Evolution of telepathy?

[ceptimus]

If telepathy existed at all, wouldn't evolution have perfected it by now?

Think of the survival value of telepathy - the ability, say, to telepathically warn one's children or siblings of the impending attack of a predator, or of a fire sweeping through a building.

Even the tinyest amount of telepathy would presumably bestow some evolutionary advantage on its possessors, and the nature of evolution is to drive any such abilities to a higher state of perfection.

So if our distant ancestors possessed even the smallest vestage of telepathy, we all ought to be accomplished telepaths by now. This doesn't seem to be the case.

This, of course, assumes that there are no negative survival affects that would be caused by a rudimentary form of telepathy - I can't think of any at the moment.

So is this a useful argument against telepathy? I don't suppose it's original anyway.

Of course, the same argument can be used against most paranormal powers. Most would have a survival benefit - though I don't see how spoon bending abilities would have helped our ancestors much.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If telepathy existed at all, wouldn't evolution have perfected it by now?
Gotta start somewhere.


Seriously, I picture a couple of early light-sensitive single-cell organisms saying the same thing about...well...sensing light. We could be on the forefront of the new wave in sensory evolution!





...or, as I am led to believe, not.

[Jeff Corey]

One negative aspect of evolving telepathy would be the ability to detect when others were lying.
Where would our civilization be without the ability to lie and not always get caught?

__________________________________________________
"I am not a crook." Tricky Dick

[Nivek]

Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Nivek
Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way.
What's the trick to accepting and acknowledging it then? I have no problem being responsible for my thoughts.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
One negative aspect of evolving telepathy would be the ability to detect when others were lying.
Where would our civilization be without the ability to lie and not always get caught? Well as with our non-supernatural abilities to detect deception, there'd be still better defences to telepathy evolved alongside it, each edging ahead of the other at various stages. So we could expect to see, rather than no telepathy (because ability to detect deception is of survival value, but so is avoiding detection of your own deceptions), we'd probably see highly developed telepathy, which would be of use in everyday life, but an almost equally highly developed ability to fox it if need be. Just like our Theory of Mind today - our ability to determine the thoughts of others through natural means - it's highly evolved and very useful, but we can try to trick it in others if we need to.

[MRC_Hans]

The main objection is that evolution os not deliberate. Provided telepathy was possible, there could be many reasons for it not to have evolved into more than a trace ability. E. g.

1) It requires a very large brain, the human brain only marginally large enough to have some abilities.

2) The DNA configuration for full telepathy is in some other way destructive.

3) It is not really an advantage because it might threaten mental stability.

etc. etc.

Nivek: You explanation does not make sense. Some people can suppres some functions to the level where they are unaware of them (like making themselves blind), but this is quite rare. If all people had a natural telepathic ability, most would be aware of it.

If the ability exists at all, it is either dormant, quite rare, or quite weak.

Hans

[Soapy Sam]

Nivek. Welcome to the forum.

You have made some bold and sweeping assertions, for which you provide neither evidence nor an explanation of your thoughts on the matter.

If you have supportive data, please specify.

Thanks.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek
The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts.Why do people who believe in stuff attribute nonsensical attitudes or thoughts to people who don't agree with them?

Why on earth would I be ashamed? In what way would acknowledging telepathy make me feel more responsible for my thoughts?

Honestly. :rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by ceptimus
If telepathy existed at all, wouldn't evolution have perfected it by now?

Think of the survival value of telepathy - the ability, say, to telepathically warn one's children or siblings of the impending attack of a predator, or of a fire sweeping through a building.


This assumes that there would be a survival value.

So far, all the 'telepaths' and other psychics have been able to do is point out that dead bodies are dumped by water, and that our dead grandmother loves us very much. Not exactly things that will help me pass on my genes.

[Diamond]

How did I know you were going to post in this thread?

[Jeff Corey]

Many of the implications of telepathy have been explored by scientifiction writers. "Slan" comes to mind. "The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bester made a big impression on me back in the 50's.
The antihero commits a crime and has to hide his thoughts from the psicops. So he keeps on thinking a jingle that goes something like, "Tenser says the censor, senser says the tenser, tension, apprehension and dissension have begun."
Loosely based on a Mark Twain story about a man who can't get a jingle about punching trolley car tickets out of his head.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Many of the implications of telepathy have been explored by scientifiction writers. ...snip...

"Scientifiction writers" and just how old are you? :D

[juninho]

Originally posted by Diamond
How did I know you were going to post in this thread?

How did I know you were going to write that?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat
"Scientifiction writers" and just how old are you? :D
Well, I was around when "The Demolished Man" got the first Hugo for a scientifiction novel in 1953.
Hugo. Get it?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


This assumes that there would be a survival value.

So far, all the 'telepaths' and other psychics have been able to do is point out that dead bodies are dumped by water, and that our dead grandmother loves us very much. Not exactly things that will help me pass on my genes. Hmmm... I'm not sure. Being a 'psychic' helps flaky people earn money and gather resources, for very little outlay or effort, which is of survival value. Even more so these days, when the same people can get on tv, and as well as being rather well-off, may have many adoring potential mates surrounding them at all times.

The thing to remember, though, is that it doesn't matter in this instance whether the psychic abilities are real or faked. To paraphrase Randi, if nature's doing this stuff by supernatural means, it's doing it the hard way.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Well, I was around when "The Demolished Man" got the first Hugo for a scientifiction novel in 1953.
Hugo. Get it?

Explains a lot Ralph, sorry Jeff ;)

[fishbob]

So far, all the 'telepaths' and other psychics have been able to do is point out that dead bodies are dumped by water, and that our dead grandmother loves us very much. Not exactly things that will help me pass on my genes. And that would get you burned at the stake until a few short centuries ago. Not much survival value there.

[Darat]

Originally posted by fishbob
And that would get you burned at the stake until a few short centuries ago. Not much survival value there.

Unless you worked for the military and could be benificial to them ;)

[Nivek]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Nivek: You explanation does not make sense. Some people can suppres some functions to the level where they are unaware of them (like making themselves blind), but this is quite rare. If all people had a natural telepathic ability, most would be aware of it.


It is not rare to suppress telepathy. Since we are born we are told that if we hear voices in our head we are crazy. People do not want to be crazy so we suppress our gift of unity. Many of those whom are aware of it are concidered crazy (scitzophrenic).

Where else are we to hear voices?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Nivek. Welcome to the forum.

You have made some bold and sweeping assertions, for which you provide neither evidence nor an explanation of your thoughts on the matter.

If you have supportive data, please specify.

Thanks.
I can give you more of my thoughts if you want them, but there is no proof. Nothing can be proven, NOTHING. Everything is this world is based on our own personal perceptions, we can convince others of our own perceptions, but we can never prove them. The supportive data for telepathy is everywhere, watch for peoples reactions to your thoughts. The simple reactions are the easiest to spot, like spitting or caughing in dissagreement.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek

I can give you more of my thoughts if you want them, but there is no proof. Nothing can be proven, NOTHING. Everything is this world is based on our own personal perceptions, we can convince others of our own perceptions, but we can never prove them. The supportive data for telepathy is everywhere, watch for peoples reactions to your thoughts. The simple reactions are the easiest to spot, like spitting or caughing in dissagreement.

Of course you can prove what you say "telepathy" is, you are talking about communication between people; very easy and straightforward to test for.

Have you considered the reason you believe it can't be proved is that it doesn't exist?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
In what way would acknowledging telepathy make me feel more responsible for my thoughts?

Honestly. :rolleyes:

Ever hear of logic? How would acknowledging a broken arm make one feel more responcible for their safety?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Darat


Of course you can prove what you say "telepathy" is, you are talking about communication between people; very easy and straightforward to test for.

Have you considered the reason you believe it can't be proved is that it doesn't exist?

You contradict yourself.

I said that NOTHING can be proved. This does not mean that nothing exists. We all know things exist, but there is no proof. We can see clouds but the blind man has to take our word. We can hear sounds but the deaf man has to take out sign. They can choose to believe or live with their own perceptions.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek


You contradict yourself.

I said that NOTHING can be proved. This does not mean that nothing exists. We all know things exist, but there is no proof. We can see clouds but the blind man has to take our word. We can hear sounds but the deaf man has to take out sign. They can choose to believe or live with their own perceptions.

Your words:

"Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way."

The contradiction is yours not mine, it is you who has claimed that telepathy is a fact, yet now you are claiming there are no facts.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Nivek

I said that NOTHING can be proved.
Can you prove that?


Back to original topic: sure, being able to read minds would have selective value, but wouldn't there also be value in having your own mind immune to being read?

"You've got to be trusted by the people that you lie to" - Pink Floyd

[Nucular]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Back to original topic: sure, being able to read minds would have selective value, but wouldn't there also be value in having your own mind immune to being read?

"You've got to be trusted by the people that you lie to" - Pink Floyd Well like I said earlier, it's like the ability to read body language and infer mental states from people's actions: it pays us to be able to read, but also to be able to choose not to be read.

Thus, we get a bit of a race between the two conflicting abilities, which end in a bit of a stalemate (sometimes we can accurately read people, sometimes we can't; sometimes we can stop ourselves being read, sometimes we can't). But overall, because of this evolutionary conflict, our abilities to infer people's mental states from their behaviour have become very powerful indeed, except where intentional deception occurs.

But this isn't the case with telepathy: even when two people are willing to use no 'blocking' at all, we still can't really see it happening - so that might be an indication that it doesn't exist.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Darat


Your words:

"Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it. The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact. The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts. Ignorance is the lazy way."

The contradiction is yours not mine, it is you who has claimed that telepathy is a fact, yet now you are claiming there are no facts.

From www.dictonary.com

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.


2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.


b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.


c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.




3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.


4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Notice how it only mentions proof as an example once? Besides, I never said that there were no facts. Not that facts would prove anything, they only lead one to agreeing to another perception or denying and dissagreeing with another perception, sometimes both.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Can you prove that?


Back to original topic: sure, being able to read minds would have selective value, but wouldn't there also be value in having your own mind immune to being read?

"You've got to be trusted by the people that you lie to" - Pink Floyd

1. No.

2. There is vale in having an immunity to being probed by anothers mind. This immunity comes with the practice of telepathy.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
But this isn't the case with telepathy: even when two people are willing to use no 'blocking' at all, we still can't really see it happening - so that might be an indication that it doesn't exist.

Why do you say that? Is not being able to see air an indication that it doesn't exist? What about pheromones? Can you see pain? Emotional trauma? After all, we are talking about an Extra Sensory Perception here.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by juninho


How did I know you were going to write that?

How did I know they were going to invent the Internet?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Nivek
Why do you say that? Is not being able to see air an indication that it doesn't exist? What about pheromones? Can you see pain? Emotional trauma? After all, we are talking about an Extra Sensory Perception here.

"Evidence iff seen with the naked eye" got stale about 500 years ago.

We have physical, concrete evidence of the existence of all these things. There is no physical, concrete evidence for telepathy. Your analogy is inaccurate.

Originally posted by Nivek
Notice how it only mentions proof as an example once? Besides, I never said that there were no facts. Not that facts would prove anything, they only lead one to agreeing to another perception or denying and dissagreeing with another perception, sometimes both.

Well, clearly this means you can fly if you want to enough. I await the results of your first leap off a building.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by aerosolben
We have physical, concrete evidence of the existence of all these things. There is no physical, concrete evidence for telepathy. Your analogy is inaccurate.


Really? I didn't know that there was physical, concrete evidence for emotional trauma. Where can I find this evidence?

What does flying have to do with the subject at hand?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek


Really? I didn't know that there was physical, concrete evidence for emotional trauma. Where can I find this evidence?

What does flying have to do with the subject at hand? What do air, pheromones, pain and emotional trauma have to do with the subject in hand?

Emotional trauma is a subjective state reported by many people after upsetting events. There is little reason to fake emotional trauma (except for where lawsuits are involved), and it is held to be unpleasant.

Although it is not a necessary condition to acknowledge that emotional trauma exists, we have all felt it to some degree, and therefore have subjective experience, as well as inferring it from the behaviour of others.

Emotional trauma can be defined from the trigger event, plus the cognitive, affective, behavioural and physiological effects it produces. These include, respectively, intrusive thoughts, inability to concentrate, obsessive thinking and avoidance of certain thoughts; anxiety, fear, depression, grief, shame, guilt and sometimes flattening of affect; social avoidance, lethargy, substance misuse, self harm, etc. (depending on severity of trauma); and higher levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, increased or decreased arousal, and possibly some neurological or neurochemical changes associated with prolonged distress. Extreme cases of some of these things can add up to actual disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic anxiety disorder, morbid grief, etc. Thus, through these factors, diagnosis or symptom identification can take place, and the reality of emotional trauma as a phenomenon can be affirmed. The term itself, of course, is more of a lay term, or a colloquialism for collections of the symptoms I outlined; but agreement as to the meanings and usage of clinical and non-clinical terms allows the use and validation of the term.

So where is your physical, concrete evidence for telepathy?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nivek

I can give you more of my thoughts if you want them, but there is no proof. Nothing can be proven, NOTHING. Everything is this world is based on our own personal perceptions, we can convince others of our own perceptions, but we can never prove them. You and Interesting Ian would get along well.

However, imagine one person who was open to telepathy sat on one side of a room. Imagine further that another person who was also open to telepathy sat on the other side of the room. One person is shown a randomly selected picture or word. If the person on the other side fo the room could correctly name that picture or word beyond random chance, would that not prove the existance of telepathy?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
One negative aspect of evolving telepathy would be the ability to detect when others were lying.
Where would our civilization be without the ability to lie and not always get caught?



At peace and with equality for all.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
At peace and with equality for all.

And since we don't have either...

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
What do air, pheromones, pain and emotional trauma have to do with the subject in hand?

So where is your physical, concrete evidence for telepathy?

To your first question, they are all "invisible" realities like telepathy.

To your second question; Evidence for telepathy is as elusive as evidence of emotional trauma. Many people throughout time and around the globe have experiance it, put it into words and evolved spiritual practices around it. Does this not give telepathy validity?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Nivek
[B]

From www.dictonary.com

...snip...

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.


b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.


c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

I'd like to place a vote for 2c please :D. With a slight modification. "Something believed by believers to be true or real: a document or theory laced with mistaken, or in fact often zero facts.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Nivek
To your first question, they are all "invisible" realities like telepathy.

To your second question; Evidence for telepathy is as elusive as evidence of emotional trauma. Many people throughout time and around the globe have experiance it, put it into words and evolved spiritual practices around it. Does this not give telepathy validity?

Air and Phermones have physical reality. They can be felt, weighed and measured. They exist. We have previously proven that they exist and can prove that they exist right now. Telepathy has not been proven to exist ever.

To your question, "Does this not give telepathy validity?" the answer is no.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek


To your first question, they are all "invisible" realities like telepathy.

To your second question; Evidence for telepathy is as elusive as evidence of emotional trauma. Many people throughout time and around the globe have experiance it, put it into words and evolved spiritual practices around it. Does this not give telepathy validity? I've already given you the evidence for emotional trauma. However, it is a poor analogy.

I don't think you've thought this through.

You seem to be saying that I can't demonstrate the existence of oranges (which I can), so therefore unicorns exist.

Edited to add:

Hey Nivek (or can I call you Kev?) - I can't believe you think that because some people say it's true, then it is. Do you really live your life and base your beliefs on that principle?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
I've already given you the evidence for emotional trauma. However, it is a poor analogy.

I don't think you've thought this through.

You seem to be saying that I can't demonstrate the existence of oranges (which I can), so therefore unicorns exist.

Edited to add:

Hey Nivek (or can I call you Kev?) - I can't believe you think that because some people say it's true, then it is. Do you really live your life and base your beliefs on that principle?

What evidence have you given me? You only gave me theory. It's a theory that is commonly known and agreed with, not proof.
Everything I speak of I know from experiances that I, and many other people, have had and continue to have. Many of us were sckeptics before we had our "awakening", now we see. Can I get a witness?

BTW No, please do not call me by that name, I wasn't born with it.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek


What evidence have you given me? You only gave me theory. It's a theory that is commonly known and agreed with, not proof.
Everything I speak of I know from experiances that I, and many other people, have had and continue to have. Many of us were sckeptics before we had our "awakening", now we see. Can I get a witness?

BTW No, please do not call me by that name, I wasn't born with it. No, I haven't given you proof - I've given you good, solid evidence. Can you give me any for telepathy? Or will you continue your "nothing is proven, therefore telepathy exists" argument?

PS - I assumed your name might be Kevin, given your username: apologies, I'm not psychic :wink:

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
I've given you good, solid evidence.
When? like I said you have only given me theory, conjecture, someone elses hypothesis. I will give you evidence once I am given some, because the evidence is the same.
How can one believe in these invisible emotions and not empathy, which evolves into telepathy?

Post Scriptum
Tis' ok, it's a common mistake. ;)

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek

When? like I said you have only given me theory, conjecture, someone elses hypothesis. I will give you evidence once I am given some, because the evidence is the same.
How can one believe in these invisible emotions and not empathy, which evolves into telepathy?

Post Scriptum
Tis' ok, it's a common mistake. ;) I'm not sure on what basis you dismiss what I said about emotional trauma as "theory, conjecture, someone else's hypothesis". I defined emotional trauma as consisting of certain phenomena; I then described what we'd expect to see if those phenomena were present. I see them every day (I work with people who are emotionally traumatised). We also see them borne out in the literature (for a good review of one aspect or type of emotional trauma, see McMillan, M., Williams, W. and Bryant, R. (2003) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury: A review of causal mechanisms, assessment and treatment, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 13 (1/2), 149-164).

So the evidence consists of definition, prediction of effects, confirmation of that prediction (unless you deny that the phenomena I describe are common after trauma), everyday clinical observation, and a body of scientific literature. Would you mind producing these as regards telepathy, as promised?

Regarding empathy. Empathy is an ability to 'mind-read' - but not in the supernatural sense. It is a product of 'Theory of Mind' (ToM) skills, the ability to infer people's mental states from behavioural cues. You can see what happens when it goes wrong in autistic spectrum disorders, such as autism and Asperger's Syndrome (see Simon Baron-Cohen's work on ToM). There is zero evidence that ToM relies on any supernatural phenomena. Empathy exists, and is a useful skill, but it is not telepathy. Unless you can show otherwise.

[MRC_Hans]

Nivek, stop evading. The question is: If telepathy exists, can it be tested? And the answer is obviously yes. It is very simple to design a test protocol for telepathy, and such tests have been performed. They were negative.

The voices in your head are not teleepathy.

Hans

[Ipecac]

Here's a question.

If telepathy evolved in humans, then why do we have spoken languages? A truly telepathic race wouldn't need something as clumsy as spoken language to communicate.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Here's a question.

If telepathy evolved in humans, then why do we have spoken languages? A truly telepathic race wouldn't need something as clumsy as spoken language to communicate.

This is something I was wondering... Telepathy would be a lot more useful for hunting, for instance, than clumsy vocal speech. But if telepathy preceded spoken language, what would the content of that form of communication be? Could it be anything more complex than basic emotional states?

[Nivek]

Here are a few links;

http://www.vexen.co.uk/4/ft.html

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/telepathy.html

http://www.psiexplorer.com/telepth3.html

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/1998/retrocausal_tucson3.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/present_2002_porto.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/fmri.presentiment.pa2002.pdf

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/109/109transcript.html

They are in no paticular order(sorry) but they link to definitions, studies, interviews and government involvement in remote viewing which evoles from telepaty, the sudject at hand.

@ BillyTK: The context of the comunication preceeding spoken was that of mental imagery and gestures.

@ Ipecac: Your right, a truly telepathic wouldn't need a spoken language, this is what's re-evolving now.

@ MRC_Hans: I wasn't evading, leading the debate and researching.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Nivek
They are in no paticular order(sorry) but they link to definitions, studies, interviews and government involvement in remote viewing which evoles from telepaty, the sudject at hand.

No experiment involving any sort of telepathy has ever been independantly and successfully replicated. Please feel free to correct me if you have any evidence to the contrary.

@ MRC_Hans: I wasn't evading, leading the debate and researching.

You are evading, whether you think so or not. The fact is, telepathy should be a very tangible and measurable phenomenon.

I (and many here) can come up with many, many ways to test telepathic ability. May I suggest that, before you wander off into speculations about the "re-evolution" of telepathy, you demonstrate its existence. The very organization that sponsors this forum will be happy to give you a million bucks, just for performing a few routine telepathic activities.

[robbersdog]

Ok, reality check! Nivek. What on earth are you taking? Comparing telepathy to things we can prove doesn't make proof of telepathy. It doesn't even give it credibility. I can prove that air exists. I can do it without analogy.

Your arguments are inaccurate and logically incorrect. They are below par for this forum. Try harder.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by aerosolben
[B]I (and many here) can come up with many, many ways to test telepathic ability. /B]

Unfortunately many ways we have tested for telepathy were inconclusive. Does this mean it doesn't exist? Or, does this mean it's not as tangible as you suggest?

I have often thought of taking the challenge, untill I red the rules and found that it was designed to produce failed results. Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.

[robbersdog]

Originally posted by Nivek
Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.

What?

I can't see any way of having a test where the results aren't left to the perceptions of others. Not a fair test.

How would you like to be tested? Please, this is a fair and not leading question.

[The Don]

Against my own better judgement I actually the material at the end of these links...


Originally posted by Nivek

Here are a few links;

http://www.vexen.co.uk/4/ft.html

or how to create telepathy using sticky back plastic and bits of string. A similar thing can be done today, I write down what I'm thinking and pass it to you. You read (and ideally understand) it Bingo! telepathy (not)


http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/telepathy.html

Anecdotal reference to poorly conducted tests.


http://www.psiexplorer.com/telepth3.html

Dead link, maybe "they" are hiding something fom us

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/1998/retrocausal_tucson3.pdf

we looked for evidence of telepathy, didn't find it so therefore decided that our tests weren't sensitive enough. So we re-did them until we got a set of responses we liked

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/present_2002_porto.pdf

Found some more studies, same MO



http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/publications/2002/fmri.presentiment.pa2002.pdf




I am no expert in these things, but I think it's illuminating that there's no evidence of peer review for these three articles


http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

Remote viewing - already debunked I think


http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/109/109transcript.html

Four people sit around and ignore a skeptic

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek


Unfortunately many ways we have tested for telepathy were inconclusive. Does this mean it doesn't exist? Or, does this mean it's not as tangible as you suggest?

I have often thought of taking the challenge, untill I red the rules and found that it was designed to produce failed results. Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.

Any chance of being able to support this conclusion? In what way are the rules designed to produce "failed results"?

[Nucular]

Nivek,I have often thought of taking the challenge, untill I red the rules and found that it was designed to produce failed results. Then again this can be said of any test wherein the results are left to the perceptions of another.I would also like to know how the test is designed to "produce failed results" (I assume you mean produce negative results?).

In my understanding, the idea of the JREF test is that the results are left to the perception of nobody - they will be self-evident. Either you're telepathic or you're not.

I didn't realise before that you were claiming you were telepathic. Anything you could demonstrate to us over this MB? What exactly can you do?

[Ipecac]

It's been laid out clearly, Nivek.

Are you claiming that you have telepathy?

Any hard evidence of its existence?

Your objection to the Randi challenge is not a point well made as the claimant works with the JREF and has to agree to the conditions of the test before it even begins.

Put up or . . .

[thaiboxerken]

Telepathy has evolved in humans, everyone has it.

LOL. So, you claim to have superpowers? I know where you can get one million dollars just for demonstrating your telepathy.

The trick is accepting and acknowledging the fact.

Wow.. it's a fact? If it's such a fact, why is it non-evident?


The ones that say that it does not exist are ashamed of the gift and feel that if they were to acknowledge it they would be responcible for their thoughts.

This is an appeal to emotion. I say it doesn't exist simply because there is no evidence of it and no person can demonstrate such abilities in objective tests.

Ignorance is the lazy way.

Is it lazier to just "accept" telepathy as a fact, or to ask for evidence of it first, test it and then conclude if it's fact or not?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ipecac
It's been laid out clearly, Nivek.

Are you claiming that you have telepathy?

Any hard evidence of its existence?

Your objection to the Randi challenge is not a point well made as the claimant works with the JREF and has to agree to the conditions of the test before it even begins.

Put up or . . .

There is no independant adjudication, ergo; the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. End of story.

Believing in the challenge is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


There is no independant adjudication, ergo; the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. End of story.

Believing in the challenge is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

As you well know, the test is designed for the results to be self evident to all involved. The claimant can either do what he claims or he cannot. Do I need an independent judge to adjudicate my theory that a hammer falls to the floor when dropped?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Ipecac


As you well know, the test is designed for the results to be self evident to all involved. The claimant can either do what he claims or he cannot. Do I need an independent judge to adjudicate my theory that a hammer falls to the floor when dropped?

Also, if and when judgement is needed, Randi doesn't do the judging. A third party is introduced. Lucky's claim of 'no independant judgement' is false.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nucular
The thing to remember, though, is that it doesn't matter in this instance whether the psychic abilities are real or faked. To paraphrase Randi, if nature's doing this stuff by supernatural means, it's doing it the hard way.

If nature is doing it at all it wouldn't be Super natural.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

The supportive data for telepathy is everywhere, watch for peoples reactions to your thoughts. The simple reactions are the easiest to spot, like spitting or caughing in dissagreement.

Reading body language is a far cry from reading thoughts.
I can tell when a person is happy :)
I can tell when a person is sad :(
This talent isn't telepathic, it's intuitive.

Know what I'm thing right now? ;)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by BNiles


Reading body language is a far cry from reading thoughts.
I can tell when a person is happy :)
I can tell when a person is sad :(
This talent isn't telepathic, it's intuitive.

Know what I'm thing right now? ;)

Whoa! I have telepathy with smilies!

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

Unfortunately many ways we have tested for telepathy were inconclusive. Does this mean it doesn't exist? Or, does this mean it's not as tangible as you suggest?


One cannot prove that something doesn't exist, nor is anyone claiming to. However, when one claims that something does exist, it is reasonable to expect that they can prove it.

As for the tangibility of Telepathy, we're not asking to see brainwaves (though that would be helpful), only the results. Very simple double blind test have been offered and failed time and time again. The inconclusive results you've alluded to is more a level of vagueness that falls below the level expected for claims of Supernatural.

[Nivek]

So much to reply to....

Firts off;
Dean Radin of the University of Nevada http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/people.htm successfully showed that people do have precognition dubbed presentiment, a sub-conscious emotional response to unknown future events.. http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf

This work was replicated independantly by Dick Bierman of the University of Amsterdam http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/public...sal_tucson3.pdf

The existence of a form of telepathy has been scientifically proven, and is evolutionary useful for survival, as the research shows that we know subconsciously when something bad is about to happen, and gives us a fraction of a second warning to respond in advance of the event.

Now;

@ Ipecac: Yes, I'm telepathic. refer to links above.

@ Nucular: I'm sorry, this electronic forum makes demostrations nearly impossible.

As for the Challenge, I would not try and prove telepathy in this challenge. Reason being that it extreamly easy for anyone who recieves a telepathic transmission to deny reciept or to confuse it with ones own thoughts. This and I couldn't possibly take the challenge for I have no ID, no bank account, no address and no transportation.

BTW I don't care if anyone here believes my posts to be below them and under par. As far as I know this is not a battle of ego's but a forum to dispute the existance of metaphysical occurances and abilities. Nor is it witch hunt. So please, read all the posts before posting that we may cut down on the redundancy.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ipecac


As you well know, the test is designed for the results to be self evident to all involved. The claimant can either do what he claims or he cannot. Do I need an independent judge to adjudicate my theory that a hammer falls to the floor when dropped?

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the results. It is Randi's challenge, he has the final say as to what is, or isn't acceptable regarding the basis of the challenge itself. Ergo, the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. It needs to have independant adjudication. Unless it is, any belief in the challenge as a measure of the existence of the 'paranormal' is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the results. It is Randi's challenge, he has the final say as to what is, or isn't acceptable regarding the basis of the challenge itself. Ergo, the challenge is biased in favour of the challenger. It needs to have independant adjudication. Unless it is, any belief in the challenge as a measure of the existence of the 'paranormal' is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

Doesn't the fact that it's a double blind test account for independant adjudication? If I am shown a random image (lets say by a stand alone computer with a million different images to choose from). Then a "Telepath" in the next room reads my mind and gets it right, and then can repeat their success; where does independant adjudication get missed here?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Nivek
@ Ipecac: Yes, I'm telepathic. refer to links above.

BTW I don't care if anyone here believes my posts to be below them and under par. As far as I know this is not a battle of ego's but a forum to dispute the existance of metaphysical occurances and abilities. Nor is it witch hunt. So please, read all the posts before posting that we may cut down on the redundancy.

So, this is what we've learned about you so far: you're telepathic, have no ID, no bank account, no address, and no transportation. Okay . . .

It is a forum to dispute the existence of metaphysical occurrences and abilities. Proving such requires evidence. So far, you've provided none.

[BNiles]

No ID, no bank account, no address, and no transportation...I'm not even sure that I believe he exists. :p

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BNiles


Doesn't the fact that it's a double blind test account for independant adjudication? If I am shown a random image (lets say by a stand alone computer with a million different images to choose from). Then a "Telepath" in the next room reads my mind and gets it right, and then can repeat their success; where does independant adjudication get missed here?

By not being incorportated in the challenge.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Proving such requires evidence. So far, you've provided none.

I did not come here to prove anything for I know that it can not be done. My claims are not wild nor unbelievable. They are theories that are agreed upon by a section of the populace, much like the workings of black holes.

in case you missed it.....(from last post)
The existence of a form of telepathy has been scientifically proven, and is evolutionary useful for survival, as the research shows that we know subconsciously when something bad is about to happen, and gives us a fraction of a second warning to respond in advance of the event.
http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/public...sal_tucson3.pdf

Take your time and read them all the way through....

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


By not being incorportated in the challenge.

Since applicants design tests along with Randi, your excuse is lame. Lucky, you insist that you have superpowers. If you want the JREF money, simply apply and then insist for a 3rd party judgement. Oh.. you still will refuse to apply, simply because you know you don't have superpowers.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


I did not come here to prove anything for I know that it can not be done. My claims are not wild nor unbelievable. They are theories that are agreed upon by a section of the populace, much like the workings of black holes.

in case you missed it.....(from last post)
The existence of a form of telepathy has been scientifically proven, and is evolutionary useful for survival, as the research shows that we know subconsciously when something bad is about to happen, and gives us a fraction of a second warning to respond in advance of the event.
http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/public...sal_tucson3.pdf

Take your time and read them all the way through....

More BS evidence from BS sources and BS studies.

Come on, Nivek.. one million dollars awaits you, all you have to do it show Randi your telepathic abilities.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek
@ Nucular: I'm sorry, this electronic forum makes demostrations nearly impossible.Oh. Why's that? I would've thought it would be fairly easy. I mean, it's not going to win you any money or anything, but hey if you could show us, I'd be really pleased!As for the Challenge, I would not try and prove telepathy in this challenge. Reason being that it extreamly easy for anyone who recieves a telepathic transmission to deny reciept or to confuse it with ones own thoughts.Why would they do that? Nivek, this is sounding like a cop-out again.This and I couldn't possibly take the challenge for I have no ID, no bank account, no address and no transportation.And for a million dollars you wouldn't sort yourself out with those things? Tell you what, if you can show me that you're telepathic, I'll be willing to open a bank account, and, with the help of your solicitor, make it so that the million is payed straight into it, so you can withdraw it and have the cash. How's that? Legal people, would that work?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


More BS evidence from BS sources and BS studies.

Come on, Nivek.. one million dollars awaits you, all you have to do it show Randi your telepathic abilities.

BS? Does that stand for Believable Science?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/d_bierman.html

And in case you missed it the first two times...(double blind test?)
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/people.htm

I don't see how one can simply state that these people are full of BS(unless it means Beleivable Science). These men have made many accomplishment in the fields they work in.

BTW; I don't need the money.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
Oh. Why's that? I would've thought it would be fairly easy. I mean, it's not going to win you any money or anything, but hey if you could show us, I'd be really pleased!

Why would they do that? Nivek, this is sounding like a cop-out again.

And for a million dollars you wouldn't sort yourself out with those things? Tell you what, if you can show me that you're telepathic, I'll be willing to open a bank account, and, with the help of your solicitor, make it so that the million is payed straight into it, so you can withdraw it and have the cash. How's that? Legal people, would that work?

Yes, people generaly think that if another is a telepath then it is simple for them to contact another mind, it's not. There are many factors when it comes to my own telepathy....

Proximity: I have found thoughout the years that there has to be a certain distance between me and the person I'm trying to comunicate with. This distance is not set for every occasion, it is as diverse as the people I comunicate with. With some I can speak telepathicaly while they are in the same room, others must be further away. True I have had mind to mind connections over the internet but these were with people whom had the same capabilities as I. Which leads us to...

Belief: If ones mind is set that telepathy does not exist, they may never get the chance to experiance it. This ties in to you second question as well. When a person whom does not believe recieves a telepathic transmission the voice of the sender does not always follow. I have had experiances with people whom this worked on really well, I would send them a thought such as, "offer me a glass of water" they would, most people don't understand that I put the thought there and do it as if they came up with theidea themselves. Plus I have played with proximity thoughts such as "I need a cigarette" within minutes someone would stop and hand me one. Also, I have found that the closer you are to someone, in a personal relationship, the mental bond becomes stronger. With this greater distances can be achieved as well as more clarity.

Focus: I find it hard to be in public because of my ability. When anyone focuses on me, be it a quick glance or a hard stare, I can hear their thoughts. Sometimes the thoughts are about me like, "get a haircut" or "punk kid" but most of the time they are trivial, for they are the thoughts while they are focused upon me. It's very annoying when in crowded areas.

To your third question see previous post.

[MRC_Hans]

So, now you have pointed us to and required us to read a number of sites that contain various degrees of speculations about telepathy and related topics, but no proofs.

Then you tell us that your own alleged ability is random and untestable because you have no control over it and you are unable to verify it.

So the scientific proof you have talked about does not exist or at least you have not been able to point to it.

Furthermore, the ability you claim to have yourself is impossible to verify.

Tell me:
1) Why do you think we should belive in anything you say?
2) Why do you believe it yourself?

Hans :rolleyes:

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Nivek
I don't see how one can simply state that these people are full of BS(unless it means Beleivable Science). These men have made many accomplishment in the fields they work in.


Right. And the fields they work in are computers, electrical engineering, and physics. How does any of this qualify them as experts in telepathy? This is called an appeal to authority and it's a fallacy.

A lot of what you're describing is remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. You're in someone's home, you're thirsty and someone offers you a drink. You think you have telepathy. You don't remember the other times when you thought something and no one responded.


I did not come here to prove anything for I know that it can not be done. My claims are not wild nor unbelievable. They are theories that are agreed upon by a section of the populace, much like the workings of black holes.

If you did not come here to prove anything, I have only one thing to say. Bravo! You've done a masterful job.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek


Yes, people generaly think that if another is a telepath then it is simple for them to contact another mind, it's not. There are many factors when it comes to my own telepathy....

Proximity: I have found thoughout the years that there has to be a certain distance between me and the person I'm trying to comunicate with. This distance is not set for every occasion, it is as diverse as the people I comunicate with. With some I can speak telepathicaly while they are in the same room, others must be further away. True I have had mind to mind connections over the internet but these were with people whom had the same capabilities as I. Which leads us to...

So it'll work on anyone, but we don't know what distance to be for each person. And it'll work on people with the same power (which you've claimed that we all have) but there's no way to test it. Strangely convenient.

Originally posted by Nivek

Belief: If ones mind is set that telepathy does not exist, they may never get the chance to experiance it. This ties in to you second question as well. When a person whom does not believe recieves a telepathic transmission the voice of the sender does not always follow. I have had experiances with people whom this worked on really well, I would send them a thought such as, "offer me a glass of water" they would, most people don't understand that I put the thought there and do it as if they came up with theidea themselves. Plus I have played with proximity thoughts such as "I need a cigarette" within minutes someone would stop and hand me one. Also, I have found that the closer you are to someone, in a personal relationship, the mental bond becomes stronger. With this greater distances can be achieved as well as more clarity.

What your describing here is the sum of empathy, understanding and body language. My wife and I have known each other for 15 years, and have lived together for the last 8 years. We are very "attune" to each other’s wants and needs, but that should in no way be confused with "Telepathy".

Originally posted by Nivek

Focus: I find it hard to be in public because of my ability. When anyone focuses on me, be it a quick glance or a hard stare, I can hear their thoughts. Sometimes the thoughts are about me like, "get a haircut" or "punk kid" but most of the time they are trivial, for they are the thoughts while they are focused upon me. It's very annoying when in crowded areas.

To your third question see previous post.

Nothing personal but this is a very common experience of most paranoid people. Unfortunately, you’re probably not too far off the mark with what the average person is thinking. But this is nothing special. If I see someone on the street that dresses like me and appears to be in relatively the same societal class, it's natural for me to assume they understand me and would have positive thoughts about me. And likewise, if I see someone who appears to be my opposite, I'm going to assume they have negative thoughts about me. It is especially true if we make eye contact and they frown or smile at me. But as I stated before, this is reading body language not Telepathy.

This is very much like John Edwards, who makes a vague statement and then reads the audience to see who responded to it. He then zeros in on that individual and slowly becomes more detailed based on their response.

I think it’s more likely that you’ve fooled yourself into believing that you have this gift, than it is that we have fooled ourselves that we do not.
:)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


BS? Does that stand for Believable Science?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/d_bierman.html

And in case you missed it the first two times...(double blind test?)
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/people.htm

I don't see how one can simply state that these people are full of BS(unless it means Beleivable Science). These men have made many accomplishment in the fields they work in.

BTW; I don't need the money.

BS means Bull S**t, as in crap from a bull, as in bunk and false.

Oh, and I seriously doubt you'd turn down a million dollars if it was placed on your table. Hell, that's what the JREF challenge is, it's one million dollars just sitting there waiting for a telepath, such as yourself, to come claim it.

Can you do me a favor? Go win the money and send it to charity and help feed thousands of starving people. I'd do it, but I don't have superpowers.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Then you tell us that your own alleged ability is random and untestable because you have no control over it and you are unable to verify it.


Tell me:
1) Why do you think we should belive in anything you say?
2) Why do you believe it yourself?



I have never stated that my ability was random nor that I couldn't control it.

1) There is no need for you to believe in what I say, as there is no need for me to believe what you say.

2) Experiance. I can not deny what has happened in my life, nor what others have claimed to have happened in theirs.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles
What your describing here is the sum of empathy, understanding and body language. My wife and I have known each other for 15 years, and have lived together for the last 8 years. We are very "attune" to each other’s wants and needs, but that should in no way be confused with "Telepathy".



Nothing personal but this is a very common experience of most paranoid people. Unfortunately, you’re probably not too far off the mark with what the average person is thinking. But this is nothing special. If I see someone on the street that dresses like me and appears to be in relatively the same societal class, it's natural for me to assume they understand me and would have positive thoughts about me. And likewise, if I see someone who appears to be my opposite, I'm going to assume they have negative thoughts about me. It is especially true if we make eye contact and they frown or smile at me. But as I stated before, this is reading body language not Telepathy.

I think it’s more likely that you’ve fooled yourself into believing that you have this gift, than it is that we have fooled ourselves that we do not.
:)

Please tell me, what is the difference between empathy and telepathy. Then, if you will, tell me how they are the same.

Paranoia? Know of any free psycologists then?:p Although I think it is highly unlikely that so many people are plauged with paranoia. if they are then maybe we need free health care in this country;)

The way I see things is that everything is based on perception, like the glass of water analogy. Some see it half full, others see it half empty, still, others see it completely full. I see it as completely full.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Oh, and I seriously doubt you'd turn down a million dollars if it was placed on your table.

I'd do it, but I don't have superpowers.

Why not, I turned down $500 for a blow job.

Telepathy is not a superpower, the United States is. :p

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Nivek
Please tell me, what is the difference between empathy and telepathy.Nivek, I already explained this above. The fact that you ignored it makes me wonder about you. Here is the potted description again:Regarding empathy. Empathy is an ability to 'mind-read' - but not in the supernatural sense. It is a product of 'Theory of Mind' (ToM) skills, the ability to infer people's mental states from behavioural cues. You can see what happens when it goes wrong in autistic spectrum disorders, such as autism and Asperger's Syndrome (see Simon Baron-Cohen's work on ToM). There is zero evidence that ToM relies on any supernatural phenomena. Empathy exists, and is a useful skill, but it is not telepathy. Unless you can show otherwise.The way I see things is that everything is based on perception, like the glass of water analogy. Some see it half full, others see it half empty, still, others see it completely full. I see it as completely full. Heh, good analogy. Your belief in telepathy is the equivalent to looking at a half-filled glass, and convincing yourself that it's completely full. Another word for this is delusional.

[thaiboxerken]

Belief: If ones mind is set that telepathy does not exist, they may never get the chance to experiance it. This ties in to you second question as well. When a person whom does not believe recieves a telepathic transmission the voice of the sender does not always follow. I have had experiances with people whom this worked on really well, I would send them a thought such as, "offer me a glass of water" they would, most people don't understand that I put the thought there and do it as if they came up with theidea themselves. Plus I have played with proximity thoughts such as "I need a cigarette" within minutes someone would stop and hand me one. Also, I have found that the closer you are to someone, in a personal relationship, the mental bond becomes stronger. With this greater distances can be achieved as well as more clarity.


This is the same line of BS that the god-believers give about their gods and demi-gods.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nucular
Heh, good analogy. Your belief in telepathy is the equivalent to looking at a half-filled glass, and convincing yourself that it's completely full. Another word for this is delusional.

:dl:

[thaiboxerken]

Why not, I turned down $500 for a blow job.

Yea, and you are also turning down the chance to feed THOUSANDS of starving people. If I had your claimed superpowers, I'd take the JREF money right now and help mankind. You are not helping mankind at all when you claim that you have superpowers but won't help science to understand it.


Telepathy is not a superpower, the United States is. :p

Equivocation fallacy, I'm not talking politics, i'm talking about telepathy. Telepathy is a superpower, Jean Grey is an example of a superbeing with telepathy in fiction. You claim to have one of the same powers as Jean Grey, why can't you prove it to the rest of us with a test?

Oh, I know, it's because you don't have the superpower you claim to have. You can try to convince us all that you have superpowers, but until you prove it, your words.. your BS science links and your fallicious arguements are all worthless.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

Please tell me, what is the difference between empathy and telepathy. Then, if you will, tell me how they are the same.


empathy (èm´pe-thê) noun
1.Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See synonyms at pity.
2.The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

[en-2 + -pathy (translation of German Einfühlung).]

telepathy (te-lèp´e-thê) noun
Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power. See Usage Note at mental telepathy. See Usage Note at redundancy.
- tel´epath´ic (tèl´e-pàth´îk) adjective
- tel´epath´ically adverb
- telep´athist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I hope this explains how they're different. I can't explain how you think they're the same.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
Nivek, I already explained this above. The fact that you ignored it makes me wonder about you. Here is the potted description again:Heh, good analogy. Your belief in telepathy is the equivalent to looking at a half-filled glass, and convincing yourself that it's completely full. Another word for this is delusional.

If you could only see that it truely is completely full. Half with water and the rest with air. Now tell me one more time that I'm delusional, and I'll call you a fool for not seeing reality. So please, no more derogitory remarks

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Telepathy is a superpower, Jean Grey is an example of a superbeing with telepathy in fiction. You claim to have one of the same powers as Jean Grey, why can't you prove it to the rest of us with a test?

[/B]

Actually Jean Grey was not a superbeing she was an evolved human, a.k.a. a mutant.

Are you gonna' drive me to the test?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles


empathy (èm´pe-thê) noun
1.Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See synonyms at pity.
2.The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

[en-2 + -pathy (translation of German Einfühlung).]

telepathy (te-lèp´e-thê) noun
Communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power. See Usage Note at mental telepathy. See Usage Note at redundancy.
- tel´epath´ic (tèl´e-pàth´îk) adjective
- tel´epath´ically adverb
- telep´athist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I hope this explains how they're different. I can't explain how you think they're the same.

Another definition...

em•pa•thy
Pronunciation: (em'pu-thE), [key]
—n.
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts , or attitudes of another.
2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

[jj]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

2) The DNA configuration for full telepathy is in some other way destructive.


Yes, the rest of the tribe kills and eats the human lie detector. :) :) :) :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek
Actually Jean Grey was not a superbeing she was an evolved human, a.k.a. a mutant.

I'll bet you have just the documents to prove that, right? Do you have her DNA fingerprint? Or the comparison against the DNA of us mere mortals?

Cheers,

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Nivek


If you could only see that it truely is completely full. Half with water and the rest with air. Now tell me one more time that I'm delusional, and I'll call you a fool for not seeing reality. So please, no more derogitory remarks

Excuse me.

The glass half full and half empty saying is implicity refering to the amount of water. I suppose I could say the glass is in outer space, and so you are wrong and the glass is truly half empty. But that would be misleading and annoying and so I shall refrain. :p

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek


If you could only see that it truely is completely full. Half with water and the rest with air. Now tell me one more time that I'm delusional, and I'll call you a fool for not seeing reality. So please, no more derogitory remarks

Wow, and to think I get hungry from time to time. Who knew my stomach was always full? Thanks, Nivek, now I am also finally free from the evil oil companies. My gas tank is always full! But how do I get my car going?

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


BS means Bull S**t, as in crap from a bull, as in bunk and false.

Oh, and I seriously doubt you'd turn down a million dollars if it was placed on your table. Hell, that's what the JREF challenge is, it's one million dollars just sitting there waiting for a telepath, such as yourself, to come claim it.

Can you do me a favor? Go win the money and send it to charity and help feed thousands of starving people. I'd do it, but I don't have superpowers.


What would the JREF consider a valid paranormal claim and why ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
What would the JREF consider a valid paranormal claim and why ?

Anything that is truly beyond normal, cannot yet be explained by science and that meets the basic description found here. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Anything that is truly beyond normal, cannot yet be explained by science and that meets the basic description found here. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Cheers,

I don't see any information in the actual application document that addresses my question. The relavent clause is obviously no 1. thus:

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. "


My point is that its quite unclear as to who or what actually dictates which applicants are filtered out of the elegibility for the prize and which are allowed to stay beyond clause 1. I agree that this is the most important of the rules but its a rule that gives free intelluctual reign to the JREF as to what exactly is paranormal or is not. Thats ok I suppose because its the JREF money after all. However, because of this obviously biased variable, the JREF test does not give me any confidence that they are testing the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there.

Is there a list of which applicants were refused the test and why ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
However, because of this obviously biased variable, the JREF test does not give me any confidence that they are testing the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there.

Is there a list of which applicants were refused the test and why ?

What exactly is the "obvious bias" that concerns you so? That "the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there" isn't covered? Don't you see the incredible irony in discussing the "obvious bias" of JREF while simultaneously declaring paranormal phenomena are "actually out there"?

I don't believe there is a list of refused applicants, although Randi comments on them from time to time. Some of those, as I recall, were dangerous to the applicants and to others and were therefore refused. Some were just downright ridiculous and therefore refused.

Cheers,

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I don't see any information in the actual application document that addresses my question. The relavent clause is obviously no 1. thus:

"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules. "


My point is that its quite unclear as to who or what actually dictates which applicants are filtered out of the elegibility for the prize and which are allowed to stay beyond clause 1. I agree that this is the most important of the rules but its a rule that gives free intelluctual reign to the JREF as to what exactly is paranormal or is not. Thats ok I suppose because its the JREF money after all. However, because of this obviously biased variable, the JREF test does not give me any confidence that they are testing the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there.

Is there a list of which applicants were refused the test and why ?

I have been told the only way I can view past applications is to fly over to Florida and go to the JREF. There is no public, accesible record. The application, prototcol, method or test is not independantly adjudicated either, so it's a non-start from the off as it will be always biased in favour of the challenger. I see it more like a carnival rube bilking game more than anything else, a publicity stunt, a method of gaining money, etc,. It's a shame because IMO it makes skepticism stink of something fishy and bilks other skeptics into giving money to support it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I have been told the only way I can view past applications is to fly over to Florida and go to the JREF. There is no public, accesible record.
The application, prototcol, method or test is not independantly adjudicated either, so it's a non-start from the off as it will be always biased in favour of the challenger. I see it more like a carnival rube bilking game more than anything else, a publicity stunt, a method of gaining money, etc,. It's a shame because IMO it makes skepticism stink of something fishy and bilks other skeptics into giving money to support it. You contradict yourself here. It's public, you just must go there to see it. The rest of your rant stinks of something fishy.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You contradict yourself here. It's public, you just must go there to see it.

Like I said, a carnival game.

But if that is the JREF standard, then why did they refuse to go to the U of A to review the data which they had offered a $1m grant for?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Like I said, a carnival game.

But if that is the JREF standard, then why did they refuse to go to the U of A to review the data which they had offered a $1m grant for?

Well, if you are so concerned with going to Florida, do you think it is wrong of Schwartz to hide his data in Arizona?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Well, if you are so concerned with going to Florida, do you think it is wrong of Schwartz to hide his data in Arizona?

I am not making a claim on the $1m. I am not an entire organisation funded with public money who makes an offer of a grant of $1m to the UofA and then refuses to go there to review the data, despite their insistance that, unfinanced people, living thousands of miles away come to *them*.

Like I said, a carnival game. But a serious flaw when their standards are doubled over to breaking point.

[CFLarsen]

Come now, Lucianarchy, you are avoiding the question. Can't have that, can we?

You say that having to go to Florida to look at the data makes the JREF challenge a "carnival game".

Do you similarly think that having to go to Arizona to look at the data makes Schwartz' experiment a "carnival game"?

Please either:

answer the question, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


What exactly is the "obvious bias" that concerns you so? That "the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there" isn't covered? Don't you see the incredible irony in discussing the "obvious bias" of JREF while simultaneously declaring paranormal phenomena are "actually out there"?

I don't believe there is a list of refused applicants, although Randi comments on them from time to time. Some of those, as I recall, were dangerous to the applicants and to others and were therefore refused. Some were just downright ridiculous and therefore refused.

Cheers,

The obvious bias is that the JREF has the final say as to whether an application will go ahead. In other words, the JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. I can see no indication of any formal criteria for this within the application.

For example, if I were to apply for the million via a ganzfeld experiment and claimed I could identify targets at a 40% hit rate when chance expects 25%, I would guess that the JREF might refuse the application because the blurb on the web site (not the official application) says that no judging procedures are required for testing.

Furthermore, if a ganzfeld experiment was allowed then what hit rate or degree of significance would be acceptable for the JREF ? Again I guess that the JREF would set the hit rate far too high to be realistic based on what we know about ganzfeld ESP so far. I reckon that I would be expected to corretly identify 90% of targets.

Thus, my application would be rejected when my claim might actually represent a real paranormal phenomenon.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


Actually Jean Grey was not a superbeing she was an evolved human, a.k.a. a mutant.

Are you gonna' drive me to the test?

Depends on where you are. Send in the notorized application, then send me a certified copy as well. Once your test is accepted and date set, we'll see about getting you to the test.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You say that having to go to Florida to look at the data makes the JREF challenge a "carnival game".

Do you similarly think that having to go to Arizona to look at the data makes Schwartz' experiment a "carnival game"?


[/LIST]

Nope, because it a standard set by the JREF. Ergo, if the JREF want to review the data, *they* must go to Arizona. In addition, the JREF is an educational organisation backed by public money and had offered the UofA the $1m as an educational grant, even more reason to go.

A Carnival game. Bait and Switch. Bilk the rubes. Call it what you want, but as it's done under the name of 'educational' it stinks like a bucket of dead red herrings.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Nope, because it a standard set by the JREF. Ergo, if the JREF want to review the data, *they* must go to Arizona.

Are you saying that Schwartz is merely following the standard rules of scientific research, by keeping his data in Arizona?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In addition, the JREF is an educational organisation backed by public money and had offered the UofA the $1m as an educational grant, even more reason to go.

Please provide evidence of the claim that JREF is "backed by public money".

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A Carnival game. Bait and Switch. Bilk the rubes. Call it what you want, but as it's done under the name of 'educational' it stinks like a bucket of dead red herrings.

Please state who these "rubes" are, and in what way they are "bilked.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The obvious bias is that the JREF has the final say as to whether an application will go ahead. In other words, the JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. I can see no indication of any formal criteria for this within the application.
It is deliberately open-minded. But, of course, skeptics can't be open-minded, so that can't be, therfore it must be wrong? Come off it.

We can't a priori name every possible paranormal claim! They are, by definition, things beyond known science. The world is your oyster here. Use your imagination or your special powers.
For example, if I were to apply for the million via a ganzfeld experiment and claimed I could identify targets at a 40% hit rate when chance expects 25%, I would guess that the JREF might refuse the application because the blurb on the web site (not the official application) says that no judging procedures are required for testing.

Furthermore, if a ganzfeld experiment was allowed then what hit rate or degree of significance would be acceptable for the JREF ? Again I guess that the JREF would set the hit rate far too high to be realistic based on what we know about ganzfeld ESP so far. I reckon that I would be expected to corretly identify 90% of targets.

Thus, my application would be rejected when my claim might actually represent a real paranormal phenomenon.
Could you direct me to the specific location of the "no judging procedures are required for testing?

If you submitted ganzfeld experiments, JREF says very clearly they would consult with statisticians to design an experimental protocol. They also say very clearly the testing design is mutually agreed to and that no changes can be made by either party without the approval of both parties.

Where on earth is the beef?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please provide evidence of the claim that JREF is "backed by public money".


Ah, Claus, my friend, you did not anticipate the weasel my Kreskin's Krystal Ball(tm) is flashing me about at the moment. Wait, let me change the batteries...

There we go. My KKB(tm) says Lucianarchy will point out to you that non-profits are tax-exempt in the U.S., and therefore "backed by public money."

Yes, they oil themselves up for this pap.

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Could you direct me to the specific location of the "no judging procedures are required for testing?

Here:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

"Applicant will declare agreement by signing this form where indicated on the reverse before a notary public, and returning the form to the James Randi Educational Foundation. Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set. All applicants must clearly identify themselves properly before any discussion takes place. "

========

I think this precludes the use of protocols that require subjective "scoring" or "evaluation" of "hits".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
My KKB(tm) says Lucianarchy will point out to you that non-profits are tax-exempt in the U.S., and therefore "backed by public money."

It might be my English, but when you are "backed" by money, you "get" money.

How does JREF "get" money from the "public"?

[Pyrrho]

Then there is this oft-ignored paragraph, which pretty much puts the lie to any nonsensical idea that the JREF Challenge is a scam:

Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me and many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Here:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

"Applicant will declare agreement by signing this form where indicated on the reverse before a notary public, and returning the form to the James Randi Educational Foundation. Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set. All applicants must clearly identify themselves properly before any discussion takes place. "

I think this precludes the use of protocols that require subjective "scoring" or "evaluation" of "hits".
Pyrrho,

Thanks.

Holy cow! That's exactly what is meant there: Randi wants the antithesis of the crap JE and others get away with. He simply wants to remove the weasel room.

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It is deliberately open-minded. But, of course, skeptics can't be open-minded, so that can't be, therfore it must be wrong? Come off it.


Come on Claus, I'm not saying its wrong because its open-minded. All I'm saying is that the JREF has the final say as to whether a claim can be regarded as paranormal or not.


We can't a priori name every possible paranormal claim! They are, by definition, things beyond known science. The world is your oyster here. Use your imagination or your special powers.


Of course you are right, the JREF cannot be expected to name every possible situation that could be included as paranormal. However, the fact is that the eligibility for the test depends upon this specific criteria. The claim has to be deemed paranormal by the JREF for the claim to be accepted for the challenge.

I'm interested, who exactly decides this ? Is it a group of people or is it just James Randi ?




Could you direct me to the specific location of the "no judging procedures are required for testing?

Ok, so Pyrrho has pointed that out. Its not in the official application but I assume that's what would happen. So I guess a ganzfeld experiment wouldn't be accepted ?



If you submitted ganzfeld experiments, JREF says very clearly they would consult with statisticians to design an experimental protocol. They also say very clearly the testing design is mutually agreed to and that no changes can be made by either party without the approval of both parties.




I understand and accept that the experimental protocol would be sound and that mutual agreement would be met before the test takes place. However, I am pointing out that the JREF would have the final say as to what result would actually be acceptable as paranormal. So, would a significant hit rate of 35% be acceptable and why ? 50 %, 80 % ?

Do you see my point ?

[CFLarsen]

davidsmith73,

I'm not BillHoyt. He is not me.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
davidsmith73,

I'm not BillHoyt. He is not me.

whoops sorry. Need more coffee today.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Come on Claus, I'm not saying its wrong because its open-minded. All I'm saying is that the JREF has the final say as to whether a claim can be regarded as paranormal or not.
And I repeat: what is wrong with that? JREF is open-minded about the definition. Are there specific instances of refusals that you think were made in error?
Of course you are right, the JREF cannot be expected to name every possible situation that could be included as paranormal. However, the fact is that the eligibility for the test depends upon this specific criteria. The claim has to be deemed paranormal by the JREF for the claim to be accepted for the challenge.
Are there specific instances of refusals that you think were made in error?
I'm interested, who exactly decides this ? Is it a group of people or is it just James Randi ?
AFAIK, it is Randi and, possibly, Harter.
Ok, so Pyrrho has pointed that out. Its not in the official application but I assume that's what would happen. So I guess a ganzfeld experiment wouldn't be accepted ?
If you removed weasel room from ganzfeld, I don't see why JREF would refuse it. Do you know that JREF has done so in the past?
I understand and accept that the experimental protocol would be sound and that mutual agreement would be met before the test takes place. However, I am pointing out that the JREF would have the final say as to what result would actually be acceptable as paranormal. So, would a significant hit rate of 35% be acceptable and why ? 50 %, 80 % ?

Do you see my point ?
No, I don't see your point. The statistics would be based on the claimed hit rate. What is wrong with that?

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

And I repeat: what is wrong with that? JREF is open-minded about the definition. Are there specific instances of refusals that you think were made in error?


The reason its wrong is as I have said. It is possible that a genuine paranormal claim is rejected because the JREF thinks it is not paranormal. The motive behind the refusal could also be that the JREF thinks the claim has a good chance of success. Im not saying that it has happened but the nature of the challenge criteria makes this possible in principle. That said I think the JREF is a good fraud buster. Its not any kind of indication about the reality of paranormal phenomena though.


AFAIK


what does that stand for ?


If you removed weasel room from ganzfeld, I don't see why JREF would refuse it. Do you know that JREF has done so in the past?


"weasel room" ?

I don't know if JREF has refused ganzfeld. In principle they could, simply by declaring that it does not represent anything paranormal. Look, most of the people on this forum think there's nothing paranormal in ganzfeld experiments ! Thats the bias.


No, I don't see your point. The statistics would be based on the claimed hit rate. What is wrong with that?


The point is what level of hit rate would be acceptable to the JREF as being paranormal. 30%, 50%, 90% ? I'm not arguing over the statistics used to calculate the hit rate. That would be agreed upon fairly easily.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The reason its wrong is as I have said. It is possible that a genuine paranormal claim is rejected because the JREF thinks it is not paranormal. The motive behind the refusal could also be that the JREF thinks the claim has a good chance of success. Im not saying that it has happened but the nature of the challenge criteria makes this possible in principle. That said I think the JREF is a good fraud buster. Its not any kind of indication about the reality of paranormal phenomena though.
Ah, now we've ferreted it out! You're using a concocted fear of a Type II error to fuel your subject/motive shift. Rejected, sir, as fallacious reasoning. As I said before, do you know of specific refusals to test that you feel are wrong?
what does that stand for ?
"As Far As I Know"
"weasel room" ?
A private room in the back of the strip club where I work. Don't ask.

Come on, the statement means JREF would probably want the hit to be clean. The chorus of telepathy broadcasters are thinking really hard about an apple. JREF wants the subject to say "apple". Not banana. Not orange. Not sphere. Not pie. "Apple". JREF doesn't want to participate in the games parapsychological "researchers" play.
I don't know if JREF has refused ganzfeld. In principle they could, simply by declaring that it does not represent anything paranormal. Look, most of the people on this forum think there's nothing paranormal in ganzfeld experiments ! Thats the bias.
So try them. Be aware of the words. Stop this subject/motive shift and JREF-smear. You have yet to state any JREF refusals that you find objectionable. You simply engage here in a pre-emptive smear strike. If you have some JREF decision you feel was in error, let's discuss it. If you have a claim you want tested, present it to Randi and Andrew.
The point is what level of hit rate would be acceptable to the JREF as being paranormal. 30%, 50%, 90% ? I'm not arguing over the statistics used to calculate the hit rate. That would be agreed upon fairly easily.
David, are we talking the same language here? By "30%" I construe you to mean "80%" in the case of guessing fair coin tosses. Is that what you are talking about?

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Ah, now we've ferreted it out! You're using a concocted fear of a Type II error to fuel your subject/motive shift. Rejected, sir, as fallacious reasoning. As I said before, do you know of specific refusals to test that you feel are wrong?


You are right in saying that I fear that type II errors could easily be made by the JREF. The motivation behind these errors is a separate issue and I acknowldge that. I won't be naughty and mention possible motivations anymore (slap wrist). However the bias in the application procedure remains. It doesn't matter if any such refusals have actually happened yet. The bias in the procedure is there. The JREF has the final say as to what is deemed paranormal or not.




A private room in the back of the strip club where I work. Don't ask.

Intruiging :D


Come on, the statement means JREF would probably want the hit to be clean. The chorus of telepathy broadcasters are thinking really hard about an apple. JREF wants the subject to say "apple". Not banana. Not orange. Not sphere. Not pie. "Apple". JREF doesn't want to participate in the games parapsychological "researchers" play.

Are you saying that the telepath has to identify the target all of the time ? You see, you have already made a judgement as to what constitutes a paranormal result.

Also, you seem to be excluding the possibility of using a free response method. You are suggesting that a forced choice method is only acceptable. Is that right ?



David, are we talking the same language here? By "30%" I construe you to mean "80%" in the case of guessing fair coin tosses. Is that what you are talking about?


I was talking about the ganzfeld judging procedure whereby 4 targets are used, one the real target and the other the decoys. So 25% would be chance.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You are right in saying that I fear that type II errors could easily be made by the JREF. The motivation behind these errors is a separate issue and I acknowldge that. I won't be naughty and mention possible motivations anymore (slap wrist). However the bias in the application procedure remains. It doesn't matter if any such refusals have actually happened yet. The bias in the procedure is there. The JREF has the final say as to what is deemed paranormal or not.
To demonstrate a bias, you need to marshall some evidence. You continue to claim this bias while claiming there are no known refusals evincing the bias. Therefore, either you are wrong or are trying to point to a bias built into the procedure but not yet triggered. Which is it? Where is it?
Are you saying that the telepath has to identify the target all of the time ? You see, you have already made a judgement as to what constitutes a paranormal result.
I said no such thing.
Also, you seem to be excluding the possibility of using a free response method. You are suggesting that a forced choice method is only acceptable. Is that right ?
No, it does not exclude free response. It simply means the response must be right. If the applicant claims they can identify an object hidden in a solid lead box, JREF would feel free to fill the box with any old thing they desire and expect the applicant to say what's in the box. But not "ball" when it is an apple. Not "diamond" if it is a chip of glass.
I was talking about the ganzfeld judging procedure whereby 4 targets are used, one the real target and the other the decoys. So 25% would be chance.
In that case, I'd expect JREF to use enough trials to demonstrate a statistically significant departure from 25%. If the applicant says they can do it 30% of the time, there would be more trials than if they said they could do it 100% of the time.

Cheers,

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek


Another definition...

em•pa•thy
Pronunciation: (em'pu-thE), [key]
—n.
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts , or attitudes of another.
2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

Sorry so long to reply... I was out of town this weekend.

First, I noticed right off that you didn't include a source for this definition as I did. Not saying that you added the word thoughts but without a source, we just don't know.

Second, if assume that thoughts was part of the original definition, we cannot ignore the first half of the definition...ie "identification with". This is not a "knowing of" thoughts, only "relating to" thoughts.

Thirdly, if empathy is the same as telepathy, as you claim, why then does neither definition (or any other that I've seen) say, "See also telepathy"? It only ever says, "See also pity".

Please....Try harder next time.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

To demonstrate a bias, you need to marshall some evidence. You continue to claim this bias while claiming there are no known refusals evincing the bias. Therefore, either you are wrong or are trying to point to a bias built into the procedure but not yet triggered. Which is it? Where is it?


I mean there is a bias in the procedure. Thats why I said specifically that in my last post. I have no idea whether the JREF has refused an application because they think the claim in not paranormal. I'm not making a claim of that sort but you are continuing to make it look like I am.


I said no such thing.

Well what did you mean then ?


No, it does not exclude free response. It simply means the response must be right. If the applicant claims they can identify an object hidden in a solid lead box, JREF would feel free to fill the box with any old thing they desire and expect the applicant to say what's in the box. But not "ball" when it is an apple. Not "diamond" if it is a chip of glass.


So why would the JREF not accept a judging procedure ?


In that case, I'd expect JREF to use enough trials to demonstrate a statistically significant departure from 25%. If the applicant says they can do it 30% of the time, there would be more trials than if they said they could do it 100% of the time.



Ok

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I mean there is a bias in the procedure. Thats why I said specifically that in my last post. I have no idea whether the JREF has refused an application because they think the claim in not paranormal. I'm not making a claim of that sort but you are continuing to make it look like I am.
A "bias" means to skew something in a particular direction. If you claim a process is biased, you must evidence of this bias. In this case, that would either be evidence of past refusals or evidence of bias in the written procedures. So where is it?

Well what did you mean then ?

So why would the JREF not accept a judging procedure ?

I mean JREF doesn't want to get into p***ing contests about a guess of an "banana" being a hit because it is a fruit and the target apple is a fruit. This is also what I meant about "weaseling". But this is not the same as meaning the hit rate has to be 100%. Does this make sense?

Cheers,

[BNiles]

Simplifying the test could solve both of these questions.

Example:
Use numbers only as target (0 - 9) = 1 in 10 chance
or letters (A - Z) = 1 in 26 chance

That way there's no need for any "interpretation" of response, and provides enough of a base to measure luck verses clairvoyance.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

A "bias" means to skew something in a particular direction. If you claim a process is biased, you must evidence of this bias. In this case, that would either be evidence of past refusals or evidence of bias in the written procedures. So where is it?


I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions.

The JREF will have the final say as to what constitutes a paranormal claim and what does not. You can't deny this.


I mean JREF doesn't want to get into p***ing contests about a guess of an "banana" being a hit because it is a fruit and the target apple is a fruit. This is also what I meant about "weaseling". But this is not the same as meaning the hit rate has to be 100%. Does this make sense?



Yes that makes perfect sense and also illustrates my point nicely. The JREF has the final say as to what kind of analysis is acceptable and what is not.

By the way, if the guess is "banana" and the target is an apple then by using a judging procedure with three decoys, say a brick, a car and a shoe you can bypass the "pissing contest" as you so eloquently put it.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The JREF will have the final say as to what constitutes a paranormal claim and what does not. You can't deny this. Surely both sides can be said to have the "final say", since it is a collaborative process, and either side can drop out of the testing at any stage. Neither side wields more power than the other, therefore.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Nucular
Surely both sides can be said to have the "final say", since it is a collaborative process, and either side can drop out of the testing at any stage. Neither side wields more power than the other, therefore.

Indeed, there is an ongoing dialogue between the two parties. However, the JREF will always have the final the say as to whether the test will go ahead based on whether the claim is deemed to be paranormal or not. The claimant is hardly going to deny that their claim is paranormal are they !

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Indeed, there is an ongoing dialogue between the two parties. However, the JREF will always have the final the say as to whether the test will go ahead based on whether the claim is deemed to be paranormal or not. The claimant is hardly going to deny that their claim is paranormal are they !

So?

This is placed there so that people won't claim mundane occurances as being paranormal like, causing goosebumps within their own body at will.

You can try to discredit the JREF challenge all you want, the fact is that no person has won it because people don't have superpowers.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


So?

This is placed there so that people won't claim mundane occurances as being paranormal like, causing goosebumps within their own body at will.

You can try to discredit the JREF challenge all you want, the fact is that no person has won it because people don't have superpowers.

Of course, thats a reasonable way to formulate the application. The JREF cannot be expected to include every situation it deems paranormal in the application rules.

However, since you have pointed out affecting bodily functions at will as an example of something non-paranormal, this is exactly what I am talking about. I do think that could be classed as paranormal, as does Interesting Ian. I think its an example of PK. But the JREF would not accept that for the prize, probably for the same reasons as you do. Thats why the JREF has the final say. Its the JREF who decides what is paranormal or not.

I'm not trying to discredit the challenge. I think its a great fraud buster. Its just not a reliable indicator of the reality of paranormal phenomena.

[thaiboxerken]

However, since you have pointed out affecting bodily functions at will as an example of something non-paranormal, this is exactly what I am talking about. I do think that could be classed as paranormal, as does Interesting Ian. I think its an example of PK. But the JREF would not accept that for the prize, probably for the same reasons as you do. Thats why the JREF has the final say. Its the JREF who decides what is paranormal or not.

Maybe because the scientific community doesn't deem it as PK/paranormal. I, myself, can peform the goose-bump feat. If you think it's paranormal, it's likely because you are ignorant of biology and neurology.


I'm not trying to discredit the challenge. I think its a great fraud buster. Its just not a reliable indicator of the reality of paranormal phenomena.

And yet, the paranormal superbeings can't seem to beat it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions.

The JREF will have the final say as to what constitutes a paranormal claim and what does not. You can't deny this.
Yes, I understand that. Where is the bias? What is the bias?
Yes that makes perfect sense and also illustrates my point nicely. The JREF has the final say as to what kind of analysis is acceptable and what is not.

By the way, if the guess is "banana" and the target is an apple then by using a judging procedure with three decoys, say a brick, a car and a shoe you can bypass the "pissing contest" as you so eloquently put it.
JREF and the applicant (well, by this point in the process, "claimant") jointly agree to the process.

How on earth do the brick, car and shoe help with the weasel process? A banana is let in because it is a fruit, like an apple? Why not expand it to include vegetables because they are now all edible? Oh, how about Big Macs. Yes, "Big Mac" guesses should also be allowed. Do you see the problem and why JREF wants to get out of that nonsense?

Cheers,

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles


Sorry so long to reply... I was out of town this weekend.

First, I noticed right off that you didn't include a source for this definition as I did. Not saying that you added the word thoughts but without a source, we just don't know.

Second, if assume that thoughts was part of the original definition, we cannot ignore the first half of the definition...ie "identification with". This is not a "knowing of" thoughts, only "relating to" thoughts.

Thirdly, if empathy is the same as telepathy, as you claim, why then does neither definition (or any other that I've seen) say, "See also telepathy"? It only ever says, "See also pity".

Please....Try harder next time.

1) Sorry about that; http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0424447.html

2) Nor can we ignor the rest of the first half, "vicarious experiencing". This is a "knowing of" thoughts, not just "relating to" thoughts.

3) First, more definitions.....

telepathy
noun
(Psychol) _the communication between people of thoughts, feelings, desires, etc., involving mechanisms that cannot be understood in terms of known scientific laws
Also called:_thought transference
Compare:_telegnosis,_clairvoyance
[ETYMOLOGY: 19th Century: from tele- + Greek patheia feeling, perception: see -pathy]
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=telepathy

Empathy
Rarely used in modern parapsychology, the popular usage of this term refers to a low-level form of telepathy wherein the empath appears to be aware of the emotional state of a distant person. An empath may also refer tp someone thought able to 'broadcast' their emotions to others
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Glossary_H.html

telepathy
1) n :apparent communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions
http://www.realdictionary.com/T/dir/telepathy.asp

TELEPATHY
The knowledge or communication by one person with the mental processes of another through channels other than known physical or perceptual processes.
http://www.books.md/T/dic/telepathy.php

The reason that these two words are not often cross referenced is becase their definitions are still in debate. The definitions are being modified through research on the subjects.

[Nucular]

Nivek, you seem to be trying to argue that a colloquial use within the field of parapsychology of one term (empathy) as referring to low-level telepathy would therefore mean that studies regarding a wholly different use of the term elsewhere are actually studying low-level telepathy. This doesn't follow.

Argument from obscure dictionary definitions unfortunately does not translate into reality. If it did, I could say that when you are writing your response to this post, you're not typing, you're actually 'cutting or scratching an outline' (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=write). But you're not.

In the same way, the usual usage of 'empathy' as1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object. (the first entry on dictionary.com), as it is used throughout mainstream psychological literature and in everyday usage by most people, does not encompass the study of telepathy. Even if it wanted to, the definition would be unimportant - the protocol for investigation would be the important thing. You know this Nivek, you must know this.

Does your entire body of evidence rest on this playing with dictionary entries? Or do you have more substantive and compelling stuff to tell us about?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Maybe because the scientific community doesn't deem it as PK/paranormal. I, myself, can peform the goose-bump feat. If you think it's paranormal, it's likely because you are ignorant of biology and neurology.


I think it is PK for reasons that I don't want to waste time explaining to someone who doesn't want to listen.


And yet, the paranormal superbeings can't seem to beat it.

like I said, would ganzfeld experiments be allowed for the challenge ?

[Nucular]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I think it is PK for reasons that I don't want to waste time explaining to someone who doesn't want to listen.Hi David - has this been discussed before? I'm not aware of the goosebump thing. Off the top of my head, I couldn't think of any reason why someone giving themselves goosebumps could be considered PK (though I just tried to do it to myself and couldn't). Does this deserve a thread on its own? I certainly want to listen.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Yes, I understand that. Where is the bias? What is the bias?

:confused: I thought I just showed you. Its the fact that the JREF has the final say as to what claim is paranormal or is not.



How on earth do the brick, car and shoe help with the weasel process? A banana is let in because it is a fruit, like an apple? Why not expand it to include vegetables because they are now all edible? Oh, how about Big Macs. Yes, "Big Mac" guesses should also be allowed. Do you see the problem and why JREF wants to get out of that nonsense?

Cheers,

You misunderstand what a judging process would be. If "Big Mac" was judged to match with the apple (remember that the judge would not which of the apple, brick, car or shoe was the target) then you have a hit. Chance would dictate 25% hits. A claim might be that 40% hits is obtainable.

Would that be acceptable protocol for the JREF ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Nucular
Hi David - has this been discussed before? I'm not aware of the goosebump thing. Off the top of my head, I couldn't think of any reason why someone giving themselves goosebumps could be considered PK (though I just tried to do it to myself and couldn't). Does this deserve a thread on its own? I certainly want to listen.

Hi Nuclear, Ok I'll start a new thread about it. I'll have to stress that its just a hypothesis before I get burnt at the stake ;)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
:confused: I thought I just showed you. Its the fact that the JREF has the final say as to what claim is paranormal or is not.

You misunderstand what a judging process would be. If "Big Mac" was judged to match with the apple (remember that the judge would not which of the apple, brick, car or shoe was the target) then you have a hit. Chance would dictate 25% hits. A claim might be that 40% hits is obtainable.

Would that be acceptable protocol for the JREF ?

Why would you allow any wiggle room in the protocol? A Big Mac is not an apple so if the item was an apple and they guessed a Big Mac, they'd be wrong. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

David, the JREF doesn't get to determine what claim is paranormal at the END of the test. It is an entry issue. If you claim you can do something paranormal, then they either agree that your "thing" (if demonstrable) is paranormal and you agree to a protocol, or they decide it's not paranormal so you don't even get to the next step. The only "bias" takes place at the very beginning of the process.

So I don't think you've show that there's bias in the results of any actual testing.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

Nor can we ignor the rest of the first half, "vicarious experiencing". This is a "knowing of" thoughts, not just "relating to" thoughts.


vicarious (vì-kâr´ê-es, -kàr´-, vî-) adjective
1.Felt or undergone as if one were taking part in the experience or feelings of another: read about mountain climbing and experienced vicarious thrills.
2.Endured or done by one person substituting for another: vicarious punishment.
3.a. Acting or serving in place of someone or something else; substituted. b. Committed or entrusted to another, as powers or authority; delegated.
4.Physiology. Occurring in or performed by a part of the body not normally associated with a certain function.

[From Latin vicârius. See vicar.]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Please note that this states a person Feels as if but does not actually experience the thoughts and emotions of another.

You're getting better, but a little more critical thinking is required. :p

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Why would you allow any wiggle room in the protocol? A Big Mac is not an apple so if the item was an apple and they guessed a Big Mac, they'd be wrong. Or am I misunderstanding your point?


You would allow "wiggle room" in the protocol because that may be the nature of the claim. Ganzfeld telepathy is claimed to work by allowing free response from the receiver and use of a judging procedure. I could go into why the free response method is used but I thought the JREF were not interested in any theory ?


David, the JREF doesn't get to determine what claim is paranormal at the END of the test. It is an entry issue. If you claim you can do something paranormal, then they either agree that your "thing" (if demonstrable) is paranormal and you agree to a protocol, or they decide it's not paranormal so you don't even get to the next step. The only "bias" takes place at the very beginning of the process.



Thats what I meant. A bias in the application procedure.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
You would allow "wiggle room" in the protocol because that may be the nature of the claim. Ganzfeld telepathy is claimed to work by allowing free response from the receiver and use of a judging procedure. I could go into why the free response method is used but I thought the JREF were not interested in any theory ?

Thats what I meant. A bias in the application procedure.

How could such a judging procedure ever be objective enough to prove telepathy?

The JREF has a million dollars riding on the line. Of course they have to determine what would define paranormal before they conduct the test. Otherwise any magician or someone with an unusual skill would have walked in and taken the prize years ago. If I want to enter a pie-baking contest, don't I have to walk into the contest with a pie?

Or are you suggesting that if someone with actual paranormal powers (say, telepathy) applied, the JREF would reject them as not paranormal in order not to lose the money?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ipecac


How could such a judging procedure ever be objective enough to prove telepathy?


I think the free response together with the judging procedure and randomisation methods used in ganzfeld experiments is objective enough.


The JREF has a million dollars riding on the line. Of course they have to determine what would define paranormal before they conduct the test. Otherwise any magician or someone with an unusual skill would have walked in and taken the prize years ago. If I want to enter a pie-baking contest, don't I have to walk into the contest with a pie?



I quite agree. But the nature of such an application procedure is why I think the continued presence of the million dollars is not a reliable indicator of the reality of paranormal phenomena.



Or are you suggesting that if someone with actual paranormal powers (say, telepathy) applied, the JREF would reject them as not paranormal in order not to lose the money?

I'm not saying that the above has been done intentionally or unintentionally or that it will be done, because I don't know. It is possible given the application procedure.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles


vicarious (vì-kâr´ê-es, -kàr´-, vî-) adjective
1.Felt or undergone as if one were taking part in the experience or feelings of another: read about mountain climbing and experienced vicarious thrills.
2.Endured or done by one person substituting for another: vicarious punishment.
3.a. Acting or serving in place of someone or something else; substituted. b. Committed or entrusted to another, as powers or authority; delegated.
4.Physiology. Occurring in or performed by a part of the body not normally associated with a certain function.

[From Latin vicârius. See vicar.]

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Please note that this states a person Feels as if but does not actually experience the thoughts and emotions of another.

You're getting better, but a little more critical thinking is required. :p

vicarious -

---------------------------
1) s :suffered or done by one person as a substitute for another
Example: vicarious atonement
---------------------------
2) s :(medicine) occurring in an abnormal part of the body instead of the usual site involved in that function
Example: vicarious menstruation
---------------------------
3) s :experienced at secondhand
Example: read about mountain climbing and felt vicarious excitement
http://www.realdictionary.com/V/dir/vicarious.asp

And this one states it to experiance at second hand. Either way we have found that empathy is where one shares in anothers emotional experiances/states. Please tell me, how one can share anothers emotions without having a psychic link with the other?


Thanks.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I quite agree. But the nature of such an application procedure is why I think the continued presence of the million dollars is not a reliable indicator of the reality of paranormal phenomena.


I agree that the fact that no one has won the money doesn't disprove the existence of paranormal phenonena. However, I don't think the application procedure is the reason this is true. It's true because you *can't* disprove the existence of something.

However, the continued presence of the million dollars is strongly suggestive that no such phenomena exists.

[robbersdog]

davidsmith73, what would you do if you were in charge of the million dollar challenge? Would you have them fully investigate every claim?

Surely you can understand that in the real world this is impossible. The JREF has to have the say over what goes ahead. I believe, and see no evidence to the contrary, that the JREF would investigate any reasonable and honest claim.

Also, in this whole ganzfeld thing, would you, personally, consider a Banana guess to be a hit if it was an apple in the box? I know this has little relevence, I'm just curious.

Can you see that by removing any chance of ambiguity the JREF is protecting themselves no more than the claimant. It's removing it's ability to turn round and say 'we don't believe those results were judged fairly, you can't have the money'. As much as you want to say there is a bias, the JREF actually makes it impossible for there to be any bias, either way, for a test of an honest claimant. If there is a panel of judges, there is always going to be too much weasel room.

Is it possible to do the ganzfeld test with numbers? Surely it would only need to be a 1 or a 0? This is VERY simple and wouldn't need a panel of judges, the answer would be self evident, no interpretation needed. Would this be acceptable?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
:confused: I thought I just showed you. Its the fact that the JREF has the final say as to what claim is paranormal or is not.
That's not "bias" until you demonstrate JREF is incorrectly ruling X in or Y out. A judge decides whether or not a case goes to his or her docket. That doesn't, ipso facto, make it a biased process.
You misunderstand what a judging process would be. If "Big Mac" was judged to match with the apple (remember that the judge would not which of the apple, brick, car or shoe was the target) then you have a hit. Chance would dictate 25% hits. A claim might be that 40% hits is obtainable.

Would that be acceptable protocol for the JREF ?
Hello? The subject knows the four objects don't include a Big Mac, and yet guesses Big Mac? Or do you mean the subject doesn't know any of the objects?

Cheers,

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

And this one states it to experiance at second hand. Either way we have found that empathy is where one shares in anothers emotional experiances/states. Please tell me, how one can share anothers emotions without having a psychic link with the other?


Thanks.

Please tell me where you see share in any of these definitions?
The "Second hand" definition you refer to states:
3) s :experienced at secondhand
Example: read about mountain climbing and felt vicarious excitement.
This refers to something being described in enough detail to convey an accurate conception, but it's not done paranormally. It's done physically through spoken word or print.

Likewise, if you tell me that you lost a loved one, I can empathize with you because I understand the emotion you're feeling. But I'm not psychically feeling your emotion, I'm recalling the emotion that I felt at the time of my loss.

Language is a wonderful thing; however, words don’t change meaning just because you think they should mean something else.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by robbersdog
davidsmith73, what would you do if you were in charge of the million dollar challenge? Would you have them fully investigate every claim?

Surely you can understand that in the real world this is impossible. The JREF has to have the say over what goes ahead. I believe, and see no evidence to the contrary, that the JREF would investigate any reasonable and honest claim.



I've already agreed with this point twice. The JREF cannot be expected to include every possible paranormal claim in their application. But the fact is that the nature of the challenge makes it so that the JREF has the say as to what claim is paranormal and what is not.


Also, in this whole ganzfeld thing, would you, personally, consider a Banana guess to be a hit if it was an apple in the box? I know this has little relevence, I'm just curious.



It depends what the decoy targets were. Remember that I wouldn't know what was the real target if I were the judge. I'm not sure we are talking about the same judging procedure. I'm talking about the judging procedure used in standard ganzfeld protocol.


Can you see that by removing any chance of ambiguity the JREF is protecting themselves no more than the claimant. It's removing it's ability to turn round and say 'we don't believe those results were judged fairly, you can't have the money'. As much as you want to say there is a bias, the JREF actually makes it impossible for there to be any bias, either way, for a test of an honest claimant. If there is a panel of judges, there is always going to be too much weasel room.



Where is the ambiguity in the ganzfeld judging procedure ?


Is it possible to do the ganzfeld test with numbers? Surely it would only need to be a 1 or a 0? This is VERY simple and wouldn't need a panel of judges, the answer would be self evident, no interpretation needed. Would this be acceptable?

It would be acceptable if there was someone who claimed they could do it this way. You always need a judging procedure if you use free response. You could use ganzfeld to do a forced choice experiment though. Numbers aren't very rich in cognitive content. I would say that more cognitively rich or emotional targets would fare better such as video clips.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

That's not "bias" until you demonstrate JREF is incorrectly ruling X in or Y out. A judge decides whether or not a case goes to his or her docket. That doesn't, ipso facto, make it a biased process.


So its not possible to have a biased procedure ? Come on Bill, you are effectively saying that if women were not allowed to vote in the forthcoming election there would be no bias untill the election happened.



Hello? The subject knows the four objects don't include a Big Mac, and yet guesses Big Mac? Or do you mean the subject doesn't know any of the objects?

Cheers,

I'm talking about the standard ganzfeld judging procedure. The judge does not know the identity of the correct target. If the judge has guess = "big mac" in front of them they can chose any of the four targets they like. If they chose the apple it would be a hit.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
So its not possible to have a biased procedure ? Come on Bill, you are effectively saying that if women were not allowed to vote in the forthcoming election there would be no bias untill the election happened.
Please do not straw man me. Not only did I not say that, I specifically addressed this in my previous posts. Please refer to them.
I'm talking about the standard ganzfeld judging procedure. The judge does not know the identity of the correct target. If the judge has guess = "big mac" in front of them they can chose any of the four targets they like. If they chose the apple it would be a hit.
Right. This is exactly the game JREF will not play unless the exact allowables were a priori agreed upon.

Big Mac = apple

Give me a break

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Please do not straw man me. Not only did I not say that, I specifically addressed this in my previous posts. Please refer to them.

No Bill you didn't say that specifically but thats exactly what you are effectively saying. Thats not a straw man.


Right. This is exactly the game JREF will not play unless the exact allowables were a priori agreed upon.

Big Mac = apple

Give me a break

Which exactly illustrates my point. The JREF decides both what is a paranormal claim and what kind of procedures are acceptable and what are not.

So would free response ganzfeld be acceptable. If not, why not ?
I see no reason why not.

Come on Bill, give me a critique of the "weasel room" ganzfeld judging procedure !

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
No Bill you didn't say that specifically but thats exactly what you are effectively saying. Thats not a straw man.
David, read my posts. I did not demand that you cite an example of a biased decision. I clearly outlined to you two choices: either that evdence or evidence from the rules themselves which shows a clear bias. You want to demonstrate the rules exclude ganzfeld procedures. They do not. They remove the weasel of ganzfeld that you suggest and substitute a more rigorous procedure. Pure and simple.

Will you stop with the straw men?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

David, read my posts. I did not demand that you cite an example of a biased decision. I clearly outlined to you two choices: either that evdence or evidence from the rules themselves which shows a clear bias. You want to demonstrate the rules exclude ganzfeld procedures. They do not. They remove the weasel of ganzfeld that you suggest and substitute a more rigorous procedure. Pure and simple.

Will you stop with the straw men?

Bill You can't "weasel" yourself out of this.

The JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. That is the bias. Just address my point will you and stop shouting straw man.

No, the rules do not specifically exclude ganzfeld and I never said they did. The procedure allows for it to excluded simply by the JREF saying it is not a paranormal claim. In fact the procedure allows for the JREF to exclude any claim they like by saying it is not paranormal and they need not give any reasons for thinking so.

If that is not a biased procedure then I don't know what is.

[thaiboxerken]

The JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. That is the bias. Just address my point will you and stop shouting straw man.

So? Ok, so they are biased that they won't accept challenges by retards that claim goosebumps are paranormal. Someone has to draw the line between mundane and paranormal somewhere. It's apparent that Ian and you draw that line so that it's invisible.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


No, the rules do not specifically exclude ganzfeld and I never said they did. The procedure allows for it to excluded simply by the JREF saying it is not a paranormal claim. In fact the procedure allows for the JREF to exclude any claim they like by saying it is not paranormal and they need not give any reasons for thinking so.
If that is not a biased procedure then I don't know what is.

Ever get tired of that child who won't quit whining? So what, it's biased.. against people that will claim any mundane thing as being paranormal. Nothing wrong with that.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
, the fact is that no person has won it because people don't have superpowers.

Prove it Ken? You seem to be making a pretty grand claim, and I doubt you've tested everyone. In fact, just because no one has won the JREF challenge, that doesn't mean that people don't have superpowers. Even Randi admits that, why can't you? Answer: you take it another level, but to a level that is irrational.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Prove it Ken? You seem to be making a pretty grand claim, and I doubt you've tested everyone. In fact, just because no one has won the JREF challenge, that doesn't mean that people don't have superpowers. Even Randi admits that, why can't you? Answer: you take it another level, but to a level that is irrational.

You're a foolish person for asking someone to prove a negative assertion. People don't have superpowers. That's a negative assertion, one that defies those that claim that people have superpowers. Superpowers are not accepted as a factual abilities of people, therefore, my statement needs no evidence.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Bill You can't "weasel" yourself out of this.

The JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. That is the bias. Just address my point will you and stop shouting straw man.

No, the rules do not specifically exclude ganzfeld and I never said they did. The procedure allows for it to excluded simply by the JREF saying it is not a paranormal claim. In fact the procedure allows for the JREF to exclude any claim they like by saying it is not paranormal and they need not give any reasons for thinking so.

If that is not a biased procedure then I don't know what is.

JREF also decides not to agree to any test that seeks to define "success" as getting 6 heads in 10 coin tosses. Is that "bias"?

JREF also decides not to test anybody who claims to be able to jump naked out a twelve story building and glide safely to the ground. I that "bias"?

JREF also decides not to accept as "paranormal" people who claim to be able to wiggle their ears, touch their noses with their tongues, or any number of ridiculous claims. Is that "bias"?

Yes, that is bias. That is bias against self-inflicted danger. It is bias against the clearly normal disguised as paranormal.

This is a way to keep JREF's definitions open and flexible and not give fame, credit or money to any knucklehead who wants it to accept a test wherein a call of "Big Mac" is scored as a hit on "apple".

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You're a foolish person for asking someone to prove a negative assertion. People don't have superpowers. That's a negative assertion, one that defies those that claim that people have superpowers. Superpowers are not accepted as a factual abilities of people, therefore, my statement needs no evidence.

You said people don't have superpowers. That implies you've tested everyone. Not even you are immune to providing evidence. You are a foolish person for hinting that the people not passing Randi's challenge implies in any way that people in general don't have superpowers.

Duh.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You said people don't have superpowers. That implies you've tested everyone. Not even you are immune to providing evidence. You are a foolish person for hinting that the people not passing Randi's challenge implies in any way that people in general don't have superpowers.

Duh.

Only to idiot believers like you. I can reasonably say that no person has superpowers simply because NO person has ever demonstrated such ability in the observation of science. I can also say that NO person has ever had a monkey fly out of their butt. But, foolish woo-woos always want to keep their mind "open" and say.. "maybe someone did have a monkey fly out of their butt".

Yours is a position of belief. My position is based on reality.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Only to idiot believers like you. I can reasonably say that no person has superpowers simply because NO person has ever demonstrated such ability in the observation of science. I can also say that NO person has ever had a monkey fly out of their butt. But, foolish woo-woos always want to keep their mind "open" and say.. "maybe someone did have a monkey fly out of their butt".

Yours is a position of belief. My position is based on reality.

No matter how much you sweet-talk Ken, I'm still not going on a date with you. ;)

Being scientific and open-minded means you have to allow for the possibility of things you don't want to be true, being true.

I can handle that.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You said people don't have superpowers. That implies you've tested everyone. Not even you are immune to providing evidence. You are a foolish person for hinting that the people not passing Randi's challenge implies in any way that people in general don't have superpowers.

Duh.

Sadly, T'ai, your mask is peeling so soon. So soon, dear T'ai. You claimed to be a scientist, T'ai, remember? That second statement of yours screams poseur to me.

Would you care to take this opportunity to correct the statement? Or whatever it is you need to correct here?

Cheers,

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Sadly, T'ai, your mask is peeling so soon. So soon, dear T'ai. You claimed to be a scientist, T'ai, remember? That second statement of yours screams poseur to me.

Would you care to take this opportunity to correct the statement? Or whatever it is you need to correct here?

Cheers,

*sigh*. Off topic.

It isn't about me being a scientist or not, it is about the topic at hand, which is superpowers in general.

[Jeff Corey]

You guys are going on about these asian marital arts.
What about the pointed stick?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You guys are going on about these asian marital arts.
What about the pointed stick?

Tai Chi probably thinks a person can harness "chi" energy to make their skin impenetrable and, therefore, impervious to pointed sticks or other sharp weapons. It's people like this that keep the martial arts myths alive.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Tai Chi probably thinks a person can harness "chi" energy to make their skin impenetrable and, therefore, impervious to pointed sticks or other sharp weapons. It's people like this that keep the martial arts myths alive.

Um. Well you probably, you probably, you probably... :rolleyes:

Ok, now this thread can now go back to its regularly scheduled debate.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Um. Well you probably, you probably, you probably... :rolleyes:

Ok, now this thread can now go back to its regularly scheduled debate.

Not much to debate about, no one has or can demonstrate telepathy to the scientific community. Someday, maybe, the mutant genes will evolve and we'll see telepaths along with people that shoot laser beams out of their eyes.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


*sigh*. Off topic.

It isn't about me being a scientist or not, it is about the topic at hand, which is superpowers in general.
That's right. It isn't. It is, however, about understanding how we get to truth about the universe. Now, here is what you said:

"You said people don't have superpowers. That implies you've tested everyone."

Do you wish to stand by that statement or do you wish to modify it?

Cheers,

[Nucular]

Nivek,

You continue to quibble with definitions when I've already pointed out that they have no bearing at all on whether telepathy exists.

Are you just stringing us along? Where is this going?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular

Are you just stringing us along? Where is this going?

The words that we use must be defined and agreed upon before discussion can continue, otherwise we will lack understanding. We could stop understanding the words we use if we were all telepaths, but I find myself talking to begining sckeptics.

I have run into a snag, the definitions for empathy on the intrnet have been changed in the past two days.
many of them now say;

empathy -
understanding and entering into another's feelings

They used to say;

em·pa·thy
the ability to share another person's feelings as if they were your own.

Either way, how could one enter or share anothers feelings?


If the words are precicely defined there can be no argument, but there are too many definitions.....

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek
The words that we use must be defined and agreed upon before discussion can continue, otherwise we will lack understanding. We could stop understanding the words we use if we were all telepaths, but I find myself talking to begining sckeptics.

Awwww, poor Nivek! Talk to me, why don't ya? I'm 103, and have been a "sckeptic" for 220 years. I'm certainly not a "begining sckeptic".

[Nucular]

I have run into a snag, the definitions for empathy on the intrnet have been changed in the past two daysHmmm, must be a Conspiracy ;)

Okay, so define your terms. You don't need lots of dictionary definitions to do this.

How about we define telepathy as "the ability to extract information from the mind of another by means which cannot be understood within current scientific knowledge".

If you want, we can redefine empathy as a jargon term meaning "low-level telepathy".

Now let's define evidence as "something which goes some way towards showing a claim to be true".

We can add happen: "take place in the real world".

Now, with those tricky definitions out the way, maybe you can provide evidence to show that telepathy and/or empathy actually happen.

What think you Nivek?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Being scientific and open-minded means you have to allow for the possibility of things you don't want to be true, being true.

I can handle that.

To paraphrase the old chestnut: This is definitely a situation of being so open-minded your brain falls out.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Nivek


The words that we use must be defined and agreed upon before discussion can continue, otherwise we will lack understanding. We could stop understanding the words we use if we were all telepaths, but I find myself talking to begining sckeptics.

I have run into a snag, the definitions for empathy on the intrnet have been changed in the past two days.
many of them now say;

empathy -
understanding and entering into another's feelings

They used to say;

em·pa·thy
the ability to share another person's feelings as if they were your own.

Either way, how could one enter or share anothers feelings?
Well, unless you're using Leibniz's distinction between feelings and emotions—feelings are internal states; emotions are the externalisation of those internal states—it's possible to share another's feelings by exploring what those feelings mean to that person, or by reflecting one has had, or situations which influenced those feelings. Here it might be useful to differentiate between empathy and sympathy—I feel what you are feeling—although the two tend to be used interchangeably, thisis not a good thing IMO.

Btw, in your reply to my question way back when (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24857&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post1870048178) about the content of telepathic communication pre-language (thanks for the reply, and apologies for not acknowledging it sooner), you said:
The context of the comunication preceeding spoken was that of mental imagery and gestures
Sorry, but I find the idea of mental images (as in, "pictures in the mind") almost as problematic as that of telepathy; can we prove we have them? do we really have them? But even setting this problem aside for the moment, we most likely still need some form of symbolic ordering of the world (ie language) for mental imagery to be meaningful.

[Wudang]

Apologies for butting in but a little clarification - if you ignore the modern perversions of taijiquan, the term "qi" was generally understood to refer to "leg strength". The term Qi or Chi is as abused as the word "energy". Taijiquan is like any other martial art based on sweat. Anyone who says otherwise is lazy or trying to sell something. Sorry, hot button pressed.
http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/magazine_articles/water_margin.html
http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/magazine_articles/kick_school.html

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nucular
If you want, we can redefine empathy as a jargon term meaning "low-level telepathy".

I'd prefer not to change any meanings, but I'll accept the oxymoron of "Non-paranormal telepathy".

:D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek


The words that we use must be defined and agreed upon before discussion can continue, otherwise we will lack understanding. We could stop understanding the words we use if we were all telepaths, but I find myself talking to begining sckeptics.

I have run into a snag, the definitions for empathy on the intrnet have been changed in the past two days.
many of them now say;

empathy -
understanding and entering into another's feelings

They used to say;

em·pa·thy
the ability to share another person's feelings as if they were your own.

Either way, how could one enter or share anothers feelings?


If the words are precicely defined there can be no argument, but there are too many definitions.....

Why do you think they have been changed?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Wudang
Apologies for butting in but a little clarification - if you ignore the modern perversions of taijiquan, the term "qi" was generally understood to refer to "leg strength". The term Qi or Chi is as abused as the word "energy". Taijiquan is like any other martial art based on sweat. Anyone who says otherwise is lazy or trying to sell something. Sorry, hot button pressed.
http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/magazine_articles/water_margin.html
http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/magazine_articles/kick_school.html

I agree that taijiquan can be effective, however the harnessing of "chi energy" and other such nonsense tends to bring down the art.

Qi has many, many meanings in the chinese language. However, one definition having do to with a supernatural energy that permeates all things has been predominate in martial art history. It's this paranormal definition of Qi that I'm talking about.

I enjoyed the articles, by the way.

[BNiles]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nivek


The words that we use must be defined and agreed upon before discussion can continue, otherwise we will lack understanding. We could stop understanding the words we use if we were all telepaths, but I find myself talking to begining sckeptics.

I have run into a snag, the definitions for empathy on the intrnet have been changed in the past two days.
many of them now say;

empathy -
understanding and entering into another's feelings

They used to say;

em·pa·thy
the ability to share another person's feelings as if they were your own.

Either way, how could one enter or share anothers feelings?


If the words are precicely defined there can be no argument, but there are too many definitions.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Darat


Why do you think they have been changed?

Because he wants to take a commonly excepted word and use it to prove the existence of telepathy. This is what we have been going on about.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ipecac
To paraphrase the old chestnut: This is definitely a situation of being so open-minded your brain falls out.

The last doctor check-up I went to revealed that my brains were still in my head. :)

It doesn't take a toll on me in any way to allow for the possibility of an idea being true. Then we have to scientifically examine any evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The last doctor check-up I went to revealed that my brains were still in my head. :)

It doesn't take a toll on me in any way to allow for the possibility of an idea being true. Then we have to scientifically examine any evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

No one here will disagree with that. But considering there's been no convincing, scientific evidence of paranormal powers shown ever, the default position should always be skepticism of such claims until undeniable proofs are demonstrated.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ipecac
No one here will disagree with that. But considering there's been no convincing, scientific evidence of paranormal powers shown ever, the default position should always be skepticism of such claims until undeniable proofs are demonstrated.

Yes, I agree with that. I'm not saying I accept the paranormal, or even say that all are probable (although I think some could be probable), just possible, and to scientifically examine the evidence.

The fact that there has been little or no (depending on which camp you talk to) convincing evidence of the paranormal shouldn't remove the possibility of the paranormal existing I feel.

Of course, I always think that if a so-called paranormal event were to occur, it would be explained in scientific terms and therefore wouldn't be a paranormal event anymore but a natural event. In that sense, I can definitely say that nothing paranormal exists. :)

[BNiles]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yes, I agree with that. I'm not saying I accept the paranormal, or even say that all are probable (although I think some could be probable), just possible, and to scientifically examine the evidence.

The fact that there has been little or no (depending on which camp you talk to) convincing evidence of the paranormal shouldn't remove the possibility of the paranormal existing I feel.

Of course, I always think that if a so-called paranormal event were to occur, it would be explained in scientific terms and therefore wouldn't be a paranormal event anymore but a natural event. In that sense, I can definitely say that nothing paranormal exists. :)

Well said...:)

I often use the "does God exist?" analogy with this.
I can't prove that God exist, but that doesn't mean he doesn't.
I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that he does.

You're absolutely right about paranormal events being found to actually exist. Once they are proven, they cease to be "para" and continue to be "normal".

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not saying I accept the paranormal, or even say that all are probable (although I think some could be probable), just possible, and to scientifically examine the evidence.

The fact that there has been little or no (depending on which camp you talk to) convincing evidence of the paranormal shouldn't remove the possibility of the paranormal existing I feel.

Of course, I always think that if a so-called paranormal event were to occur, it would be explained in scientific terms and therefore wouldn't be a paranormal event anymore but a natural event. In that sense, I can definitely say that nothing paranormal exists. :)

We have reached agreement. Huzzah.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It doesn't take a toll on me in any way to allow for the possibility of an idea being true. Then we have to scientifically examine any evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence.
Which is a nice segue back to this question.

Do you stand by this statement: ""You said people don't have superpowers. That implies you've tested everyone."? Please explain.

Cheers,

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Darat


Why do you think they have been changed?

The fact that they have.

[BNiles]

I think he meant why WERE they changed.

[Ossai]

davidsmith73
I'm talking about the standard ganzfeld judging procedure. The judge does not know the identity of the correct target. If the judge has guess = "big mac" in front of them they can chose any of the four targets they like. If they chose the apple it would be a hit.
and
So would free response ganzfeld be acceptable. If not, why not ?
I see no reason why not.
That is like a surgeon performing surgery to remove a portion of someone's liver and instead removes a kidney. Then when asked to explain his mishap replies 'They're both filters.'

Ossai

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Nucular
How about we define telepathy as "the ability to extract information from the mind of another by means which cannot be understood within current scientific knowledge".

If you want, we can redefine empathy as a jargon term meaning "low-level telepathy".

Now let's define evidence as "something which goes some way towards showing a claim to be true".

We can add happen: "take place in the real world".

Now, with those tricky definitions out the way, maybe you can provide evidence to show that telepathy and/or empathy actually happen.

What think you Nivek?

I think that I can not agree with said definition of telepathy. It is not the ability to extract information from anothers mind. Rather ,it is more of a concentual communication between two minds. However, I do agree that science has yet to measure the means by which this happens,. Therefor making it difficult for the showing of evidence. I know that there are many people whom have experianced telepathy and this is my only evidence at present.

We may have to define "the real world" in which it happens. Telepathy and empathy both exist in an occult realm of energies. Since we have yet to create a device that can measure these energies, it can be concluded that they are not of the physical world which science explores.

Yet another question is; Do we solely base our conclusions on agreeable science or popular perception? Or can we find a combination of both?

BTW I'd rather use the dictionary definition of evidence

n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling" [syn: grounds]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
setting this problem aside for the moment, we most likely still need some form of symbolic ordering of the world (ie language) for mental imagery to be meaningful.
How do you figure? Mental imagry would be precise...Example;

Say you wanted another person to pass you the salt, and without speaking or motioning you send them a mental image of them handing you the salt.

I don't see how any language or symbolic order would come into play.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BNiles
I think he meant why WERE they changed.

I have no idea and found it odd myself. That's why I mentioned it.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Ipecac
....... until undeniable proofs are demonstrated.

Any amount or form of proof can be denied. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

I think that I can not agree with said definition of telepathy. It is not the ability to extract information from anothers mind. Rather ,it is more of a concentual communication between two minds. However, I do agree that science has yet to measure the means by which this happens,. Therefor making it difficult for the showing of evidence. I know that there are many people whom have experianced telepathy and this is my only evidence at present.

Science has not onlyl yet to measure the means of how it happens, science hasn't shown that it happens at all. All there have been are anecdotal claims that happen to fail when scientific controlls are placed on them. Why is that? Because it's BS, that's why.


We may have to define "the real world" in which it happens. Telepathy and empathy both exist in an occult realm of energies.

Occult realm of energies.... why not just say fiction?


Since we have yet to create a device that can measure these energies, it can be concluded that they are not of the physical world which science explores.

That's true, science doesn't really delve into fiction.


Yet another question is; Do we solely base our conclusions on agreeable science or popular perception? Or can we find a combination of both?

No, just agreeable science. Popular perception is an appeal to numbers and a fallacy. Voting on what's real or not doesn't make it so.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nivek


The fact that they have.

Hmm... so just a couple of days ago the words supported what you wanted them to, now they've been changed so they don't?

Do you not consider it more likely that you were mistaken?

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Darat

Hmm... so just a couple of days ago the words supported what you wanted them to, now they've been changed so they don't?

Do you not consider it more likely that you were mistaken?

If not, he should.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
Occult realm of energies.... why not just say fiction?

That's true, science doesn't really delve into fiction.



I can't call it fiction for it exists. Yes, it is hidden and inscrutable but not mearly imagination.

Science does delve into fiction. What do you think hypothesis are? They are mearly ideas that have yet to be agreed upon. Even when a hypothesis is agreed upon it is still debatable.

[Nivek]

Originally posted by Darat


Hmm... so just a couple of days ago the words supported what you wanted them to, now they've been changed so they don't?

Do you not consider it more likely that you were mistaken?

Actually they changed for the better. It is easy to describe how one can share an emotion with another, but how one enters the emotions of another?

No, I am not mistaken.

[thaiboxerken]

I can't call it fiction for it exists. Yes, it is hidden and inscrutable but not mearly imagination.

You believe it exists. It does not. Feel free to beat the JREF challenge and prove yourself correct.


Science does delve into fiction. What do you think hypothesis are? They are mearly ideas that have yet to be agreed upon. Even when a hypothesis is agreed upon it is still debatable.

You really like to play semantic games don't you? I'm not even going to argue against your equivocations.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Nivek

Science does delve into fiction. What do you think hypothesis are?

Once again I must ask. In what dictionary (other then the book of Nivek) is hypothesis defined as fiction?

It's an educated guess, not a make believe thought.

[pillory]

NO TELEPATHY,NOUSELESS ARGUESS

[Nucular]

Originally posted by BNiles
It's an educated guess, not a make believe thought. It's an educated, testable guess.

Nivek, I really don't mind how you define stuff, as long as you don't hold those definitions to have some kind of evidential value, as you appeared to before.

Just tell us what the effect is that you label telepathy, and we'll see if it's testable. Though I suspect this'll turn into a 'yes but' debate from you, as you don't seem to really want it to be tested.

[LightKnight]

If Nivek were to go to you today and show you telepathy... would you believe him? No matter how he presented himself, if he made brimstone fall from the sky, you would tell him off.

Disbelief is an extrodinary power, protecting those who can't deal with situations. Take victims of violent events who cannot remember the instance, such is the brain's power to protect the being from harm. It's the same idea here. Would you be able to live with the fact that you were wrong? Most people aren't strong enough to be able to. Even I admit that it's extrodinarily difficult for me to accept being wrong. It's simply human nature.

On another note, how can I proove to you that I taste things?

[Nucular]

Hi LK, welcome!

Yes, if he could convincingly demonstrate telepathy to me, as should be very easy to do if it exists, I would believe him.

I am scared or afraid neither of telepathy nor of being wrong. I like being shown to be wrong, as it means I've learnt something. I'd love there to be something 'other' going on, whether it's ghosts, gods, telepathy, goblins, aliens or whatever - I'm fascinated by this subject, that's why I'm here. It's just that I get fed up with the intellectual laziness, fudging, obfuscation and evasion of people who actually claim that these types of things exist.

Taste as a subjective experience would be difficult to prove. But taste as an objective phenomenon should be easy to demonstrate - see people differentiate identical, but differently-tasting liquids, for example. We could deduce that the tongue has some way of telling the difference between otherwise identical substances which cannot be explained through the other senses.

Why can't we do this with telepathy? What are your thoughts on all these excuses people churn out to avoid being tested?

[thaiboxerken]

If Nivek were to go to you today and show you telepathy... would you believe him?

Yep.

No matter how he presented himself, if he made brimstone fall from the sky, you would tell him off.

Well, I might call him irresponsible for destroying parts of the earth, but I'd still believe it happened. I wouldn't necessarily think that he caused it, however, I'd check with astrologers and see other science sources to see if this event was going to occur anyway.


Disbelief is an extrodinary power, protecting those who can't deal with situations.

LOL. Us skeptics aren't weak people that can't deal with situations. I just can't believe the nonsense that people claim unless they can actually back it up with evidence. I'm waiting for Nivek to do so, I suspect I'll be waiting until either I or he leaves the forum.

Take victims of violent events who cannot remember the instance, such is the brain's power to protect the being from harm. It's the same idea here. Would you be able to live with the fact that you were wrong?

Yes. I'm waiting to be proven wrong. All it takes is ONE, just one person to take the JREF challenge and my entire view of that particular paranormal phenomena would change. Of course, I'd want science to come in there and examine what happened and research the phenomena as well. Are YOU willing to be wrong, that's the question.. it seems that the paranormalists and those that claim to have superpowers go through all sorts of lengths to avoid scientific scrutiny and skepticism.

Most people aren't strong enough to be able to.

You're correct, that's why they believe in such BS as afterlife, gods and other paranormal BS. They can't deal with the harsh reality of truth, so fantasy become their new reality.

Even I admit that it's extrodinarily difficult for me to accept being wrong. It's simply human nature.

You should get used to it, because you've been wrong in much of this post.

On another note, how can I proove to you that I taste things?

I'm sure a biologist can answer that question more than I.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by LightKnight
On another note, how can I proove to you that I taste things?

You're gonna have to think a little more critically than this. Our 5 senses are the easiest to test. It's the "Extra Sensory" that we're concerned with here.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

[b] No matter how he presented himself, if he made brimstone fall from the sky, you would tell him off.

Well, I might call him irresponsible for destroying parts of the earth, but I'd still believe it happened. I wouldn't necessarily think that he caused it, however, I'd check with astrologers and see other science sources to see if this event was going to occur anyway.


I trust you mean "astronomers". :D

LightKnight, welcome!

There's not a skeptic here who wouldn't believe it if it was proven. You're "points" are not well-taken.

[LightKnight]

First, thank you for your welcome.

Second, I would like to apologize to anyone who believes I was trying to single them out as weak. Skepticism is not a sign of weakness. Humanity is a sign of weakness and all of us share in a common frailty.

To make my position more clear, let me tell you how I percieve telepathy. This is all in my opinion, so please bear with me. Human beings have souls. A human soul has a structure and function, much like the human body. Its main function is to be the main operating system, if you will, for the hardware of the body. It is the soul which links each being together and to the divine.
Now each soul has very natural strengths which the person or the divine can surface or submerge.

A natural expression of this interconnectivity is what is known as telepathy. Merely like one computer reading another computer over an wireless connection. Where's the structure for it? The soul itself is its own transmission device.

(Now you're saying, "Wow... that sounds like a giant crock...")

I can only call it as I see it and as my family has seen it for generations upon generations. Now, would I claim to have telepathy? More or less... yes, but that's a story in itself. Why won't I prove it? Because like I said, I can't prove it to you. We are all given to the extent of what we can handle, and no more. What you have in some area, I couldn't take... and what I have, I wouldn't wish on those who hate me.

and let me throw something else out... Of course, it requires the belief in the divine, but tell me, if the divine takes pleasure in faith. Why would a successful test ever happen? If the paranormal began to be made accessable and visible to everyone... would believers exist anymore? It takes a personal push to discover, unhindered by either belief or disbelief. If you simply accept what you see, and seek to see all there is, so shall you see all there is.

Hmmm... I hope I didn't leave anything out.

Peace to you all.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by LightKnight
Human beings have souls. A human soul has a structure and function, much like the human body. Its main function is to be the main operating system, if you will, for the hardware of the body. It is the soul which links each being together and to the divine.
Now each soul has very natural strengths which the person or the divine can surface or submerge.

A natural expression of this interconnectivity is what is known as telepathy. Merely like one computer reading another computer over an wireless connection. Where's the structure for it? The soul itself is its own transmission device.You state what you think, but not why you think it. Do you have any evidence for any of these things - down to the structure of the soul - or is it 'a feeling'?Why won't I prove it? Because like I said, I can't prove it to you. We are all given to the extent of what we can handle, and no more. What you have in some area, I couldn't take... and what I have, I wouldn't wish on those who hate me.I'm not sure quite what you mean by this, but anyway, I'm stuck. If you have a form of telepathy that no-one apart from you can see any evidence for, how do you know you've got it? Surely there must be some way you can demonstrate it?tell me, if the divine takes pleasure in faith. Why would a successful test ever happen?Wouldn't a more immediate question ask why God would take pleasure in faith, when He created some of us without the capacity for it, and when there are so many competing religions with just as much evidence as whatever the true one is?If you simply accept what you see, and seek to see all there is, so shall you see all there is.Absolutely. That's what scepticism is, and science does.

[thaiboxerken]

Second, I would like to apologize to anyone who believes I was trying to single them out as weak. Skepticism is not a sign of weakness. Humanity is a sign of weakness and all of us share in a common frailty.

Humanity is hardly a sign of weakness, it's just a state of being that comes with being human.


To make my position more clear, let me tell you how I percieve telepathy. This is all in my opinion, so please bear with me. Human beings have souls. A human soul has a structure and function, much like the human body. Its main function is to be the main operating system, if you will, for the hardware of the body. It is the soul which links each being together and to the divine.
Now each soul has very natural strengths which the person or the divine can surface or submerge.

Yep, you're right, it's all just your opinion based on ... no facts or evidence what-so-ever.


A natural expression of this interconnectivity is what is known as telepathy. Merely like one computer reading another computer over an wireless connection. Where's the structure for it? The soul itself is its own transmission device.

(Now you're saying, "Wow... that sounds like a giant crock...")

You are correct again, it is a giant crock of BS.


I can only call it as I see it and as my family has seen it for generations upon generations. Now, would I claim to have telepathy? More or less... yes, but that's a story in itself. Why won't I prove it? Because like I said, I can't prove it to you. We are all given to the extent of what we can handle, and no more. What you have in some area, I couldn't take... and what I have, I wouldn't wish on those who hate me.

Thus, you have made your claim untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. This is a common tactic of frauds and charlatans, as well as those that do not wish to have their beliefs questioned. Because of this, I will say that your claim is BS.


and let me throw something else out... Of course, it requires the belief in the divine, but tell me, if the divine takes pleasure in faith.

There are a couple of assumptions made here.. first, that there is a "divine", and second that it takes pleasure in faith. Both are untestable and unfalsifiable claims, thus showing that you are merely spouting more BS.


Why would a successful test ever happen?

Because real phenomena can be tested.


If the paranormal began to be made accessable and visible to everyone... would believers exist anymore?

Yes, they would just find some other thing that is untestable to believe in.


It takes a personal push to discover, unhindered by either belief or disbelief. If you simply accept what you see, and seek to see all there is, so shall you see all there is.

Yea, I call it science. Do you have anything scientific to show us?

[Jeff Corey]

[i]
( Of course, it requires the belief in the divine, but tell me, if the divine takes pleasure in faith. Why would a successful test ever happen? If the paranormal began to be made accessable and visible to everyone... would believers exist anymore? It takes a personal push to discover, unhindered by either belief or disbelief. If you simply accept what you see, and seek to see all there is, so shall you see all there is.

Hmmm... I hope I didn't leave anything out.

Peace to you all. [/B]
Does the Devine takes pleasure in faith? Maybe the Devine takes pleasure in dying babies and disease and warfare. That's reality.
(And Devine apparently took pleasure in things prohibited by the older and newer testaments.)

[LightKnight]

Let me try to answer some of you

Thai-
Humanity is hardly a sign of weakness, it's just a state of being that comes with being human.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, Thai.

Nuclear-

I would like to talk more about the soul's structure later, but that's a long conversation and today's a busy day. Let me just say, for now, that my belief based on several observations and instances that have shed light as to the soul's nature. I will be happy to share them later.

I'm not sure quite what you mean by this, but anyway, I'm stuck. If you have a form of telepathy that no-one apart from you can see any evidence for, how do you know you've got it? Surely there must be some way you can demonstrate it?

Sorry for the ambiguity in that statement, Nuclear. I didn't say that no one apart from me could experience the strengths of the soul. I know many people who share in it on a day to day basis, far beyond the telepathic aspect. Merely that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. There are some people who simply cannot take the pressure of it, as with anything.

Beyond that, it would be irresponsible for me to show anyone without assurance that they completely understand how the skill must be used. Giving the public a working knowledge on the subject would be absolutely disasterous. Working knowledge being defined as the method through which this ability can be brought about, telling someone about it... even every feeling of it, may spur them to seek, but will not merely allow them to do so.

Wouldn't a more immediate question ask why God would take pleasure in faith, when He created some of us without the capacity for it, and when there are so many competing religions with just as much evidence as whatever the true one is?

There is a great forest. It streaches like a sea of green. In its center, there is a tree the size of a mountain. Throughout the forest are paths that all lead to the tree. Some walk toward it, some look away and some are overcome by what they see, refusing to accept it. Those that do see it, however, run into a problem. One sees a great branch, another the roots, and a precious few, the whole thing. They each say the other is wrong.

I follow the religion I follow because I have sought and learned of many, finding it to be what I can take joy in calling my faith.

Jeff-
Does the Devine takes pleasure in faith? Maybe the Devine takes pleasure in dying babies and disease and warfare. That's reality.

Reality? True, we have those things but human beings thrive on suffering. It advances us. Without suffering, you wouldn't have this computer or nearly any technological advancement. Suffering is a system set into place to stir men to do great things.

God gave us free will. If we decide to put our babies in a situation of harm, then we chose it. We choose war and disease, like I said before, advances us.

It is in that free will that the Divine takes pleasure. We are not slaves, as you so clearly demonstrate. We are as we choose. It is in giving that free will back, willingly serving, that the divine is pleased with.

I once heard an excellent description of why God made man. One day, He realized he was conscious.... and that he was all alone. First, he set the universe into motion. When He got bored with it, be made life. When He got bored with that, He made something that could fail.

When a child listens to their parent, does not the parent take joy?

ThaiBoxerKen - Your overt sarcasm, while it brings a chuckle, seems as though it would be counterproductive to most serious discussions. I mean not to offend you in any way with my posting and I hope you do not mean to offend me.




I have no more time to write today, however... I will try to further explain what I have done to prove these things exist to myself, for I began by disbelieving. I set up experiments to do so and here I am, believing.

Peace

[Ipecac]

Sorry, LightKnight, but nothing you've said makes the least bit of sense. It's all stuff you've made up without any evidence to back it up.

We choose war and disease, like I said before, advances us.

So children who die of Leukemia before their tenth birthday choose disease? A loving grandmother with Alzheimers chooses to lose every precious memory of her family? Your statement is so demonstrably wrong it borders on the absurd.

Basically, you've come here to claim miraculous, unprecedented powers but will provide no evidence for such powers.

Sounds like there's not much further we need to discuss.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by LightKnight
Beyond that, it would be irresponsible for me to show anyone without assurance that they completely understand how the skill must be used. Giving the public a working knowledge on the subject would be absolutely disasterous. Working knowledge being defined as the method through which this ability can be brought about, telling someone about it... even every feeling of it, may spur them to seek, but will not merely allow them to do so.

LightKnight,

Does this "reasoning" also apply to demonstrating evidence of your claim? If so, why?

Cheers,

[Pyrrho]

Hmm. I've noticed that some people place high value on experience. This, I think, is why some people also place high value on anecdotal evidence, because such stories are the retellings of someone's experience.

Now, I've experienced some strange things that might lead me to believe in certain paranormal phenomena, but my experience has also shown me that my senses can be fooled, and that my reasoning can be flawed. Experience is unreliable as a foundation for belief, because it is far too easy to draw incorrect conclusions, and because we tend to be biased in those conclusions even if they happen to be correct.

We're limited to five senses, and even though we can augment those senses, we're still missing an awful lot of information.

I don't mean to disparage the emotional aspects of experience -- some people find certain experiences to be emotionally helpful -- but I see no reason to build a irrational belief in impossible phenomena based on the limits of human experience.

There's a certain emotional payoff involved in letting ourselves indulge in magical thinking, but to me, that's not accepting reality. One can either accept reality and face the issues, or one can avoid reality and find questionable comfort in imagining that the impossible is possible. Believing that one has the power of telepathy -- or any other impossibility -- gives one a false sense of power and control, an illusion of having an advantage in the struggle for survival. This illusion -- or delusion -- is the basis for all religious belief and belief in impossible powers of the mind.

[Ossai]

LightKnight
Reality? True, we have those things but human beings thrive on suffering. It advances us. Without suffering, you wouldn't have this computer or nearly any technological advancement. Suffering is a system set into place to stir men to do great things. Sounds good on a grand impersonal level but once you try to apply it to the details it completely falls apart.

So where's the proof?

Ossai

[LightKnight]

Ipecec-
Pardon me for that, it wasn't as clear as I had hoped. Let me rewrite that so it says what I meant it to say.

We choose war. Disease, like I said before, advances us.

I am going to edit the origional post, thank you for pointing that out.

It would be foolish to say that we choose to be ill. However, disease pushes us to create marvels.

Any human being can do anything I do, it is part of their very structure. I've sought to advance those skills. Do you consider a tightrope walker to have miraculous powers? Any person can do it with enough patience and the right attitude.

And I'll admit, fantastic claims are fantastic. But I claim no fantastic powers, just a working knowledge of the soul. You seem eager, though, to shoot what I say down. I understand that completely, as sometimes even I have a hard time with it. The fact stands that I will not lie to you and I will try to explain myself to the best of my ability. I merely do not have to time to explain everything I have done right off the bat. If I am not allowed to have a few posts in order to explain my position, then what is the point of this site? What of people who are not as concise with the language as you are? Even if they had the ability to back their claims, the sharpness of your opposition would scare away many people I know who would provide excellent points to discussion.

I understand your skepticism, for I have much of my own. However, skepticism can be easily used as a euphamism for cronic disbelief and that not very scientific.

So please, I ask for your curtisy.

Bill-
In demonstrating, I would be exposing the tester to something that would open them up. Such is the nature of telepathy.
You see, there's more to it than just that. I'm not a magician. I don't do parlor tricks. What I do is for the good of those around me, those in need.

I've run out of time today to post, and this is not as in depth as I would wish. Please, let me continue with it later, possibily tomorrow or the next day.

Peace

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by LightKnight

Bill-
In demonstrating, I would be exposing the tester to something that would open them up. Such is the nature of telepathy.
You see, there's more to it than just that. I'm not a magician. I don't do parlor tricks. What I do is for the good of those around me, those in need.
LK,

Just so you know, under some general guidelines Randi posted to the board a while back, you are now refusing to support your claim. It is an arrogant refusal at that, considering this noblesse oblige feint of yours. Us unwashed masses will melt with this knowledge? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I say: pah! It is more probable your claim will melt under scrutiny.

Cheers,

[thaiboxerken]

Any human being can do anything I do, it is part of their very structure. I've sought to advance those skills. Do you consider a tightrope walker to have miraculous powers? Any person can do it with enough patience and the right attitude.

The difference between a tightrope walker and a telepath is that tightrope walkers exist. Telepaths do not. If you want to prove me wrong, feel free to apply for the JREF million dollar challenge.


And I'll admit, fantastic claims are fantastic. But I claim no fantastic powers, just a working knowledge of the soul.

The claim that there is a soul, and that you can manipulate that soul to give you superpowers is fantastic indeed. A million dollars could be yours if you simply demonstrate your superpowers for the JREF.

You seem eager, though, to shoot what I say down.

Only because you present a huge target. Nothing you have said has any evidence associated with it, does it?

I understand that completely, as sometimes even I have a hard time with it. The fact stands that I will not lie to you and I will try to explain myself to the best of my ability. I merely do not have to time to explain everything I have done right off the bat.

I, myself, could care less what you claim you have done, only what you can do in a controlled test. The JREF can provide such a test so you can prove us all wrong about telepathy. Show Mr. Randi your superpowers.


If I am not allowed to have a few posts in order to explain my position, then what is the point of this site?

It an attempt to find evidence of the paranormal, do you have any? I thought not.

What of people who are not as concise with the language as you are? Even if they had the ability to back their claims, the sharpness of your opposition would scare away many people I know who would provide excellent points to discussion.

It shouldn't scare away anyone that really has the superpowers they claim they have. All they have to do is apply for the JREF challenge and show their superpowers. I know if I had such powers, I'd have taken the money away from Randi years ago.

I understand your skepticism, for I have much of my own.

Except when it comes to the afterlife, souls and your superpowers, eh?

However, skepticism can be easily used as a euphamism for cronic disbelief and that not very scientific.

All you have to do is apply for the JREF challenge, win it, and then I'll believe that you have some kind of superpowers.


Bill-
In demonstrating, I would be exposing the tester to something that would open them up. Such is the nature of telepathy.
You see, there's more to it than just that. I'm not a magician. I don't do parlor tricks. What I do is for the good of those around me, those in need.

Prove it. The JREF is still accepting applications.

Put up, or shut up.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by LightKnight
Any human being can do anything I do, it is part of their very structure. I've sought to advance those skills. Do you consider a tightrope walker to have miraculous powers? Any person can do it with enough patience and the right attitude.
Your analogy is fallacious. Tightrope walkers do not pretend to violate the laws of physics, and even then, not every human could do what a given tightrope walker can do, even if they spent years in practice and training. Some can, and some can't. It's the old "we all have these abilities" myth. Until you can prove that you, yourself have such abilities, you cannot rightfully claim that any human can have them. Many a person has been led down the primrose path by that cruel myth.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LightKnight
Ipecec-
Pardon me for that, it wasn't as clear as I had hoped. Let me rewrite that so it says what I meant it to say.

We choose war. Disease, like I said before, advances us.

I am going to edit the origional post, thank you for pointing that out.

It would be foolish to say that we choose to be ill. However, disease pushes us to create marvels.

Any human being can do anything I do, it is part of their very structure. I've sought to advance those skills. Do you consider a tightrope walker to have miraculous powers? Any person can do it with enough patience and the right attitude.

And I'll admit, fantastic claims are fantastic. But I claim no fantastic powers, just a working knowledge of the soul. You seem eager, though, to shoot what I say down. I understand that completely, as sometimes even I have a hard time with it. The fact stands that I will not lie to you and I will try to explain myself to the best of my ability. I merely do not have to time to explain everything I have done right off the bat. If I am not allowed to have a few posts in order to explain my position, then what is the point of this site? What of people who are not as concise with the language as you are? Even if they had the ability to back their claims, the sharpness of your opposition would scare away many people I know who would provide excellent points to discussion.

I understand your skepticism, for I have much of my own. However, skepticism can be easily used as a euphamism for cronic disbelief and that not very scientific.

So please, I ask for your curtisy.

...

Peace

LightKnight,

Thank you for the clarification. I, and pretty much every skeptic on this board, am willing to accept proof of telepathy. But we need evidence first. Anecdotes, feelings, and your word are not evidence.

Seems to me, the first thing you need to prove in your theory is that there is actually such a thing as a soul. Go ahead.

Ipecac

[Nivek]

ev·i·dence n.

1: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2: Something indicative; an outward sign:evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

3: Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1: To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.

2: To support by testimony; attest.

Idiom:
in evidence
1: Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.

2: Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious. See evident.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Now this is just one definition of the word evidence yet it seems that many people deny certain aspects of it's meaning. The point that I would like to touch on first is attesting. Why is it that some refuse to take multiple eye witness accounts as evidence when it is clearly part of the definition?

The second point is the first entry in the definition. To delve into this point we must look at the definition for the word thing;
n.
1: An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

2:
a: The real or concrete substance of an entity.
b: An entity existing in space and time.

3: Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.

[Middle English, from Old English.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


According to this an idea, quality, word, symbol or sign can be evidence.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nivek
Now this is just one definition of the word evidence yet it seems that many people deny certain aspects of it's meaning. The point that I would like to touch on first is attesting. Why is it that some refuse to take multiple eye witness accounts as evidence when it is clearly part of the definition?
...
According to this an idea, quality, word, symbol or sign can be evidence.
We're not working with evidence in all of its meanings, nivek. There are rules of evidence here. Our evidentiary standards in skepticism match those of science. These are tighter rules to be sure, and necessarily so. We have adopted scientific rules of evidence because the methods of science are the only ones humans have yet devised that have epistemological privilege. Basically, that means, they have been proven to yield trustworthy conclusions.

Eyewitness accounts, on the other hand, have been demonstrated time and again to be untrustworthy. That doesn't mean we dismiss everything someone says out of hand. But it doesn mean we can't fully trust it. And, particularly, when those anecdotal accounts defy what we know as scientific truths, they have a long way to go to prove themselves.

If you want discuss extraordinary claims, things that defy logic, or appear to defy logic, or that defy known science, you need to meet the evidentiary standards. You need to cite research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Cheers,

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ossai


Me: I'm talking about the standard ganzfeld judging procedure. The judge does not know the identity of the correct target. If the judge has guess = "big mac" in front of them they can chose any of the four targets they like. If they chose the apple it would be a hit.

So would free response ganzfeld be acceptable. If not, why not ?
I see no reason why not.

Ossai: That is like a surgeon performing surgery to remove a portion of someone's liver and instead removes a kidney. Then when asked to explain his mishap replies 'They're both filters.'



Thats the most ridiculous simile I've heard in a while.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


So? Ok, so they are biased that they won't accept challenges by retards that claim goosebumps are paranormal. Someone has to draw the line between mundane and paranormal somewhere. It's apparent that Ian and you draw that line so that it's invisible.


And that line is drawn exclusively by the JREF. Hence why the continued presence of the prize is not a reliable indicator as to the existence of paranormal phenomena.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Ever get tired of that child who won't quit whining? So what, it's biased.. against people that will claim any mundane thing as being paranormal. Nothing wrong with that.

Quite right. As long as retards don't keep touting the challenge as being as indicator that there are no "superpowers".

[Nivek]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

These are tighter rules to be sure, and necessarily so. We have adopted scientific rules of evidence because the methods of science are the only ones humans have yet devised that have epistemological privilege. Basically, that means, they have been proven to yield trustworthy conclusions.



This confuses me..:confused:
How can a phylosophy on the nature of knowledge allow one to deny knowledge? Can this truely be trustworthy? It seems like a contradiction to me.....

[Lucianarchy]

Relying on the challenge as a measure of 'superpowers' is as stupid as relying on Prince Ibis as a measure of fortune.

[thaiboxerken]

And that line is drawn exclusively by the JREF. Hence why the continued presence of the prize is not a reliable indicator as to the existence of paranormal phenomena.

Only in the minds of believers. Your arguement has been shown to be stupid, yet you insist on providing it ad-nauseum.

[thaiboxerken]

Quite right. As long as retards don't keep touting the challenge as being as indicator that there are no "superpowers".

Not just the challenge, but the fact that no valid evidence has passed the scrutiny of the scientific community. You can believe people have superpowers all you want. I just read comic-books, I don't try to live them.

Feel free to call yourselves the XMEN or whatever, you only show how stupid you are. Next you'll say that a person can shoot laserbeams out of their eyes simply because we haven't tested every person negative for this power. :rolleyes:

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


JREF also decides not to agree to any test that seeks to define "success" as getting 6 heads in 10 coin tosses. Is that "bias"?

JREF also decides not to test anybody who claims to be able to jump naked out a twelve story building and glide safely to the ground. I that "bias"?

JREF also decides not to accept as "paranormal" people who claim to be able to wiggle their ears, touch their noses with their tongues, or any number of ridiculous claims. Is that "bias"?

Yes, that is bias. That is bias against self-inflicted danger. It is bias against the clearly normal disguised as paranormal.


For all your trigger happy use of accusing me of straw men, you are the guilty one here. Of course the JREF is not going to go ahead with claims about poeple jumping off buildings or claims that I can use PK on a single coin toss.

These claims, everyone agrees are not safe or are not statistically sound protocol.

The point, which you continually try to deflect or not reply to, is that on the claims that are not as so clearly non-paranormal, the JREF always decides whether or not they are.

Thus the presence of the prize is not a reliable indicator of the existence of paranormal phenomena.


This is a way to keep JREF's definitions open and flexible and not give fame, credit or money to any knucklehead who wants it to accept a test wherein a call of "Big Mac" is scored as a hit on "apple".

You see, you have displayed the exact kind of bias I am talking about. If you were the JREF member that decided on the basis of a paranormal claim, you would have rejected a ganzfeld protocol. The claimant would then have to go home, the claim not tested, regardless of whether or not anybody else thought the claim was legitimately paranormal.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Nivek


This confuses me..:confused:
How can a phylosophy on the nature of knowledge allow one to deny knowledge? Can this truely be trustworthy? It seems like a contradiction to me.....

That's not what he said. I just felt like thaikicking your strawman down. Try addressing his points, not the ones you're making up for him.

[thaiboxerken]

You see, you have displayed the exact kind of bias I am talking about. If you were the JREF member that decided on the basis of a paranormal claim, you would have rejected a ganzfeld protocol. The claimant would then have to go home, the claim not tested, regardless of whether or not anybody else thought the claim was legitimately paranormal.

Gee... I guess the JREF is really biased against people that think a Big Mac is close enough in resemblance to an apple. :rolleyes:

And you called ME a retard?

The JREF has that clause to protect themselves from dishonest people like you that think Bic Macs and Apples are the same.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
[What exactly is the "obvious bias" that concerns you so? That "the full range of paranormal phenomena thats actually out there" isn't covered? Don't you see the incredible irony in discussing the "obvious bias" of JREF while simultaneously declaring paranormal phenomena are "actually out there"?

I don't believe there is a list of refused applicants, although Randi comments on them from time to time. Some of those, as I recall, were dangerous to the applicants and to others and were therefore refused. Some were just downright ridiculous and therefore refused.

Cheers,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The obvious bias is that the JREF has the final say as to whether an application will go ahead. In other words, the JREF decides what is a paranormal claim and what is not. I can see no indication of any formal criteria for this within the application.



If this is true then this utterly discredits the claim made by skeptics that the failure of anyone to win the million is suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exists.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Quite right. As long as retards don't keep touting the challenge as being as indicator that there are no "superpowers".

Not just the challenge, but the fact that no valid evidence has passed the scrutiny of the scientific community.


This is exactly my point. The JREF will not accept tests that try to replicate the scientific evidence for these phenomena, for example ganzfeld ESP, simply because they do not believe the evidence shows anything paranormal.

Therefore the JREF should just stay out of the debate as to the existence of paranormal phenomena. Thats up to the scientific method to decide. The scientific method does deem any topic ouside its scope of investigation because it doesn't pass some biased and silly criteria.


You can believe people have superpowers all you want. I just read comic-books, I don't try to live them. Feel free to call yourselves the XMEN or whatever, you only show how stupid you are. Next you'll say that a person can shoot laserbeams out of their eyes simply because we haven't tested every person negative for this power. :rolleyes:



I was making sarcastic reference to your own pathetic understanding of paranormal phenomena :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I don't believe there is a list of refused applicants,
Cheers, [/B]

Now I find this extremely suspicious. What's to stop Randi from refusing any application which is likely to win?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If this is true then this utterly discredits the claim made by skeptics that the failure of anyone to win the million is suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exists. Not at all. It IS suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exist, but it is not PROOF. And nobody said it was. Such proof can never be made, since you cannot prove a negative.

There are, of course, a grey zone of phenomenon where the classification as paranormal might be discussed, but there are plenty that are clear-cut, e.g. telepathy, mediumship, dowsing, telekinesis, clairvoyance, astrology, etc.

The fact that none of the thousands of alleged pracitioners of the above has managed to win the Randi prize strongly suggests that ALL claims of those phenomenon are unfounded.

Hans


Hans

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Then there is this oft-ignored paragraph, which pretty much puts the lie to any nonsensical idea that the JREF Challenge is a scam:


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

Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me and many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How does it do that? :confused:

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You see, you have displayed the exact kind of bias I am talking about. If you were the JREF member that decided on the basis of a paranormal claim, you would have rejected a ganzfeld protocol. The claimant would then have to go home, the claim not tested, regardless of whether or not anybody else thought the claim was legitimately paranormal.

Gee... I guess the JREF is really biased against people that think a Big Mac is close enough in resemblance to an apple. :rolleyes:

And you called ME a retard?

The JREF has that clause to protect themselves from dishonest people like you that think Bic Macs and Apples are the same.

Do you know what a ganzfeld judging procedure is ?

The judge has to chose out of four possible targets which they think is the actual target for that trial. The judge does not know which is the correct target. The free response procedure is set up so that any possible ESP signals that produce mentation that is similar to the actual target choice is more likely to result in the correct target choice. This method is in good agreement with how normal psychology works. For example, if you watch a TV program about house fires before you go to sleep, you are likely to dream about things psychologically related to fire such as erupting volcanoes, firemen etc. You do not necessarily dream specifically about house fires.

Do you have anything reasonably intelligent to say ?

[Nivek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


That's not what he said. I just felt like thaikicking your strawman down. Try addressing his points, not the ones you're making up for him.

Excuse me? Do you even know what epistemology is? I am not making up any points for anyone but myself. In fact I am adressing a point that he has made. if only you could relax your offencive stance you would see this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I understand and accept that the experimental protocol would be sound and that mutual agreement would be met before the test takes place. However, I am pointing out that the JREF would have the final say as to what result would actually be acceptable as paranormal. So, would a significant hit rate of 35% be acceptable and why ? 50 %, 80 % ?

Do you see my point ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, I don't see your point. The statistics would be based on the claimed hit rate. What is wrong with that?



Would getting a significant hit rate of 26% be ok? (assuming one gets 25% by chance). Of course I accept there would need to be plenty of trials so that it is statistically significant. How can I be confident that Randi would accept such a hit rate?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Not at all. It IS suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exist, but it is not PROOF. And nobody said it was. Such proof can never be made, since you cannot prove a negative.

Ian didn't say anything about "proof". in fact he used the word "suggestive". So why have you mentioned this Hans ?


There are, of course, a grey zone of phenomenon where the classification as paranormal might be discussed, but there are plenty that are clear-cut, e.g. telepathy, mediumship, dowsing, telekinesis, clairvoyance, astrology, etc.

The fact that none of the thousands of alleged pracitioners of the above has managed to win the Randi prize strongly suggests that ALL claims of those phenomenon are unfounded.




It doesn't for the reasons I have been giving. The JREF probably does not accept any of the scientific evidence there is out there as being evidence of paranornal phenomena. So they are not going to accept such claims for the prize. Therefore I do not consider the continued presence of the prize as an indicator of the reality of the phenomena because I strongly disagree with the assertion that parapsychology experiments are not evdience of anything paranormal.

The argument for the reality of paranormal phenomena hinges on the validity of the scientific evidence, not the JREF prize.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


DavidSmith
I'm not trying to discredit the challenge. I think its a great fraud buster. Its just not a reliable indicator of the reality of paranormal phenomena. [/B]

TBK
And yet, the paranormal superbeings can't seem to beat it. [/B]

The fact that there might not be paranormal superbeings scarcely refutes the hypotheses that there exists paranormal phenomena though does it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ipecac
[

David, the JREF doesn't get to determine what claim is paranormal at the END of the test. It is an entry issue. If you claim you can do something paranormal, then they either agree that your "thing" (if demonstrable) is paranormal and you agree to a protocol, or they decide it's not paranormal so you don't even get to the next step. [/B]

Precisely! But the fact that they have the power to refuse any applications means they have the power to refuse any application which has a remote chance of winning the prize. Therefore the failure of anyone to win the prize cannot be deemed to be suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exists.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ipecac


However, the continued presence of the million dollars is strongly suggestive that no such phenomena exists. [/B]

I completely disagree. There are so many reasons I wouldn't know where to start. But the very first one is that Randi has the power to refuse any applications! So what's to stop him from refusing those claims similar to that which has been strongly suggested by parapsychological research?? None whatsoever! But then the failure of anyone to win the million can't be suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exists now can it?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I completely disagree. There are so many reasons I wouldn't know where to start. But the very first one is that Randi has the power to refuse any applications! So what's to stop him from refusing those claims similar to that which has been strongly suggested by parapsychological research?? None whatsoever! But then the failure of anyone to win the million can't be suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exists now can it?
I have to agree with this. The JREF Challenge shows two things: one, that a given claimant can or cannot perform their claimed paranormal abilities under test conditions that the claimant and the JREF mutually agree to; two, that high-profile alleged miracle-workers won't agree to be tested when they have to negotiate test conditions with James Randi.

Failure to attempt the JREF Challenge is not in and of itself proof that paranormal phenomena do not exist. It is suggestive, though, that certain folks do not have the powers they claim to have. But, as noted, "suggestive" is not "proof".

I should not have to state that the weakness of "suggestive" evidence applies equally to paranormal phenomena, in that "suggestive" is a subjective judgment. At some point one must move beyond marvelling at the "suggestive" nature of the evidence and begin to objectively test the evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
If this is true then this utterly discredits the claim made by skeptics that the failure of anyone to win the million is suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. It IS suggestive that no paranormal phenomena exist, but it is not PROOF. And nobody said it was. Such proof can never be made, since you cannot prove a negative.



But I have already explained why it is not suggestive! :mad: You have just contradicted me but have failed to provide any reasons to call into question my original point.

If JREF has the power to refuse any applications what's to stop them from refusing any application that they feel has a tangible chance of winning the prize?