiences and be all the more vulnerable to people who tell them they don't need established medicine.

[Yahzi]

is also "a statement of sheer faith, backed up [by] nothing more than wishful thinking."
So you're saying that empirical data has no value?

Or are you saying the wishful thinking of a thousand years is worth more than one scientific expierement?

We know, as well as we know anything, that mind is a product of brain. This is self-evident to anyone who has ever observed a mind being altered by changes in the brain. Against these commonplace observation, what evidence do you assert?

[Yahzi]

I will admit that I didn't read that whole thread, but I have had lots of "free will" discussions
Good dog, I'm not going anywhere near a "free will" thread. They are cesspools of minutae and straw.

:D

[Yahzi]

I'm not saying he is not, only that he can not prove it. Plenty of highly qualified posters seem to concur.
You want proof?

Take a pill. Huff some paint. Drink a beer. There are thousands of ways to mess up your brain chemistry and observe a change in behaviour, thought, feeling, and affect.

On the other hand, can you name a single experiment that would indicated mind is not a function of brain? Can you produce a brainless mind to interact with?

Given that there is readily available evidence on one side, and none on the other; given that one side corresponds to everything we know about physics and the world at large, and the other side violates all of those laws; how can we say we don't know?

If we don't know mind is caused by brain, then we don't know disease is caused by germs, or rain is caused by condensation, or winning the Superbowl is caused by scoring more points.

[fls]

Good dog, I'm not going anywhere near a "free will" thread. They are cesspools of minutae and straw.

:D

Ummm.....aren't you in one now?

Linda

[fls]

If we don't know mind is caused by brain, then we don't know disease is caused by germs, or rain is caused by condensation, or winning the Superbowl is caused by scoring more points.

One of these things is not like the others....
(You know the tune)

Linda

[Thinktoomuch]

On the other hand, can you name a single experiment that would indicated mind is not a function of brain? Can you produce a brainless mind to interact with?



I am sure we both have interacted with plenty of "brainless minds" .:D
Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. I just pointed you to a source of possible enligthenment and you have refused it. Suit yourself.

[Beth]

One of these things is not like the others....
(You know the tune)

Linda

Well, disease is not always caused by germs. Is that the one you meant?

[Topspy]

Why the extended debate here? Just apply and see what they suggest for a protocol. It won't cost you anything but a bit of time, and if you can't come to an agreement over a protocol you can leave it at that. But if you DO, I'm sure everyone here would be interested in the results, so please do apply......

[fls]

If we don't know mind is caused by brain, then we don't know disease is caused by germs, or rain is caused by condensation, or winning the Superbowl is caused by scoring more points.

One of these things is not like the others....
(You know the tune)

Well, disease is not always caused by germs. Is that the one you meant?

One of them is a tautology, rather than inductive.

Linda

[Beth]

Okay. Sometimes there is more than one right answer.

[Yahzi]

One of them is a tautology, rather than inductive.
See, the problem is, I don't know jack about sports, but I wanted to use a sports metaphor to make me look "normal."

An exercise in futility, indeed. :D

[Yahzi]

I am sure we both have interacted with plenty of "brainless minds" .:D
Au contraire! Rather, we have interacted with many mindless brains....

:D :D :D

Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. I just pointed you to a source of possible enligthenment and you have refused it. Suit yourself.
It's not a source of possible enlightenment. And if the messenger is yelling 'Fire!" in a crowded theater, doesn't he deserve to be shot?

I did you the courtesy of actually listening. Doesn't that imply you owe me the courtesy of actually having something to say? I realize that in this advertisment-infested age, the line between "conversation" and "meaningless babble intended to sell something" becomes blurred, but by golly, it's time to take a stand! No more product placement without it being integral to the plot!

:)

[Thinktoomuch]

My humble apologies, I did not realise you were in two minds :D :D about your participation to this forum. On one hand, (pardon, mind) you do me and the others in this thread the courtesy of listening, which to me means that you have an expectation of getting something out of the forum. On the other, you say that my referring you to another part of the forum is akin to a fire hoax in a theatre, ie. misleading and therefore punishable with shooting, because (that part of) the forum is "not a source of possible enlightenment". My apologies again, but if I were able to read your "minds" and know what you do and don't pay the courtesy to listen to, I would claim the million!

Anyway, given that you listened to me, I apologise again for my inability to make you understand what I had to say, that is that I humbly admit my inadequacy to enlighten you on the subject but I can offer information on where I found a lively debate of greater "minds" than mine who possibly could. Now we know that they can't because your "mind" is closed to them. I placed the wrong product with my meaningless babble.

I hope you rate this as conversation! :rolleyes:

[Thinktoomuch]

My humble apologies, I did not realise you were in two minds :D :D about your participation to this forum. On one hand, (pardon, mind) you do me and the others in this thread the courtesy of listening, which to me means that you have an expectation of getting something out of the forum. On the other, you say that my referring you to another part of the forum is akin to a fire hoax in a theatre, ie. misleading and therefore punishable with shooting, because (that part of) the forum is "not a source of possible enlightenment". My apologies again, but if I were able to read your "minds" and know what you do and don't pay the courtesy to listen to, I would claim the million!

Anyway, given that you listened to me, I apologise again for my inability to make you understand what I had to say, that is that I humbly admit my inadequacy to enlighten you on the subject but I can offer information on where I found a lively debate of greater "minds" than mine who possibly could. Now we know that they can't because your "mind" is closed to them. I placed the wrong product with my meaningless babble.

I hope you rate this as conversation! :rolleyes:

[EHocking]

...
Another ability that aligns itself to my healing is that I can `feel` where the seat of a person’s pain lies.

This area is problematical for me simply because on occasions, the seat of the pain is sometimes away from the point that the subject feels the pain.
It is only when I give my `treatment` or energy, that the subject feels where the heat actually goes, and that is normally where I first sensed it.
You can appreciate my dilemma.
Could you give an example of this?

For example if we were to test you on this ability and the subject has, say, a migraine, but you saiy the seat of the pain is in a foot, how would we be able to determine a "hit" in an experiment or the Challenge?

You'd say the seat of your pain is in your foot, the subject would say, "my head hurts".

How would you prove that the "seat" of the pain is elsewhere from where the subject feels the pain.

Are there injuries/problems that do NOT have this complication?

[Yahzi]

My humble apologies,
I don't want an apology. I want substantive debate.

On the other, you say that my referring you to another part of the forum is akin to a fire hoax in a theatre
That was not the point.

You said, "don't shoot the messenger." I explained that this was not a blanket defense: sometimes, the messenger is as much a part of the problem as anything else.

I did not mean to refer to the other thread as "not a source of enlightenment;" I meant to refer to the entire topic. Speculating on the phenomona described by "free will" is unlikely to tell us much about the real world, being, as it is, rather specific to the human-constructed world of culture.

It's like talking about Gandalf when you're trying to build a bridge.

inability to make you understand what I had to say
I have to agree with Hannity on this: if someone can't explain what they mean in simple terms, then either they are a) lying or b) confused themselves.

Just tell us, in the simplest terms, what your point is.

I suspect it is this: "free will implies minds violate the laws of physics."

If that is indeed your argument, then we are back where we started: we've all already heard this argument a thousand times, it's been soundly destroyed, so please either breath new life into it or say something new. But don't expect us to take the mere repetition of this argument seriously.

Now we know that they can't because your "mind" is closed to them.
If I ask you to review a thread about what 2+2 equals, would the fact that you know basic math mean your "mind" was closed to the arguments contained?

I hope you rate this as conversation! :rolleyes:
It's a little better. But it is somewhat off-topic.

[fls]

Anyway, given that you listened to me, I apologise again for my inability to make you understand what I had to say, that is that I humbly admit my inadequacy to enlighten you on the subject but I can offer information on where I found a lively debate of greater "minds" than mine who possibly could. Now we know that they can't because your "mind" is closed to them. I placed the wrong product with my meaningless babble.

I see this frequently offered as a response and I fail to understand it. How does knowledge and an ability to evaluate information objectively preclude an open mind?

Linda

[Thinktoomuch]

Ok fls, I take your point. Just say that my IQ is not sufficient to spot these subleties quickly enough to avoid them while hurriedly trying to communicate in simple language. I am quite aware that there are more than 60 million people on this earth smarter than I.

Yahzi: given that there is nothing here to lie about I must be confused, because I can not explain myself in simple terms.

What part of
"I humbly admit my inadequacy to enlighten you on the subject but I can offer information on where I found a lively debate of greater "minds" than mine who possibly could"

don't you understand?

You assume (with the proverbial results) that I was trying to teach you something about free will. I was only telling you that I am trying to learn something about it and thought you might want also. End of story.

[Yahzi]

Yahzi: given that there is nothing here to lie about I must be confused, because I can not explain myself in simple terms.
I concur with your assessment: you are confused. Perhaps you should back up to the point where you still understand the issue, and try again.

For instance: what, specifically, could free will possibly teach us about the nature of reality?

You assume (with the proverbial results) that I was trying to teach you something about free will. I was only telling you that I am trying to learn something about it and thought you might want also.
See, the assumption in the above paragraph is that I don't already know the answer. You assumed I was as confused about the issue as you were. This assumption produced, as you put it, the proverbial result.

There is no philosophical conumdrum in free will. Although it is true that many philosophers argue about it and write books about it, that is no more signficant than the fact that many people argue about God and write books about God. All it tells you is there are a lot of confused people out there.

Free will is no more metaphysically interesting than temperature. Both are qualities that do not exist in the micro-atomic world, no matter how much their apparent behavior matters in the macro world. Both are short-hand descriptions of complex interactions. Both are necessary, as well: imagine trying to survive in this world without understanding or believing in temperature: but the mere fact that a complex interaction must be condensed to a short-hand hueristic so we can function on a daily basis tells us nothing about the innate nature of the material universe.

[Dazed]

An interesting study would be "How people convince themselves they have magical powers when they clearly do not."

[Thinktoomuch]

See, the assumption in the above paragraph is that I don't already know the answer. You assumed I was as confused about the issue as you were. This assumption produced, as you put it, the proverbial result.



We are agreed, then: we are both asses.

I am amazed at the time you spend talking about something you denied so vehemently wanting to be involved with, to somebody who told you clearly is too ignorant to presume arguing about it. It reminds me of an ancient proverb: the tongue keeps touching the sore tooth. Try an aspirin.

[Thinktoomuch]

See, the assumption in the above paragraph is that I don't already know the answer. You assumed I was as confused about the issue as you were. This assumption produced, as you put it, the proverbial result.



We are agreed, then: we are both asses.

I am amazed at the time you spend talking about something you denied so vehemently wanting to be involved with, to somebody who told you clearly is too ignorant to presume arguing about it. It reminds me of an ancient proverb: the tongue keeps touching the sore tooth. Try an aspirin.

[hellaeon]

Back on track

PP,

1) 20 people again :)
2) again each have various ailments and believe in 'psychic healing' etc.
3) each one recieves 'treatment' from someone other then you - a laid out step by step method of healing application previously agreed upon.
4) record results

5) another 20
6) again each have various ailments and believe in 'psychic healing' etc.
7) each one recieves 'treatment' from you - a laid out step by step method of healing application previously agreed upon.
4) record results

No metal bars!

Though it may better if each group of 20 is further grouped into a set of 3 or 4 (5 each?) specific ailments to minimise other problems or 'levels of healing' possibly obtained.

This can determine simply if you have what you claim or others possibly.
I still cant see it being more then a placebo effect of sorts.

Can we get back on track in this thread? Skip some of the schoolyard crap.
Could a moderator move this to the challenge thread?, it may help keep the thread on track (though I have yet to check if PP has posted in there!)

[Flange Desire]

Not a peep from PP.

I had expected him to turn purple and explode in a splutter,
but instead he seems to have just wimped away.

Either way, it's much the same old story - all talk but nothing to show.

[Yahzi]

to somebody who told you clearly is too ignorant to presume arguing about it.
If you are trying to state that you are uneducatable on this topic, I find I have no evidence to contradict your assessment.

[Thinktoomuch]

No, I just respected your wish:

Good dog, I'm not going anywhere near a "free will" thread. They are cesspools of minutae and straw.

:D

And still, as other intelligent people pointed out to you, you are wallowing in it. The aspirin obviously did not work. A psychotropic drug, as you suggested, might be more effective. Look in the indications for "masochism" :D .