PSI: Yes I see it / No you don't
Andre Guirard
>For those of you who insist that psychic phenomena can't exist
>because... there would have been large headlines nobody could miss;
>Given the rampant NEWSPEAK, it is not suprising that the establishment
>downplays offical approval of psychic phenomena, and you have to look
>to find the headlines with some effort, for the stakes are high...
If this is so, it is interesting that the ONLY place I have EVER seen
"debunkings" of alleged psychics and psychic phenomena is the
"Skeptical Enquirer", a publication of CSICOP, an organization devoted
to clearing away the nonsense surrounding reports of psychic phenomena
and getting at the truth of the matter.
If, as Sunny seems to imply, there is a massive conspiracy to prevent
the general public from realizing their psychic potentials, I would
expect such articles to be quite common in the public press.
--
/'C`\ TWALG ASHALC RITMOHF. Andre Guirard
( o_o ) In the Place of the Cupcake
)) _ (( AWSWG SWVVG BWSWBSWH! ihnp4!mmm!cipher
/// \\\
ki...@kestrel.uucp
From: su...@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten)
Newsgroups: net.astro,net.bio,net.singles,net.social,net.women,net.med,net.philosophy,net.religion
Date: 12 May 86 00:51:57 GMT
Reply-To: su...@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten)
Keywords: PSI Psychic Paranormal Metaphysical Spiritual Occult ESP Clairvoyance
For those of you who insist that psychic phenomena can't exist because
if that pile of /dev/null had ever proven to have any value, there
would have been large headlines nobody could miss;
One question to those who claim the existence of psychicic phenomena:
Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be
the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without.
Who can deny the utility of the ability to detect a stalking tiger at a
distance? To cloud a prey animal's thinking to prevent him from
bolting? To know what lies under concealment? To perform telekinetic
manipulation?
In short, every psi ability I have heard described would be
sufficiently useful in the paleolithic world that a person who claims
psi exists must explain why it is not the norm, like sight and
hearing. This is in addition to performing repeatable experiments
which don't fail to work in the presence of doubters but which are
claimed to work in the claiment's own lab, provided there are only
true believers present...
Dr. B. Litow
The assumption here is that the total environment for evolution is somehow
'static' which seems soubtful. Indeed cultures our technologies (in the
broad sense) and our accumulated atr forms all modify this environment.
It seems likely that selection for certain faculties is swamped for many
(perhaps hundreds or thousands) of generations until the environment is
sufficiently benign to even allow there marginal emergence. The biologist
C.H. Waddington has a nice nomenclature for the dialectic of phenotype
as organism-type and phenotype as the epigenetic environment.
I do think though that you have raised a deep point regarding psionics
that presents a clear problem for those who are convinced of its
manifestations.*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jo...@quad1.uucp
> the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without.
>
> sufficiently useful in the paleolithic world that a person who claims
> psi exists must explain why it is not the norm, like sight and
> hearing. This is in addition to performing repeatable experiments
> which don't fail to work in the presence of doubters but which are
> claimed to work in the claiment's own lab, provided there are only
> true believers present...
There are several answers to this besides the one which the author
suggests:
(1) Evolutionary theory is wrong.
(2) Evolutionary theory is correct and the race is gradually
evolving and maybe in the next million years psi ability
will become the norm.
(3) Maybe everybody has it now, but not everybody knows how to
use it, just as everybody has a brain but not everybody is
an Einstein, and as everybody has a body, but not everybody
in a concert pianist or an Olympic athlete.
As far as I'm concerned you can accept the author's original
thesis or any of the above or accept anything else as being
a better explanation.
Speaking for myself, I have had experiences that might be termed
psi, and have experienced them in conjunction with a group of
other people. However, I do not trot these experiences out to
satisfy curiosity or try to prove anything. These abilities are
meant to help oneself and others and are NOT to be used to prove
their own existence.
John Chambers
> Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be
> the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without.
>
> Who can deny the utility of the ability to detect a stalking tiger at a
> distance? To cloud a prey animal's thinking to prevent him from
> bolting? To know what lies under concealment? To perform telekinetic
> manipulation?
Hey, what's the argument here? PSI/ESP/etc in exactly the
sense it's usually used is quite common throughout the animal
(and plant?:-) kingdom. All sorts of critters from lowly
worms to fishes to platypussies to birds and mammals have
been documented as having sensory receptors for EM fields,
electrostatic and/or magnetic. Others (honeybees, for example)
can see "outside the visual specrum" (typically near UV).
Whaddaya mean, that's not "Extra-Sensory Perception"? Stand
up and define your terms, fella! You have only two choices.
You can define the phrase as meaning not received by any of
the critter's senses. Or you can define it as meaning reception
of signals that aren't part of the standard list of "five senses"
of homo sapiens.
In the former case, case ESP is an oxymoron; if it was received,
then it obviously was a sensory perception. In the latter case,
ESP obviously exists; all it takes is a critter that has some
sense that humans lack, and that's easy.
All most people mean by ESP/PSI is that it's done by means
that they don't understand.
In fact, as usually understood, ESP is easily demonstrated in
humans. The standard list of senses doesn't include measuring
accelerations (such as gravity). There is an obvious survival
benefit to knowing which way is up, and all mammals (including
humans) have a sensory organ (the semicircular canals) that
measure acceleration. Similarly, it is easy to demonstrate
that a normal human knows to great accuracy the relative
positions of all bodily parts, and that this knowledge does
not come from any of the standard five senses (or from the
semicircular canals). Physiologists call this the "kinesthetic
sense". Whence comes this knowledge? From pressure-sensitive
nerve endings inside each of the joints.
I claim that I have the above ESP capabilities, and so do
most other mammals. Can you give me a definition of ESP
or PSI that excludes them and doesn't also trivially exclude
all possible senses?
As for telekinetics, well, my brain can cause the motion of
several things at a significant distance; I call them my
hands, feet, ....
If that doesn't satisfy you, I might also point out that
my brain can also cause the motion of lots of things that
are remote from my body. Right now, my brain is controling
the paths of some electrons inside your terminal....
[This is fun, isn't it?]
--
John M Chambers (617-364-2000x7304)
/ cthulhu \ /usenet
/ inmet \ / news
...!{ harvax }!cdx39!{ jc
\ mit-eddie / \ uucp
\ mot[bos] / \root
Pete Zakel
>
> Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be
> the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without.
Evolution theory predicts no such thing. Being useful doesn't cause one to
outbreed. Being detrimental causes one to not live long enough to breed.
Only if NOT having psi is detrimental would psi be selected for.
> Who can deny the utility of the ability to detect a stalking tiger at a
> distance? To cloud a prey animal's thinking to prevent him from
> bolting? To know what lies under concealment? To perform telekinetic
> manipulation?
Yes, but what if psi is somewhat unreliable and requires training and a
certain mindset to bring out. What if it doesn't work under normal stress
but works well under EXTREME stress. You then wouldn't expect to see it
except in optimal conditions.
Also, considering precognition, what if there isn't *A* future, but *MANY
POSSIBLE* futures. Then if on sees something bad in the future and manages to
avoid it, that which is seen doesn't happen and becomes evidence AGAINST
precognition, even though the precognition was actually USEFUL.
--
-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
Andrew Lawson
> From: su...@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny Kirsten)
>
>One question to those who claim the existence of psychicic phenomena:
>
>Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be
>the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without.
>
which is to say that all that we are is essentially genetic. Perhaps
the ability (or more likely the awareness of the ability) to perform
psychic acts is developmental/environmental and not genetic.
--
Drew Lawson
cbosgd!ukma!drew
"Parts is parts." dr...@uky.csnet
dr...@UKMA.BITNET
Stanley Friesen
>
>Seriously. If something WERE intelligent enough to traverse the stars,
>wouldn't they either be so blatent that there would be no doubt (military
>occupation) or so subtle that there would be no way of knowing the difference?
>Why attract attention by flying around in "glowing orbs"?
I agree, which is why I do not believe UFOs are actually
flying saucers. Thpugh, I do not think military occupation is the only
way they might end up being obvious. A government exploratory mission
would tend to be quite unmistakeable, as would a trading post.
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??