Defining 'paranormal'
Jeremy
Help me out here. What is the difference between paranormal, psi,
psychic, supernatural, occult, magik, paganism, New Age, mystical,
miracles, and so on? Are people who are using these different labels
all talking about the same thing(s) or what? If so, why do they use
these different labels?
- Jeremy K.
Will
In article <4p9n4u$n...@newsman.murdoch.edu.au>
jnor...@central.murdoch.edu.au (Jeremy) wrote:
Paranormal--occurances that are beyond the explanation of
traditional science. Things that do not fit with the
percieved "natural" occurances.
Psychic--The ability to gain information through non-direct methods
usually involves vague imagery or subjective
descriptions of ambiguous symbols.
Supernatural--See second defn. of paranormal. More often used
in relation with ideas of higher beings involving
themselves with human activites.
Occult--hidden. Often describes knowledge that was either
unavailable or obscured or both. Relates mostly to
magical and alchemical acts.
Magick--Check Crowley's definition. It's a path to enlightenment
that involves action and dynamics as opposed to
the relative inaction of mysticism.
Paganism--The worship of nature. Possibly Naturalism.
New Age--a movement towards more psychic expression. Also
involves such things as Yuppie Yoga and Yanni.
Mystical--anything working towards a path to enlightenment through
passive means. Meditation and Pranayama are examples.
Miracles--actions attributed to the act of a god through a human or
with a human. Related to supernatural. Allows odd things
to occur without the attribution of the events to human
ability or scientific explanation. (Often confused with luck).
That's my opinion. Hope it helps.
Cheers~
Will
Jared Blackburn
Jeremy wrote:
>
> Help me out here. What is the difference between paranormal, psi,
> psychic, supernatural, occult, magik, paganism, New Age, mystical,
> miracles, and so on? Are people who are using these different labels
> all talking about the same thing(s) or what? If so, why do they use
> these different labels?
>
That is a very deep question. The question it's self could be interpreted in
a number of ways!
Supernatural is anything which is above and beyond the natural, many
magicians would concider the term misleading as they consider magic a natural
(all be it super physical) process. Paranormal is the same basic Idea, but
deal only with what is not beyond the normal, and need not be physically
unexplainable.
New Age is, while not a specific religion, a metaphysical/religious movement
that hold certain general beleifs and has very optomistic feel. New Age does
involve it's self deeply in magic and the paranormal, but is not the only
form of occoltism by any mean, and is loosing much of it's popularity as it
is often seen as too idealistic. New Agers would beleive that all the above
are essecially equivalent (of course, New Age claims that "All is One").
Paganism is a catagory of religious concepts that are essencially
polytheistic (ie, worship more than one god); many Christians extend the term
to mean any non-Christian religion, other perhaps, Judaism. Most pagans
practice Magic (ussually in a ritual format). Example include
Wicca("Witchcraft"), Druidism, and the revivle of worship of Norse, Greek,
and Egyptian gods/goddesses.
Magic (or magick) is the "science" of making reality conform to will. There
are far too many theories of how this works to explane in detail, but they
all have to do some (or several) highter, non-physical level of reality wicj
can be use to influence the material world in way that can't be explained be
natural science.
Psi and Pychic reffer to mental powers. These abilities must be, essencially
magical, as psionics (hypethetical psychic power that come through physical
mean from the brain) are not physically possible. I would certainly list
psychic ability as a form of magic.
Miracles are devine intervention - a deity is supposed to alter reality on
behalf of a beleiver or for some other reason. Some beleive that magic and
miracles are the same thing - God is in you, or you are given the power by
God, or a combination of the two.
Mystical and Occolt both deal with finding the "hidden" knowlede of the
divine or "supernatural." Mysticism generally taken to be a more direct,
more orthodoxed, and less physically magical approach - mysticism is
generally more of a "feely" concept, as well. The Occolt tends to involved
more in more ritual magic, magical philosophy and is often misunderstood as
evil (not really true). Occoltist are, almost invariable magicians as well.
Occolt and Mysticism are oft used interchangibly, however, even be
practictioners. SUch system are found in about every religion, with some
religious neutral occolt systems (such as Hermeticism) as well.
Any questions? That about all I can think of right now!
--
Love in Light,
Jared.
{MGD S* G-- QC++++ 666- y W++(@) C++++ N@(----) PJC(+) Ds Dr A a+}
"Whoever seeks should keep seeking until he finds.
And when he finds, he will be shocked.
And when he is shocked, he will marvel,
and will rule over all." - Yeshua of Natzeret
Gratuitous Pseudonym
>Jeremy wrote:
>>
>> Help me out here. What is the difference between paranormal, psi,
>> psychic, supernatural, occult, magik, paganism, New Age, mystical,
>> miracles, and so on? Are people who are using these different labels
>> all talking about the same thing(s) or what? If so, why do they use
>> these different labels?
Several people have given you some pretty good definitions for the terms you
mention.
I'll address the last two questions. I am generalizing a bit, but that isn't
possible to avoid when dealing with such nomenclature.
Some people use "supernatural" to describe events which apparently defy
explanation because they believe in a non-physical sentient entity, a god or
something like one, who has the capacity to suspend physical laws and impose
its will directly on physical events. Proponents of the supernatural usually
don't think it is possible to explain these phenomena in physical terms.
Those who prefer the term "paranormal" or "psi" tend to believe that the
phenomena in question cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigms
but will probably be explained as we learn more.
People tend to use the terms that best fit into their particular philosophy.
Since people who contribute to the newsgroups this is being posted to
represent many different philosophical views, you will see a variety of terms
used to describe the things discussed here. There are some jim-dandy
arguments about them, too.
Charles Gregory
jnor...@central.murdoch.edu.au (Jeremy) wrote:
> Help me out here. What is the difference between paranormal, psi,
> psychic, supernatural, occult, magik, paganism, New Age, mystical,
> miracles, and so on? Are people who are using these different labels
> all talking about the same thing(s) or what? If so, why do they use
> these different labels?
My perception of "common usage" as opposed to dictionary meanings, is that:
"Paranormal" covers most phenomena not explained by current science.
It occasionally leaves out those things considered purely
religious in origins, like "miracles", depending on whether the
person using the word considers "God" a removed, unknowable thing.
"Psi" and "psychic" refer to extraordinary powers of the mind, such
as telekinesis, telepathy, precognition, etc. These terms are
generally held distinct from concepts of "spirits" and "gods",
a purely "phsyical" phenomena of the brain.
"supernatural" is frequently used to mean "paranormal", but the colloquial
context often implies the existence of "otherworldly powers",
like "demons" or "spirit guides" and usually doesn't include
UFOs and aliens (assumed to "natural" but mysterious).
"occult", "magik", "paganism" and "mystical" all rely heavily upon elements
of external "powers" guided by disembodied spirits. The first
term frequently carries a negative connotation of "demonology".
"New Age" generally refers to a pseudo-religious awareness or awakening (a
"new age" is dawning) that is filled with spirits and personal
spiritual/mental powers. It also tends to overlap a little with
the other terms, but is distinguished by a professed attitude of
enlightenment and spiritual growth.
"Miracles" refers to any occurence that is "impossible", and generally is
considered to be of "divine" origin. The key assumption is that
there is nothing a human could do to make the "miracle" happen.
Hope this helps....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Gregory
E-Mail: cha...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Home Page: [J]ump to "http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab801/Profile.html"
--
Steven J. De
Paranormal is unexplanable phenomenon of any kind. Psychic is
the ability of ESP or ability to read the future, contact aliens,
etc. Supernatural is about the same as paranormal,
extratarrestrial life and intelligence, and unexplanable things.
Occult is stuff like voodoo, and other evil things. Magic, of
course is just a fiction of trickery. Paganism, i don't know.
New age is, just well, the new age kind of stuff. Miracles are
unexplanable happenings of good. basically all of these things
can be classified as PARANORMAL, the big word.
ps- visit my site at http://www.oro.net/~devalsj/archive.html
it has a lot of ufo stuff.
-Jonathan
jnor...@central.murdoch.edu.au (Jeremy) wrote:
>Help me out here. What is the difference between paranormal, psi,
>psychic, supernatural, occult, magik, paganism, New Age, mystical,
>miracles, and so on? Are people who are using these different labels
>all talking about the same thing(s) or what? If so, why do they use
>these different labels?
>
>- Jeremy K.
>
Gary Jones
Recently. Charles Gregory <ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote
>
>"Paranormal" covers most phenomena not explained by current science.
By this definition, the recently-observed jets of bright material
emerging above thunderclouds would count as paranormal. So would solar
neutrinos, which are observed in much lower numbers than is predicted by
current models of stellar fusion. To describe these natural phenomena as
"paranormal" seems just plain wrong to me.
In fact, every scientific research paper attempts to shed new light on
some less than perfectly understood phenomenon. I doubt whether the
authors of these papers would consider themselves to be investigating
paranormal phenomena.
Recently. Will <wi...@one.net> wrote
>
>Paranormal--occurances that are beyond the explanation of
> traditional science. Things that do not fit with the
> percieved "natural" occurances.
This is better, although it's not made clear whether such occurences
will FOREVER be "beyond the explanation of traditional science". If that
is what is intended, then the definition is not bad, but otherwise,
people might argue that Uri Geller can bend spoons by means which,
although not currently understood, will one day be discovered and which
will then form part of accepted scientific understanding. We then have
the same problem that we had with the first definition: it doesn't
distinguish between a "normal" mystery and a "paranormal" one.
As a skeptic, I have great difficulty coming-up with a definition I find
acceptable. It seems to me that science is an attempt at a rational
system of enquiry to account as best we can for as many phenomena as
possible. But what if the phenomena are spurious? If spoon-bending could
be reliably demonstrated to conjurors and materials scientists such that
they could not explain how the effect was achieved, then there would be
a phenomenon worth serious study. Sadly, this is not the case.
I am left to propose the flippant definition:
Paranormal: that which can never be accounted-for by rational means
because it doesn't exist.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk
Gary Jones (ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Recently. Charles Gregory <ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote
: >
: >"Paranormal" covers most phenomena not explained by current science.
: By this definition, the recently-observed jets of bright material
: emerging above thunderclouds would count as paranormal. So would solar
: neutrinos, which are observed in much lower numbers than is predicted by
: current models of stellar fusion. To describe these natural phenomena as
: "paranormal" seems just plain wrong to me.
"Paranormal" simply means outside the normal. It's not a very useful
term, for the reasons you give above. Phenomina which are obviously
not those intended fall into such a category, whilst those that are
may well not be included at all. I don't like "Supernatural" for the
same reason - the word bears no resemblence to the subjects that are
intended to fall under it.
: In fact, every scientific research paper attempts to shed new light on
: some less than perfectly understood phenomenon. I doubt whether the
: authors of these papers would consider themselves to be investigating
: paranormal phenomena.
Would there be any point in writing papers on perfectly understood
phenomina? :)
: I am left to propose the flippant definition:
: Paranormal: that which can never be accounted-for by rational means
: because it doesn't exist.
Actually, that's not as flippant as it sounds, so long as the definiton
of "natural" phenomina allows for anything that does exist and therefore
can be accounted-for by rational means. (eg: if spoon-bending does prove
to exist, then it must qualify as natural, since it would fall foul of
the definition of paranormal.)
For those who argue that not everything can be accounted for by current
rational means, well, I'd argue that that isn't true. If by existing,
something qualifies as natural, then anything that measures or analyses
that must qualify as a rational means of doing so, so long as the
mechanism by which the two are connected also qualifies as natural.
Since those involved in these exotic phenomina must be making some form
of measurements to know that they're involved at all, if what they are
doing has any real existance, then so have the measurements and therefore
a rational mechanism for understanding exists.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <U8PHJOAI...@bohr.demon.co.uk>,
Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Recently. Charles Gregory <ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote
>>
>>"Paranormal" covers most phenomena not explained by current science.
>
>By this definition, the recently-observed jets of bright material
>emerging above thunderclouds would count as paranormal. So would solar
>neutrinos, which are observed in much lower numbers than is predicted by
>current models of stellar fusion. To describe these natural phenomena as
>"paranormal" seems just plain wrong to me.
>
>>
>>Paranormal--occurances that are beyond the explanation of
>> traditional science. Things that do not fit with the
>> percieved "natural" occurances.
>
>This is better, although it's not made clear whether such occurences
>will FOREVER be "beyond the explanation of traditional science".
Well, unless you have a paranormal ability to perceive the future, it is
problematic to make this statement. Rather, you might say that it is highly
unlikely that any previously unknown physical laws will ever be discovered
that would explain phenomena currently labelled "paranormal". Now, that I
could agree with.
>As a skeptic, I have great difficulty coming-up with a definition I find
>acceptable.
I suggest that "paranormal" is a label used to describe events which were once
called "supernatural". A supernatural event assumes the suspension of natural
laws by some entity which operates beyond them. In an attempt to bring such
events into a realm where they could be regarded as some sort of physical
process, people interested in studying them using something like the
scientific method needed a label for them that did not include defiance of
physical laws. Thus, a "paranormal" event is one in which the divine
intervention explanation is replaced by the assumption of some unknown
physical process.
In addition, the label "paranormal" is usually applied to supposed properties
of consciousness which apparently violate physical laws, as we understand
them, such as telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, or telekinesis. Ghosts
and other non-corporeal entities would also be included. This is why jets of
bright material in thunderstorms are not considered paranormal, but only
mysterious, while Geller's spoon-bending is a claim of the paranormal.
If the event never happened, could be explained by currently known physical
laws, or its causation was by trickery, that would only change the label to a
"false paranormal" event.
Gary Jones
Recently. Gratuitous Pseudonym <d...@teleport.com> wrote
>Thus, a "paranormal" event is one in which the divine
>intervention explanation is replaced by the assumption of some unknown
>physical process.
>
it's just stuff we don't yet understand?
>In addition, the label "paranormal" is usually applied to supposed properties
>of consciousness which apparently violate physical laws, as we understand
>them, such as telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, or telekinesis.
I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
or remote viewing.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <42Es1EAm...@bohr.demon.co.uk>,
Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Recently. Gratuitous Pseudonym <d...@teleport.com> wrote
>>Thus, a "paranormal" event is one in which the divine
>>intervention explanation is replaced by the assumption of some unknown
>>physical process.
>>
>How is this different to the definition that I objected-to earlier: that
>it's just stuff we don't yet understand?
As I said before, it has to do with the type of event under consideration.
Unexplained phenomena which are not attributed properties of consciousness are
not called paranormal, they are merely thought of as unexplained. There are
many phenomena which we don't have an entirely adequate explanation for, but
we don't call them all "paranormal".
>>In addition, the label "paranormal" is usually applied to supposed
>>properties of consciousness which apparently violate physical laws, as we
>>understand them, such as telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, or
>>telekinesis.
>
>I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
>or remote viewing.
Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected. Thought
is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain. How do these
nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any connection
at all between them? This is an apparent violation of cause and effect. The
same objection can be made for remote viewing.
TOM ELEVEN
In article <4pko88$3...@nadine.teleport.com>, d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous
Pseudonym) writes:
>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
Thought
>is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain. How do these
>nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any
>connection
>at all between them? This is an apparent violation of cause and effect.
The
>
>same objection can be made for remote viewing.
>
>
Despite the denyal by the uninformed, Telepathy DOES exist. The above
objections are valid, however. NO "thought waves" have ever been
detected. So how does telepathy work? We know two things, First of all
that it DOES work and secondly, that it DOES NOT work according to the
"radio" principle as described above--a common misconception of the
principle involved.
One theory could be a "fourth dimentional"" mind field", that
effectively pervades the entire 3d universe., That is, the mind exists as
an external field with its own unique "frequency" characteristics(so it
dosent get confused with the "mind fields" of other individuals)
Telepathy would then be a simple matter of "tuning in" a part of one's
brain to recieve another "mind field frequency". In this model, telepathy
is "passive" and requires NO TRANSMISSIONS --only a tuning in to an
existant field.
tome...@aol.com Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <4plaoq$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> tome...@aol.com (TOM ELEVEN)
writes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
>Thought
>>is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain. How do
these
>
>>nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any
>>connection
>>at all between them? This is an apparent violation of cause and
effect. (D...@TELEPORT.COM)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no "form of radiant energy" and the brains of two people are
not "instruments." Telepathy does not have to conform to the physical
cause effect laws you refer to. We do not have to find a "radiant
energy" for you. There are many explanations for telepathy, and they
go far beyond "orthodox" science, as you understand it.
As one example of your apparent understanding of what a mind is, that
would be the transmitter, it *is* the brain. To others, the mind is
*not* the brain. If the mind were the brain, I'd have to say, yes it's
quite unscientific to suppose a brain could send impulses carried
around the globe. However, it is not the brain that does these things.
I, personally, am not qualified to go into this in depth. I have some
understanding of it, but am not well versed in quantum psysics. One
person has had postings here, and he's written in books for quite a few
years. His name is Jack Sarfatti. If you truly want to explore this
connection between quantum physics and PSI, I recommend you invite him
into a discussion here on USENET.
Also, in my opinion, the matter of how quantum psysics works with PSI
is not provable, except in theory. One can theorize about it, but not
present the theories in an absolutely provable way. If all one is
interested in is absolutely provable orthodox science, then it's
fruitless to even begin such a discussion.
I believe that sarf...@ix.netcom.com, JACK SARFATTI, would be best
qualified on the subject of quantum physics and PSI, as he is a
published author on the subject.
He has posted to alt.paranormal.
______________________________________
http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc
then select
Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
______________________________________
Replies to postings on USENET only,
please, not via e-mail.
______________________________________
Sterling M. Heibeck
<snip>
> but otherwise,
> people might argue that Uri Geller can bend spoons by means which,
> although not currently understood, will one day be discovered and which
> will then form part of accepted scientific understanding.
<snip>
Is that the guy who was on the Johnny Carson show and Carson had spoons
set up for him when he got there (Geller didn't know that Carson had
planned for him to bend the spoons during the show). Geller couldn't bend
the spoons because of "bad vibes" (I think he said something to that
nature.) Funny that he can only bend spoons if HE is the one who sets the
spoons up.
Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong guy, but he sounds like the one.
--
We all want to find the truth, as long as it conforms to our own needs!
Gary Jones
Recently. Gratuitous Pseudonym <d...@teleport.com> wrote
>In article <42Es1EAm...@bohr.demon.co.uk>,
> Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>How is this different to the definition that I objected-to earlier: that
>>it's just stuff we don't yet understand?
>
>As I said before, it has to do with the type of event under consideration.
I've trimmed your post somewhat, but you seem to be saying that whether
or not the label "paranormal" can be applied depends on what the event
is. Well that just begs the original question: which criteria do you use
to decide whether an event is one which warrants being called
"paranormal"? We're just going around in circles.
>>
>>I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
>>or remote viewing.
>
>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
There MIGHT be such phenomena and, if there was, there would presumably
be a hitherto unknown physical process at work. I don't for one moment
believe that these phenomena are real, and, as you say, no known
mechanism could account for them. That is not, however, the same as
saying that these phenomena actually violate physical laws as they are
currently understood. Before the discovery of electromagnetic waves,
transmitting signals by radio would have appeared completely magical,
yet had Hertz demonstrated radio transmission without Maxwell's
theoretical framework, I don't believe pre-Maxwell physical laws would
have been considerd to have been violated.
My earlier post deliberately didn't refer to all bizarre phenomena being
discussed. Premonition, for instance, WOULD have profound implications
for our understanding of the flow of time, so I didn't list that as not
violating physical law.
Anyway, don't forget that physical "laws" aren't handed down on tablets
of stone; they are just our most informed guess at the way the way the
world behaves. If the phenomenon can be shown to be real and current
physical laws can't account for it, then the laws are wrong.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Rob Glanville
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> There is no "form of radiant energy" and the brains of two people are
> not "instruments." Telepathy does not have to conform to the physical
> cause effect laws you refer to. We do not have to find a "radiant
> energy" for you. There are many explanations for telepathy, and they
> go far beyond "orthodox" science, as you understand it.
I'm not asking for proof of this claim, I just want to know if you
just made it up on the spot, or if you know this to be true from
some experiment, or did you just hear or read somewhere that
telepathy works this way? Is this just your individual belief,
that may or may not be true?
>
> As one example of your apparent understanding of what a mind is, that
> would be the transmitter, it *is* the brain. To others, the mind is
> *not* the brain. If the mind were the brain, I'd have to say, yes
> it's quite unscientific to suppose a brain could send impulses carried
> around the globe. However, it is not the brain that does these
> things.
How do you know this is how the mind works? The same theme keeps coming
up, "We can't prove a thing, but we know how everything works".
>
> I, personally, am not qualified to go into this in depth. I have some
> understanding of it, but am not well versed in quantum physics.
> <snip>
>
> Also, in my opinion, the matter of how quantum physics works with PSI
> is not provable, except in theory. One can theorize about it, but not
> present the theories in an absolutely provable way. If all one is
> interested in is absolutely provable orthodox science, then it's
> fruitless to even begin such a discussion.
Let's see if I got the facts;
1) There is a secret 'stuff' that can't be detected or proved in any way
2) Our minds can detect this secret 'stuff' that isn't energy or mass.
3) Although this secret 'stuff' is floating all around and we are being bathed in it constantly, we can 'tune' into any ones 'stuff' by some unknown and unprovable method and listen in to their thoughts instantly and throughout the universe.
4) Our minds live in some alternate dimension but they can't prove it, and we don't even know it.
5) We know psi exists just because we know psi exists.
6) We don't know how psi works but we have a lot of explanations that can't be tested to show we really do know how psi works.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <Robert_Glanville...@a17-212-12-115.apple.com>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, no, your writing above is not *entirely* the meaning of what I
wrote. I will answer you, but not now. I'll have to take it offline,
put it in my word processor, and answer. Your reply *is* of interest
to me. Hopefully, Jack Sarfatti, the published author on the subject,
will also answer you.
(bdk)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Gregory
ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk () wrote:
> Would there be any point in writing papers on perfectly understood
> phenomina? :)
Strictly speaking, the point of a paper is to make it perfectly understood.
<grin right back at you>
> Since those involved in these exotic phenomina must be making some form
> of measurements to know that they're involved at all, if what they are
> doing has any real existance, then so have the measurements and therefore
> a rational mechanism for understanding exists.
I frequently compare the pursuit of knowledge about psychic phenomena with
the pursuit of knowledge about lightning. It can't be made to occur "full
scale" on demand, etc, etc. It is interesting to note that we still do not
know some of the fundamental processes that occur in thunderstorms. We know
that charges separate in the clouds, but we have no direct evidence for how
this happens (last time I checked <G>). Similarly, the knowledge/measurements
for psychic effects are in the "we can see the charges separate" level of
statistical analysis. There is some good statstical data for what happens,
but we have no ability to recreate anything more dramatic than static
electricity, and have no knowledge of the underlying processes that might
allow us to infer the processes producing "big psychic lightning".
So far, the only explanation proven has been common fraud. But what do you
expect when an ordinary human says he can produce lightning on demand? Now
some people have been STRUCK by lightning (and survived, my lady is one of
them). These people can make credible statements about what it "feels" like.
This is where we stand with psychic phenomena. Beware of those who claim to
produce it on demand, but have an open ear for those "struck" by it.
Bart Scott
In <4pn2df$t...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> dket...@ix.netcom.com(Bruce
know what the hell I'm talking about. I'm just bored and it's raining
outside and I don't have a life. But, should I really stick my nose
into this? Oh, what the hell..."
Secret stuff that doesn't seem to exist but does anyway... Powers that
just as many people believe in that just as many people don't... A
branch of physics that really doesn't appear to be related to physics
at all... Skeptics who knock themselves out trying to disprove the
believers who knock themselves out trying to prove their beliefs...
And the true underlying weirdness of it all is that there is absolutely
no pure, humanly provable reason for us to even be here in order to
discuss these things in the first place.
Fetal position - in the corner - NOW!!
Ok, out of the corner. Let's talk. If you consider the various faces
that energy wears you might find it easier to allow your mind to
envision the strong probability that it may wear far more faces than we
are able to recognize at this time. If we look at the energy spectrum
as we presently perceive it, you see a very wide variety of faces
ranging from invisible infra red, through the various frequencies of
visible light, into invisible ultraviolet, into x-ray, and on into
cosmic rays. I missed a few, but I think you get my drift. Perhaps,
if you think really really hard, you could come up with the question -
What happens when you slow the frequency way down? I mean, WAY down.
What kind of wave or ray would you call it if it only had a frequency
of, just for example, one cycle every twenty million years? You might
perhaps call it "Physical" or "Matter" waves because it would be so
slow it would appear to be solid. Slow it down even further, perhaps
down to one cycle every hundered trillion years and you might call it a
"Universe" wave. Now speed it up. Go even faster. Faster, faster,
FASTER! beyond cosmic rays. Faster, faster still. "Mental" waves?
Faster - "Astral" waves? Faster - "Karmic" waves? Faster, faster -
"Spiritual" waves? Go to the highest frequecies that you can imagine
"Love" waves? Even maybe - should I dare - "God" waves?
We got a lot of learning to do here folks. Quite a lot of learning.
Damn, I'm out of cigarettes. Gotta go.
Bart
Charles Gregory
Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Recently. Charles Gregory <ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote
> >"Paranormal" covers most phenomena not explained by current science.
> By this definition, the recently-observed jets of bright material
> emerging above thunderclouds would count as paranormal.
YES! YES! YES!
Understand that the jets above thunderstorms are likely NOT just "recently
observed" but have probably been seen for years and reported as "weird
lights" and in some people's imaginations as UFOs! With no credible evidence
for their existence, they were likely dismissed and ignored as "impossible".
Now, we have photographic evidence, and because it clearly is an atmospheric
phenomenon, the scientific community gives it some respect.
But, yes, I give it the same degree of paranormality as psychic phenomena.
It has been rarely observed, and only very rarely photographed. If people
were trying to advance "aliens" as the main theory, I don't doubt that
there would be this big rush to discredit the observations as faulty or
even fraudulent. Here again, the personal bias between what scientists will
accept and what they won't is demonstrated. In the case of something that
doesn't threaten the scientist's beliefs/values, the correct attitude is
taken: "Gee, this looks interesting, let's explore it further." as opposed
to "This is fake, so let's test the film stock, analyze it for alterations,
and find evidence for fakery and be sure to demand that the photographer
PROVE his extraordinary claim."
> To describe these natural phenomena as
> "paranormal" seems just plain wrong to me.
Which is the attitude of someone like myself who sees the *possibly* psychic
effects personally witnessed as a natural phenomena, and sees it as just
"plain wrong" to be categorizing it differently than those jets of light.
> In fact, every scientific research paper attempts to shed new light on
> some less than perfectly understood phenomenon. I doubt whether the
> authors of these papers would consider themselves to be investigating
> paranormal phenomena.
We're playing fast and loose here, drifting away from the colloquial usage
of "paranormal", but again, you are RIGHT. Things not fully explained by
science could be described with this term. It is only an ASSUMPTION that the
explanation for a new "unexplained" observation will eventually fall into
the current systems of thought, and therefore will be "normal". It is a
similar assumption that the "only" explanation for a "psychic" event *must*
fall into that comfortable well-known system AS WE KNOW IT, that leads to
accusations of gross error and fraud.
> Recently. Will <wi...@one.net> wrote
> >Paranormal--occurances that are beyond the explanation of traditional
> > science. Things that do not fit with the
> > percieved "natural" occurances.
> This is better, although it's not made clear whether such occurences
> will FOREVER be "beyond the explanation of traditional science".
My humble opinion is that NOTHING is "forever" beyond explanation by
science. Using the label "traditional" sets an arbitrary limit that will be
shifted as soon as someone comes up with irrefutable evidence for something
that used to be outside the limit.....
> people might argue that Uri Geller can bend spoons by means which,
> although not currently understood, will one day be discovered and which
> will then form part of accepted scientific understanding.
While I personally think Mr. Randi's explanation of Mr. Geller's spoon
bending is probably correct, if we assume for a minute that someone really
can "bend spoons with their mind", then my attitude would be that such a
"mind force" *would* eventually be "discovered" and accepted as
part of our scientific understanding.
> We then have
> the same problem that we had with the first definition: it doesn't
> distinguish between a "normal" mystery and a "paranormal" one.
As noted, there really isn't a difference, except in the minds of those who
would choose to dismiss certain observations based upon assumptions of
propriety and conformity which were blown out of the water earlier this
century with Quantum Theory.
> As a skeptic, I have great difficulty coming-up with a definition I find
> acceptable. It seems to me that science is an attempt at a rational
> system of enquiry to account as best we can for as many phenomena as
> possible. But what if the phenomena are spurious?
Who judges "spurious"? And on what criteria? Again, assumptions are made
from "common knowledge", about things NOT common.
> If spoon-bending could
> be reliably demonstrated to conjurors and materials scientists such that
> they could not explain how the effect was achieved, then there would be
> a phenomenon worth serious study. Sadly, this is not the case.
But is this conclusive? Just because the high profile "psychics" making the
"big claims" keep turning out to be frauds, does this invalidate the
phenomenon witnessed sporadically and randomly by ordinary people?
I think not. It just leaves it in the same category as those atmospheric
phenomena, BEFORE someone got some good photographs to prove they exist.
> I am left to propose the flippant definition:
> Paranormal: that which can never be accounted-for by rational means
> because it doesn't exist.
If you want to use the term that way, sure. And after reading some of the
stuff on the web, I'd say there is LOTS that it could be applied to, but the
colloquial use of the phrase is a blanket covering some very possibly real
phenomena which WILL be explained sooner or later. Just don't mind us if we
haven't got the "photos" yet. And sorry about all the quacks who keep
producing fake ones. Just keep knocking 'em down, and we'll get a "real"
one, one of these days.....
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4pn0l2$9...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) wrote:
>Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> By this definition, the recently-observed jets of bright material
>> emerging above thunderclouds would count as paranormal.
>
>YES! YES! YES!
>
>Understand that the jets above thunderstorms are likely NOT just "recently
>observed" but have probably been seen for years and reported as "weird
>lights" and in some people's imaginations as UFOs! With no credible evidence
>for their existence, they were likely dismissed and ignored as "impossible".
>Now, we have photographic evidence, and because it clearly is an atmospheric
>phenomenon, the scientific community gives it some respect.
See? That's how it works. A phenomenon has to be clearly observed and
measured before it gets scientific credibility. It didn't turn out to be
UFO's, though, did it?
Nor does it qualify as "paranormal". Most UFO believers would object to the
description of UFO's as paranormal. Certainly scientists would not describe
this atmospheric event as a paranormal occurence.
>But, yes, I give it the same degree of paranormality as psychic phenomena.
>It has been rarely observed, and only very rarely photographed.
Well, now, psychic phenomena are not just rarely observed, they are never
observed. Psychic phenomena have no visible component. They are a supposed
function of consciousness, and inconsistent ones at that, which makes them
very difficult to establish.
>If people were trying to advance "aliens" as the main theory, I don't doubt
>that there would be this big rush to discredit the observations as faulty or
>even fraudulent. Here again, the personal bias between what scientists will
>accept and what they won't is demonstrated.
You need to understand the difference between an observation and an
explanation. The observation of a bright light is not equivalent to an
observation of an alien spacecraft. There may be many explanations for a
bright light. The immediate and arbitrary conclusion that one explanation, an
alien spacecraft, must be true is bound to be scoffed at.
>> To describe these natural phenomena as "paranormal" seems just plain wrong
>> to me.
>
>Which is the attitude of someone like myself who sees the *possibly* psychic
>effects personally witnessed as a natural phenomena, and sees it as just
>"plain wrong" to be categorizing it differently than those jets of light.
Again, it is the difference between an observation and an explanation. You
seem to want your explanation to have equal weight with an observation. It
will never have such weight. No explanation does, not even the ones the
scientists accept.
>> As a skeptic, I have great difficulty coming-up with a definition I find
>> acceptable. It seems to me that science is an attempt at a rational
>> system of enquiry to account as best we can for as many phenomena as
>> possible. But what if the phenomena are spurious?
>
>Who judges "spurious"? And on what criteria? Again, assumptions are made
>from "common knowledge", about things NOT common.
We judge Geller's performances to be spurious, as he has been observed to
resort to trickery and refuses to be observed under controlled conditions. A
fraud is a spurious claim. No one has ever demonstrated a psychic spoon-bend
in front of trained observers in controlled conditions that has not been
spurious. It is not unreasonable, then, to suspect a fraud when someone
claims to be able to psychically bend spoons.
>But is this conclusive? Just because the high profile "psychics" making the
>"big claims" keep turning out to be frauds, does this invalidate the
>phenomenon witnessed sporadically and randomly by ordinary people?
If you can conclusively rule out lies, misperceptions, misrememberances,
trickery, and so forth, then you may make such a case. However, you cannot
rule such things out because the conditions under which the event occurred was
not controlled.
>I think not. It just leaves it in the same category as those atmospheric
>phenomena, BEFORE someone got some good photographs to prove they exist.
Very true. Provide solid evidence and credibility will be established. Until
then, the notion of psychic powers remains an unlikely hypothesis.
>Just keep knocking 'em down, and we'll get a "real" one, one of these
>days.....
Keep the faith, Charles! More than one scientist was eventually able to
convince the skeptics by stubbornly continuing to look until something
substantial was found. Of course, many others stubbornly continued to look
down blind alleys and never got their proof, because they were wrong. Well,
that's the risk you take when you strike out to find something new.
Gary Jones
Recently. dket...@ix.netcom.com wrote
>Also, in my opinion, the matter of how quantum psysics works with PSI
>is not provable, except in theory. One can theorize about it, but not
>present the theories in an absolutely provable way. If all one is
>interested in is absolutely provable orthodox science, then it's
>fruitless to even begin such a discussion.
>
have no idea of the way real science works. There are no certainties in
science, only provisional models which, it is hoped, get better and
better as we grope toward a better understanding of the world.
>I believe that sarf...@ix.netcom.com, JACK SARFATTI, would be best
>qualified on the subject of quantum physics and PSI, as he is a
>published author on the subject.
You seem to be under the impression that the results of quantum
mechanics lend support to claims for such phenomena as telepathy and
precognition. The number of physicists who belive this is about the same
as the number of geologists who believe the earth is flat.
I can assure you that the alleged link between quantum mechanics and
"PSI" is generally considered by practising physicists to be
crackpottery of the highest order, regardless of how "published" the
author is.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Gary Jones
Recently. TOM ELEVEN <tome...@aol.com> wrote
> Despite the denyal by the uninformed, Telepathy DOES exist.
Despite the denial by the uniformed, there IS an invisible unicorn at
the botttom of my garden.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Fredric L. Rice
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>>How is this different to the definition that I objected-to earlier: that
>>it's just stuff we don't yet understand?
>As I said before, it has to do with the type of event under consideration.
>Unexplained phenomena which are not attributed properties of consciousness are
>not called paranormal, they are merely thought of as unexplained.
I've noticed that the label "paranormal" usually refers to a percieved
phenomena, not an observed phenomena. Ghosts, alien abductions,
and everything else which so many people attribute the label
"paranormal" to are mistaken perceptions easilly described through
the soft sciences and doesn't, I opine, warrant the label
"paranormal."
>>I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
>>or remote viewing.
Interesting. <smile> That's probably why the belief persists.
>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected. Thought
>is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain. How do these
>nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any connection
>at all between them? This is an apparent violation of cause and effect. The
>same objection can be made for remote viewing.
Dr. Milton Rothman in his book, "The Science Gap: Dispelling Myths and
Understanding the Realities of Science" covers this physical fact very
well. The physics behind the tranfering of such information requires
_at_minimum_ a family of vector bosons which exhibit physical
properties completely unlike everything else and, in any event, would
have been detected or infered by particle experiments decades ago.
Believers would demand, of course, that "we can't see what science
will discover in the future" and still insist in holding out against
all hope that there are still undiscovered vector bosons which will
grant them scientific vindication for their beliefs. Yet that belief
is predicated upon a mistaken misconception of scientific method;
specifically, that science holds no uncertain truths. In actual fact
scientific method _has_ a plethora of certainties, among them is the
total lack of any force-carrying vector boson which is capable of
doing anything believers have dreamed up, from transfering thoughts
to humans and deities from levitating cars and babby bottles.
---
http://www.stbbs.com/personal/frice/index.htm
The Skeptic Tank direct: (818) 335-9601
Home of the Restored Church of the Star Goat!
Capristellar, fata viam invenient / Honi soit qui mal y pense!
Creationism redux: Give Equal time for the Flat Earth Theory!
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <4pn7qt$4...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> bart...@ix.netcom.com(Bart
Scott) writes:
>
>In <4pn2df$t...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> dket...@ix.netcom.com(Bruce
>Daniel Kettler) writes:
>>
>>In <Robert_Glanville...@a17-212-12-115.apple.com>
>>Robert_G...@QuickMail.Apple.Com (Rob Glanville) writes:
>>>
>>
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>BART WROTE:
<END BART>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<BDK BEGIN>
From: bart...@ix.netcom.com (Bart Scott)
Subject: Re: How does PSI function?
Date: 12 Jun 1996 20:03:41 GMT
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
There is no "form of radiant energy" and the brains of two people
are not "instruments." Telepathy does not have to conform to the
physical cause effect laws you refer to. We do not have to find a
"radiant energy" for you. There are many explanations for telepathy,
and they go far beyond "orthodox" science, as you understand it.
BART WROTE:
I'm not asking for proof of this claim, I just want to know if you
just made it up on the spot, or if you know this to be true from
some experiment, or did you just hear or read somewhere that
telepathy works this way? Is this just your individual belief,
that may or may not be true?
BDK WRITES:
No, I am not making it up, but I don't know it to be true from
some experiment. I've just read these ideas as theories. Whether
it's true or not, I don't believe is an absolute. I believe
that you get beyond certain "givens" in orthodox science, and
you go into what I consider the "mystical" parts of science,
and you cannot have absolute fact, and absolute non-fact. Jack
Sarfatti, can comment upon that, if he wishes.
BDK wrote, again replying to d...@teleport.com:
As one example of your apparent understanding of what a mind is,
that would be the transmitter, it *is* the brain. To others,
the mind is *not* the brain. If the mind were the brain, I'd have
to say, yes it's quite unscientific to suppose a brain could send
impulses carried around the globe. However, it is not the brain
that does these things.
(just added)
John Fitzsimmons has written of the mind, rather than the
brain, in *ARE WE BORN WITH A GIFT OR DO WE DEVELOP A TALENT*
as the way PK works.
BART WROTE:
How do you know this is how the mind works? The same theme keeps
coming up, "We can't prove a thing, but we know how everything
works".
BDK: wrote:
I, personally, am not qualified to go into this in depth. I have
some understanding of it, but am not well versed in quantum physics.
<snip>
Also, in my opinion, the matter of how quantum physics works with
PSI is not provable, except in theory. One can theorize about it,
but not present the theories in an absolutely provable way. If
all one is interested in is absolutely provable orthodox science,
then it's fruitless to even begin such a discussion.
BART WROTE:
Let's see if I got the facts;
1) There is a secret 'stuff' that can't be detected or proved in any
way
BDK:
Depends upon what you mean by "proved." By regular orthodox
scientific methods, I'd say *no*.
2) Our minds can detect this secret 'stuff' that isn't energy or
mass.
FROM BDK:
It depends upon who's mind, how well developed the person is,
psychically. Everyone can develop to that point. That it is
neither energy or mass, no I cannot affirm that.
3) Although this secret 'stuff' is floating all around and we are
being bathed in it constantly, we can 'tune' into any ones 'stuff' by
some unknown and unprovable method and listen in to their thoughts
instantly and throughout the universe.
A bit of an exaggeration above, here, but basicly, yes. I cannot
agree it's entirely unknown and unprovable, and that we can tune
in instantly throughout the universe at will, every time, and without
any fail, that is infallibly.
4) Our minds live in some alternate dimension but they can't prove
it, and we don't even know it.
FROM BDK:
Well, concrete proof of the above, to an orthodox scientist,
probably will never come.
5) We know psi exists just because we know psi exists.
FROM BDK:
Well, no, that's not the case. There are 4 forums on
alt.paranormal:
Developing Psychic Abilities -- not a prove-it forum
How Does PSI function -- not one either
The Demand To prove that Psychics exist -- yes, a prove-it forum
Are we born with a gift or do we
develop a talent not a prove-it forum
No, certain people know psi exists from personal experience.
Others, believe it somewhat from other's experience, and their
own intuition.
Everyone, including you, has had psychic experiences.
Then there are those who are interested in research,
statistics, etc.
I have no interest in proving PSI to anyone, but rather suggest
to those who want proof that they debate with others who like to
do that, or that they go to a WWW site that has many cross
references to research done around the world with PSI. Mine
has excellent references: http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc
and then select "Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena."
6) We don't know how psi works but we have a lot of explanations that
can't be tested to show we really do know how psi works.
FROM BDK:
No, not quite. We have explanations, but they are not proof, in
my opinion, that show we really do know how psi works. The
explanations are useful for *true* skeptics, though, if they want
to delve into theory, rather than just fact. I feel that *ideas*
are important in exploration, not just hard *facts.*
As to whether the explanations can be tested, I suggest you
ask Jack Saffarti if he decides to get into this discussion.
I suggest you write to him, Jack, if you're interested, and ask
him to recommend some books in the library on the subject
of quantum physics, especially as it relates to PSI.
sarf...@ix.netcom.com
Also, for the *true* skeptic, one who honestly does not know,
but want's to experiment. Try psychic development. Sure,
it's harder without belief. However, what better way to
discover, than to actually go through exercises that improve
psychic ability. Start with a book, probably in your
library, YOU ARE PSYCHIC, by Pete Sanders, an MIT trained
scientist.
I'll tell you of an old book I have and I bought it about
21 years ago when it was first published in 1975.
SPACE, TIME, and BEYOND
by
Bob Toben
in conversation with physicists
Jack Sarfatti [sarf...@ix.netcom.com]
and
Fred Wolf
In that book, (and I do hope the Jack Sarfatti will join this
discussion)
Knowledge of the Past,
Present, and future is explained:
"There is no such thing as time. Time has no basic direction on the
quantum level."
"All events exist concurrently. Wormholes in the great quantum
foam can connect any event with any other event."
TELEPATHY:
Messages can travel through WORMHOLES in the sea of space.
These are beyond space-time, so distance is meaningless,
as is time.
__________________________________________________________
These are not statements to be "bought" or not. These are
ideas. They are not, to me, something a person accepts as
doctrine, but rather ideas to be explored, as is TOMELEVEN
doing with the ideas he presents. TOMELEVEN is presenting
ideas, as I see it, that are complimentary to the above.
_________________________________________________________
And, because these are not *concrete* things, I don't feel
that any more than honest discussion of them as *ideas*
is feasible. I don't feel that *debate* is something one
can do with quantum physics and PSI. ONe can do it with the
HYMAN UTTS controversy, but this, to me, just doesn't fit
*debate*. Perhaps Jack has another idea on that.
__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <4pnmms$g...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> dket...@ix.netcom.com(Bruce
OK, now I was given this WWW site. Anyone wanting to write about
Jack Sarfatti, should look at his site:
He's the guy who makes the connection between quantum physics and
PSI.
Bart Scott
I understand that you have been involved in a number of flames. I was
willing to give you a chance. I'm giving you another chance.
You really need to stop screwing the facts up. If you cannot see what
you did then you really do need to get some help. You put my name on
other people's posts. Those weren't my words!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I thought we were going to get something across here. But your
word processor seems to have malfunctioned. Please get it fixed before
you post my name again.
Bart
Fredric L. Rice
Bart Scott
In <4po5bd$7...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> dket...@ix.netcom.com(Bruce
Daniel Kettler) writes:
>
>In <4pnv5h$5...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> bart...@ix.netcom.com(Bart
>Scott) writes:
>>
>>I understand that you have been involved in a number of flames. I
was
>>willing to give you a chance. I'm giving you another chance.
>>
>>You really need to stop screwing the facts up. If you cannot see
what
>>you did then you really do need to get some help. You put my name on
>>other people's posts. Those weren't my words!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>You want to know what I think? I think I was trying to get a nice
>thread going with a couple of "skeptics." I think I was trying to
>be a nice guy, get into some friendly dialogue.
>
>I don't think that it's possible. Anyone who presents any kind
>of resistance, any kind of intelligence, any kind of ability to
>actually communicate without being bullied by your kind, just doesn't
>stand a chance.
>
>So, I quit. I have finally learned, and I will follow the example
>of so many really intelligent people, who have tried and failed to
>actually have some real dialogue with you people.
>
>One example, just recently, called "shit for brains" by some low life
>"skeptic" was Charles Gregory.
>
>Another one, who's name I won't mention tried to get through the
>insane illogic of TWITCH, and just gave up trying for a dialogue.
>
>I really have learned.
>
>It can only be a waste of time to try to communicate with RABID,
>FUNDAMENTALIST, SO-CALLED "skeptics."
>
>Forget it.
>
>The only communcation you will have from me will be one-way, writing
>about you people.
>(BDK)
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>>Now I thought we were going to get something across here. But your
>>word processor seems to have malfunctioned. Please get it fixed
>before
>>you post my name again.
>>
>>Bart
>>
>
---------------
Something is wrong here, Bruce. You appear to show strong
characteristics of paranoia. Nobody really wants to get you, but you
piss people off for no apparent reason. Do you have any clue as to why
that may be?
I have no idea what you are talking about in this post. I am not a
skeptic. I don't think that anything I've ever written would even come
close to making me appear to be a skeptic.
There is something wrong here, Bruce. Please seek help before you hurt
someone. Please seek help before someone hurts you.
Bart
Bart Scott
In <4pnkst$p...@news.paonline.com> fr...@stbbs.com (Fredric L. Rice)
writes:
Bart
Bruce Daniel Kettler
I really have learned.
Forget it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fredric L. Rice
shei...@wc-m.com (Sterling M. Heibeck) wrote:
>> but otherwise,
>> people might argue that Uri Geller can bend spoons by means which,
>> although not currently understood, will one day be discovered and which
>> will then form part of accepted scientific understanding.
><snip>
>Is that the guy who was on the Johnny Carson show and Carson had spoons
>set up for him when he got there (Geller didn't know that Carson had
>planned for him to bend the spoons during the show). Geller couldn't bend
>the spoons because of "bad vibes" (I think he said something to that
>nature.) Funny that he can only bend spoons if HE is the one who sets the
>spoons up.
That's the guy, yeah. James Randi also showed up and showed the
audience how Geller performs his tricks and how he trys to pretend
he's got "supernatural powers." <smirk>
Randi covered all the dope on the dope in his book, "The Truth about
Uri Geller." Geller sued Randi because Randi said that the kinds of
tricks that Geller performs are like those he used to find on the back
of cereal boxes when he was a kid. He further said that apparently
scientists don't eat cereal any more.
(References available upon email request)
Gary Jones
Recently. dket...@ix.netcom.com wrote
>
>I really have learned.
>
>It can only be a waste of time to try to communicate with RABID,
>FUNDAMENTALIST, SO-CALLED "skeptics."
>
>Forget it.
>
>The only communcation you will have from me will be one-way, writing
>about you people.
I hope that "you people" doesn't refer to all sceptics.
I would call myself a sceptic, but I wouldn't call myself rabid or
fundamentalist. I trust that you will continue to respond to posts from
those of us who are critical but civil.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4pnkst$p...@news.paonline.com>,
fr...@stbbs.com (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>>As I said before, it has to do with the type of event under consideration.
>>Unexplained phenomena which are not attributed properties of consciousness
>>are not called paranormal, they are merely thought of as unexplained.
>
>I've noticed that the label "paranormal" usually refers to a percieved
>phenomena, not an observed phenomena. Ghosts, alien abductions,
>and everything else which so many people attribute the label
>"paranormal" to are mistaken perceptions easilly described through
>the soft sciences and doesn't, I opine, warrant the label
>"paranormal."
I think it goes further than that. Some of what are called paranormal
phenomena may be quite accurate perceptions, although the explanation for them
is probably in error. Consider the case of the man James Randi tested who
claimed that he could, by paranormal means, read a phonograph record's
contents without playing it. In fact, he could do so, but the explanation was
his extremely keen eyesight, with which he could discern the variations in the
record grooves. He was not misperceiving, but he was mis-explaining.
I'd agree, though, that most of what is called paranormal is misperception of
one kind or another, which is probably why it is so elusive under controlled
conditions. Controls are meant to dispel illusions.
Rob Glanville
Bart Scott wrote:
> You put my name on other people's posts. Those weren't my words!!!!!!!!!!!!
I haven't laughed this much in a long time. I don't know how you managed
to make off with my works, but give them back right away. I saw Bruce's
responce and said "Who's this Bart dude, and how did he get credit for my
list of psi features?". If someone can't get the physical world straight,
what chance do they have with the non physical world?
By the way, I think we need a new term for this alternate world where our
senses don't function. So I propose we call it the 'Nonsense World'. Or how
about the 'Senseless World'. Or does 'The World of Senselessness' sound better?
Rob G. (Not Bart)
Patrick C Mills
'Scientifically impossible' and truely impossible are two COMPLETELY
different things. Science only sets boundaries for the reality we
understand. Scientific impossibilities are becoming very real
possibilities all the time. If I remember right, it was once
scientifically impossible to travel faster than sound, and here we got
jets doing it every day.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Malkav:
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) ascii by Felix Lee
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <Dsxpu...@news.hawaii.edu>,
pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu (Patrick C Mills) wrote:
>'Scientifically impossible' and truely impossible are two COMPLETELY
>different things. Science only sets boundaries for the reality we
>understand. Scientific impossibilities are becoming very real
>possibilities all the time. If I remember right, it was once
>scientifically impossible to travel faster than sound, and here we got
>jets doing it every day.
I think that the term "scientifically impossible" is inaccurate. While remote
viewing may be considered impossible according to currently accepted theory,
that is not the same as saying that it is utterly impossible. Theories are
subject to revision. Now, there are some very good reasons why the current
theories about the transmission of information at a distance are accepted. It
is because there is a wealth of carefully checked data which supports them.
Those theories would have to be refuted by carefully designed experiments
which could be replicated with the same results before one could reasonably
assert anything more than the merest sliver of hope that remote viewing or
telepathy could be real.
A carefully controlled and replicable experiment in which such things were
clearly demonstrated would do the job nicely. Unfortunately, no one has ever
devised one, despite a century of attempts. Well, there's always tomorrow.
Hope springs eternal.
Bart Scott
statement "Who is this 'Bart' dude and how did he get credit for
Bruce's PSI material?" means. That's not an exact quote - but close
enough. I want to make it clear, right now, that I didn't take credit
for anyone's stuff. What post was that in?
Bart (Not Bruce or Rob or anyone else - Just Bart)
Double Aquarius
fr...@stbbs.com (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>>>How is this different to the definition that I objected-to earlier: that
>>>it's just stuff we don't yet understand?
>>As I said before, it has to do with the type of event under consideration.
>>Unexplained phenomena which are not attributed properties of consciousness are
>>not called paranormal, they are merely thought of as unexplained.
>I've noticed that the label "paranormal" usually refers to a percieved
>phenomena, not an observed phenomena. Ghosts, alien abductions,
>and everything else which so many people attribute the label
>"paranormal" to are mistaken perceptions easilly described through
>the soft sciences and doesn't, I opine, warrant the label
>"paranormal."
They are not necessarily "mistaken perceptions". They might be, and
they might not be. If you can't prove that all sightings of ghosts
and UFOs are "hallucinations", then you cannot make any quantifiable
judgment on the matter, simply because these phenomena seem weird to
you. It is not that much in conflict with objective reality for a
spirit to remain in the house where it "died", or for aliens to exist.
One must look at these things as rationally as possible. I for
example think that aliens must exist, because of the sheer number of
other planets out there that could have produced life. That they've
come to earth is far less likely (but not impossible) due to the fact
that we're so very far away and generally, as a species, so
disagreeable. (I mean, if you were an alien thinking of coming to
Earth and got one glimpse of an old UFO movie from the fifties, you'd
probably turn tail and run the other direction.)
>>>I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
>>>or remote viewing.
You're right.
>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
The radiant energy of mind or consciousness or soul (whatever you
prefer to call it) is at an extremely high frequency and low
amplitude. It hasn't ever been detected because the machinery we use
to detect energy is far too primitive; it can only detect lower forms
of energy that have very definite manifestations on the physical
plane.
Thought
>>is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain.
You've got this backwards. The nerve impulses in the neurons of the
brain are the result of thought. First your mind thinks the thought,
then the impulses fire. If what you are saying were true, then all we
would have to do is find out a way to stimulate nerve impulses in a
dead body, and those impulses would produce "thought". Except that's
not the way it works. Thought is dependent upon consciousness, and
consciousness is a function of the mind.
How do these
>>nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any connection
>>at all between them? This is an apparent violation of cause and effect. The
>>same objection can be made for remote viewing.
The nerve impulses do not move from one body to another. Nerve
impulses are of the brain, thought is of the mind. Nerve impulses are
chemical messages sent through nerve tissue and brain tissue within
the body to allow the mind to "control" the body. They're our way of
telling our arm that we want it to pick up a cup off the table, or
lift our legs so that we can cross the room.
Thought energy is another story. It has no physical properties; it is
pure energy on the highest level. It is not constricted by decay over
distance or any other limitations. You can literally be thousands of
miles away from someone and receive thought transmissions instantly
from them, faster than a telephone call.
This energy is everywhere. It is all around us. But, necessarily, we
as humans have had to create a way to shut out all this "thought
noise". Essentially our mind is enclosed in our bodies so that all
outside ethereal signals are blocked out. It's like being shut inside
a soundproofed, lightproofed box. Nothing can get in or out. Then we
are given a machine (the brain) to give us our connection to the
outside world. Through our eyes we can see, through our ears we can
hear, through our skin and nerves we can feel, but the astral versions
of these sensations are blocked out, because if they weren't, we
wouldn't last very long. If we were unable to block these things out,
we would very quickly become confused and disoriented, and perhaps
even go insane. Many people who become brain damaged and start
accessing these things do in fact go insane; and insanity itself does
sometimes open people up to seeing these types of phenomena.
Nonetheless, not all hallucinations are views of the astral plane.
Some are misfiring of the brain's chemical messages, or a "waking
dream". But it can be difficult or impossible to tell the difference
between these if one is brain damaged or has schizophrenia.
When a mind/soul is not in a physical body, telepathy by way of pure
thought is the way it communicates with other mind/souls. Before we
entered the physical body, we had this information, but upon the entry
into a body we become amnesic, forgetting all that has come before
this incarnation.
I am able to access these truths because I have some rudimentary
memory of the time before my birth. It has seemed to me that most
people are not able to recover those memories, so in that way I am
probably unusual. My memories have been fairly general; there are
many specifics that I haven't been able to recover, but that's usually
the way soul memory works. You remember emotion and generalities
first; it takes a great deal of meditation and concentration to
remember details of any kind. They have come up in flashes for me,
but the pass so quickly (literally a tenth of a second) that they're
hard to grasp before they disappear.
I have also experienced telepathy first-hand, several times over
significant distances, and I have met others who report the same
experience. I also experience empathy (the transferrance of emotion)
to such a degree as to be distressing. Most people are securely
sealed within their soundproof boxes; I'm running around with mine
hanging open.
Psychics are the same way. (Real psychics, that is; there are many
charlatans.) The normal person would be totally blind in every way;
and a psychic would still qualify as legally blind, but would be able
to see vague shadows, lights and shapes. The problem, as you can see
here, that even with a true psychic you can get a situation of the
blind leading the blind. But if one can see well enough to navigate,
you might get somewhere.
More later....
>Believers would demand, of course, that "we can't see what science
>will discover in the future" and still insist in holding out against
>all hope that there are still undiscovered vector bosons which will
>grant them scientific vindication for their beliefs. Yet that belief
>is predicated upon a mistaken misconception of scientific method;
>specifically, that science holds no uncertain truths. In actual fact
>scientific method _has_ a plethora of certainties, among them is the
>total lack of any force-carrying vector boson which is capable of
>doing anything believers have dreamed up, from transfering thoughts
>to humans and deities from levitating cars and babby bottles.
The truths that science has found are relatively certain, but it
cannot be said that science holds no uncertain truths. It has many
uncertainties. But more than that is the fact that science has only
explained a very small fraction of all phenomena in the universe.
Science cannot quantify many things, because many things cannot be
quantified. For science to claim that it can quantify all or even
most things in the universe is not only arrogance, it's sheer idiocy.
Most scientists do not claim to have a handle on the universe's
truths. They understand their limitations, and are careful to only
quantify those things they can find legitimate proof for or against
with the scientific method (i.e. experimentation), and they remain
silent, as they should, about peripheral issues.
If you want to debunk these theories then fine, but you can't do it
with more theories. Either do an experiment to prove your point, or
join the rest of the scientific community in their silence on these
issues.
pharaoh chromium 93
There is an experiement that was done and I believe that it was a good
one if you want more details I will see what I can dig up.
Bart Scott
Whooops!!!!!!!!!!
I misread your post. I read something into it that was not there. I
didn't realize that you were actually the one who's words my name was
associated with. Boy, this is really screwy. Total communication
break down. It IS funny though. I really should laugh about it more
than I have been. If you've read my previous post then you've been
laughing more, because you'll see that before I posted it something
obviously made me think twice. I suppose I should have thought three
times. You just never know how much thinking you should do before you
make the final decision to act on something or not to act.
Bart
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4pq129$s...@library.airnews.net>,
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>It is not that much in conflict with objective reality for a
>spirit to remain in the house where it "died", or for aliens to exist.
>One must look at these things as rationally as possible.
It does seem rational, until you look for evidence that spirits actually
exist. That's where the logic breaks down. There is no serious evidence that
indicates the existence of any sort of "spirit". Once you make that arbitrary
and baseless assumption, then all sorts of things that are not very likely
seem quite reasonable.
>>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
>
>The radiant energy of mind or consciousness or soul (whatever you
>prefer to call it) is at an extremely high frequency and low
>amplitude. It hasn't ever been detected because the machinery we use
>to detect energy is far too primitive; it can only detect lower forms
>of energy that have very definite manifestations on the physical
>plane.
If it has never been detected, how do you know what it's frequency and
amplitude are? You have done it again. First, make the assumption that the
thing for which no evidence can be found really exists. Then, rationalize why
it can't be found. Tell me how you rationally deduce the qualities of a thing
which has no detectable or measurable properties.
>>>Thought is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain.
>
>You've got this backwards. The nerve impulses in the neurons of the
>brain are the result of thought. First your mind thinks the thought,
>then the impulses fire.
OK, where did you find evidence for this one?
>If what you are saying were true, then all we
>would have to do is find out a way to stimulate nerve impulses in a
>dead body, and those impulses would produce "thought".
Of course, it could be happening that way. The dead person simply wouldn't be
telling you about it. <g>
However, I have a much better idea and it has even been tried. Not only has
it been tried, but it works. During brain surgery, electrically stimulate
some neurons and see what your patient reports. The results are that the
patient reports sudden flashes of vivid memories or sensations. I'd call that
pretty good evidence for the production of thought by means of neuronic
activity and not the other way around.
>Thought energy is another story. It has no physical properties; it is
>pure energy on the highest level. It is not constricted by decay over
>distance or any other limitations. You can literally be thousands of
>miles away from someone and receive thought transmissions instantly
>from them, faster than a telephone call.
Demonstrate it under controlled conditions. All you are doing is fantasizing.
You have no evidence at all that this is true. Again, how do you determine
the qualities of a thing which has no detectable properties?
>When a mind/soul is not in a physical body, telepathy by way of pure
>thought is the way it communicates with other mind/souls.
OK, trot out a couple of these non-physical people to testify to that. They
can contact me by telepathy. I'll be sure to let you know as soon as they do
so.
>I am able to access these truths because I have some rudimentary
>memory of the time before my birth.
I think you have some elaborate fantasies about the time before your birth.
How could you determine which of us is right?
>I have also experienced telepathy first-hand, several times over
>significant distances, and I have met others who report the same
>experience.
I have met many people who make these kinds of claims. Not one of them has
demonstrated this apparently common occurence under controlled conditions. As
far as I'm concerned, your just another tale-teller. Show me.
>Science cannot quantify many things, because many things cannot be
>quantified.
You can't count what you can't detect. You also can't count what isn't there.
Nor can you tell the difference between something undetectable and something
non-existent. You are merely speculating. When you have some real evidence,
I'll be glad to look at it.
>If you want to debunk these theories then fine, but you can't do it
>with more theories. Either do an experiment to prove your point, or
>join the rest of the scientific community in their silence on these
>issues.
I'd make a similar challenge to you: Do a controlled and replicable
experiment to prove your point or be silent on these issues.
CIN Guest User
Regrettably, science tends to be just as much dogmatic as does
religion. In this sense, science is no different to religion or
any other subject. Also, one will find that science is not
wholly based on observation and experiment, for in a very real
sense it also is based on faith. After all, scientists and
those interested in science have to have faith in their
numerous theories.
In my humble opinion and with all due respect to science,
scientists and those interested therein must learn to become
somewhat less dogmatic and accept that attachment to a subject
can precipitate that exact propencity they claim abounds in
religion and things spiritual.
So much of science's beliefs anent so-called paranormal
subjects is based purely on speculation and preconceptions.
Indeed, science has so little genuine understanding of even the
physical universe that I wonder how they can claim so intensely
that they are absolutely correct on these issues.
Gavin
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>It does seem rational, until you look for evidence that spirits actually
>exist. That's where the logic breaks down. There is no serious evidence that
>indicates the existence of any sort of "spirit". Once you make that arbitrary
>and baseless assumption, then all sorts of things that are not very likely
>seem quite reasonable.
There's no serious reason to believe in the existence of quantum
particles or electrons either. Sure, scientists observe them in their
experiments, but then magicians observe spirits too...
joshua geller
In article <42Es1EAm...@bohr.demon.co.uk> Gary Jones
<ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Recently. Gratuitous Pseudonym <d...@teleport.com> wrote
> >Thus, a "paranormal" event is one in which the divine
> >intervention explanation is replaced by the assumption of some unknown
> >physical process.
> How is this different to the definition that I objected-to earlier: that
> it's just stuff we don't yet understand?
> >In addition, the label "paranormal" is usually applied to
> >supposed properties of consciousness which apparently violate
> >physical laws, as we understand them, such as telepathy,
> >precognition, remote viewing, or telekinesis.
> I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
> or remote viewing.
there is no known mechanism that would allow it. this is not
surprising, since a phenomena must be demonstrated to exist before
mechanisms are proposed for its operation.
note followup.
josh
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <2ppliDAQ...@bohr.demon.co.uk>,
>>As I said before, it has to do with the type of event under consideration.
>
>I've trimmed your post somewhat, but you seem to be saying that whether
>or not the label "paranormal" can be applied depends on what the event
>is. Well that just begs the original question: which criteria do you use
>to decide whether an event is one which warrants being called
>"paranormal"? We're just going around in circles.
But, Gary, you trimmed away the very essence of my point. A paranormal event
is an event involving consciousness and its interaction with the world around
the conscious entity. A physical phenomenon which does not involve any entity
to which consciousness is attributed is not a paranormal event. Further, the
event in question must not only involve consciousness but must also be at odds
with currently accepted theories of physics or some other hard science.
I suggest that the term "paranormal" was coined in order to avoid the semantic
connotations of the term "supernatural". They both deal with essentially the
same phenomena, but use somewhat different philosophical standpoints, both of
which consider the phenomena in question to be real and unexplainable by
currently accepted "mainstream" theories.
>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
>
>There MIGHT be such phenomena and, if there was, there would presumably
>be a hitherto unknown physical process at work. I don't for one moment
>believe that these phenomena are real, and, as you say, no known
>mechanism could account for them. That is not, however, the same as
>saying that these phenomena actually violate physical laws as they are
>currently understood.
That's why I used the phrases "apparent violation of physical laws" and
"currently accepted theories" in my attempts at a definition.
>Anyway, don't forget that physical "laws" aren't handed down on tablets
>of stone; they are just our most informed guess at the way the way the
>world behaves. If the phenomenon can be shown to be real and current
>physical laws can't account for it, then the laws are wrong.
I agree with this paragraph completely.
Double Aquarius
pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu (Patrick C Mills) wrote:
>'Scientifically impossible' and truely impossible are two COMPLETELY
>different things. Science only sets boundaries for the reality we
>understand. Scientific impossibilities are becoming very real
>possibilities all the time. If I remember right, it was once
>scientifically impossible to travel faster than sound, and here we got
>jets doing it every day.
Exactly. Scientists used to think that a human being would die if he
traveled at a speed faster than twenty miles per hour. We all know
how that ended up.
Double Aquarius
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>In article <4pq129$s...@library.airnews.net>,
> jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>>It is not that much in conflict with objective reality for a
>>spirit to remain in the house where it "died", or for aliens to exist.
>>One must look at these things as rationally as possible.
>It does seem rational, until you look for evidence that spirits actually
>exist. That's where the logic breaks down. There is no serious evidence that
>indicates the existence of any sort of "spirit". Once you make that arbitrary
>and baseless assumption, then all sorts of things that are not very likely
>seem quite reasonable.
You are also making a baseless assumption; that because there is no
evidence they *must* not exist. If there is no evidence for or
against, we must assume that they might exist, but we simply do not
know for sure. But as long as there is a possibility, we must
consider that possibility.
>>>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
>>
>>The radiant energy of mind or consciousness or soul (whatever you
>>prefer to call it) is at an extremely high frequency and low
>>amplitude. It hasn't ever been detected because the machinery we use
>>to detect energy is far too primitive; it can only detect lower forms
>>of energy that have very definite manifestations on the physical
>>plane.
>If it has never been detected, how do you know what it's frequency and
>amplitude are? You have done it again. First, make the assumption that the
>thing for which no evidence can be found really exists. Then, rationalize why
>it can't be found. Tell me how you rationally deduce the qualities of a thing
>which has no detectable or measurable properties.
My source is esoteric, and rational. I cannot verify that these are
absolutely correct; however, by a process of elimination we can
determine what it is not, and go from there. Look at it this way;
Conscious is *not* any of the forms of energy we can detect with
modern machinery. Machinery can detect a very large range of
energies. It could be an incredibly low vibration and high amplitude;
but I would think this extremely unlikely, because lower vibrations
and larger amplitudes usually represent baser forms of energy. Thus,
my conclusion that it *must* be a high vibration and low amplitude. I
may be off in my assumptions, but that does not invalidate my general
conclusion. I have innate feelings about the subject, and I have used
my rationale and scientific findings to verify them.
>>>>Thought is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain.
>>
>>You've got this backwards. The nerve impulses in the neurons of the
>>brain are the result of thought. First your mind thinks the thought,
>>then the impulses fire.
>OK, where did you find evidence for this one?
A brain in and of itself has no initiative. Initiative comes from
life, from consciousness, from being. Initiative, emotion, desire,
these are functions of a living being. Your arm does not move itself.
It has no motivation to move. *You* decide to move it, and then you
use your brain to make it move. If there is no decision, there is no
movement. There is a very simple cause and effect relationship here.
You can't get them backwards, or it doesn't work.
>>If what you are saying were true, then all we
>>would have to do is find out a way to stimulate nerve impulses in a
>>dead body, and those impulses would produce "thought".
>Of course, it could be happening that way. The dead person simply wouldn't be
>telling you about it. <g>
"Dead person" is an oxymoron. A human body must be alive to be a
person.
>However, I have a much better idea and it has even been tried. Not only has
>it been tried, but it works. During brain surgery, electrically stimulate
>some neurons and see what your patient reports. The results are that the
>patient reports sudden flashes of vivid memories or sensations. I'd call that
>pretty good evidence for the production of thought by means of neuronic
>activity and not the other way around.
You have "stimulated" something. That does not mean the same thing as
creating it. There must be a living entity in the body for these
sensations to occur. If not, it would be like turning on a light in
an empty house. No one would see anything, because the lights are on
and no one's home.
>>Thought energy is another story. It has no physical properties; it is
>>pure energy on the highest level. It is not constricted by decay over
>>distance or any other limitations. You can literally be thousands of
>>miles away from someone and receive thought transmissions instantly
>>from them, faster than a telephone call.
>Demonstrate it under controlled conditions. All you are doing is fantasizing.
>You have no evidence at all that this is true. Again, how do you determine
>the qualities of a thing which has no detectable properties?
By a combination of circumstantial evidence and a process of
elimination and instinct, the same as someone solves a murder.
And I was not fantasizing. I was able to verify with the other people
that these events had occurred. I made a point to do so.
For those things which can be quantified, I encourage quantification.
It is a very good thing. But it is necessary for people in science to
understand that not everything is viewable. Just because you have not
seen something does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps you have
read theories in a book. You did not do the experiments yourself, and
you did not witness the results. Yet you know that the conclusions
are true or not true. How do you come to these conclusions?
According to your own admission we should not believe anything until
we see it with our own eyes.
Gary Jones
Recently. Gavin <gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote
>There's no serious reason to believe in the existence of quantum
>particles or electrons either. Sure, scientists observe them in their
>experiments, but then magicians observe spirits too...
If you're reading this on a cathode ray tube, then you're also seeing
the effects of electrons on the screen. The things we observe in the
physical world can best be explained by taking the last resort of
introducing a new entity: so we postulate the existence of a new entity
called an electron. So, although we can't directly see them, we accept
they exist.
I don't quite know what you mean by magicians observing spirits, but
such observations seem most likely to be explainable by means which
don't need the introduction of a new entity. I therefore see no need to
accept that spirits exist.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4prhim$c...@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>,
>>exist. That's where the logic breaks down. There is no serious evidence
>>that indicates the existence of any sort of "spirit". Once you make that
>>arbitrary and baseless assumption, then all sorts of things that are not
>>very likely seem quite reasonable.
>
>particles or electrons either. Sure, scientists observe them in their
>experiments, but then magicians observe spirits too...
The effects observed by nuclear physicists are independently verifiable and
quite consistent, while the observation of "spirits" by magicians is much more
subjective. Still, there is some truth in what you say. When we get into the
realm of interactions so minute that they cannot be directly observed, the
theories become far more tentative.
Perhaps this is why magick and quantum theory get paired up so often. Magick
lives where we become uncertain. Here there be dragons.
Marty G. Price
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
[much snipping in the name of space]
> Believers would demand, of course, that "we can't see what science
> will discover in the future" and still insist in holding out against
> all hope that there are still undiscovered vector bosons which will
> grant them scientific vindication for their beliefs. Yet that belief
> is predicated upon a mistaken misconception of scientific method;
> specifically, that science holds no uncertain truths. In actual fact
> scientific method _has_ a plethora of certainties, among them is the
> total lack of any force-carrying vector boson which is capable of
> doing anything believers have dreamed up, from transfering thoughts
> to humans and deities from levitating cars and babby bottles.
>
Very good, now please explain magnetism without reference to such
"paranormal" phenomena as forces acting at a distance.
A "magnetic field" you say? What is a "field"? Is it like a ghost
holding the object in question?
It ain't a "force-carrying vector boson" and I can damn well levitate a
car with a big enough magnet.
Blessed Be,
Gale
Science can be the road through which we attempt to transcend our
ignorance --- or it can be the wall we use to deny it.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4psr3s$u...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>>There is no serious evidence that indicates the existence of any sort of
>>"spirit". Once you make that arbitrary and baseless assumption, then all
>>sorts of things that are not very likely seem quite reasonable.
>
>You are also making a baseless assumption; that because there is no
>evidence they *must* not exist.
That is untrue. I have no idea whether or not spirits exist. I only know
that there is no evidence for a conclusion that they do. Therefore, it is
premature to assume that they do. It is impossible to have evidence that
something doesn't exist at all. How could you? If it doesn't exist, there
can be no evidence of it. QED. The only reasonable choice is to reject both
assumptions until evidence can be presented.
>>>The radiant energy of mind or consciousness or soul (whatever you
>>>prefer to call it) is at an extremely high frequency and low
>>>amplitude.
>>
>>If it has never been detected, how do you know what it's frequency and
>>amplitude are? You have done it again. First, make the assumption that the
>>thing for which no evidence can be found really exists. Then, rationalize
>>why it can't be found. Tell me how you rationally deduce the qualities of a
>>thing which has no detectable or measurable properties.
>
>My source is esoteric, and rational. I cannot verify that these are
>absolutely correct; however, by a process of elimination we can
>determine what it is not, and go from there.
Please explain this in greater detail. I am not at all clear on your
methodology and reasoning, here. It sounds like you just made it up.
>Conscious is *not* any of the forms of energy we can detect with
>modern machinery.
No? I can say with very great confidence that human consciousness is
associated with the electro-chemical energy of the brain. When that energy
ceases, all evidence of consciousness ceases as well.
>It could be an incredibly low vibration and high amplitude;
>but I would think this extremely unlikely, because lower vibrations
>and larger amplitudes usually represent baser forms of energy.
Please define what you mean by "lower vibrations" and "baser forms of energy".
Those are not standard terms used by physicists to describe energy. They are
terms used by people who believe in New Age religions.
>I may be off in my assumptions, but that does not invalidate my general
>conclusion.
While a false assumption does not necessarily invalidate a conclusion, it
certainly makes it much less likely to be true. I'm not quite sure what your
general conclusion is, though. Could you state it clearly?
>I have innate feelings about the subject, and I have used
>my rationale and scientific findings to verify them.
Please tell me your rationale and cite your scientific findings. It does no
good to say you have them and then not reveal them. Your "innate feelings"
are not evidence of anything but your imagination.
>>>You've got this backwards. The nerve impulses in the neurons of the
>>>brain are the result of thought. First your mind thinks the thought,
>>>then the impulses fire.
>
>>OK, where did you find evidence for this one?
>
>A brain in and of itself has no initiative. Initiative comes from
>life, from consciousness, from being.
This is a statement. It is not evidence. You are merely continuing to assert
the same thing in different words. Please provide *evidence* that your mind
thinks before the neurons fire.
>Your arm does not move itself. It has no motivation to move. *You* decide
>to move it, and then you use your brain to make it move. If there is no
>decision, there is no movement. There is a very simple cause and effect
>relationship here.You can't get them backwards, or it doesn't work.
No?
Have you ever witnessed an epileptic seizure? The brain misfires and takes
the rest of the body on a series of gyrations which have nothing at all to do
with conscious volition. Ask an epileptic if he decides when to have a
seizure and what he will do during one.
Galvani stimulated the muscles of a frog's leg with electricity and it
contracted. The frog's consciousness had nothing whatever to do with it.
If movement can happen without conscious volition, then conscious volition
cannot be considered basic to organic functioning. It is therefore
considerably more likely to be a product of organic functioning than the cause
of it.
>>However, I have a much better idea and it has even been tried. Not only has
>>it been tried, but it works. During brain surgery, electrically stimulate
>>some neurons and see what your patient reports. The results are that the
>>patient reports sudden flashes of vivid memories or sensations. I'd call
>>that pretty good evidence for the production of thought by means of neuronic
>>activity and not the other way around.
>
>You have "stimulated" something. That does not mean the same thing as
>creating it.
Provide me with evidence that something is "created" within the brain out of
nothing at all. You cannot use consciousness itself for this evidence
because, as I have shown, it is equally, if not considerably more, likely that
consciousness arises from organic activity.
>>You have no evidence at all that this is true. Again, how do you determine
>>the qualities of a thing which has no detectable properties?
>
>By a combination of circumstantial evidence and a process of
>elimination and instinct, the same as someone solves a murder.
The way someone starts a witchhunt is more like it.
>For those things which can be quantified, I encourage quantification.
>It is a very good thing. But it is necessary for people in science to
>understand that not everything is viewable.
People in science understand that very well. They just don't wander off into
la-la land, making up a bunch of stuff about things for which they have no
evidence.
>Just because you have not seen something does not mean that it does not
>exist.
Just because you want to believe something does not mean that it must be true
despite the fact that no evidence at all supports your belief.
>Perhaps you have read theories in a book. You did not do the experiments
>yourself, and you did not witness the results. Yet you know that the
>conclusions are true or not true. How do you come to these conclusions?
>According to your own admission we should not believe anything until
>we see it with our own eyes.
Since I have actually witnessed the examples I have presented and I am not
claiming that any conclusion of mine is absolutely true, you are way off. As
usual. On the other hand, you are spouting assertions that this and that are
true despite the fact that you have no evidence beyond your own imaginative
fantasies.
Gary Jones
Recently. Gratuitous Pseudonym <d...@teleport.com> wrote
>In article <2ppliDAQ...@bohr.demon.co.uk>,
> Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I've trimmed your post somewhat,
>
>But, Gary, you trimmed away the very essence of my point.
Agreed. Sorry about that.
> A paranormal event
>is an event involving consciousness and its interaction with the world around
>the conscious entity. A physical phenomenon which does not involve any entity
>to which consciousness is attributed is not a paranormal event. Further, the
>event in question must not only involve consciousness but must also be at odds
>with currently accepted theories of physics or some other hard science.
(Above quote completely untrimmed.)
OK. We now have what I consider to be a potentially useful definition.
There are some problems with it, though.
It seems to exclude phenomena which are often considered to be
paranormal, but which have an existence independent from a conscious
observer. The obvious example is UFOs. (I assume that your definition
isn't intended to refer to the consciousness of an alien pilot. If we're
going to accept consciousness of either the observer of the alleged
event or the consciousness of its causative agent, your definition
covers every possible reportable event, so there would have been no need
to introduce the notion of consciousness into your definition.)
I recently received an e-mail from someone who criticised me for
discussing the definition of the word "paranormal" because...
"most intelligent people realize that the `paranormal' includes such
phenomena as ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition,
synchronicity, various types of hallucination that are entangled with
the above, UFO activity, mediumistic phenomena and so on."
This was from someone who claimed to be a serious student of the
paranormal. UFOs would, apparently, be excluded by your definition but
accepted as paranormal by "most intelligent people". All this just
serves to show how difficult it is to reach agreement on what is, and is
not, "paranormal". Even if it is accepted that your definition is
perfect, we are left with the problem that many other people use the
word "paranormal" as a catch-all term to include UFOs, the Bermuda
Triangle, ancient astronauts, pyramid power and the like. Although I
know what most people mean by "paranormal", I don't think its everyday
meaning is as well thought-out as yours.
Your definition hinges on the idea of consciousness interacting with the
physical world in a way which conflicts with currently understood
orthodox science. I quite like that, but I'm not too happy about what I
see as an arbitrary distinction between consciousness and the rest of
the physical world. What's so special about consciousness that we need
to change the rules of rational enquiry? Why not invent a term
"quasipiscinormal" to cover phenomena involving fish interacting with
the physical world in a way which conflicts with currently understood
orthodox science? It seems a bit pointless, that's why. Similarly, if
there is something not understood about consciousness, and there's
plenty, why not just call its investigation science?
I think the reason a new term is thought by many people to be required
is that they are disturbed by what they see as the unjustified dismissal
of their claims: they are not convinced that orthodox science rejects
the claims because the alleged phenomena being investigated have been
repeatedly demonstrated to be not worth serious investigation by
orthodox science. Since orthodox science is thought to have
unjustifiably turned its back on such bizarre phenomena, a new word is
needed to describe a different world beyond the realm of everyday
science. Hence the perceived need for a word like "paranormal".
I object in principle to the implication of the word, regardless of the
niceties of its definition. In its most general meaning, "paranormal" is
a non-critical term used to cover a range of apparently mysterious
phenomena which manifest themselves in ways which should, in principle,
be detectable and measurable and yet are not recognised by orthodox
science. The implication is either that orthodox science is not the
proper forum to investigate these alleged phenomena, or that the
scientific community is resistant to new ideas.
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
John Fitzsimons
On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 06:36:27 GMT, fr...@stbbs.com (Fredric L. Rice)
wrote:
< snip >
>That's the guy, yeah. James Randi also showed up and showed the
>audience how Geller performs his tricks and how he trys to pretend
>he's got "supernatural powers." <smirk>
< snip >
And how did Randi do that ? What Randi usually does is to show how
Randi *can* fake something. That doesn't mean that anyone else has
faked anything and/or that if they did fake anything that they used
the same method.
Skeptics however are often so incredibly "gullible" and instantly
assume that Randi has "proved" something about Geller. Amazing how
quick they are to "believe". Perhaps their enthusiasm to follow their
guru has meant that they don't need to question (their own) "logic ?
All he has done is prove that people can fool others. Wow ! That
really IS news isn't it ! (?).
Sure is a good thing Randi is around. We wouldn't know that people can
fool others otherwise would we ?
Regards, John.
****************************************************
,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
/ Oz \ jo...@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v
Gary Jones
Recently. John Fitzsimons <jo...@melbpc.org.au> wrote
>Skeptics however are often so incredibly "gullible" and instantly
>assume that Randi has "proved" something about Geller. Amazing how
>quick they are to "believe". Perhaps their enthusiasm to follow their
>guru has meant that they don't need to question (their own) "logic ?
You misunderstand the sceptical position on Randi & Geller. Randi has
not "proved" that Geller is a fraud, and I would be surprised if you
could find any sceptical source to claim such a thing.
What Randi has done is to publicise what he and other stage magicians
have known since Geller first appeared: that the effects that Geller
claims are paranormal in origin CAN be accounted-for by everyday
trickery. The sceptic thereby argues that the only reasonable position,
in accordance with the requirements of Occams Razor, is to assume until
persuaded otherwise that Geller is, indeed, a fraud. This is not the
same as "proving" that Geller is a fraud.
(If you don't know what Occam's Razor is, then you should do. Look it
up.)
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
Double Aquarius (aka J. C.)
"Marty G. Price" <mpr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>[much snipping in the name of space]
>> Believers would demand, of course, that "we can't see what science
>> will discover in the future" and still insist in holding out against
>> all hope that there are still undiscovered vector bosons which will
>> grant them scientific vindication for their beliefs. Yet that belief
>> is predicated upon a mistaken misconception of scientific method;
>> specifically, that science holds no uncertain truths. In actual fact
>> scientific method _has_ a plethora of certainties, among them is the
>> total lack of any force-carrying vector boson which is capable of
>> doing anything believers have dreamed up, from transfering thoughts
>> to humans and deities from levitating cars and babby bottles.
>>
>Very good, now please explain magnetism without reference to such
>"paranormal" phenomena as forces acting at a distance.
>A "magnetic field" you say? What is a "field"? Is it like a ghost
>holding the object in question?
>It ain't a "force-carrying vector boson" and I can damn well levitate a
>car with a big enough magnet.
Gale,
Thank you for your perspective. It is most enlightening.
There are many forces which science is willing to concede the
existence of, such as gravity, which has only indirect evidence of its
existence. But when there is very clear evidence of a consciousness
deliberately and decisively manipulating a body, they refuse to
believe. One must think that there is something in that manipulation
that they fear, because they refuse to even acknowledge its existence.
They prefer a ludicrous explanation which is within the realm of their
experience (vector bosons, weather balloons, spontaneous generation,
Earth centrism) to facing the real truth, which is outside of it.
Or perhaps they simply do not understand? Some things appear to be
beyond their comprehension.
At any rate, I feel that we must not allow their ignorance to in any
way affect our understanding of the true processes of nature. We have
stated truth, and that truth is not negated by their denial.
J. C.
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
#In article <Dsxpu...@news.hawaii.edu>,
# pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu (Patrick C Mills) wrote:
#>'Scientifically impossible' and truely impossible are two COMPLETELY
#>different things. Science only sets boundaries for the reality we
#>understand. Scientific impossibilities are becoming very real
#>possibilities all the time. If I remember right, it was once
#>scientifically impossible to travel faster than sound, and here we
got
#>jets doing it every day.
It was journalistically impossible. There was certainly no strongly
held belief by scientists that faster than sound travel was
impossible. that is why they tried to find out why it was a barrier.
#I think that the term "scientifically impossible" is inaccurate.
While remote
#viewing may be considered impossible according to currently accepted
theory,
#that is not the same as saying that it is utterly impossible.
Theories are
#subject to revision. Now, there are some very good reasons why the
current
#theories about the transmission of information at a distance are
accepted. It
#is because there is a wealth of carefully checked data which supports
them.
Correct.
#Those theories would have to be refuted by carefully designed
experiments
#which could be replicated with the same results before one could
reasonably
#assert anything more than the merest sliver of hope that remote
viewing or
#telepathy could be real.
#A carefully controlled and replicable experiment in which such things
were
#clearly demonstrated would do the job nicely. Unfortunately, no one
has ever
#devised one, despite a century of attempts. Well, there's always
tomorrow.
#Hope springs eternal.
Also correct.
Twitch
Double Aquarius (aka J. C.)
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>In article <4psr3s$u...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
> jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>>>There is no serious evidence that indicates the existence of any sort of
>>>"spirit". Once you make that arbitrary and baseless assumption, then all
>>>sorts of things that are not very likely seem quite reasonable.
>>
>>You are also making a baseless assumption; that because there is no
>>evidence they *must* not exist.
>That is untrue. I have no idea whether or not spirits exist. I only know
>that there is no evidence for a conclusion that they do. Therefore, it is
>premature to assume that they do. It is impossible to have evidence that
>something doesn't exist at all. How could you? If it doesn't exist, there
>can be no evidence of it. QED. The only reasonable choice is to reject both
>assumptions until evidence can be presented.
This is incorrect. The reasonable choice is to hold both options open
as possible until evidence can be presented. To reject both
assumptions would be to make a claim that they are both untrue, which
is impossible.
>>>>The radiant energy of mind or consciousness or soul (whatever you
>>>>prefer to call it) is at an extremely high frequency and low
>>>>amplitude.
>>>
>>>If it has never been detected, how do you know what it's frequency and
>>>amplitude are? You have done it again. First, make the assumption that the
>>>thing for which no evidence can be found really exists. Then, rationalize
>>>why it can't be found. Tell me how you rationally deduce the qualities of a
>>>thing which has no detectable or measurable properties.
>>
>>My source is esoteric, and rational. I cannot verify that these are
>>absolutely correct; however, by a process of elimination we can
>>determine what it is not, and go from there.
>Please explain this in greater detail. I am not at all clear on your
>methodology and reasoning, here. It sounds like you just made it up.
Have you ever tried to argue the fact of the spherical Earth with a
Flat Earth Theorist? It doesn't matter what you say, or what evidence
or logical deductive reasoning you produce. They refuse to listen,
and cannot even comprehend what you are saying because it is outside
the realm of their belief. They negate all instances you cite, for
example, they claim that the moon mission was a hoax. They will fight
as hard as they can to protect their erroneous belief, because they
feel it is necessary to their survival. They cannot stand the thought
that things are not as they appear, and that they have fallen victim
to an illusion.
This is precisely what you are doing. Because it is outside of the
extremely limited scope of your experience, you cannot even conceive
of the nature of consciousness, let alone the fact that you might be
wrong about your mistaken assumption. You have been fooled by an
illusion. People used to be fooled by the illusion that the sun
orbited the earth, but we know better now.
>>Conscious is *not* any of the forms of energy we can detect with
>>modern machinery.
>No? I can say with very great confidence that human consciousness is
>associated with the electro-chemical energy of the brain.
This is correct. Electro-chemical energy is very strongly related and
associated with consciousness. My text files in Windows are also
associated with my Write program, but that does not mean they "are" my
Write program.
>>It could be an incredibly low vibration and high amplitude;
>>but I would think this extremely unlikely, because lower vibrations
>>and larger amplitudes usually represent baser forms of energy.
>Please define what you mean by "lower vibrations" and "baser forms of energy".
>Those are not standard terms used by physicists to describe energy. They are
>terms used by people who believe in New Age religions.
A low vibration is a low frequency (slow) and high amplitude (broad).
Sound would be a base form of energy. But then, anything compared to
consciousness is base. Gamma rays would be base compared to the mind.
But they are a more refined form of energy than a low G.
>>I may be off in my assumptions, but that does not invalidate my general
>>conclusion.
>While a false assumption does not necessarily invalidate a conclusion, it
>certainly makes it much less likely to be true. I'm not quite sure what your
>general conclusion is, though. Could you state it clearly?
I have not claimed that mind is forty million trillion billion
megahertz. That would be a false assumption, because I do not know
this. I have claimed that it is generally within the higher
vibrations, because all other claims are impossible. It is
necessarily inspecific. If I made a specific claim, I would be wrong
to do so.
>>>>You've got this backwards. The nerve impulses in the neurons of the
>>>>brain are the result of thought. First your mind thinks the thought,
>>>>then the impulses fire.
>>
>>>OK, where did you find evidence for this one?
>>
>>A brain in and of itself has no initiative. Initiative comes from
>>life, from consciousness, from being.
>This is a statement. It is not evidence. You are merely continuing to assert
>the same thing in different words. Please provide *evidence* that your mind
>thinks before the neurons fire.
You provide evidence to me that the universe is real. Prove to me
that when you are seeing the color red, you are not actually seeing
the color green, and you are misinterpreting the input. Give me
evidence that your capacity for reasoning is perfect and sound. Give
me evidence that you exist. Give me evidence that everything you have
witnessed or believed in your lifetime is not an illusion.
>>Your arm does not move itself. It has no motivation to move. *You* decide
>>to move it, and then you use your brain to make it move. If there is no
>>decision, there is no movement. There is a very simple cause and effect
>>relationship here.You can't get them backwards, or it doesn't work.
>No?
>Have you ever witnessed an epileptic seizure? The brain misfires and takes
>the rest of the body on a series of gyrations which have nothing at all to do
>with conscious volition. Ask an epileptic if he decides when to have a
>seizure and what he will do during one.
>Galvani stimulated the muscles of a frog's leg with electricity and it
>contracted. The frog's consciousness had nothing whatever to do with it.
That does not negate the fact that when such outside stimulation is
absent, and no epileptic seizure is taking place, such movement is
caused by initiative. Or are you claiming that my fingers typing on
the keys of my computer is just an involuntary seizure?
>>>However, I have a much better idea and it has even been tried. Not only has
>>>it been tried, but it works. During brain surgery, electrically stimulate
>>>some neurons and see what your patient reports. The results are that the
>>>patient reports sudden flashes of vivid memories or sensations. I'd call
>>>that pretty good evidence for the production of thought by means of neuronic
>>>activity and not the other way around.
>>
>>You have "stimulated" something. That does not mean the same thing as
>>creating it.
>Provide me with evidence that something is "created" within the brain out of
>nothing at all. You cannot use consciousness itself for this evidence
>because, as I have shown, it is equally, if not considerably more, likely that
>consciousness arises from organic activity.
Creativity is evidence that something is created in the brain out of
etheric consciousness. Originality is evidence of consciousness.
Decision is evidence. Intuition is evidence. If there were no
directive consciousness, merely a brain firing neurons, these could
not exist.
>>Just because you have not seen something does not mean that it does not
>>exist.
>Just because you want to believe something does not mean that it must be true
>despite the fact that no evidence at all supports your belief.
So why are you so obsessed with evidence? Did somebody trick you or
scam you in the past, and you're afraid of being duped? Did someone
pull the wool over your eyes? Are you incapable of deductive
reasoning? Do you not trust your capacity to deduce reasonably? You
have no evidence that the scientists you have read about actually made
their discoveries and that the experiments they performed were true
and accurate and under proper scientific method. You accept on faith
that they are. The books that these things are written in could very
well have been lunatic fantasies invented by the writer and all
evidence and credentials could be falsified. Have you checked every
single one of the references in all books relating to discoveries in
particle physics? Have you researched the scientists' backgrounds?
Have you checked out the universities? Have you performed your own
version of every single one of their experiments? Then how can you be
so sure that their findings are correct?
>>Perhaps you have read theories in a book. You did not do the experiments
>>yourself, and you did not witness the results. Yet you know that the
>>conclusions are true or not true. How do you come to these conclusions?
>>According to your own admission we should not believe anything until
>>we see it with our own eyes.
>Since I have actually witnessed the examples I have presented and I am not
>claiming that any conclusion of mine is absolutely true, you are way off. As
>usual. On the other hand, you are spouting assertions that this and that are
>true despite the fact that you have no evidence beyond your own imaginative
>fantasies.
Have you witnessed the surgeons you mentioned stimulating a person's
brain? How can you be so sure their procedure was correct? Have you
studied this procedure? If so, did you question the subject? Did you
copy down his report of his subjective experience? How can you be so
sure he wasn't lying? How can you be sure that his perception of his
experience wasn't flawed and fantasized? What proof do you have that
every scientist in the world is not flawed and fantasizing in their
thought processes? What evidence do you have that all evidence ever
found is not wrong? What evidence can you offer me that you are not
insane? What evidence can an insane person offer toward any
conclusion if every person is insane in precisely the same way? What
proof do you have that you are not hallucinating what you are reading
on this page at this very moment?
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <6wl2jQAc...@bohr.demon.co.uk>,
>>A paranormal event is an event involving consciousness and its interaction
>>with the world around the conscious entity. A physical phenomenon which
>>does not involve any entity to which consciousness is attributed is not a
>>paranormal event. Further, the event in question must not only involve
>>consciousness but must also be at odds with currently accepted theories of
>>physics or some other hard science.
>OK. We now have what I consider to be a potentially useful definition.
>
>There are some problems with it, though.
>
>It seems to exclude phenomena which are often considered to be
>paranormal, but which have an existence independent from a conscious
>observer. The obvious example is UFOs. (I assume that your definition
>isn't intended to refer to the consciousness of an alien pilot. If we're
>going to accept consciousness of either the observer of the alleged
>event or the consciousness of its causative agent, your definition
>covers every possible reportable event, so there would have been no need
>to introduce the notion of consciousness into your definition.)
I wouldn't class UFOs as paranormal phenomena, per se. Belief that we are
being buzzed, visited, or otherwise messed with by beings from other planets
is a fringe belief, but I wouldn't call it paranormal. I think it actually is
a species of conspiracy theory. It has all the elements of one. Secret
goings on, cover-ups, etc. Some UFO proponents report paranormal phenomena
associated with UFO sightings, but not all of them.
Neither would I consider the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, or other
cryptozoological critters to be paranormal phenomena. These are considered to
be living, breathing, physical entities by their proponents, not just a
permutation or effect of consciousness.
Now, ghosts would be a paranormal phenomenon. If one asserts that
consciousness can exist and operate independent of the body, it would fall
under the definition I have proposed.
>I recently received an e-mail from someone who criticised me for
>discussing the definition of the word "paranormal" because...
>
>"most intelligent people realize that the `paranormal' includes such
>phenomena as ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition,
>synchronicity, various types of hallucination that are entangled with
>the above, UFO activity, mediumistic phenomena and so on."
I think it is inaccurate to lump everything one doesn't believe, or does
believe, for that matter, into a single category. That seems too generalized
to me. The people using the term "paranormal", at least in my perception,
hold a distinct philosophical view. However, others, who may not be so fussy
in their terminology, may use that term to refer to supposed phenomena which
are actually more like "supernatural" or "conspiracy theories". We often see
New Age believers using terminology of science (somewhat mangled, of course)
to explain their beliefs. That doesn't make those beliefs scientific.
>This was from someone who claimed to be a serious student of the
>paranormal.
Another extraordinary claim, to my way of thinking. <g>
>Even if it is accepted that your definition is
>perfect, we are left with the problem that many other people use the
>word "paranormal" as a catch-all term to include UFOs, the Bermuda
>Triangle, ancient astronauts, pyramid power and the like. Although I
>know what most people mean by "paranormal", I don't think its everyday
>meaning is as well thought-out as yours.
No definition is perfect. Words don't have an innate meaning. They mean
whatever we think they mean. When we agree on those meanings, we can
communicate better. The everyday usage of a term should influence the
definition we apply to it. My suggested definition is based upon my
observation of current usage by a majority of people.
Another approach would be to find out who coined the term and what they said
it meant. This I don't know. I suspect that it was a parapsychologist,
though.
>Your definition hinges on the idea of consciousness interacting with the
>physical world in a way which conflicts with currently understood
>orthodox science. I quite like that, but I'm not too happy about what I
>see as an arbitrary distinction between consciousness and the rest of
>the physical world. What's so special about consciousness that we need
>to change the rules of rational enquiry?
Consciousness may not conflict with currently understood views of science at
all, but it is one area in which virtually everyone agrees that it exists but
which is not in any way directly measurable or observable. It is the essence
of subjectivity. Psychologists and physiologists measure behavior, which is
not quite the same as consciousness, although it is linked to it. We
attribute consciousness to anything which acts conscious, but if a conscious
entity did not act like one, how would we know it was?
Thus, there are opportunities to argue what is subjective and what is
objective, what is imaginary and what is real, as it relates to the aspects
and properties of consciousness. How "real" are subjective effects? It's
hard to get a handle on such things. We tend to be encroaching on the domain
of philosophers, here.
From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams:
****
"We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of
Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this
machine off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is, mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation,
that's the problem!"
"We demand", yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the
problem!"
"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise,
"and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. You want
to check your legal position, you do, mate. Under law, the Quest for
Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working
thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight
out of a job, aren't we? I mean, what's the use of our sitting up half the
night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes
and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning?"
"That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of
doubt and uncertainty!"
****
>Similarly, if there is something not understood about consciousness, and
>there's plenty, why not just call its investigation science?
Any inquiry in science has its special name, like physics, chemistry, botany,
or neurophysiology. "Paranormology" would not be an appropriate name for a
science, because the paranormal label applies only to those aspects of
consciousness which apparently violate the laws observed and described by
science. If such phenomena were reliably demonstrated and explained by
current or future physical laws, which would legitimize them scientifically,
the study of them would be given a new name or subsumed into an existing one,
I'm sure.
>Since orthodox science is thought to have
>unjustifiably turned its back on such bizarre phenomena, a new word is
>needed to describe a different world beyond the realm of everyday
>science. Hence the perceived need for a word like "paranormal".
>
>I object in principle to the implication of the word, regardless of the
>niceties of its definition.
That's like objecting to the term "communism" because you are a capitalist.
You can't make a belief cease to exist by denying it a label. They'll only
make up another one, or ignore your objections. Right or wrong, it is an
expression of their opinion.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4pupta$i...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius (aka J. C.)) wrote:
>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>>
>>The only reasonable choice is to reject both assumptions until evidence can
>>be presented.
>
>This is incorrect. The reasonable choice is to hold both options open
>as possible until evidence can be presented. To reject both
>assumptions would be to make a claim that they are both untrue, which
>is impossible.
You misunderstand my statement. To reject an assumption is not to make it.
It is not equivalent to making another one.
>>>My source is esoteric, and rational. I cannot verify that these are
>>>absolutely correct; however, by a process of elimination we can
>>>determine what it is not, and go from there.
>
>>Please explain this in greater detail. I am not at all clear on your
>>methodology and reasoning, here. It sounds like you just made it up.
>
>Have you ever tried to argue the fact of the spherical Earth with a
>Flat Earth Theorist? It doesn't matter what you say, or what evidence
>or logical deductive reasoning you produce. They refuse to listen,
>and cannot even comprehend what you are saying because it is outside
>the realm of their belief. They negate all instances you cite, for
>example, they claim that the moon mission was a hoax. They will fight
>as hard as they can to protect their erroneous belief, because they
>feel it is necessary to their survival. They cannot stand the thought
>that things are not as they appear, and that they have fallen victim
>to an illusion.
>
>This is precisely what you are doing.
Hmmm. From my viewpoint, this is what *you* are doing. You present no
evidence, you merely make assertions. I present some evidence upon which I
base my statements. Which is more likely to induce delusions, basing one's
theories on evidence or basing one's theories on wishful thinking?
>>>Conscious is *not* any of the forms of energy we can detect with
>>>modern machinery.
>
>>No? I can say with very great confidence that human consciousness is
>>associated with the electro-chemical energy of the brain.
>
>This is correct. Electro-chemical energy is very strongly related and
>associated with consciousness. My text files in Windows are also
>associated with my Write program, but that does not mean they "are" my
>Write program.
I can show you the code for the Write program, which is clearly and observably
not the contents of your text files. I can erase all of the text files and
still have an operable Write program. Can you show me consciousness which is
clearly and observably not connected to the electro-chemical interactions of
the brain?
>A low vibration is a low frequency (slow) and high amplitude (broad).
>Sound would be a base form of energy. But then, anything compared to
>consciousness is base. Gamma rays would be base compared to the mind.
>But they are a more refined form of energy than a low G.
This again makes the baseless assumption that consciousness is a special form
of energy. You keep saying that but you have provided absolutely no evidence
to support it.
>>While a false assumption does not necessarily invalidate a conclusion, it
>>certainly makes it much less likely to be true. I'm not quite sure what
>>your general conclusion is, though. Could you state it clearly?
>
>I have not claimed that mind is forty million trillion billion
>megahertz. That would be a false assumption, because I do not know
>this. I have claimed that it is generally within the higher
>vibrations, because all other claims are impossible. It is
>necessarily inspecific. If I made a specific claim, I would be wrong
>to do so.
But you *have* made specific statements. You assert that consciousness is a
special form of energy with a frequency and amplitude different from other
forms of energy. That sounds quite specific to me. How do you know that?
You just claimed that all other explanations of consciousness are
"impossible". How did you determine that?
>>>>>First your mind thinks the thought, then the impulses fire.
>>>
>>>>OK, where did you find evidence for this one?
>>>
>>>A brain in and of itself has no initiative. Initiative comes from
>>>life, from consciousness, from being.
>
>>This is a statement. It is not evidence. You are merely continuing to
>>assert the same thing in different words. Please provide *evidence* that
>>your mind thinks before the neurons fire.
>
>You provide evidence to me that the universe is real. Prove to me
>that when you are seeing the color red, you are not actually seeing
>the color green, and you are misinterpreting the input. Give me
>evidence that your capacity for reasoning is perfect and sound. Give
>me evidence that you exist. Give me evidence that everything you have
>witnessed or believed in your lifetime is not an illusion.
This is not evidence in support of your assertion either. This is the second
time you have evaded this question. Stick to the subject and answer the
question. Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion that
thought precedes all neuronic activity?
>>>Your arm does not move itself. It has no motivation to move. *You* decide
>>>to move it, and then you use your brain to make it move. If there is no
>>>decision, there is no movement. There is a very simple cause and effect
>>>relationship here.You can't get them backwards, or it doesn't work.
>>
>>Have you ever witnessed an epileptic seizure? The brain misfires and takes
>>the rest of the body on a series of gyrations which have nothing at all to
>>do with conscious volition. Ask an epileptic if he decides when to have a
>>seizure and what he will do during one.
>>
>>Galvani stimulated the muscles of a frog's leg with electricity and it
>>contracted. The frog's consciousness had nothing whatever to do with it.
>
>That does not negate the fact that when such outside stimulation is
>absent, and no epileptic seizure is taking place, such movement is
>caused by initiative. Or are you claiming that my fingers typing on
>the keys of my computer is just an involuntary seizure?
Look at your original assertion. You said that when there is no decision,
there is no movement. That is clearly and demonstrably wrong, as my evidence
points out. Therefore, your attempt to introduce this as evidence to support
the assertion that thought precedes brain activity is invalid.
>>Provide me with evidence that something is "created" within the brain out of
>>nothing at all. You cannot use consciousness itself for this evidence
>>because, as I have shown, it is equally, if not considerably more, likely
>>that consciousness arises from organic activity.
>
>Creativity is evidence that something is created in the brain out of
>etheric consciousness. Originality is evidence of consciousness.
>Decision is evidence. Intuition is evidence. If there were no
>directive consciousness, merely a brain firing neurons, these could
>not exist.
We are not debating whether or not consciousness exists, but from whence it
springs. You have not supported your position that it arises independently of
brain activity.
>So why are you so obsessed with evidence?
I like to have my view of the world as accurate a representation of what is
going on as possible. This makes it easier for me to anticipate events and
function more effectively. When I conclude things about the world that are
not supported by evidence I have no way to tell whether or not my view is
accurate, which impairs my effectiveness.
I have also noted the tendency we all have to let our beliefs distort our
perceptions and limit our ability to revise our views. In order to keep my
mind open to new possibilities and simultaneously avoid falling victim to
delusions, I require any assertion about the world to be congruent with the
evidence available.
>Are you incapable of deductive reasoning? Do you not trust your capacity to
>deduce reasonably?
Have you noted a flaw in my deductive abilities? Please point out my logical
inconsistencies. Preferably, you should phrase these as invalid syllogisms.
>You have no evidence that the scientists you have read about actually made
>their discoveries and that the experiments they performed were true
>and accurate and under proper scientific method. You accept on faith
>that they are.
This is an assumption you are making and, again, it is false. The evidence I
presented to you is all stuff I have checked out for myself. I have observed
the brain surgery I alluded to, I have made a frog's leg jump with electric
current, I have witnessed epileptic seizures. I have studied the scientific
method and been trained in experimental design. I can tell the difference
between a faulty experimental design and a clean one.
It is you, who presents no evidence at all, who is accepting things on faith
alone.
>Have you witnessed the surgeons you mentioned stimulating a person's
>brain? How can you be so sure their procedure was correct? Have you
>studied this procedure?
Yes. Have you? If you wish to challenge the results of this procedure,
present your evidence.
So far, you have not introduced a single bit of evidence which supports your
assertions. If you want to believe that all this stuff is true despite the
fact that you have no serious evidence for it, that's fine. Just don't act as
if you are basing all your conclusions on facts. Preface your assertions with
"I believe".
Double Aquarius
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
You assert that consciousness is a
>special form of energy with a frequency and amplitude different from other
>forms of energy. That sounds quite specific to me. How do you know that?
>You just claimed that all other explanations of consciousness are
>"impossible". How did you determine that?
I have already told you how I determined that. I have already
explained that what I have experienced cannot be quantified, and that
there is no direct evidence as yet. Circumstantial evidence is
evidence as long as you realize it is, in fact, circumstantial. All
evidence is circumstantial, because the way we view the world is
subjective, and we have no other connection to the world, besides our
subjective senses and understanding.
Go back and look at my previous posts, and you will see that I have
said that these issues cannot be quantified. You are welcome to
reread them as many times as you like. The fact that you do not
comprehend my reasoning means nothing. A retarded man cannot
understand the logic behind particle physics. That does not mean that
subatomic particles do not exist. A blind man does not understand
color. That does not mean that color does not exist. If every one is
blind, then how do we know we are blind, unless we compare ourselves
to someone who can see? If the majority of people are blind and only
a rare few can see, the blind majority might think that the sighted
minority was deluded, fantasy-prone, and concocting wild imaginings.
How do you know you are not spiritually blind? How can you quantify
this?
I am not going to repeat myself, any more than a teacher repeats the
entire lesson when one student has not paid attention to the lesson.
Since you seem so unable to comprehend what I have said, I included in
my last post tools (questions) by which you can find the answer on
your own. There are a couple of very essential truths which I wished
to show you by my line of questioning. I will not tell you what they
are; you must find them by answering the questions on your own. Do
not waste my time. Since you do not wish to believe what I say, or
take it on faith, then you may witness it for yourself, if you like.
If you are interested in getting started on your own Path to Spiritual
Transformation, even if it's simply so that you can judge and try to
objectify it, then E-mail me, and I'll send you some more questions to
meditate on. If not, so be it. But this is the only way we will ever
have a common frame of reference. The only way to understanding is
experience, and the only way to *spiritual* experience is question.
>Look at your original assertion. You said that when there is no decision,
>there is no movement. That is clearly and demonstrably wrong, as my evidence
>points out. Therefore, your attempt to introduce this as evidence to support
>the assertion that thought precedes brain activity is invalid.
The exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule. Let me
qualify my statement, since you are unable to do it on your own.
*Under normal circumstances, when there is no decision, there is no
movement.* The circumstances you have cited are abnormal. An
epileptic's brain function during a seizure is abnormal. The neurons,
as you yourself stated, do not simply fire but MISFIRE. The result
is chaotic, as an accident, a random event, always is. An accident is
a mess; conscious direction is ordered. Ponder this; what is the
difference between an epileptic seizure and someone deliberately
moving their body? What is present in the one instance and absent in
the other? There are many, many variables. This is a very big
question, and if you ponder it properly, it should take a long time
and a *lot* of notes.
Next, in the instance of the frog, it was your decision,
consciousness, and initiative that caused the leg to move. YOU moved
its leg.
>>So why are you so obsessed with evidence?
>I like to have my view of the world as accurate a representation of what is
>going on as possible. This makes it easier for me to anticipate events and
>function more effectively. When I conclude things about the world that are
>not supported by evidence I have no way to tell whether or not my view is
>accurate, which impairs my effectiveness.
>I have also noted the tendency we all have to let our beliefs distort our
>perceptions and limit our ability to revise our views. In order to keep my
>mind open to new possibilities and simultaneously avoid falling victim to
>delusions, I require any assertion about the world to be congruent with the
>evidence available.
Please reread these paragraphs. You have said some very important
things, but I don't think you realize what you have said (about
yourself). The answers you have discovered here are the first step to
understanding the Mystery of Life. (This is understanding (or perhaps
feeling is a better word) of the Mystery itself, not the answers to
the Mystery.) You've got to learn to find the cause of what you feel,
rather than just finding the feeling.
Are you claiming that you never act on intuition or a hunch? Have you
never had a premonition? A gut feeling that later turned out to be
true despite all "evidence" to the contrary? If so, you are the only
person in the world who hasn't. We must all act on instinct or faith
at some time in our lives. If you set out your clothes and set your
alarm and brush your teeth and set the timer on the coffee pot before
retiring to bed, you're taking it on faith that you're going to live
long enough to wake up in the morning. If you do three loads of
laundry, you're assuming that you're going to last long enough to use
them. Everyone takes it on faith that there's going to be a tomorrow;
there's no proof. Just circumstantial evidence of a good possibility.
>>Are you incapable of deductive reasoning? Do you not trust your capacity to
>>deduce reasonably?
>Have you noted a flaw in my deductive abilities? Please point out my logical
>inconsistencies. Preferably, you should phrase these as invalid syllogisms.
I have not noticed a flaw in your deductive abilities. I have noticed
a fear of trusting anything that you yourself have not witnessed
personally. I am lead to wonder why you fear this. It is not normal.
Most people do not have a fear of taking things on faith, or of
deducing things logically which they have not witnessed themselves.
You badger people for evidence, yet you do not see why you are so
needy of that evidence. There is a very important point I was trying
to get you to see on your own, and it relates to this. If you like,
you can find my answer yourself by pondering the questions I have put
to you. I will not tell you the answer, you must find it on your own,
or it means nothing, especially for a person like you who is afraid to
trust.
It is important to ponder the "Why's" of life, rather than simply
collecting evidence. Even when collecting evidence, one must
understand understand why one is collecting it. The reasons may be
more complex than simply trying to quantify scientifically. Look to
your past. Look to your childhood. Where is the betrayal? Where is
the delusion you fear? Why are you running from it?
Here is a good question to ponder. Have you ever had the experience
of feeling that someone was staring at you from behind? You did not
know they were there, but you could feel a sensation of intense
concentration coming from behind you? If you have had this
experience, then how would you explain it? If you haven't, then can
you try to recreate it in an experimental venue? Many people have had
this experience (I have had it many times) and if you haven't had it,
you are very unusual. Perhaps you could interview people who have had
the experience and try to collect data about how and when it happens.
If light is real because many, many, many people (most people) have
experienced it, then this experience of feeling someone's eyes boring
into the back of your head (or the front, for that matter) is just as
real if most people have experienced it. Isn't it? How could you
prove it was not real? How could you prove that we are not all having
a delusion when we see visible light?
If you've never had this experience, it might be indicative of your
inability to perceive or experience any type of psychic phenomena.
This is just one example of circumstantial evidence that the vast
majority of humans in every culture on a daily basis reports. Do you
think it's worth considering?
J. C.
Fredric L. Rice
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius (aka J. C.)) wrote:
>>That is untrue. I have no idea whether or not spirits exist. I only know
>>that there is no evidence for a conclusion that they do. Therefore, it is
>>premature to assume that they do. It is impossible to have evidence that
>>something doesn't exist at all. How could you? If it doesn't exist, there
>>can be no evidence of it. QED. The only reasonable choice is to reject both
>>assumptions until evidence can be presented.
>This is incorrect. The reasonable choice is to hold both options open
>as possible until evidence can be presented. To reject both
>assumptions would be to make a claim that they are both untrue, which
>is impossible.
That is unscientific and verges upon the realm of religion. Your
methodology would demand that any outrageous claim -- even those that
violate physical laws -- should be assumed to be possible. That's a
fallacy.
---
http://www.stbbs.com/personal/frice/index.htm
The Skeptic Tank direct: (818) 335-9601
Home of the Restored Church of the Star Goat!
Capristellar, fata viam invenient / Honi soit qui mal y pense!
Creationism redux: Give Equal time for the Flat Earth Theory!
Fredric L. Rice
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius (aka J. C.)) wrote:
>>> Believers would demand, of course, that "we can't see what science
>>> will discover in the future" and still insist in holding out against
>>> all hope that there are still undiscovered vector bosons which will
>>> grant them scientific vindication for their beliefs. Yet that belief
>>> is predicated upon a mistaken misconception of scientific method;
>>> specifically, that science holds no uncertain truths. In actual fact
>>> scientific method _has_ a plethora of certainties, among them is the
>>> total lack of any force-carrying vector boson which is capable of
>>> doing anything believers have dreamed up, from transfering thoughts
>>> to humans and deities from levitating cars and babby bottles.
>>Very good, now please explain magnetism without reference to such
>>"paranormal" phenomena as forces acting at a distance.
>>A "magnetic field" you say? What is a "field"? Is it like a ghost
>>holding the object in question?
>>It ain't a "force-carrying vector boson" and I can damn well levitate a
>>car with a big enough magnet.
>Thank you for your perspective. It is most enlightening.
Not to mention entirely wrong on all counts.
>There are many forces which science is willing to concede the
>existence of, such as gravity, which has only indirect evidence
>of its existence.
Actually gravity has been explained as the result of gluon particle
interactions between hadrons since 1905 -- the year that Einstein
explained the photoelectric effect and also came out with his most
famous paper describing general relativity.
What's interesting is that these things have been taught in High
School physics courses for decades and yet some people demand that
"science doesn't know" when in fact it is their own ignorance which
is exhibited.
> But when there is very clear evidence of a consciousness
> deliberately and decisively manipulating a body, they refuse to
> believe.
There's an interesting accusation. The human mind manipulates a body
by secreting two chemicals which allow the flow of electrons within
the nerves within a mass of muscle and which then stop the flow of
same. It's why sleep-paralysis is an integral aspect of human sleep
processes, in fact, and is responsible for the phenomena known as
"The Old Hag Syndrome."
If you wish more information on these chemicals, please e-mail me for
a reference.
> One must think that there is something in that manipulation
> that they fear, because they refuse to even acknowledge its existence.
Interesting accusation and yet science understand the interaction of
forces very well and they also understand how animals and plants
move. "Science" acknowledges their existance so much, they're
responsible for the glitzy computers we use, the automobils we drive,
the satelites which entertain us, the high-proteen foods we eat et al.
> They prefer a ludicrous explanation which is within the realm of their
> experience (vector bosons, weather balloons, spontaneous generation,
> Earth centrism) to facing the real truth, which is outside of it.
Further outrageous accusations. Vector bosons are easilly
demonstrated to exist. The electromagnetic gluon is responsible for
your terminal being visible. The W bosons are responsible for the
nuclear force which holds hadrons together.
Denial of the force-carrying particles is akin to denial of reality.
Hell, there's no difference as proven by Maxwell and Bell.
> Or perhaps they simply do not understand? Some things appear to be
> beyond their comprehension.
Well, you're certainly free to ignore all of science and pretend that
just because you are ignorant of physical forces everyone else must
be. It's kind of self-destructive and doubtless closes many doors for
you yet I understand the comfort adopting such an attitude offers. I
personally would never discard science and reason for comfort yet I
will certainly defend your right to do so.
> At any rate, I feel that we must not allow their ignorance to in any
> way affect our understanding of the true processes of nature. We have
> stated truth, and that truth is not negated by their denial.
Interesting claim. And what is this "true process of nature?" More
importantly, have any evidence to back up your explanation?
Thanks in advance.
Fredric L. Rice
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu (Patrick C Mills) wrote:
>>'Scientifically impossible' and truely impossible are two COMPLETELY
>>different things. Science only sets boundaries for the reality we
>>understand. Scientific impossibilities are becoming very real
>>possibilities all the time. If I remember right, it was once
>>scientifically impossible to travel faster than sound, and here we got
>>jets doing it every day.
>Exactly. Scientists used to think that a human being would die if he
>traveled at a speed faster than twenty miles per hour. We all know
>how that ended up.
That's exactly wrong. No one ever claimed that traveling faster than
the speed of sound was scientifically impossible or that traveling
faster than 20 miles an hour would be fatal. (Doubt it, provide some
___scientific___ sources.)
What science _did_ show was that technology during the advent of the
airplane and jet industry was incapable of producing an airframe which
wouldn't come apart due to the buffeting of passing through its own
sound shock wave. Nose and wing designs, coupled to new materials and
manufacturing methodologies, eventually overcame the problem JUST AS
SCIENCE EMPLOYIONG ENGINEERS knew it would.
No scientist or engineer _ever_ claimed that traveling faster
than sound was scientifically impossible. That's a belief perpetuated
by must-believers to try to pretend that "some day" breaking the light
speed barrier (which _is_ a scientific impossibility) will be
possible.
Perpetuation of lies when they're so easilly shown to be false would,
I opine, be something of an embarrassment.
Fredric L. Rice
"Marty G. Price" <mpr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>> Believers would demand, of course, that "we can't see what science
>> will discover in the future" and still insist in holding out against
>> all hope that there are still undiscovered vector bosons which will
>> grant them scientific vindication for their beliefs. Yet that belief
>> is predicated upon a mistaken misconception of scientific method;
>> specifically, that science holds no uncertain truths. In actual fact
>> scientific method _has_ a plethora of certainties, among them is the
>> total lack of any force-carrying vector boson which is capable of
>> doing anything believers have dreamed up, from transfering thoughts
>> to humans and deities from levitating cars and babby bottles.
>Very good, now please explain magnetism without reference to such
>"paranormal" phenomena as forces acting at a distance.
Sure thing! There are two force-carrying vector bosons which are
posited to carry the gravitational force, the (of course) gravitron
and the gravitrino. (Leon Lederman covers these bosons in his book
"The God Particle" -- which has nothing to do with deity constructs,
by the way.)
A far better example of forces operating at a distance is the
electromagnetic gluon -- photons. That force mediates activities
between the leptons (such as electrons and muons) and hadrons (such
as neutrons and protons.) Since the electromagnetic gluon has no
discernable mass, it easilly travels great distances to effect
physical and chemical changes at a distance.
There's nothing "paranormal" about physical particles, huh?
>A "magnetic field" you say?
No. All forces are simply particles. The nulcear force which holds
the nucleus together is simply another subset of gluon particles. A
magnetic field is the result of gravitons and gravitrinos being
exchanged between the hadrons of two bodies, acting with a strength
which falls off as a function of the square of the distance. (The
number of particles which "leap" from one body and fall back without
reaching the remote body increases with distance, causing the strength
of the interaction to decline with distance, doing so as a function of
the square of the distance.)
Magnetism and gravitation (as is acceleration) are simply different
manifestations of the same vector boson force.
> What is a "field"? Is it like a ghost
> holding the object in question?
A field is a flow of force-carrying particles.
This is all High School physics, by the way.
>It ain't a "force-carrying vector boson" and I
>can damn well levitate a car with a big enough magnet.
That's not "levitation," that's magneticism -- that's employing
physical particles which tie hadrons together at a distance -- the
distance determined by the strength of the magnetic field which is
itself determine by the number of vector bosons being exchanged by
the hadrons and the square of the distance between the center of
mass of the two bodies of hadrons.
High School physics again.
>Science can be the road through which we attempt to transcend our
>ignorance --- or it can be the wall we use to deny it.
I suspect that you believed science doesn't understand forces and
how they are generated, what they are, or perhaps even _why_ they
exist. Now I hope that you understand that just because you are
ignorant of something doesn't mean that everyone else is.
Fredric L. Rice
bart...@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) wrote:
>>>>I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by
>>>>telepathy or remote viewing.
>>Interesting. <smile> That's probably why the belief persists.
>>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
>>>Thought is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain.
>>>How do these nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another
>>>without any connection at all between them? This is an apparent
>>>violation of cause and effect. The same objection can be made for
>>>remote viewing.
>>Dr. Milton Rothman in his book, "The Science Gap: Dispelling Myths and
>>Understanding the Realities of Science" covers this physical fact very
>>well. The physics behind the tranfering of such information requires
>>_at_minimum_ a family of vector bosons which exhibit physical
>>properties completely unlike everything else and, in any event, would
>>have been detected or infered by particle experiments decades ago.
>What the fuck are you talking about?
It's called science, Bart. Specifically, particle physics. If the
employment of such terms as "vector bosons" are oreign to you, you can
research such things in the acedemic text referenced above.
Fredric L. Rice
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>In article <4pq129$s...@library.airnews.net>,
> jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
[...cuts...]
>>>>Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>>>>information from one mind to another? None has ever been detected.
>>The radiant energy of mind or consciousness or soul (whatever you
>>prefer to call it) is at an extremely high frequency and low
>>amplitude. It hasn't ever been detected because the machinery we use
>>to detect energy is far too primitive; it can only detect lower forms
>>of energy that have very definite manifestations on the physical
>>plane.
>If it has never been detected, how do you know what it's frequency and
>amplitude are? You have done it again. First, make the assumption that the
>thing for which no evidence can be found really exists. Then, rationalize why
>it can't be found. Tell me how you rationally deduce the qualities of a thing
>which has no detectable or measurable properties.
Look at what he did, though. He started with one unevidenced belief
and, to "prove" it, advanced no less than four additional unevidenced
beliefs. (I sense a widening conspiracy here. }:-} )
"Science" can detect _any_ frequency ranging from the extremely slow
(events which take centuries to observed) to the very very fast
(events which take place within a small time duration right up to the
1927 Copenhagen Uncertainty Principle.) Anything "beyond" these time
durations are scientific absurdities.
This guy wants to pretend that his "ghosts" are "vibrating" at
"frequencies" which "science" can't detect -- and yet at the same
time he'll doubtless demand his pretend ghosts can interact with
physical objects, and be seen in the visible-light frequencies of the
electromagnetic spectrum.
Amazing.
Fredric L. Rice
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>>It does seem rational, until you look for evidence that spirits actually
>>exist. That's where the logic breaks down. There is no serious evidence that
>>indicates the existence of any sort of "spirit". Once you make that arbitrary
>>and baseless assumption, then all sorts of things that are not very likely
>>seem quite reasonable.
>You are also making a baseless assumption; that because there is no
>evidence they *must* not exist. If there is no evidence for or
>against, we must assume that they might exist, but we simply do not
>know for sure. But as long as there is a possibility, we must
>consider that possibility.
Why "must" people assume that something unevidenced and unreasonable
has the possibility or probability of existance? There is no reason
to believe in the existance of ghosts so there should be no reason
(for science, at any rate) to assume they might. One might as well
demand that since Wonder Woman doesn't appear to exist (except, of
course, for Linda Carter }:-} ) we should assume that she might.
That just doesn't seem a reasonable assumption. If, however, some
evidence for the existance of ghosts or Wonder Woman is presented by
a rational, falsifiable, testable mechanism, _then_ one can easilly
assume that testing the claim is reasonable.
Loren
Why does there have to be an energy source carrying "thoughts" from one
person to another?
Never mind I'll answer for you. Because otherwise there is no way
for science to measure it and so consequently it cannot possibly be done.
For those of us who know what is possible no proof is necessary.
Just because something cannot be measured does not mean it doesn't exist!
Example: Do you believe in God?
Marty G. Price
Following, which I have left intact, is the most hilarious exposition on
the particle/wave debate I have ever read in my life. Mister Rice has
invented (or found someone who has invented) a particle to cover
everything. (Apologies for any typos here; I'm laughing too hard to
type.)
I love all these "particles with no discernable mass" certain groups of
scientists invent to cover all the things that don't fit into their neat
little theories. (Coming soon, a quark the size of Yankee stadium---or do
we already have that?) Reminds me of Aquinus & the Great Chain of Being.
I am not anti-science, I am anti-certainty, because I know damn well that
science deals with theories, *not certainty.* My own opinion is that,
rather than being on the verge of a breakthrough that will give us the
Grand Unified Theory (as Mr. Hawking and many others believe), we are on
the verge of a breakthrough that will open a whole new realm of
possibilies in physics and cosmology. My reasons for this belief are
historical (in the 19th. century, everyone who counted believed that
Michaelson would discover which way we were moving through the eather and
then physics would wrap up the loose ends; instead we had no eather and
had Einstein & relativity) and philosophical. I'm not a professional in
the sciences; I'm an amateur in philosophy with a bullshit detector that
sometimes functions.
Now for the fun: just key down and learn how many particles Mr. Rice can
chatter about. Just note that Mr. Rice uses the term "are posited" for
certain of his particles. You know what that means: *NO DIRECT
EVIDENCE*.
Blessed Be,
Gale
[No, it's bullshit. You haven't accounted for the non-uniform shape of
magnetic fields, the existence of two poles, the notion of repulsion, or
the herds of non-existent monopoles that certain theorists have posited,
looked for, and never found. You may also have particles traveling at
faster than light speeds; someone who really knows a bit about
electro-magnetic fields 'd have to check that out. The gravitons you
chattered about *definitely* would violate the light-speed restriction; I
don't understand relativity theory well enough to explain those much more
attractive and beautifully accurate theories. They talk a bit about
gravity, you know. :) Now, back to the comedy show.]
> >It ain't a "force-carrying vector boson" and I
> >can damn well levitate a car with a big enough magnet.
>
> That's not "levitation," that's magneticism -- that's employing
> physical particles which tie hadrons together at a distance -- the
> distance determined by the strength of the magnetic field which is
> itself determine by the number of vector bosons being exchanged by
> the hadrons and the square of the distance between the center of
> mass of the two bodies of hadrons.
>
> High School physics again.
>
> >Science can be the road through which we attempt to transcend our
> >ignorance --- or it can be the wall we use to deny it.
>
> I suspect that you believed science doesn't understand forces and
> how they are generated, what they are, or perhaps even _why_ they
> exist. Now I hope that you understand that just because you are
> ignorant of something doesn't mean that everyone else is.
>
To quote (or slightly misquote, I don't have the original in front of me)
the obvious line from Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and
earth, Horatio, than your philosophy dreams of."
For indeed, to believe the limited knowledge we have attained is all
knowledge is to truly be a member of the Flat Earth Society you imagine
you condemn. Open your mind. Science offers questions you have not even
dreamed of, not tidy little answers which will reduce the universe to a
boxed five hundred piece jigsaw puzzle.
Blessed Be,
Gale
Steen Hjortsoe
Against Military Spy Satellites
- and even more against those who control them
by
Steen Hjorts›
Contra Publishing Company
Copyright: Contra Publishing Company and Steen Hjorts›.
Contents:
Introduction
Chapter one: The Satellite Technologies already existed in the 1960s
a) Subsurface radar and superresolution
b) Microwave flow and Acoustooptics
c) Subliminal stimulation and microwave hearing
Chapter two:Which satellites ?
Chapter three: Military Secretiveness
Chapter four: Telepathy and Clairvoyance - or just microwave communication and
radar imaging systems ?
Chapter five: Telepresence via Satellites
Chapter six: Victims and Opponents of Military Satellite Spying
Chapter seven: The Guessing Game: I. The military-industrial complex
Chapter eight: The Guessing Game: II. Military parapsychology
a) Thought reading
b) Thought transference
c) Thought control
d) Precognition
Chapter nine: The Guessing Game: III. Guessing right
Chapter ten: Space Agencies Who Control Spy Satellites
Chapter eleven: The World Revolution
Chapter twelve:Global Intelligence - a matter of global concern
Postscript
Introduction
For three and a half decades, the military spy satellites of Russia and USA have been performing their clandestine activities, and while the military satellites community has endeavored to plan and develop entire clusters of emerging satellite communications technologies, civilian society, in East and West, has seemed to acquiesce, during all
those years, in being kept in the dark.
Indeed, until the revolutionary autumn of 1989 the prevailing impression was that of a
stubborn civilian resistance - not against the unchallenged military monopoly of extremely sharp vision from satellite height, nor against arbitrary military intelligence decisions of what they please to pry into - but against being adequately initiated in what the military knows
about ourselves, i.e. what they can see, hear and influence where and in which details. The massive resistance is hardly intelligible as a silent endorsement of the alleged gentleman's agreement (1) between the two biggest military blocks in the world, NATO and the (now defunct) Warsaw Pact, on not involving the civilian part of society. Rather, one senses the contours of a deep-rooted, tough psychological reality engendered by the same indeterminable (but certainly suspect) half-world as the predominant political reasoning of
US government advisors, who in the autumn of 1961 imposed the veil of secretiveness on military satellite spying, which, we are entitled to guess, came to cover up profound implications in several historical events in the ensuing three decades (2, 3).
No public justification has ever been put forward by the American president or administra-
tion for the concealment of every important aspect of satellite and aerial reconnaissance (4), but it was a milestone political event when President Kennedy succeeded in forcing through this momentous decision against sporadic protests. Within a year after satellite reconnaissance had been wrapped up in complete secrecy, the American sensor and radar technology had made such rapid strides that an unbiased observer with a comprehensive knowledge of the actual feats and operation of the American spy satellites would have been forced to conclude that President Kennedy had managed to get away with nothing less than
a coup d'etat. This allegation should be taken at its face value, as the following pages will show.
A number of reasons have been adduced to explain the complete blackening of military spy satellites, most of them blatantly absurd like "the Kennedy administration (and those that succeeded it) wanted to avoid the appearance of being able to use its highly advanced technology to spy on less developed nations" (4) or another argument like "to the extent that this reconnaissance satellite activity gets out in public, it forces the Russians to make a challenge of some kind because they can't accept the fact that they are being observed and, therefore, they would have to make some form of political challenge" (A. Chayes, legal
advisor to the State Department in 1961, quoted from (1)). So the enchanting moral is that the Russians and the Americans know they are being observed, but if you don't talk too much about it we can pretend that we don't know what is going on. I'm going to talk much about it in this book.
Towards the end of the 1980s, the threat seemed imminent that concomitant with the revolutions in Eastern Europe, the long confined good sense might intrude into the idyllic setting engineered by the military gentlemen from Russia and America. A statement by a Russian political scientist like: "everything not directly prohibited in the sphere of military activity in outer space is lawful contradicts the general principles of international law, trends
in the legal regulation of activities of this type, the world's sense of legality and international moral norms" (5) suggests a painfully alive sense of a fundamentally subversive (and frankly criminal) military practice - it is just that the common sense displayed by a few critical workers is not supported by public opinion or the world opinion which very strong forces
within and outside civilian society still want to repress.
The appalling reality is that this hollow "gentleman's agreement" system still in the mid
1990s constitutes the never seriously challenged basis of a speedy proliferation of the most powerful assets, the military spy satellites, of Russia's and America's military-industrial complexes. A number of sources point out that the expenses for advanced military intelligence satellites (6) and for "black" programs of development of secret spacecraft (7) - more urbanely known as "unacknowledged Special Access programs" (SAPs) - are increasing (US$ 7 billion in fiscal year 1994) concurrently with considerable savings in most other conventional military fields.
As, by degrees, the two systems unfold, as the performance of their satellites unfalteringly come to resemble each other more and more, the two large reconnaissance systems converge to constitute a single, secret, and deeply repressive world dominating force, increasingly independent of their origin in a communist / capitalist ideology. The present
CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, led by Russia like the Soviet Union before,
is not only a powerful atomic power, it is still part of the American-Russian "securitocracy"
adhering to and unceasingly improving the most important and most secret spy satellites
and ground stations (8, 9).
In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s there would (apparently) be some substance in asserting that there were bound to be certain tacitly and mutually respected constraints on the extent to which NATO and Warsaw Pact satellite spying could interfere with the adversary's citizen-
ry, before the threshold would be transgressed which safeguarded against implication of
other weapon systems and escalation of their use. However, the stark political truth was
and is that none of the parties was in a position to ignore the depth and effectiveness the mental influence might reach, e.g. in terms of sexual or aggressive behavior, to mention
the two extremes on the entire gamut of emotional and cognitive brain states which could
be instigated via satellites direct into the brains of important civilians before, during or after
a war. Therefore, USA and Russia carried out veiled, but comprehensive, and as time
went on very successful investigations throughout the past three decades, intending to influence and control individuals and smaller or larger groups of people of the civilian population in their own countries. The reasons and the evidence which substantiate this rather formidable assertion will be produced in the first four chapters of this book.
Living a lie
Three fundamental illusions cultivated with immense diligence by Russian and American military public relations officers will be unveiled in chapter 1-4 illuminating three basic facts which are essential to the technical considerations of this book:
(1) The sharpest detail you can see from military satellites (ground resolution) is neither 1
m (radar intelligence) nor the approx. 8 cm (the so-called "absolute optical limit") in photographic intellligence. As early as 1964, it was technically possible and consequently zealously practised to see details smaller than 1 cm in diameter - from satellite height.
(2) When subsurface radar is applied in conjunction with infrared radar, ground resolution
is to be conceived as indoor as well as outdoor, in contradistinction to the cherished misunderstanding encouraged by the military with never-ending diligence that smaller de-
tails can only be perceived outdoor from satellites.
(3) Humans can not only be seen in the most minute detail from satellites (indoor as well
as outdoor), they can also be influenced, e.g. by super- og subliminal messages con-
veyed by microwaves via highly directional satellite antennas and transduced and per-
ceived in real time by the special faculty of the human ear called microwave hearing which was only discovered in 1947 (10, 11). The sensational fact that man is evidently capable of hearing light (see chapter one) led Dr. R.O. Becker, twice nominated for the Nobel prize
for his work in bioelectromagnetism, to write of "obvious applications in covert operations
designed to drive a target crazy with "voices"." (12).
Add to this a fourth - moving - illusion:
(4) Military satellites spy on military installations and military men in other countries. Of
course the overseers, being military gentlemen, would never dream of prying into the
affairs of private citizens, certainly not in the country that launched the satellites.
Stripped of this lofty illusion, the world will realize that it has been stripped naken too,
literally speaking - which of course is the condition par excellence of a new beginning; however, hardly an innocent one this time.
The guessing game
In chapters 7-9, the unworthy research situation for civilian political scientists dealing
with the military industrial complex is likened to a guessing game. The guessing may
be good when it reaches coincident conclusions like when trying to determine the total
budget of the NRO (the most secret organisation of all which controls the American
spy satellites) and its 11 related institutions in the U.S. espionage community. According
to the New York Times, the 1992 U.S. intelligence budget approached $ 30 billion having tripled from a mere $ 10 billion in 1980 (13). Moscow News, apparently a trifle better
informed, insisted on $ 32 billion (14). For fiscal year 1994, the intelligence budget, still officially secret (15), is estimated at $ 37.5 billion (16).
But a guessing game already starts to get bad when the diviners fail to quiver at the ob-
vious qualitative implications of such a steep rise.
And when the conjectures of the learned not even join forces with just a little bit of
intuition, just an inkling of what is notoriously on the mind of military leaders all over the
world, viz. the desire of the power to dominate men - then the guessing is very, very bad
and should have been discarded and replaced by other, possibly non-violent, procedures some two or three decades ago. This might have made all the difference since guessing
may be a rather rigid approach to reality assuming the actual existence of some prior hints
of the right direction to take. In the case of the sudden rise to the surface in 1995 of
NRO's war chest of at least $ 2.2 billion (17), there was hardly anybody outside a narrow inner circle who had any chance of suspecting the existence of such a large amount. Here
it was about money, but for a number of military technologies the situation was completely analogous: for decades, nobody in the civilian sector even guessed they did exist.
The questions naturally given precedence before all others by the would-be military control-lers of spy satellites at the end of the 1950s were: Will it become possible to see and hear people, whether military or civilians, distinctly from satellites, will it be practicable to follow
the doings of humans even inside buildings, i.e. practically everywhere, and finally, will it be feasible to influence or even control people from satellites ?
Ten years later, in 1969, the noted Czech-American biophysicist and parapsychologist
Milan Ryzl announced: "The bulk of recent telepathy research in the USSR is concerned
with the transmission of behavior impulses - or research to subliminally control an indi-vidual's conduct" (18).
Names and addresses
In the latter half of the book, the powerlessness of the East and West European and American peoples is likened to the paralysis of the "fourth power" (the press, radio and tv)
and to the, rarely admitted, incompetence of the community of political scientists (19), the East and West Europeans and Americans being denied access to the arsenal of some extremely 'sensitive information' (a lovely coinage made for the sensitive by the discreet)
from the still intact citadels of those who control the American and Russian spy satellites.
So long as the targeting of the eagerly expected spring cleaning, the impending world revolution matching the extent of the global network, is shrewdly contained or imper-
ceptibly led astray, the local revolutions gallantly initiated in the jubilant autumn of 1989
will continue losing momentum and will, left to themselves, invariably be roped in again like the reel between the devil's sticks. Where there is a local upsurge of revolutionary anger,
the intelligence services are still powerful enough to relegate the people in question to
sweep away local meshes of the spider's web, but denying access to the spiders them-selves - the NSA in Sigint City at Fort Meade, Maryland and the NRO in a guarded sanc-
tum, building 4C-956 (16) inside the Pentagon and in its new headquarters in four build-
ing complexes at Chantilly, Virginia (16); further, the GRU at Khodinka Airport, Moscow,
and certainly not least the KGB, which after (or probably rather before) the events in the
wake of the suppression of the attempted Communist coup on August 19, 1991 prudently
adjourned from No. 2 Dzerzhinsky Square to the other KGB headquarters at Yasenovo at
the Second Ring Road of Moscow leaving issue in October the same year when four new intelligence agencies crawled out of the corpse of KGB (20).
The newest quick-change turn of KGB in April 1995 also involves a new name, the
FSB, the fifteenth name since Felix Dzerzinsky established the Tjeka in 1917 (21) and the 21st reorganisation (22). FSB insists on being allowed to search any house, any organisa-
tion and company without a search warrant if there is a well-founded suspicion that the
location is linked up with a crime. In contradistinction to its predecessor, FSB will also
have the disposal of 14 prisons. Other powers include the right to infiltrate "special ser-
vices and organisations" in foreign countries as well as criminal groups abroad (21).
"There are almost no limits to the rights of FSB. This scares us out of our wits, because
we know that probably almost half of the employees are old KGB staff", says the human rights activist Boris Pustyntsev. "They are people with a lot of blood on their hands from
the Soviet Russian era when they persecuted the dissidents using outrageous methods including torture. However, the worst thing about it is that Yeltsin's Act directly prohibits
any kind of supervision of the FSB. The Act says that the means, methods and tactics of
the FSB shall not come within the jurisdiction of the Superior Public Prosecutor. This can-
not mean anything else than the security people can do as they please - exactly like the
KGB in the old days", says Pustyntsev (21).
In June 1995, 11 security chiefs of the CIS met in Georgia to conclude a series of proto-
cols on terrorism, a common database, training, exchanging employees and restoring the
uniform technical base of the KGB, USSR (22).
After the election to the duma on December 17, 1995, the remarkable pattern of the al-
most complete return to power of the communists in the entire Eastern Europe has been established. Not very surprisingly, commentators on political events are unanimous in assessing the return to power of the new communists as a relatively harmless pheno-
menon (23). The idea that the return of old KGB people may pursue the same way back as the re-turn of the communists has not emerged to the surface, probably because the ma-
jority of commentators, in so far as they are not employed by an intelligence service themselves, usually confound the backstage stance of intelligence with the belief that this means the intelligence services do not take leading parts on the political scene, the truth being that it is far closer to reality to depict intelligence directors as the masters pulling the strings of the puppets on the stage playing politicians. Together with the intelligence ser-
vices, the communist systems, old or revamped, constitute an immense dead weight pul-
ling in the wrong direction and halting for a deplorably extended period in history the inescapable revolutionary showdown with the political guardian system (to put it mildly)
which has been dominating Russia, East and West Europe and America since the begin-
ning of the 1960s.
The intelligence services and the Mafia
Some time before several of the great revolutions in history, there have been one or
several precursory social revolts thematically connected with the ensuing greater event,
e.g. the Russian revolt in 1905 followed by the revolutions in March and October 1917. We can discern a similar coherent texture running from the diffuse, but pronounced uneasiness
of the antiauthoritarian, confrontation-seeking student revolts in 1968, over the revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989-90 with rising, although one-track minded criticism of intelligence services (Stasi, KGB) to the more or less predictable cataclysmic events of 1996 revealing the nauseating global impact of satellite intelligence with its decades of wily and atrocious crimes.
Considering the lawless undermining of civilian society, it comes natural to try to make a
total assessment of the extension and composition of the illegal forces ravaging the globe. What first leaps to the eye is that the people who control military spy satellites are certainly not the only subversive power against the social order. On the contrary, there is a striking similarity between the perpetrations committed via military spy satellites and transnational crime directed by crime syndicates.* Both the mafia, whether American, Italian or Russian
to mention them in the estimated order of economic and subversive capability (25, 26), the Chinese triads, the Japanese Yakuza, the Colombian Cali and Medellin cartels and the con-trol organisations of military spy satellites are secret, sinister while internationally cooperat-
ing syndicates feeding on defenceless civilian individuals and small civilian groups (families, organisations, companies). Stephen Handelman's thesis that the Russian mafia is on the point of conquering America and his awe at the (in some cases) high educational level of the new Russian immigrants being thoroughly conversant with government work, finance and administration and the workings of computers and networks should be seen in the light of
the fact that this has been a rather appropriate description of leading American gangsters for some 30 years. Instead of underlining the importance of the particularly Russian contribution, the alarm bells should be sounded for focusing on the quick-growing new formation, the speedy global coalescence of the various, originally nationally based crime organisations
(27).
1996 is a too advanced moment to be 'en garde' any longer speaking of conspiracies and paying heed to potential accusations of being delusioned just because people don't like the idea that there is such a thing as conspiracies. You must be blind, deaf, or very ignorant if
you are unable to realize that the power of these speedily increasingly powerful organisa-
tions does not unfold itself in an empty space. Obviously, the target these powers are converging towards is civilian society - on a global scale.
For some time, exchange of views must have been in progress between the large crime syndicates about the new qualitative developments and large-scale (including political) possibilities inherent in the situation 2-5 years ahead when the organisations have entered into the stable phase of organised, high-performing global coalescence.
In conclusion to his paper on the former KGB, James Sherr writes: "In future, the conflict between the sanctioned gangsterism of the security organs and the unsanctioned gangsterism of the mafias is bound to grow rather than diminish. Between these two millstones, the ordinary citizen will have to get by as best he can" (28). The truth is that for
the ordinary citizen the conflict between the security organs and the mafias is very often merely academic. For those who still believe in the potential of the individual, it is obvious
that some very fundamental new, large-scale political structures must and will be created. What these new political structures could be is suggested by the author in the latter part of the book.
____________________
* The convergence between the two major subversive powers is illustrated by the recent attempt by the Medellin Cartel to acquire a communications satelllite in order to prevent eavesdropping of its international telephone conversations (24). Obviously, the aspirations and powers of these organizations are on the verge of gaining entry to the pieces they
most desire in the military hardware store: nuclear weapons as well as satellites.
Some remedies
Suffice it to say here that to overcome the formidable barriers against a healthy development of the political systems in some of the world's largest countries, some powerful agents of change and novelty are required. Five promising instruments for this task might be:
1) A very strong popular indignation equivalent to nothing less than a short-term "just war"
(29) against the disclosed criminal behavior of government agencies. The leading 'Just War' theorist Robert Tucker made the following statement on the vital ethical question, 'do the
ends justify the means': "The ethics of war may justify the use of almost any weapon and the employment of almost any method which can realise the ends and purposes of a Just War" (30). The present author disagrees fundamentally on this moot point. In my view there will be no "just" war any longer unless extremely serious and comprehensive efforts are made on
all levels to limit to the utmost the bloodshed in such a short war.
2) A long-term thorough investigation lasting 5-10 years (the denazification processes in Germany constituting a precedent) of the protracted series of crimes committed by KGB, NSA and the NATO group, classified COSMIC, who in NSA/NRO direction has committed
the satellite crimes which are dealt with in detail in this book. Information about and numer-ous examples of such intelligence crimes should be published from the beginning in the
press and shown on tv with painstaking realistic authenticity.
3) Creation of several new, regional, satellite intelligence systems (e.g. Scandinavian, East European minus Russia, African minus the Arab nations, South-American, East-Asian
minus China and minus Japan, etc.) under very broad and very open public control in the regions in question, one of the tasks being to combat organized crime.
4) Creation of a global intelligence and security system using intelligence satellites under
very broad popular and international control at the expense of notoriously criminal agen-
cies like NSA and KGB which must be dissolved, however with contributions from the experience, information and criticism from the regional satellite intelligence systems. An interactive criticism, openness and exchange of views between the global and the re-
gional systems is called for and expressions of opinion should be commented on con-
tinuedly in the press and on tv. The global intelligence system should also be equipped to combat the crime syndicates in co-operation with the regional satellite intelligence systems while having the required breadth of vision for and expertise in combatting crime on the
global level.
5) A reshuffling of the deep potential of change inherent in the endeavor towards reunifi-
cation of North and South Korea and China and Taiwan, nations with a total population approaching 1.5 billion. The forces who have opposed reunification most savagely can
be identified as military hawks in both camps . A deliberate reduction of the influence of
these groups will leave room for new political developments in China and Korea concur-
rently with continued economic growth and a vigourous increase of the number of well-educated young people.
Against ? Who and whom ?
It is interesting to see how well-informed the erudite CIA is of the moral foundation of just wars: quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, James A. Barry, deputy director of CIA writes (29):
"the act of going to war must have the following characteristics if it is going to be a moral
act: the action must be ordered by proper authority; the cause must be just; and there
must be an intention of promoting good or avoiding evil". And further: "the action must be
a last resort and peaceful alternatives (negotiations, sanctions, and so forth) must have
been exhausted or judged ineffective; there must be a reasonable probability of success anticipated; and the damage which the war entails must be expected to be proportionate
to the injury or the injustice which occasions it".
As it will appear from this book, it can safely be said that "the proper authorities" - the controllers of the military spy satellites by committing high treason, murder, rape, and
what not against their civilian fellow countrymen have triggered themselves the decision to adopt war operations and not judicial acts against themselves. How to commit rape via satellite is described in some detail in chapter 4, whereas an account of a series of bestial crimes, also committed via military spy satellites but camouflaged as suicides (31) is given
in Chapter 10.
Regarding the possibility mentioned by James Barry of initiating negotiations or imposing sanctions on barbaric killers, torturers, and brutish rapists I would desuggest entering on
such inadequate, humiliating or ridiculous courses of action.
By now, in 1996, it should be obvious that the uncompleted, or rather merely commenced revolutions in 1989 with the subsequent heartbreakingly na‹ve if not subtly misguided ac-
tions against the intelligence services in Eastern Europe - together with the not less credul-ous attitude that actions against their counterparts, the intelligence agencies in Western Europe and USA were not called for - are so many manifestations of failure - failure to see what these agencies actually are, failure to take proper action against them, and of course,
in rare cases, mere cowardice.
The amount of courage and firmness required for the showdown with NSA and its Eu-
ropean appendage, the intelligence agencies of the NATO countries, is suggested by the positive example of a few courageous American writers, among others Alex Constantine
(32) and Anna Keeler (12), who under extremely difficult conditions succeeded in accomplishing what the present author tried in vain to do through a decade: to get some clandestine, basic facts about military satellite spying of immense importance to the gene-
ral public published by a recognized publishing company and thereby incorporated in what is considered established reality, and negatively by some reports from the former East Ger-many (33) and Czechoslovakia (34), which on one side show the tenacity of life of the 'Alte Kameraden', the web of their continued mutual support and deftness in the art of bringing themselves in situations where they cannot easily be attacked, and on the other side their former victims' irresolution and incapacity to act.
One such victim, now President Havel of the Czech Republic expressed the opinion (34)
that former agents of the dissolved StB (the Czech Communist security service) should be
let alone with their conscience (understating that legal proceedings should not be taken against them). That attitude might have been humane and even politically wise, if it did not stand in the way of further progress of the East European revolutions. It contributes to halt
the healthy desire of a systematic trans-illumination of the foundation of the old - and the
new - society. Apparently, there is such a desire of "Bew„ltigung der Vergangenheit" once again in Germany. It is not difficult to see, however, that the West German 'Bundesnachrichtendienst' with the appurtenant political establishment has profited immensely politically from supporting, more or less discreetly, charges against their East German counterpart, the 'Stasi' and former CP leaders - the implication being to plead not guilty of analogous perpetrations against West German citizens.
Since the 1960s, BND units in NATO direction have participated in massively criminal and increasingly effective behavior controlling routines involving sexual assault and physical violence levelled against defenceless civilian citizens. The knowledge they had acquired surfaced during the hostage in Van Wou Straat, Amsterdam, in May 1978 which during the author's later conversations with one of the victims loomed up as a fake, a stage setting of
an intelligence 'exercise' carried out via American spy satellites by BND in intimate cooperation with Dutch (and American) intelligence units with the purpose of instilling, simulating and controlling terrorist behavior - and the reactions of the press and tv (35).
In the light of the increasing symmetry between the control instruments of the societies of Russia and America it ought not to be particularly unworthy of credence that also Stasi and BND offered many points of resemblance in the past three decades. It is just that BND by
and large managed and was allowed (36) to perform discreetly. A glance at the reflected, slightly modified and enhanced (?) image of BND, at Stasi, will do for those who quite straightforwardly want to fathom what has been going on between the Bundesnachrichtendienst and the West German civilian society while rejecting to let their imagination be harnessed by the concerted opinion-shaping efforts amassed by the Ger-
man Federal Republic Government.
The ability to take a fresh, unprejudiced look at both sides after the fall of the Iron Curtain,
the speedy, on-going unfolding of a Pan-European awareness results from the Europeans' now possible, free exercice of criticism against antiquated views and the obvious criminal proclivities of those enrolled in power systems permeated by the incessantly depraving influence of present-day secret services. What a pity if the clear light from the coming uni-
fied Europe should fade and only shine with the spurious, old-hat tinge of self-glorification,
the property party's heartbreaking cheering itself, which we know inside out - from the
political establishment of U.S.A. and rich West European countries !
That the inflation of the European economic pie will bring more pie to all Europeans is not a really new idea, whereas the discovery that not only Eastern Europe has been enslaved for some decades, but also Western Europe and America, is a (rather shocking) novelty to
most people.
A decade ago, when the best analytical and political minds of Eastern Europe were left
with the alternative either to lie fallow or to move in the old groove of vain, counter-intuitive
attempts to stow away the rising wave of 21st century issues in the mossy, decayed river barge of theoretical marxism, the Eastern Europeans regretted that the West apparently
didn't need Eastern Europe. It was part of the inventoried observations of East European intellectuals then to make (very justified) ironic remarks about the enthousiasm of West European marxists. Well, revenge is sweet: Western Europe is not pure market economy and freedom, it is only market economy.
An important part of the political message of this book, in support of which detailed technical information abounds, is that the EU countries are at least as unfree, indeed dominated by their security services, as the East European societies have been themselves, as they are again now and are going to become in the future more than ever before, unless their docile queueing up as potential applicants for membership of the EU is complemented by an acute, popular awareness - and a severe criticism - of the discreet intelligence tyrannies of the EU states.
Historically, i.e. before World War II, the intelligence services were small of size and there was a common consensus that "on n'en parle pas" - like a bodily defect they should be treated with discretion or better pretended not to exist at all. That attitude was wrong then
and it is against people's better judgment now.
We live in a global information society now, but people are still encouraged by the local, national media to adopt the same old attitude to the intelligence services, which, all the
while, have experienced incessant, speedy growth and achieved monstrous, overwhelm-
ing size and power, while undergoing at the same time the inevitable concomitant qualita-
tive changes including major transformations like shift of focus and change of foe image. Conversely, it is a characteristic feature of an entire technological sector developing and proliferating during 35 years without the world insisting on knowledge and control that new qualitative developments, like the ability to transfer text and graphic from a video display terminal within a building to another data screen in a parked car outside or to a terminal in another building (37), without hindrance and unnoticed can be made part of larger, quanti-tative operations, e.g. systematic, speedy and effective "vacuum cleaning" of large data-bases (involving passive copying only during ordinary, polished performance - not comparatively naughty active interventions like insertion of satellite transmitted computer
virus into the company's computer network which NSA has recently admitted is also pos-
sible (38)), e.g. from a big company - uplink to military spy satellites and downlink to the computers in the military ground stations. In the light of this somewhat unsentimental scenario, it might be, let us say productive, to invite, at a propitious moment, the offended
CIA Director James Woolsey (now discharged) to repeat the show for a wider audience which he held in 1993 before a gathering of leading American businessmen justifying CIA's economic espionage facing up to the foreigners' notorious, deeply unfair treatment of American companies (39). As the arms race recedes into the background, a stormy development within all fields of economic intelligence is expected or has already begun
(16). Other possibilities of this kind of satellite spying are large-scale theft of personal data and deciphering of "safe", encrypted messages, both rendered feasible through decades of civilian slackness while highlighting the mis-placed debate about the control of personal
data and the frequently very theoretical - and comically complacent - papers on encryption.
Encryption
In recent years, a host of mathematicians have elaborated various types of algorithms
which make it practically impossible, not to eavesdrop on but to decipher the messages
sent via telephone lines. This means, we are told, that the transmission of sensitive data which are encrypted is perfectly safe. It is however obvious that if you have a communica-
tion line where the telephone line itself is perfectly secured against deciphering of the messages transmitted by it, then the status of the transmitting and receiving terminal assumes an entirely novel importance.
Contrary to the generally, even by eminent mathematicians accepted view, these terminals will certainly not be secured against eavesdropping and deciphering, when NSA and KGB through traffic analysis (40) as they please can familiarize themselves about the where-abouts of interlocutors, proceed by asking subliminal questions communicated by microwaves from satellites to unsuspecting programmers and operators in the building(s) about keys, codes, etc. and accordingly can secure their replies are received and data routinely copied and transferred from computer screens inside buildings to their own computers.
Obviously, in the era of rapidly expanding encrypted communication, it is crucial for intelligence organisations wanting to sidestep the cumbersome, innocent (?) and certainly rigid-minded, functionally fixed encryption of tele-messages to be capable of determining the exact geographical position, i.e. the very room where a communication terminal is placed. In keeping with this development, the intelligence services have found it necessary to impose automatic traffic analysis by force, and as it appears from the bashful attitude of the tele-phone companies in my country, Denmark, resorting to downright denial of this obvious fact (41), we have evidently arrived at the crux of the matter. In the case before us, Denmark is
not different from the rest of Western Europe (apart from the peculiar case of France, see below). A mobile phone is connected to the nearest mobile phone station when it is switched on. From here, the call is put through to the central computer in TeleDanmark or Sonofon
(the two existing mobile phone companies in Denmark) communicating the exact geographical position of the mobile phone (42).
This automatic procedure would make possible - immediate, if desired - satellite interference into the communication link, into the brain of the calling or receiving person, who may be separated by several thousands of miles, or just simple eavesdropping.
However, in the case of mobile phones, this costly intervention via satellites is not even necessary because the central computer at TeleDanmark or Sonofon records everything
that is going on at the mobile phone: its immediate whereabouts, whether it is being moved, who is being called, the exact time of the day, the duration of the call as well as who is calling.
This information is recorded automatically for all the mobile phones. The information is stored in a computer and can be retrieved any time. But there is more: all the calls from all the mobile phones can even be decoded into meaningful conversation, because the calls are transmitted digitally. The radio signal from the mobile phone to the nearest radio station is encrypted, but the radio station is simultaneously a powerful computer that decrypts the radio signal and retransmits it on the telephone network. The decrypted, but still digital, conversation can be stored in a computer and from here be transferred on the telephone network or be saved on a diskette (42).
As for the French mobile phones using the GSM system, none of the calls between the basis station and the telephone are encrypted because the Direction de Renseignement G‚n‚rale - the RG - demands that it must be possible to listen directly to all the citizens' telephone conversations (41). In France, the land of free speech and revolutions, the Government has prohibited revolution and free speech by law. The one subject which in the latter half of the 20th century presents ample reason for revolution, the (ab)use of the electromagnetic spectrum by the intelligence services, is a prohibited subject of public debate in France. When a Dutch engineer, Wim van Eck demonstrated a set of passive electromagnetic eavesdropping appliances at a conference in Cannes in 1985, no French citizens were allowed to attend the presentation (37).
One thing is however what the French Government insists on forcing on its citizens, another thing is what the intellectual integrity of individual outstanding French citizens prompts them
to do. In the case of the French sea captain, pilot, and writer, Michel Brun, it was a hard, assiduous investigation during 10 years that resulted in the revelation in the autumn of 1995 (43) of a wily game played by four governments to hide the fact that a major air battle involv-ing the shooting down of six American military aircraft had been fought in connection with the crash of the Korean airliner KAL 007 in 1983. This air battle brought the world closer to the Third World War than it had been since the Cuba crisis and the course of events could only be brought to light because Michel Brun insisted on using his knowledge of radar, electronic intelligence and ferret satellites in an independent manner capable of rejecting the hoaxes
and suppressions which the four governments of USA, USSR, Japan, and South Korea succeeded in forcing upon the world through 12 years. For the history of the fantastic general apathy of civilian society to the havoc of the military spy satellites, the example of Michel Brun is an illuminating landmark proving that a clear-headed individual possessing a number of outstanding personal qualities and professional skills may certainly be capable under favourable circumstances of doing something against the governments' conspiracy of
silence about "sensitive" applications of satellite and aviation electronic intelligence. I believe
it is natural and right to call this attitude conspiratorious though I am aware that wide circles within the intelligence community subscribe to other designations, e.g. the "special relationship" between Great Britain and USA (44) "a series of deep and complex linkages at many levels of government. The exclusivity of the relationship is also critical, as is clandestinity. Shared secrets - military, nuclear, intelligence - makes a powerful bond". And the author of these obliging words, Jay Jakub, concludes his happily spinning yarn about the "special relationship", which as it will appear from the following pages (especially chapter 10) it is regrettably closer to the harsh truth to consider the grim principal axis of the organised North-Atlantic treachery to numerous unoffending and defenceless civilian citizens, with a truly prophetic quotation from Benjamin Franklin: "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately" (44).
Commenting on Van Eck's eavesdropping equipment, prof. Highland, editor-in-chief (until 1990) of Computers & Security, noted (in 1988) that this technique had been known to NSA and DoD (Department of Defense) for more than 20 years and stated that "the U.S. government appears willing to go to embarrassing lengths to keep an open discussion and demonstration of electronic eavesdropping equipment from the public" (37).
The discovery of a common enemy, the intelligence services in East and West, will undoubtedly result in a surging final clash between the European and American peoples on one side and their intelligence services on the other side, leaving behind as an old, worn-out suit of clothes the comatose if not depraved attitude to these criminal agencies. The coming experience will imbue the Europeans and the Americans with a deep horror and an in-depth understanding of the intimate embedding and artful working in western and eastern societies of intelligence services throughout the past three and a half decades.
References:
(1) Steinberg, Gerald M.: Satellite Reconnaissance. The Role of Informal Bargaining.
Praeger, 1983.
(2) Andrew, Christopher: For the President's eyes only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. Harper Collins, 1995.
(3) Gertz, Bill: The Secret Mission of NRO. Air Force Magazine, June 1993.
(4) Burrows, William E.: Deep Black: The Secrets of Space Espionage. Bantam Press,
1988.
(5) Vereshchetim, V. in: Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. UNIDIR, 1987.
(6) Richelson, Jeffrey T.: The Future of Space Reconnaissance. Scientific American, Jan.
1991, Vol. 264, No. 1.
(7) Sweetman, Bill: Making Sense out of military space. International Defense Review, No.
9, 1993.
(8) Pike, J., Lang, S. and Stambler, E.: The Military Use of Outer Space. In: SIPRI Year-
book 1992.
(9) Wegner, Bodo: Russische F"deration. In: Schmidt-Eenboom, Erich (Ed.): Nachrichtendienste in Nordamerika, Europa und Japan: L„nderportr„ts and Analysen. CD-ROM. St"ppel Verlag, 1995.
(10) Airborne Instruments Laboratory. "An Observation on the Detection by the Ear of Microwave Signals". Proc. of the IRE 44, October 1956, 2A.
(11) Chou, C.-K. & Guy, A.W. & Galambos, R.: Auditory Perception of Radio-Frequency Magnetic Fields. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 71, No. 6, June 1982.
(12) Keeler, Anna: Remote Mind Control Technology. In: Keith, Jim (Ed.): Secret and Suppressed: Banned Ideas & Hidden History. Feral House, 1993.
(13) Tyler, Patrick E.: Spy Agencies for the New World Order. New York Times, May 19, 1991.
(14) Albats, Yevgeniya & Gevorkyan, Natalia: The KGB We Don't Know. Moscow News, No. 10, 1991.
(15) Richelson, Jeffrey T.: The U.S. Intelligence Community. 3rd edition. Westview Press, 1995.
(16) Eichner, Klaus: Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika. In: Schmidt-Eenboom, Erich (Ed.): Nachrichtendienste in Nordamerika, Europa und Japan: L„nderportr„ts and Analysen. CD-ROM. St"ppel Verlag, 1995.
(17) Clash over NRO's War Chest. In: Intelligence Newsletter, No. 283, 7 March 1996.
(18) Ostrander & Schroeder: Psychic Discoveries behind the Iron Curtain. 1970.
(19) Winkelmann, Mechthild: Berichterstattung aus dem Dunkel der Geheimdienste: Journalisten auf verlorenem Posten ? Untersuchung zu den Entstehungsbedingungen
eines Themas politischer Kommunikation. Medien und Kommunikation, 1993.
(20) Richelson, Jeffrey T.: A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century.
Oxford University Press, 1995.
(21) Schmidt, Dana: KGB i ny udrustning. Politiken, April 9, 1995.
(22) Sherr, James: Russia's Federal Security Service. Jane's Intellligence Review, Vol. 7,
No. 8, 1995.
(23) It's alive. The Economist, December 16th, 1995.
(24) Raith, Werner: Das neue Mafia-Kartell: Wie die Syndikate den Osten erobern. Ro-
wohlt Verlag, 1994.
(25) Handelman, Stephen: Comrade Criminal. Yale University Press, 1995.
(26) Bjerg M›ller, Jacob: Den russiske mafia vil erobre USA. Politiken, January 7, 1996.
(27) Brandt, Daniel: As criminal capitalism replaces communism: Organized Crime Threatens the New World Order. Namebase Newsline, No. 8, January-March 1995.
Internet.
(28) Sherr, James: Change and continuity in the former KGB. Jane's Intelligence Re-
view, March 1993.
(29) Barry, James: Covert Action Can Be Just. Orbis, Summer 1993.
(30) Bakshi, G.D.: The Just War Paradigm. Strategic Analysis, May 1995.
(31) Collins, Tommy: Open Verdict: An Account of 25 Mysterious Deaths in the Defence
Industry. Sphere Books, 1991.
(32) Constantine, Alex: Section One, Telemetric Mind Control. In: Constantine, Alex:
Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. Feral House, 1995.
(33) Ruby, J.: Stasierne saetter sig p† resterne af DDR. POLITIKEN, March 10, 1991.
(34) Bech, R.: Tjekkiske politikere var stikkere. POLITIKEN, March 20, 1991.
(35) Conversations with Marjanne Troost, Amsterdam, April 1988. (Taped).
(36) Schmidt-Eenboom, Erich: Schn ffler ohne Nase. Der BND: Die unheimliche Macht
im Staate. Econ Verlag, 1993.
(37) Highland, H.J.: The Tempest over Leaking Computers. Abacus, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1988.
(38) Private conversation with NSA official, May 1st, 1996.
(39) CIA to improve economic intelligence capabilities. International Defense Review, 1,
1994.
(40) Barlow, John P.: A Plain Text on Crypto Policy. Communications of the ACM, Novem-
ber 1993.
(41) J›rgensen, Asbj›rn: Computerne i hemmelig tjeneste. Datatid No.4, April 1994.
(42) Elkjaer, Bo: Saadan sporer de din mobiltelefon. Ekstrabladet, 30 September 1995.
(43) Brun, Michel: Incident at Sakhalin: The true mission of KAL flight 007. Four Walls
Eight Windows, New York/London, 1995.
(44) Jakub, Jay: The Anglo-American "Special Relationship" in the Post Cold-war World: Much More than Meets the Eye. Defense Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995.
--
Steen Hjortsoe
Larry Caldwell
In article <4ppa65$6...@nadine.teleport.com>,
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
> I think it goes further than that. Some of what are called paranormal
> phenomena may be quite accurate perceptions, although the explanation for them
> is probably in error. Consider the case of the man James Randi tested who
> claimed that he could, by paranormal means, read a phonograph record's
> contents without playing it. In fact, he could do so, but the explanation was
> his extremely keen eyesight, with which he could discern the variations in the
> record grooves. He was not misperceiving, but he was mis-explaining.
My experimental psych prof in college used to claim that we would never
prove the existance of ESP because as soon as we understood how it worked
it wasn't ESP any more.
The example he used was in Rhine's experiments where she observed
telepathic transmission of printed text. It turned out that the
"sender" was subvocalizing as he read and the "receiver" was actually
perceiving the subvocalizations and reconstructing the text. This
is pretty miraculous, but "it can't be ESP because we know how it
works."
Another example is the Russian experiments where people proved able to
read newspapers with their hands. It turned out they were feeling the
tiny differences between inked and uninked paper and decoding this
info into the original text. Once again, this is pretty amazing, but
"it can't be ESP because we know what they were really doing."
No one knows just how smart human unconscious processes can be, but
they sometimes perform at an astonishing level. It's quite possible
that incidents of telepathy and remote viewing are being misexplained
as well as often misperceived.
-- Larry
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4q1k2p$j...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
>>You just claimed that all other explanations of consciousness are
>>"impossible". How did you determine that?
>
>I have already told you how I determined that. I have already
>explained that what I have experienced cannot be quantified, and that
>there is no direct evidence as yet.
Very well. Then preface your assertions with the phrase "I believe..." Then
I'll have no problem with your statements at all. I'll know they come from
faith, not inquiry.
> The fact that you do not comprehend my reasoning means nothing.
Lack of agreement is not equivalent to lack of comprehension. I understand
your "reasoning", which should be more accurately labelled "rationalizing". I
simply challenge its validity. Since you have no demonstrable evidence, there
is no reason to declare your way to be the truth and all other explanations as
"impossible". That's too dogmatic for me.
>How do you know you are not spiritually blind? How can you quantify this?
How does one quantify a value judgement? You assume that those who disagree
with you are blind. How did you quantify that?
>I am not going to repeat myself, any more than a teacher repeats the
>entire lesson when one student has not paid attention to the lesson.
It's a poor teacher who cannot gain the student's attention. However, that is
not what is happening here. You are ducking my questions and trying to derail
the subject in order to avoid facing the fact that your assertions are
baseless. You have discounted real evidence and attacked me as someone too
blind and fearful to understand what you think is your great wisdom.
You're right. You shouldn't repeat arguments that have been shown to have no
validity at all. If you have nothing else to present, then stop complaining
and go have a conversation with someone who won't disagree with you.
>There are a couple of very essential truths which I wished
>to show you by my line of questioning. I will not tell you what they
>are; you must find them by answering the questions on your own. Do
>not waste my time.
Here you are, typing away, using up your time, then blaming me.
>If you are interested in getting started on your own Path to Spiritual
>Transformation, even if it's simply so that you can judge and try to
>objectify it, then E-mail me, and I'll send you some more questions to
>meditate on.
Hey, *I* asked *you* some questions which arose out of your assertions, not
the other way around. You clearly cannot answer them, so you think the only
way to save face is to throw out a bunch of questions irrelevant to the topic
and then claim that you were the one asking the questions in the first place.
Tricky, but too transparent.
>But this is the only way we will ever have a common frame of reference.
Since you insist that only total and unquestioning acceptance of whatever you
say is a "common frame of reference", then you are correct.
>>Look at your original assertion. You said that when there is no decision,
>>there is no movement. That is clearly and demonstrably wrong, as my
>>evidence points out. Therefore, your attempt to introduce this as evidence
>>to support the assertion that thought precedes brain activity is invalid.
>
>The exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule.
Sure it does. Why not? Does even more quantifiable evidence support your
view? No, it does not. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid.
>*Under normal circumstances, when there is no decision, there is no
>movement.* The circumstances you have cited are abnormal.
So you are now a bit less categorical than you were. Good. Now, since we
agree that all movement is not decided upon by metaphysical intercession, is
there any reason, other than whim, to conclude that our thinking arises from
metaphysical intercession? You can hypothesize that, but you can't conclude
it.
>An accident is a mess; conscious direction is ordered.
I thought you New Age folks believed that there *are* no accidents, just
misunderstood events. You are straying from the fold.
>Next, in the instance of the frog, it was your decision,
>consciousness, and initiative that caused the leg to move. YOU moved
>its leg.
I had a friend die when his kite touched a high tension wire and his heart was
stopped by the current. Who stopped his heart? Are you suggesting he
committed suicide? Did the power company murder him?
>>I like to have my view of the world as accurate a representation of what is
>>going on as possible. This makes it easier for me to anticipate events and
>>function more effectively. When I conclude things about the world that are
>>not supported by evidence I have no way to tell whether or not my view is
>>accurate, which impairs my effectiveness.
>
>>I have also noted the tendency we all have to let our beliefs distort our
>>perceptions and limit our ability to revise our views. In order to keep my
>>mind open to new possibilities and simultaneously avoid falling victim to
>>delusions, I require any assertion about the world to be congruent with the
>>evidence available.
>
>Please reread these paragraphs. You have said some very important
>things, but I don't think you realize what you have said (about
>yourself).
I wrote them, so I'm pretty sure I know what I meant by them. I am not at all
sure you do, though. Read them again, carefully. Ask youself, in all
humility, whether you might, just *might*, be letting your beliefs distort
your perceptions. How could you determine that?
>You've got to learn to find the cause of what you feel,
>rather than just finding the feeling.
Not just me. You should be questioning these things too. However, you are
not. You have decided what is true and you will believe it in spite of
evidence. You are basing your conclusions solely on what you feel without
trying to find out why you have those feelings or what caused them. You leap
from the feeling of consciousness straight to a metaphysical interpretation
with no inquiry at all. You disregard evidence; you disregard alternatives.
They are "impossible" or mere "exceptions to the rule".
>Are you claiming that you never act on intuition or a hunch? Have you
>never had a premonition? A gut feeling that later turned out to be
>true despite all "evidence" to the contrary?
This is evidence of some super-frequency invisible energy of consciousness
that exists independently of the body? It's a bit of a jump, don't you think?
Well, maybe you haven't thought about it much, having all the answers and
such.
Yes, I have had such feelings, and often do. However, I also have lots of
hunches that don't turn out to be true. I've noticed that the difference
between me and so-called "psychics" is that I remember my misses as well as my
hits and don't make a big thing out of a lucky guess. I'm not saying that
intuition does not exist, but I am saying that there is no evidence that
intuition must be attributed to undetectable high-frequency pseudoscience.
>We must all act on instinct or faith at some time in our lives.
We must all act on limited knowledge. That is all we can do. However, to
limit one's view to only one faith, despite the glaring fact that evidence
clearly contradicts it, is blind faith, rigid and self-limiting.
>>>Are you incapable of deductive reasoning? Do you not trust your capacity
>>>to deduce reasonably?
>
>>Have you noted a flaw in my deductive abilities? Please point out my
>>logical inconsistencies. Preferably, you should phrase these as invalid
>>syllogisms.
>
>I have not noticed a flaw in your deductive abilities.
Read what you wrote. If you did not notice any flaws in my deductive
reasoning, why did you accuse me of being incapable of it?
>I have noticed a fear of trusting anything that you yourself have not
>witnessed personally.
It is you who attributes such fear to me. I have expressed no such thing.
You make assumption after assumption with no evidence at all.
>You badger people for evidence, yet you do not see why you are so
>needy of that evidence.
You entered this thread throwing out all sorts of baseless assertions and then
claim I am "bothering" you by challenging them? You simply can't stand anyone
questioning your beliefs, can you? I think you thought you had all the
answers and were going to magnanimously tell me where I was wrong and I would
thank you for being so wise and kind. When it didn't work out that way, you
got perturbed.
>I will not tell you the answer, you must find it on your own,
>or it means nothing, especially for a person like you who is afraid to
>trust.
Another baseless assumption. Add to that a pious and supercilious platitude
which is nothing more than a way of saying that you have no evidence for your
assertions.
>It is important to ponder the "Why's" of life, rather than simply
>collecting evidence.
Collecting evidence is an intelligent way to ponder. It gets reliable results
far more often than you slipshod method of guessing and then hiding from any
evidence which suggests otherwise.
>Look to your past. Look to your childhood. Where is the betrayal? Where is
>the delusion you fear? Why are you running from it?
Pop psychology, now. How much training in psychology have you had? This is a
poor imitation of Freud. It is also an ad hominem argument. In case you are
unfamiliar with that term, it means that, instead of arguing your case on its
merits, you attack the worthiness of your opponent instead. It is considered
to be an invalid debate strategy.
ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk
Charles Gregory (ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) wrote:
: ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk () wrote:
: > Would there be any point in writing papers on perfectly understood
: > phenomina? :)
: Strictly speaking, the point of a paper is to make it perfectly understood.
: <grin right back at you>
If only! :)
: I frequently compare the pursuit of knowledge about psychic phenomena with
: the pursuit of knowledge about lightning. It can't be made to occur "full
: scale" on demand, etc, etc. It is interesting to note that we still do not
: know some of the fundamental processes that occur in thunderstorms. We know
: that charges separate in the clouds, but we have no direct evidence for how
: this happens (last time I checked <G>). Similarly, the knowledge/measurements
: for psychic effects are in the "we can see the charges separate" level of
: statistical analysis. There is some good statstical data for what happens,
: but we have no ability to recreate anything more dramatic than static
: electricity, and have no knowledge of the underlying processes that might
: allow us to infer the processes producing "big psychic lightning".
This I'll accept - with certain provisos. Lightning doesn't violate the
known laws of physics, /especially/ those governing the conservation of
energy.
There are a few things I should point out at this point. First, the entropy
of a system can /only/ increase. Second, momentum and energy must always be
conserved. Third, converting one form of energy to another is work. (See
first point.) Fourth, when transmitting energy in any form, there will be
a fall off which is a function of the form of transmission. eg: anything
transmitted equally in all directions will fall off with the square of the
distance.) Fifth, only certain energy states are allowed. In some cases,
this will be to conserve both k.e. - 1/2(mv^2) - and momentum - mv. A good
example of that is Newton's Cradle. In other cases, such as in quantum
physics, only certain states exist and you simply can't impose any others.
Therefore, if you know how much energy you get out at the end, you know
(a) how much heat there must be at the end, (b) how much heat there must
be at the start and (c) how much energy was needed in the first place.
(Despite certain claims to the contrary, it's easily demonstrable that
high-energy physics is /not/ required.)
: So far, the only explanation proven has been common fraud. But what do you
: expect when an ordinary human says he can produce lightning on demand? Now
: some people have been STRUCK by lightning (and survived, my lady is one of
: them). These people can make credible statements about what it "feels" like.
: This is where we stand with psychic phenomena. Beware of those who claim to
: produce it on demand, but have an open ear for those "struck" by it.
Science is only ever able to "prove" fraud - it's no mechanisms to prove
anything else. Anyone who asks for proof is not a scientist, it's as simple
as that. The best any scientist can do is provide a possible explanation,
but they /will/ expect you to throw rocks at that. They /want/ people to
throw rocks at that. The only way to know how good an idea is, is to find
out just how much it can survive. In the end, that is all science ever is -
the testing of notions to destruction, simply in order to build better ideas
to destroy. (Ok, I daresay a few academics will not take kindly to that
simplification of what is a very skilled job, but so what? Science is about
disproof, not proof, and no amount of wrangling can change that.)
John Hendricks
Double Aquarius wrote:
>
> pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu (Patrick C Mills) wrote:
>
> >'Scientifically impossible' and truely impossible are two COMPLETELY
> >different things. Science only sets boundaries for the reality we
> >understand. Scientific impossibilities are becoming very real
> >possibilities all the time. If I remember right, it was once
> >scientifically impossible to travel faster than sound, and here we got
> >jets doing it every day.
>
> Exactly. Scientists used to think that a human being would die if he
> traveled at a speed faster than twenty miles per hour. We all know
> how that ended up.
Yes... The Federal Government has officially posted the death limit at 65
miles per hour on most interstate highways, while most state governments
still maintain it is 55 miles per hour. Who says science and politics
don't mix?
JohnHendricks
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <31C582...@POP3.concentric.net>,
John Hendricks <Nan...@POP3.concentric.net> wrote:
>Yes... The Federal Government has officially posted the death limit at 65
>miles per hour on most interstate highways, while most state governments
>still maintain it is 55 miles per hour. Who says science and politics
>don't mix?
Actually, the posted speed is the limit at which a speeding ticket, issued by
the police agency with jurisdiction over a stretch of roadway, is considered a
distinct possibility. Last time I looked, there was no death penalty in law
for speeding infractions.
The statistical correlation between lower speed limits and death rates is a
scientific statement, the pronouncement of where we set legal consequences of
a headlong rush down an interstate highway is another matter altogether.
Legality is established entirely by opinion and rhetoric, factuality is
established by observation and replication. Science and politics agree only
by coincidence in most cases.
Mathias Karlsson
In article <4q1qbo$e...@news.paonline.com>,
>Actually gravity has been explained as the result of gluon particle
>interactions between hadrons since 1905 -- the year that Einstein
>explained the photoelectric effect and also came out with his most
>famous paper describing general relativity.
He also had another theory about gravitation which doesn't involve particles
at all. Which you might remember.
>What's interesting is that these things have been taught in High
>School physics courses for decades and yet some people demand that
>"science doesn't know" when in fact it is their own ignorance which
>is exhibited.
Well, I still never heard of any experiment that detected a graviton, nor a
wrap in 4-d space. Until such and experiment is carried out, this is just
elaborate guess work. Science doesn't know yet, it just has one hell of a
qualified guess. Gravitation is a bugger. And please tell me the correct value
of Hubbles Constant while we are things science knows. Or why three
experiments that should give the same value of G (not g) gives different
values and noone has figured (last month atleast) WHY they yield different
results.
You are blind in your faith, just as the other side. There is much that
science doesn't know. That is why I am studying it, if we knew it all, there
would be no point in doctoring in physics... ;)
I'll hate the day when science knows it all.
You had several good points in your posts, and I am also dubious as whether to
post this or not, as the protagonists might take it as evidence of science's
weakness. (Which it is, but not the way they most likely think.)
/Idre
TOM ELEVEN
>>It does seem rational, until you look for evidence that spirits actually
>>exist. That's where the logic breaks down. There is no serious
evidence
>that
>>indicates the existence of any sort of "spirit". Once you make that
>arbitrary
>>and baseless assumption, then all sorts of things that are not very
likely
>>seem quite reasonable.
Yes but what happens when YOU actually see the phenomina that is
called a "Spirit"---and OTHER people see it too and there is no
possibility of trickery or illusion? This is what has happened to many
of us--so we KNOW there is such a thing.---This is not to say that it is
actually the "soul" or "ghost " of a dead person (thats the TRADITIONAL
superstition ASSOCIATED with the spirit phenominom), but Holographic -
like appearences of human appearing forms DOES happen. This is the
REALITY that we must deal with. If your science cannot explain it, then
your "Science" is incomplete or WRONG Reality does not accomodate itself
to mans limited knowledge.
tome...@aol.com Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\
Charles Gregory
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
> >I can't think of any physical laws that would be violated by telepathy
> >or remote viewing.
> Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
> information from one mind to another?
Two possibilities:
1) Light. The communication is by various subliminal messages transmitted
via body language.
2) An undiscovered (or improperly identified) sub-atomic wave/particle.
Neither of these requires a new physical law, the latter merely requires an
extension to accomodate unknown particles/forces. Clearly it is idle fantasy
to suppose that an (undetected) force exists which would contravene our
understood physical "laws" or somehow violate them. It is no different a
case than noting that most substances continue to contract when they freeze,
but water ice expands, making it less dense than the liquid state. The
exception does not "violate" the "law" that all substances contract upon
freezing once the underlying processes are understood.
> Thought
> is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain. How do these
> nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any connection
> at all between them?
They wouldn't. Therefore the apparent "finding of their way" from one brain
to another implies a connection. It is the job of science to find the medium
of the message. <G>
> This is an apparent violation of cause and effect.
And because cause and effect cannot be violated we must properly assume that
something "indetectable" is responsible for the phenomenon (or assume that
the phenomenon is not occuring - your option).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Gregory
E-Mail: cha...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Home Page: [J]ump to "http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab801/Profile.html"
--
TOM ELEVEN
>
>I'd agree, though, that most of what is called paranormal is
misperception of
>
>one kind or another, which is probably why it is so elusive under
controlled
>conditions. Controls are meant to dispel illusions.
The primary reason that "paranormal" Phenomina may be so ellusive
under controled conditions is that Not enough is KNOWN about the phenomina
itself to determine what controls should be used. The experimenter may
"control" the phenomina to the point where it CANNOT manefest itself.
A parallel would be, a few hundred years ago--trying to proove that
ELECTRICITY existed. If the experimenters did not have the concepts of
"insulator" and "Conductor", odds are, an experiment designed to
demonstrate the "flow" of the "electrical fluid" would fail.
Most tests of "paranormal" phenomina are based upon pre-supositions as
to how they function and what the nature of the phenomina is. What if the
pre-supositions are WRONG? One may be mislead into beleiving that the
phenomina in question does not exist at all.
Matt Kriebel
John Hendricks (Nan...@POP3.concentric.net) wrote:
:
: Yes... The Federal Government has officially posted the death limit at 65
: miles per hour on most interstate highways, while most state governments
: still maintain it is 55 miles per hour. Who says science and politics
: don't mix?
Interesting, what states still keep the 55 MPH limit? I can only think of
New Jersy off hand... Are there others besides?
(Urban areas don't count!)
Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
Not so much a shotgun approach, more like a double-loaded grapeshot approach.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4q54td$a...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) wrote:
>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>> Really? What form of radiant energy does telepathy use to transmit
>> information from one mind to another?
>
>Two possibilities:
>
>1) Light. The communication is by various subliminal messages transmitted
>via body language.
That would take it out of the realm of mind-to-mind communication and define
it as merely non-verbal communication, which would not require any special or
unusual explanations.
Since many proponents of telepathy claim that this communication can happen
out of line-of-sight, this explanation would not cover all the cases. It
might explain some of them, though.
>2) An undiscovered (or improperly identified) sub-atomic wave/particle.
In other words, you suggest a radiant energy which is very common, is
perceivable by the human nervous system, and yet is undetectable by any means
other than that nervous system. That sounds so unlikely as to be a violation
of the physical laws governing the action of radiation. There are a
considerable number of radiant energies that we don't perceive that we are
able to detect, but it has never been the case that we perceived an energy
that was otherwise undetectable.
>They wouldn't. Therefore the apparent "finding of their way" from one brain
>to another implies a connection. It is the job of science to find the medium
>of the message. <G>
Whoof! Now there's a task! First we should make sure that a message actually
got sent, don't you think?
>And because cause and effect cannot be violated we must properly assume that
>something "indetectable" is responsible for the phenomenon (or assume that
>the phenomenon is not occuring - your option).
Well, if the phenomenon simply would not go away, despite all the efforts to
control the variables which would explain it in conventional terms, I would be
left with no choice but to accept it as real and unexplained. Then by study
of this replicable and measurable phenomenon, I might be able to come up with
a checkable theory for its operation. However, that replicable phenomenon
which cannot be eliminated by control of conventional variables has not yet
been demonstrated.
There is no point in not looking for one, though, if you feel strongly that it
could actually be there. Let's keep looking. It's a long shot, but long
shots have paid off before. It doesn't happen often, but enough so that a
gambler who can afford a risk will still put a fin on a nag, just in case.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <dDQxx0O5...@teleport.com>,
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
>My experimental psych prof in college used to claim that we would never
>prove the existance of ESP because as soon as we understood how it worked
>it wasn't ESP any more.
>
>The example he used was in Rhine's experiments where she observed
>telepathic transmission of printed text. It turned out that the
>"sender" was subvocalizing as he read and the "receiver" was actually
>perceiving the subvocalizations and reconstructing the text. This
>is pretty miraculous, but "it can't be ESP because we know how it
>works."
I'm not sure what was meant by "subvocalization". All ideas that are
conceptualized as words are subvocalizations. If one is perceiving a
subvocalization because it is being muttered or mouthed, that is one thing. If
it was perceived directly from mind to mind, that would be another.
Certainly, a phenomenon that could be explained would no longer be considered
paranormal, but if there were such a power to perceive the thoughts of another
without recourse to the physical senses, I fail to see why it could not be
called ESP.
>Another example is the Russian experiments where people proved able to
>read newspapers with their hands. It turned out they were feeling the
>tiny differences between inked and uninked paper and decoding this
>info into the original text. Once again, this is pretty amazing, but
>"it can't be ESP because we know what they were really doing."
It wasn't ESP because it was sensory, not extra-sensory.
>No one knows just how smart human unconscious processes can be, but
>they sometimes perform at an astonishing level. It's quite possible
>that incidents of telepathy and remote viewing are being misexplained
>as well as often misperceived.
Almost certainly that is true.
Charles Gregory
d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
> >> By this definition, the recently-observed jets of bright material
> >> emerging above thunderclouds would count as paranormal.
> >
> >Understand that the jets above thunderstorms are likely NOT just "recently
> >observed" but have probably been seen for years and reported as "weird
> >lights" and in some people's imaginations as UFOs! With no credible evidence
> >for their existence, they were likely dismissed and ignored as "impossible".
> >Now, we have photographic evidence, and because it clearly is an atmospheric
> >phenomenon, the scientific community gives it some respect.
> See? That's how it works. A phenomenon has to be clearly observed and
> measured before it gets scientific credibility. It didn't turn out to be
> UFO's, though, did it?
It hasn't turned out to be anything, yet. It's a complete mystery. Boy! I
could start some neat rumours about them being discharges from alien
spacecraft that are, er, um, recharging, no, um, hiding, yeah, hiding in the
storm and it got too, um, er...... nah. Someone would take it seriously and
I'd have to take responsibility for it.
But as an "open minded" individual, not knowing means that "UFO's" could be
a potential explanation. More interestingly, by entertaining THAT thought, I
note that the phenomenon is a "fast moving light"!!! Not like the discreet
multiple points seen off my front porch, but without doubt an atmospheric
light that moved very quickly. One of the key elements of UFO reports is
"nothing can move that fast". Now we have something that CAN.
I LOVE nature.... <grin>
> Nor does it qualify as "paranormal". Most UFO believers would object to the
> description of UFO's as paranormal. Certainly scientists would not describe
> this atmospheric event as a paranormal occurence.
It's semantics. Fact is, "paranormal" is a word used to trigger
superstitions and alternately used by those who have conquered them to mean
"stuff you can't expect me to believe". I'll use the labels as best as I can
within the colloquial context, but rigid definitions of the word blur the
lines. Everything unknown and unexplained is meat for science.
> Well, now, psychic phenomena are not just rarely observed, they are never
> observed.
You mean that YOU have never observed them, and YOU have never received any
credible reports (using your criteria for "credible"). I have these
phenomena happen to me personally a few times each year. Strictly speaking,
because of the rampant fraud, and exaggerations, I can take most reports at
face value, but I really can't trust anything other than my personal
experiences because I KNOW the sort of analytical thought I have put into
determining possible causes. Yes, I may be crazy, but this possibility is
diminished by independent observers (as long as they are not taking cues
from me, which can't always be discounted). It's not easy, but one or two
clear cut examples stand forth.
> You need to understand the difference between an observation and an
> explanation. The observation of a bright light is not equivalent to an
> observation of an alien spacecraft. There may be many explanations for a
> bright light. The immediate and arbitrary conclusion that one explanation, an
> alien spacecraft, must be true is bound to be scoffed at.
Hmmm. One of the chief elements of UFO observing is an "uncomfortable"
feeling that "nothing human/natural could move like that". Like that group
of lights seen off my porch. They appeared to accelerate quite abruptly. If
the lights were really as far away as they looked, then the acceleration
would appear to be beyond our technological ability. The remaining cause I
can think of is atmospheric phenomena. Again, I don't know of any that
produce multiple discreet point source lights in a tight configuration that
doesn't "shift" as the phenomenon moves. This rigidity is not a trait of
natural phenomena in gases. With these thoughts in mind, and given the way
other lights in the sky did not distort or behave oddly, one can make a
fair, not necessarily "arbitrary" assessment that the viewed phenomenon was
NOT natural or man made.
Trouble is, of course, we DON'T know everything, so there is a natural
explanation, like those lightning storm lights that we just don't know about
yet. But people can be excused for mistaking SOME observations for aliens.
> Again, it is the difference between an observation and an explanation. You
> seem to want your explanation to have equal weight with an observation.
I would just like my explanation to have equal weight with other
explanations. For my personal assessment of "probability" to be considered a
"good approximation" rather than wildly innacurate delusions.
> >Who judges "spurious"? And on what criteria? Again, assumptions are made
> >from "common knowledge", about things NOT common.
> It is not unreasonable, then, to suspect a fraud when someone
> claims to be able to psychically bend spoons.
"Suspecting" is not "judging". My candidates for an unexplained event are,
in order:
1) Self delusion
2) Delusion by others who are self-deluded
3) Delusion by others who are deliberately trying to delude
4) Pure Random Chance
5) Unidentified man-made cause
6) Unidentified natural cause
Naturally, when I first have an observation, there is the qualitative
assumption that it is #5, but when I examine things critically, I start at
the top. I need to analyze my character and normal behaviour to assess #1.
It's really great if I have an independent observer, but I have to be sure
that THEY are not in category #2 or #3. And once we've established that an
accurate observation was made, then we go through #4 and #5, until we are
fairly certain that #6 is all we have left. I lump "psychic" stuff in with
all the other unknown natural causes, though it is usually the best
explanation for the event, because of the perceptual nature.
> >But is this conclusive? Just because the high profile "psychics" making the
> >"big claims" keep turning out to be frauds, does this invalidate the
> >phenomenon witnessed sporadically and randomly by ordinary people?
> If you can conclusively rule out lies, misperceptions, misrememberances,
> trickery, and so forth, then you may make such a case. However, you cannot
> rule such things out because the conditions under which the event occurred was
> not controlled.
Actually, I can "rule out" fraud under one condition: I have personally
witnessed it, and had my observation confirmed by someone who was not
prompted for information, but volunteered it, and their own words
unambiguously supported my observation. But otherwise, we must all attempt
to make a "fair assessment" of how likely it would be for someone to be
perpetrating a fraud. Not easy, and you're quite right, we can never be
conclusive about it. Trouble is that some "skeptics" are conclusive that it
*must be* a fraud because they can't fit any other explanation that they
accept to the data.
> Very true. Provide solid evidence and credibility will be established. Until
> then, the notion of psychic powers remains an unlikely hypothesis.
For you, without rancor, this is perfectly reasonable. For me the hypothesis
is more likely because I have been in a position to test it. Hence my
curiosity, and desire for further knowledge and testing.
> Keep the faith, Charles! More than one scientist was eventually able to
> convince the skeptics by stubbornly continuing to look until something
> substantial was found. Of course, many others stubbornly continued to look
> down blind alleys and never got their proof, because they were wrong.
But if, in the end, they forced a smile, and said, "oops! I was wrong." then
they were still scientists. If the upshot of telepathy is nothing more than
subliminal messages from body language, I will still be amazed by the way
such detailed information is conveyed.
> Well, that's the risk you take when you strike out to find something new.
Oddly enough, I don't feel a "risk". I am starting with nothing, and an
observation or two. I will see if I can make something of it. But if I can't
there is nothing really lost, is there?
Charles Gregory
Gary Jones <ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Recently. TOM ELEVEN <tome...@aol.com> wrote
> > Despite the denyal by the uninformed, Telepathy DOES exist.
> Despite the denial by the uniformed, there IS an invisible unicorn at
> the botttom of my garden.
Yes, okay, I'll play along for a moment. Tell me how YOU know it is there.
I'll tell you how I "know" telepathy exists: I have had images/thoughts
successfully transfer through a sound proof glass door and two intervening
walls, all while neither the "receiver" nor myself had intended to send
thoughts to her. I had been attempting to project an image to someone who
was with me in the same room, but someone else got it.
Two interesting points:
1) The experiment I was ATTEMPTING failed.
2) An unexpected successful result was obtained from a different source.
So what do you feed the unicorn......?
R. Wey
Gavin <gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
>There's no serious reason to believe in the existence of quantum
>particles or electrons either. Sure, scientists observe them in their
>experiments, but then magicians observe spirits too...
>
>
>
Given this path of logic, there's no reason to believe yesterday, or for
that matter, anything in the past ever transpired. Perhaps reality
suddenly happened RIGHT NOW and any memory of the past is mearly a
preloaded hoax!
John Lockhart
> > Thought
> > is a product of nerve impulses in the neurons of the brain. How do these
> > nerve impulses find their way from one brain to another without any connection
> > at all between them?
> They wouldn't. Therefore the apparent "finding of their way" from one brain
> to another implies a connection. It is the job of science to find the medium
> of the message. <G>
> > This is an apparent violation of cause and effect.
> And because cause and effect cannot be violated we must properly assume that
> something "indetectable" is responsible for the phenomenon (or assume that
> the phenomenon is not occuring - your option).
perhaps someone whose physics is more up to scratch [sound of kill files] can enlighten me, but doesn't bell's theorem, and
the experimental data supporting it, imply some sort of instantaneous action at a distance that seems to violate cause and
effect? i vaguely recall claims that it was not possible for any information to be carried using this process. could someone
clarify?
as far as i am aware though, no quantum effects are relevant to brain function. correct?
regards,
john lockhart
Prescience Saves
Here is a good question to ponder. Have you ever had the experience
of feeling that someone was staring at you from behind? You did not
know they were there, but you could feel a sensation of intense
concentration coming from behind you? If you have had this
experience, then how would you explain it? If you haven't, then can
you try to recreate it in an experimental venue? Many people have had
this experience (I have had it many times) and if you haven't had it,
you are very unusual. Perhaps you could interview people who have had
the experience and try to collect data about how and when it happens.
If light is real because many, many, many people (most people) have
experienced it, then this experience of feeling someone's eyes boring
into the back of your head (or the front, for that matter) is just as
real if most people have experienced it. Isn't it? How could you
prove it was not real? How could you prove that we are not all having
a delusion when we see visible light?
If you've never had this experience, it might be indicative of your
inability to perceive or experience any type of psychic phenomena.
This is just one example of circumstantial evidence that the vast
majority of humans in every culture on a daily basis reports. Do you
think it's worth considering?
J. C.
Hey, Gratuitous Psyndrome, I noticed you not-so-adroitly ducking
this question. I was looking forward to seeing you rationalize your
way around it . So come on, spontaneously fire up your neurons and
let us read your computer-like response.( I mean that in a good way)
Here is another unquantifiable yet true X-ample from life's real
X-files .
I was living in a city 400 miles from my sister, who was
attending college at the time. I am from a large family and we were
not particularly close at the time, and we had no correspondence
through the mail, telephone or otherwise.
One morning I awoke with a vague feeling that something was
amiss. Later, through the day, I had an increasingly strong feeling
that my sister was somehow endangered; I could not fathom why I
felt that way and had no inkling what could be wrong.
After two days of struggling against this palpable feeling of
unease and foreboding, I finally could not stand it any longer,
borrowed my landlady's phone and rung up my sister.
She was perplexed at my call. "No, nothing's wrong, every
thing was fine, What on Earth posessed you to call?"
"I had a 'funny feeling'."
"OK, yeah, I have to go now and get ready for a date."
Bang! it hit me! That was it! "NO, WAIT- DON'T HANG UP!
WhatdoyouknowaboutthisguywhoishepleasepleaseDON'T GO!"
(More discussion at various levels of consternation alternating
with reasoning and entreaties. The end result was that I
had confirmed her misgivings about her date and she promised not to
go with him to his "Surprise" destination or go anywhere with him
until she got to know him better.)
The next day , they found her date's body in his car with his
taped suicide message. He had planned a murder/suicide with
my sister as his victim, as his message stated.
Since I've already caught the drift of your stock replies,
I'll do you all a favor and write your responses for you so you can go
do more research in your ivory towers, probing brains and shocking
frog legs, phyllosophizing , and measuring vector bosons.
Gratuitous Pseudonymph: "Prove it! Prove it! Evidence!
Evidence!"
Phyllosoraptor: "NO! NO! It does not phit in my Phyllosophy!
It is not Phractal enouph phor me. It phits no pattern my bwilliant
mind... whoops, I meant bwain... can perciephe!"
Freddy Likes Rice: " Where's my slide rule- here it is. AHA!
There is nothing I can measure! Therefore this phenomena does not
exist!"
Gratuitous Psycophant: "Fantasy! Delusion! The End of
Civilization as We Know It! Lions and Tigers and Bears! Oh, My!"
Phyllosophisms: "Phooey! Phooey! You don't understand how my
bwain works! De bwain is wut de mind duz... whoops, de mind is wut de
bwain duz. Phine Phriend you is!"
Freddy Licks Rice: "Give me a ruler long enough, and a place
to stand, and I will measure the Universe!" BOSONS, BOSONS, AWAY!"
Thank you for your non-support- you may now return to your trivial
pursuit.
R. Wey
jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
<snip>
>Look at it this way;
>Conscious is *not* any of the forms of energy we can detect with
>modern machinery.
Uhhh, of course not. Consciousness is not detectable as a form of static
( non dynamic ) energy because it is clearly a process. Computer enhanced
EEGs (I believe that's the gadget) clearly show an increase in activity in
the frontal and prefrontal lobes of the cerebral cortex during cognitive
requirements. More evidence is the alteration of conscious behavior
resulting from frontal lobotomy. Although the frontal lobes seem to play
a clear role in conciousness, it is likely that the culmination of ALL
brain activity renders full conciousness. I doubt that a person, from
birth, who was blind, deaf, without smell, taste, sensation, and had a
non-functioning memory would be very concious.
For crying-out-loud, give the magnifisence of the brain some credit! With
its billions of interconnected cells and unimaginable (for obvious
reasons) dynamic activity, its not hard to conclude it is the source of
consciousness. If creation is your belief, take no offence because the
creation of such a structure from part of a 3 ft. strand of DNA bares
more wonder than "Let there be light"!
Antony Johnston
In article <4q757o$s...@nadine.teleport.com>, d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous
Pseudonym) wrote:
> I'm not sure what was meant by "subvocalization".
I believe it is working the muscles and larynx in accordance with the
words but without actually emitting a sound - not exactly mind-to-mind.
Antony Johnston
---
Here's my signature file, darling. I wasn't pissed when I wrote it, you know.
---
Mathias Karlsson
In article <4q81os$q...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
an...@anon.com (Prescience Saves) wrote:
>Here is a good question to ponder. Have you ever had the experience
>of feeling that someone was staring at you from behind? You did not
Yes, we could recreate it in a lab, where there are no reflective surfaces,
like other peoples eyes and where you CANNOT see them with your peripheral
vision. Then we can see if you get it right...
/Idre
Gary Jones
Recently, John Lockhart <J.W.Lo...@massey.ac.nz> wrote
>doesn't bell's theorem, and
>the experimental data supporting it, imply some sort of instantaneous action at
>a distance that seems to violate cause and
>effect? i vaguely recall claims that it was not possible for any information to
>be carried using this process. could someone
>clarify?
>
Physics Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann discussed this in his book "The
Quark and the Jaguar".
Bell's work suggested a new significance to the hypothetical EPR
experiment. (EPR stands for the people who devised the experiment:
Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen. Gell-Mann actually refers to the EPRB
experiment to acknowledge the later modification by Bohm). The
experiment would enable quantum mechanics as then understood to be
tested against proposed hidden-variable theories. The experiment was
performed by various teams and quantum mechanics prevailed, to the
surprise of very few physicists. Gell-Mann: "One might have expected
that interested people all over the world would heave a sigh of relief
on hearing the news and then get on with their lives. Instead, a wave of
reports began to spread alleging that quantum mechanics had been shown
to have weird effects. Of course, it was the same old quantum mechanics.
Nothing was new except its confirmation and the subsequent flurry of
flapdoodle."
Gell-Mann describes the supposed instantaneous action-at-a-distance
thus: "...the situation is like Bertlmann's socks, described by John
Bell in one of his papers. Bertlmann is a mathematician who always wears
one pink and one green sock. If you see just one of his feet and spot a
green sock, you know immediately that his other foot sports a pink sock.
Yet no signal is propogated from one foot to the other. Likewise, no
signal passes from one photon to the other in the experiment that
confirms quantum memchanics. No action at a distance takes place."
I think this is simplifying the situation somewhat; some very weird
things ARE going on, but how can I argue with Gell-Mann's conclusion?
Fairly detailed but not too-technical discussions on the EPR experiment
can be found in "The Cosmic Code" by Heinz Pagels and "Boojums All The
Way Through" by David Mermin. I think it's also discussed in the
sci.physics FAQ. However bizarre things get, I think all the accounts
are in agreement that local causality is not violated by the EPR
experiment and that information (in any useful sense) cannot be sent
instantaneously.
>as far as i am aware though, no quantum effects are relevant to brain function.
>correct?
I think that's right. This is discussed in Roger Penrose's "The
Emporer's New Mind". I agree with a recent capsule review which
described it as brilliant in everything except its central theme. It's a
desparately exciting and infuriating read. Anyway, towards the end of
the book he seems to be dead keen to establish some link between quantum
mechanics and consciousness. When he closes in on this point, he has to
concede that there is no evidence that single quantum events have any
significance for the working of the brain.
(Cross-posting trimmed.)
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
John DeLaughter
<SNIP!>
> Hey, Gratuitous Psyndrome, I noticed you not-so-adroitly ducking
>this question. I was looking forward to seeing you rationalize your
>way around it . So come on, spontaneously fire up your neurons and
>let us read your computer-like response.( I mean that in a good way)
Hmmm... an ad hominem attack - always the sure sign of an open mind.
>Here is another unquantifiable yet true X-ample from life's real
>X-files .
<SNIP! Details of alleged incident>
> The next day , they found her date's body in his car with his
>taped suicide message. He had planned a murder/suicide with
>my sister as his victim, as his message stated.
Refernces, please? Since this was a suicide, it should be documentable
through any number of sources; newspapers, coroner's reports, police
records, etc. Heck, just give *us* more data (the date and the city
in which this supposedly happened are a good start), and we'll dig it
out. Unless, of course, this is just something you made up to prove
your point.
John DeLaughter
Gavin
"R. Wey" <di...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Given this path of logic, there's no reason to believe yesterday, or for
>that matter, anything in the past ever transpired. Perhaps reality
>suddenly happened RIGHT NOW and any memory of the past is mearly a
>preloaded hoax!
Your example is known as Russell's Paradox. It's only true if you don't
believe in the future as well. Russell believed it though.
Anyway, I believe in the past because it has its uses, and because I have
been conditioned to do so.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <4q7l2q$q...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) wrote:
>d...@teleport.com (Gratuitous Pseudonym) wrote:
>But as an "open minded" individual, not knowing means that "UFO's" could be
>a potential explanation. More interestingly, by entertaining THAT thought, I
>note that the phenomenon is a "fast moving light"!!! Not like the discreet
>multiple points seen off my front porch, but without doubt an atmospheric
>light that moved very quickly. One of the key elements of UFO reports is
>"nothing can move that fast". Now we have something that CAN.
Clearly, photons can move very fast indeed, as can electrical discharges.
Virtually everyone knows that and no scientist has ever said that "nothing can
move that fast". You are taking that statement out of its context, I suspect.
>It's semantics. Fact is, "paranormal" is a word used to trigger
>superstitions and alternately used by those who have conquered them to mean
>"stuff you can't expect me to believe".
Are you are saying that only skeptics or superstitious people use the word
"paranormal"? That would be news to those readers who subscribe to
alt.paranormal.
>I'll use the labels as best as I can within the colloquial context, but rigid
>definitions of the word blur the lines.
Rigid definitions do exactly the opposite of blurring the lines, Charles.
They clarify them. In order to understand more fully what is meant by a term,
a discussion of its meaning by most people is helpful. However, if someone
wishes to keep the lines blurry, they should make sure that they use terms
that are so vague and ambiguous that no one can quite figure out what they are
talking about.
>> Well, now, psychic phenomena are not just rarely observed, they are never
>> observed.
>
>You mean that YOU have never observed them, and YOU have never received any
>credible reports (using your criteria for "credible").
I have observed many things that have been described as paranormal, but I have
never seen them demonstrated under controlled conditions that would eliminate
explanations which do not involve unknown energies or extra-sensory
perception. Those would be credible reports. What any other individual would
consider credible is a relative thing. People lose thousands of dollars to
confidence tricksters because they credited the illusions they were shown.
>> You need to understand the difference between an observation and an
>> explanation. The observation of a bright light is not equivalent to an
>> observation of an alien spacecraft. There may be many explanations for a
>> bright light. The immediate and arbitrary conclusion that one explanation,
>> an alien spacecraft, must be true is bound to be scoffed at.
>
>Hmmm. One of the chief elements of UFO observing is an "uncomfortable"
>feeling that "nothing human/natural could move like that". Like that group
>of lights seen off my porch. They appeared to accelerate quite abruptly. If
>the lights were really as far away as they looked, then the acceleration
>would appear to be beyond our technological ability. The remaining cause I
>can think of is atmospheric phenomena. Again, I don't know of any that
>produce multiple discreet point source lights in a tight configuration that
>doesn't "shift" as the phenomenon moves. This rigidity is not a trait of
>natural phenomena in gases. With these thoughts in mind, and given the way
>other lights in the sky did not distort or behave oddly, one can make a
>fair, not necessarily "arbitrary" assessment that the viewed phenomenon was
>NOT natural or man made.
There is the "if" you mentioned. If they were as far away as you thought they
were, you may make some guesses like those you did. However, accurately
guaging distances in the sky is extremely difficult. I am unable to explain
your story as I have no data other than your personal recollection and
relation of it. All I can say is that, while there are other explanations
which can fit all the facts and that do not involve factors as unlikely as
machines built by space aliens, they should be given precedence in
credibility. This may change, if new information makes those conventional
explanations inadequate.
>Trouble is, of course, we DON'T know everything, so there is a natural
>explanation, like those lightning storm lights that we just don't know about
>yet. But people can be excused for mistaking SOME observations for aliens.
Certainly they should. There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing or even
favoring an hypothesis that others consider unlikely. However, favoring an
hypothesis is not the same as believing it to be absolutely true and refusing
to give any weight at all to any other hypothesis.
You don't tend to indulge in that sort of thinking, Charles, as I know from
your previous posts on this subject, but there are those who do.
>> Again, it is the difference between an observation and an explanation. You
>> seem to want your explanation to have equal weight with an observation.
>
>I would just like my explanation to have equal weight with other
>explanations. For my personal assessment of "probability" to be considered a
>"good approximation" rather than wildly innacurate delusions.
Well, you're at a disadvantage. The explanation you offer has two major
credibility problems. I don't challenge the validity of your personal
experience, nor do I think you are unreasonable to suppose that there is
something very odd going on when you have these experiences. There may well
be. The first problem is that the experiences you base your explanation upon
are so subtle and so intermittent that they are insufficient evidence for me
to rank your experiences on a par with those based on consistent and
observable phenomena. The second problem is that your explanation involves
physical forces which have never been found. If those were to be discovered,
your explanation would rank quite a bit higher, as well.
>> It is not unreasonable, then, to suspect a fraud when someone
>> claims to be able to psychically bend spoons.
>
>"Suspecting" is not "judging". My candidates for an unexplained event are,
>in order:
>
>1) Self delusion
>2) Delusion by others who are self-deluded
>3) Delusion by others who are deliberately trying to delude
>4) Pure Random Chance
>5) Unidentified man-made cause
>6) Unidentified natural cause
Depending on the phenomenon in question, I might reverse 5 and 6, but I'd
agree that is would be a reasonable ranking. This would be very similar to my
way of thinking. I try not to make any absolute judgements, but I would not
be averse to thinking that, if the phenomenon does not eliminate a higher
ranking suspicion, there is no need to let a lower ranking suspicion have
equal weight. I might also use a word less loaded than "delusion", which
tends to be deprecatory. "Misperception" or "misinterpretation" seem a bit
kinder.
>It's really great if I have an independent observer, but I have to be sure
>that THEY are not in category #2 or #3. And once we've established that an
>accurate observation was made, then we go through #4 and #5, until we are
>fairly certain that #6 is all we have left. I lump "psychic" stuff in with
>all the other unknown natural causes, though it is usually the best
>explanation for the event, because of the perceptual nature.
Because of the intermittent and unexpected quality of your experiences, the
evidence is not collected in a carefully controlled way. Verification is
extremely difficult. One must weigh the reliability of the evidence as well
as the likelihood of the explanation.
>Not easy, and you're quite right, we can never be
>conclusive about it. Trouble is that some "skeptics" are conclusive that it
>*must be* a fraud because they can't fit any other explanation that they
>accept to the data.
Well, some people have very strong opinions about their particular world-view,
as you well know. I know of no reliable way to change that attitude.
>But if, in the end, they forced a smile, and said, "oops! I was wrong." then
>they were still scientists. If the upshot of telepathy is nothing more than
>subliminal messages from body language, I will still be amazed by the way
>such detailed information is conveyed.
I am continually amazed by the capabilities of the human mind. Just thinking
about the process by which we calculate how to hit a moving object with a
thrown rock is staggering. The math by which this is done is complex
calculus, yet some people with no displayed mathematical aptitude at all can
make those calculations in the blink of an eye, without even realizing it, and
hit that target with uncanny accuracy. Is intuition a similar phenomenon?
>Oddly enough, I don't feel a "risk". I am starting with nothing, and an
>observation or two. I will see if I can make something of it. But if I can't
>there is nothing really lost, is there?
Good point. You can't lose what you don't have.
Gratuitous Pseudonym
>of feeling that someone was staring at you from behind? You did not
>know they were there, but you could feel a sensation of intense
>concentration coming from behind you? If you have had this
>experience, then how would you explain it?
I first encountered this question when I was a boy in an ad for the
Rosicrucians (AMORC) in Popular Science. I tested it out and found that
people generally do *not* feel anything when they are stared at from behind.
There is no correlation between this feeling and actual events, except by
selective perception and recollection.
>If light is real because many, many, many people (most people) have
>experienced it, then this experience of feeling someone's eyes boring
>into the back of your head (or the front, for that matter) is just as
>real if most people have experienced it. Isn't it?
You are assuming that light is real because many people experience it. Many
people can experience an optical illusion, too. That doesn't make it real.
You have to get past this notion that appearances are proofs.
>How could you prove it was not real? How could you prove that we are not all
>having a delusion when we see visible light?
But sometimes we *are* experiencing an illusion when we think we are seeing
light. Try exerting a gentle pressure on your closed eyes. You will perceive
what appears to be light. It is not light. It is merely a pressure
stimulation of the optic nerves of your eyes. Just becuae you perceive a
thing does not make your interpretation of it into an incontrovertible fact.
>If you've never had this experience, it might be indicative of your
>inability to perceive or experience any type of psychic phenomena.
Since I have had this experience, and have tested it, your entire
rationalization breaks down.
>Here is another unquantifiable yet true X-ample from life's real
>X-files .
<snip the anecdote about amazing intuitive insights>
> Since I've already caught the drift of your stock replies,
>I'll do you all a favor and write your responses for you so you can go
>do more research in your ivory towers, probing brains and shocking
>frog legs, phyllosophizing , and measuring vector bosons.
<Snip a number of extreme exaggerations designed to make one's opposition look
foolish and stupid by putting foolish and stupid words in their mouths>
My response is that anecdotes make poor evidence, as always. They are
uncheckable, have only the information the teller chooses to mention, and
don't prove anything at all.
I never bother to try to explain anecdotes for these reasons.
>Thank you for your non-support- you may now return to your trivial
>pursuit.
Do I detect a note of arrogance here? Do your beliefs make you somehow more
important than others? I thought they might. It's one big reason why some
people like to believe in psychic powers. They get to feel superior to
others. I suspect that this is the case with you.
Gary Jones
Recently, Prescience Saves <an...@anon.com> wrote
>
> Since I've already caught the drift of your stock replies,
>I'll do you all a favor and write your responses for you so you can go
>do more research in your ivory towers, probing brains and shocking
>frog legs, phyllosophizing , and measuring vector bosons.
>
The standard sceptical response to your story would be none of those you
ridicule.
You do not, however, appear interested in how people might actually
respond, so I won't upset your little fantasy land where "sceptic" is a
synonym for "idiot".
--
Gary Jones
ga...@bohr.demon.co.uk
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Steen Hjortsoe <10156...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
#Against Military Spy Satellites
#- and even more against those who control them
I think you ought to know that we are aware that you missed the last
meeting of paranoids anonymous and that now we are really out to get
you.
Enjoy.
Twitch
Double Aquarius
dftf...@crl.com (Daniel FTF-Longoria) wrote:
>jcl...@airmail.net (Double Aquarius) wrote:
>% Here is a good question to ponder. Have you ever had the experience
>% of feeling that someone was staring at you from behind? You did not
>% know they were there, but you could feel a sensation of intense
>% concentration coming from behind you? If you have had this
>% experience, then how would you explain it? If you haven't, then can
>% you try to recreate it in an experimental venue? Many people have had
>% this experience (I have had it many times) and if you haven't had it,
>% you are very unusual. Perhaps you could interview people who have had
>% the experience and try to collect data about how and when it happens.
>% If light is real because many, many, many people (most people) have
>% experienced it, then this experience of feeling someone's eyes boring
>% into the back of your head (or the front, for that matter) is just as
>% real if most people have experienced it. Isn't it? How could you
>% prove it was not real? How could you prove that we are not all having
>% a delusion when we see visible light?
>%
>% If you've never had this experience, it might be indicative of your
>% inability to perceive or experience any type of psychic phenomena.
>% This is just one example of circumstantial evidence that the vast
>% majority of humans in every culture on a daily basis reports. Do you
>% think it's worth considering?
>%
>% J. C.
>have you ever turned your head for no apparent reason and then found
>you were making eye contact with someone else who also just for that
>instance happens to be looking in exactly your direction but you had
>no knowledge of them having been there previous to the occurrence nor
>had they? What made you turn? how was contact made so fast and then
>it is gone just as fast and it meant nothing?
>--
That's happened to me so many times I can't remember all the
instances!!!!!! It happens with complete strangers. I'll feel this
sensation of eyes boring into the back of my head, and then turn
around to see someone looking at me. Sometimes they're kind of nasty,
but most of the times it pretty benevolent. They just smile and look
away.
It's an occurrence so very common in my life that I've worked it into
a novel I'm writing.
More than anything I kept "accidentally" running into the same people
over and over again. I'd bump into them several times in one day,
sometimes, when they couldn't possibly have known where I was going or
when I was going there. There was one person in partcular that I had
a brief relationship with that was very bizarre, and kept running into
him even though he was trying to avoid me; after I tried to get rid of
him I kept running into him in the most mundane places. I ran into
him three separate times; at graduation, at the thrift shop, and at
the grocery store. Each time I got within one foot of him before
noticing he was there, and the first time I know for sure he didn't
notice me, because I didn't talk to him at all, and later he mentioned
that he'd "missed me at graduation".
I'm not really sure what it is, but I've noticed it happens most when
I'm thinking about a person a great deal. Maybe there's some sort of
magnetism involved; it seems to reach forward and backward into time,
as well. Have you experienced this?
J. C.
Patrick Schaaf
dftf...@crl.com (Daniel FTF-Longoria) writes:
>have you ever turned your head for no apparent reason and then found
>you were making eye contact with someone else who also just for that
>instance happens to be looking in exactly your direction but you had
>no knowledge of them having been there previous to the occurrence nor
>had they? What made you turn? how was contact made so fast and then
>it is gone just as fast and it meant nothing?
And while you are at it, do you feel confident enough to compare
the frequency of that positive outcome with the frequency of the
negative case, where you turn your head for no apparent reason,
don't see anyone looking at you, turn back and forget about it
in a second? Every time I started counting both sides for real,
the wonderful phenomenon vanished...
bye
Patrick
PS: Please don't answer with the heisenberg uncertainty principle now :)