• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Again, At The James Randi Educational Foundation

DD, I am interested in your "if" psi exists statement.

Do you not agree with Radin that the ovewhelming body of evidence clearly indicates this anomalous effect?

It is quite possible that 'psi' is part of our evolutionary development. One thing is clear, it is tantalising in nature and my experience is that you need to treat it like a butterfly.
 
I think , at this stage of the game, even with a level of anecdotal evidence, DD is correct in saying 'if', rather like the statement 'God, if he exists,...' There are those who would argue that there is overwhelming evidence for a creator, and an equal number of those who would argue against and both would claim 'overwhelming' evidience for their stance. 'if' is a perfectly reasonable thing to say about a nascient phenomena until it is measuable in some meaningful, objective and repeatable way.
 
In accord with Luce there on the necessity of sensitivity in testing and evaluating psi.

To pretty much sum-up my approach (whether or not I live up to it is another matter) - hermeneutic sophistication and a gentle touch.
 
Whenever I learn of a 'psi' manifestation or experience
one, the end result often reminds me of a mischevious wizard who leaves the key to his ancient box of spells high up where no one can reach, but low enough to allow it to glint and sparkle tantalisingly when the light catches it at a certain angle. Maybe we just need to wait until we're tall enough to reach it for ourself.
 
In respect of Radin and the OBoE, Occam says that it is highly unlikely that each and every single peice of evidence is wrong. It is more likely that it is exactly what people report, an anomalous effect which acts at non local distance and independant of the current understanding of space/time. The simplest explanation is that science simply cannot yet account for this effect, which, quite evidently, exists.
 
The problem with psi’s transient nature and weak effect is that it often appears indistinguishable from mere guesswork (which is also erratic, unreliable but still with the chance of great success). This prediction is a case in point.

Some have already commented on the sheer vagueness of Lucian’s prediction so I won’t retread old ground.

Now look at this prediction:

“I see a structure, a building, this is an urban environment. There are people here, people in the buildings. The people seemed to be focused on one thing: I can hear taking a shouting. I can smell burning. There’s a booming or roaring sound. Very loud. And a source of light or heat. A great deal of movement, a lot of energy. There’s something, a metal structure, up high.”

I hope this looks vague and meaningless, because it is. This’ll come true within the next few days, and if you allow a couple of misses to creep in, then almost any day will do. However, give it a date (say, next Tuesday) and once you’ve decided which event it refers to, it actually makes a pretty compelling prediction. Once you’ve seen “Hey, that fits with that, and these fit with those” it needs a little effort to tell yourself it could’ve referred to almost anything. Adding a couple of things for “colour”, such as number of casualties and some kind of location won’t make a difference if you keep things vague enough.
 
Excellent example, Ersby.

Perhaps you'd like to join the FTMBRV experiment. (Ersby does indeed often provide good examples for controls, if you ever read the JREF board, look up his 'psychic dice' stuff.)

Let's also keep an ear open for 'hitting' your prediction for Tues.

My point here, though, and sorry for keep coming back to this, is that my examples replicate what is often found in what I call the 'psi' effect. Subtle but significant, if replicated over and over. I am presenting a series of 'predictions' / precognition which consistantly have, albeit a small, 'hit' factor.

I don't know of many people who can rv to the standards of 'photographic replication', but I do know of a lot of people who can provide results, which over time, are better than 'guessing'. In fact, it appears that most people can, or at least learn how to do this.
 
Okay, well my predicition fits with the earthquake that hit Morocco Tuesday morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3515803.stm

There are no misses at all. Even the structure up high could be construed as emergency services using helicopters to reach the scene. Yet despite its accuracy, I don't think anyone would call my prediction significant or even put it down to coincidence. It was a safe bet, as was Lucian's.

(As for joining the RV experiment, I'll have to see if I have enough time.)

((Oh, btw, in my original prediction, where it says "taking a shouting", it should read "talking and shouting"))
 
Ersby said:
Okay, well my predicition fits with the earthquake that hit Morocco Tuesday morning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3515803.stm

There are no misses at all. Even the structure up high could be construed as emergency services using helicopters to reach the scene. Yet despite its accuracy, I don't think anyone would call my prediction significant or even put it down to coincidence. It was a safe bet, as was Lucian's.

(As for joining the RV experiment, I'll have to see if I have enough time.)

((Oh, btw, in my original prediction, where it says "taking a shouting", it should read "talking and shouting"))
Click to expand...

I hope you do find the time, Ersby.

Because you can then test your 'guessing' for significance, using a judging protocol. My 'predictions' (whatever) show a pattern of significance, you can run your 'guesses' alongside. Who knows, you may discover that you can be a sceptic, and still experience the 'psi' effect, like me.

Please note, my 'predictions' are not 'bets' (It wasn't a 'bet' with the Koestler Inst., either), they are perceptions which I have recorded in order to test significance.

like I said, I do hope you find the time so you can test your geussing alongside those who are actually attempting to RV /predict, whatever.. It'd make a good control.
 
I don’t see how you can claim a pattern of significance when you include this latest prediction which isn’t actually significant. You claimed to have foreseen an attack on Feb 14th, yet we’re in a time where attacks happen almost everyday. You say it would be a western target, but then define “western” to include most of the world. You said there’d be (or you feared there’d be) over one hundred casualties, which there weren’t. So the two successful parts of your prediction covered most of the world and most days in the year.

My prediction included several aspects of the target. It also (and I hesitate to do this, but you’ve made levels of casualties a criteria with which to judge a prediction) dwarfs the attack on Feb 14 in terms of lives lost tenfold.

If anyone else wants to judge my prediction, then feel free to do so. I think it’s remarkably accurate but then I would, wouldn’t I? How about you, Lucian? What’s your opinion on my success? Look at it this way, if it had come from someone else and was presented as an actual prediction, what would your reaction have been?
 
hmm....let's perhaps think twice before reviving this debate. Perhaps wise to allow the wind to gently set the poppies swaying...

Ersby - we have another psi run coming up. We are looking for judges to evaluate the results as they come in. You on for it?

Timetable & definitive notes on procedure to be posted in due course.

Think it over - you are very welcome to come aboard if you want :)
 
Well, I don't think it was every really debated. Not properly. It got as far as "what gender is Lucian?" and got derailed.

I'll have a go as a judge. Why not? This the details will be posted on the parapsychology board, right?

But what did you think of my prediction? I can't believe everyone thinks it's so bad they can't bring themselves to mention it.
 
Nice one Ersby ;) yep, details will be posted on the thread.

Well, the thing wasn't reall debated because it turned inflammatory - which suggests maybe moving the discussion to the universal from the particular may be a good idea.

I agree - distinguishing a psi hit from happenstance is an interesting topic worthy of a great deal of reflection. But it would be a pity to see the Late Unpleasantness reignite.

Another thought - Ersby, do you know anyone who is very good at cold reading? I would love to mix them into the viewers and see how they do.

What do you think?
 
Ersby said:
[...] Look at it this way, if it had come from someone else and was presented as an actual prediction, what would your reaction have been?
Click to expand...

Honestly? A vague, safe bet.

If you were able to replicate this on a number of occaisions and / or provide other examples of the so called 'psi effect', I would perhaps be intrigued enough to warrant further exploration.

As it is, I have already done this with scientists at Koestler, so I am quite confident that I am not deluding myself. Of course, I may indeed be very, very, 'lucky'. :) Either way, I find it works for me and on a daily basis I find that this 'intuition' is a positive influence.

Remember that with 'ladybrook' I demonstrated something quite significant - a timed unedited post, quoted by others that had one word attached, unrelated to everything else, suddenly linked to a major news story, my first post - second overall post in a thread, a thread taunting my RV ability.

My follow on, as suggested by fellow sceptics, was another time stamped prediction. Other significance followed with the 'face/bowl' perception, and again with the FTMB rv expt. This is why it would be interesting if you could either act as control or judge in similar explorations, you could measure your 'safe bets' alongside those who claim to rv/predict/whatever.
 
Why would my prediction be safe and vague, whilst yours be significant? You predicted something that happens on almost every day of the year (as did I). Clearly it can't be considered significant. If you think the "paranormal" exists (and to an extent I do) it needs to at least conform to the definition of "paranormal" as being "beyond normal". The Feb 14th guess was neither unexpected nor significant.

As for "ladybrook", I already posted my objections on the JREF. I would post them here, but that particular thread has moved on. Some other time, perhaps. Be that as it may, "Ladybrook" does not, IMHO, support "Feb 14th".

As for controls on the RV test, let me wait until the details are published. I may be more use as a guesser than a judge. Truth is, I'm the only skeptic I've seen who offers to try to replicate "psi" effects, so I can't suggest anyone else. Pity, really.
 
Ersby said:
As for controls on the RV test, let me wait until the details are published. I may be more use as a guesser than a judge. Truth is, I'm the only skeptic I've seen who offers to try to replicate "psi" effects, so I can't suggest anyone else. Pity, really.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. You may be more useful as a 'guesser' than a judge. But in respect of a sceptic replicating 'psi effects', that will be me, then :) . I'm not 'guessing', you see, I believe that the pattern of significance, for me, indicates an explanation other than simple 'luck'. I certainly think that it is 'beyond normal' to be able to pick up perceptions which can be correlated to future events on a repeatable basis.
 
Well, you guys will now go head to head in the same race :)

Hopefully, we can find a brace of judges tonight and set down the schedule and rules.

Best start limbering up, haven't we? ;)
 
To balance some of the claims regarding the 'psi effect', a good place to start is here:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

"The Skeptical Investigations website is organized by the Association for Skeptical Investigation, the purpose of which is to promote genuine skepticism, the spirit of enquiry and doubt, within science. This includes an open-minded investigation of unexplained phenomena, a questioning of dogmatic assumptions, and a skeptical examination of the claims of self-proclaimed skeptics. "
 
For an on-topic debate on the subject of the 'effect' (needs Real Player) go to: Inludes Sir Brian Josephson, James Randi, Nicholas Humphry and Sue MacGregor:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/radio4/today/listen/audiosearch.pl?ProgID=1002031547

Sir BJ's comments following the interview:

" The reason for my bringing up Professor Humphrey's book (see review) is, quite simply, that his book represents his case against the paranormal. If the arguments in the book are faulty (and, so far, no-one has refuted any aspect of the case I made in my review), then the case for ignoring the experimental evidence (such as that of the US government's investigation of the paranormal) goes as well. Randi's assertion 'there is no firm evidence for the paranormal' also relies on not looking in detail at the evidence that is available, such as that quoted above.

At the end of the interview, Nicholas Humphrey appeared to be trying to argue that since conscious minds and measurements by a robot both cause wave function collapse, if one of them can do telepathy then so can the other; hence it would be wrong to think that human beings can do telepathy unless robots can also (I apologise if this was not the argument intended; time ran out at this point so one can only guess where the argument was going). But if this was the argument intended then it is clearly fallacious; collapse by human beings might be an especially organised process that does not occur in systems with a more limited level of mentality.

Should Prof. Humphrey care to supply me with details of his full argument, I will include them here.

It may be relevant to note that eligibility for the Randi Foundation Prize is not unconditional, being decided in each case by the Foundation itself.

Regrettably, time does not permit detailed discussion of the possible link I am envisaging might be possible between quantum theory and the paranormal. However, the following links may be of interest in clarifying what was said in the interview and in the controversal booklet:

Stapp's papers on mind, matter and quantum mechanics
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

My own papers on physics and the mind
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/PM.html

Further, a significant current development that is of relevance is the revived interest in the semiotic concepts ( http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/ ) of the philosopher C S Peirce. ( http://www.peirce.org/ ) It is now being realised that Peirce's theories as to the role and functioning of signs is relevant to various areas of science, some of them having clear bearing on the paranormal."
 
ooh, Peirce, Semiotics...

Will chase those links and report back.

Thanks Luce. :)

*walks off muttering 'semiotics irrelevent to psi, huh? I'll show the fekkers' *

;)
 
Well, you guys will now go head to head in the same race :)
Click to expand...


Ersby, the results are in.

I have claimed that I can predict/rv/whatever and provide significant, though subtle, results. I have also claimed that I can replicate those results.

The evidence suggests that I am right.

The overall body of evidence in the field also suggest that this subtle effect exists.

I claim that the evidence is in favour of the existence of the 'psi effect'.
 
OK, that's enough, now. Lucianarchy, I've edited your post to remove the references and comments you directed at another member. Any repetition will smack of the very problem you yourself were so vocal about in the original JREF thread.

We've already had quite enough inter-board sniping - what happens on the JREF boards is not our concern here on this board, so if you wish to address comments being made over there, please do so over there, or via PM. They are not our concern, and nor will they become so.

Respect one another's POV, please, as I would hate to have to issue warnings again, to anyone.
 
As an addendum to Stu's comments, I'm unhappy with the FTMB test runs being employed as fodder for a feud.

I sincerely hope it will not happen again.

As I see it, our tests are an end unto themselves - they are not to make a point. All are welcome to participate & all are welcome to make of them what they will.

For the record, as one of the organisers of the thread (and someone with a generous attitude towards psi) our tests allow no-one to infer a thing. They certainly do not demonstrate the reality of psi. They are interesting, and do merit being continued. That is all.

And they have given pleasure.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Ersby, the results are in.

I have claimed that I can predict/rv/whatever and provide significant, though subtle, results. I have also claimed that I can replicate those results.

The evidence suggests that I am right.

The overall body of evidence in the field also suggest that this subtle effect exists.

I claim that the evidence is in favour of the existence of the 'psi effect'.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't quite go as far as my looky-likey:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fastshow/characters/denzil_dexter.shtml

But as I've said before: The results were 'interesting' but not strong enough to demonstrate any signficance - at least as far as I'm concerned.

Emps
 
Emperor said:
But as I've said before: The results were 'interesting' but not strong enough to demonstrate any signficance - at least as far as I'm concerned.

Emps
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Yeah, right.

Interesting the first time, interesting the second time, interesting the third time.... interesting. The point here is that I claim a subtle effect, and I can repeat it. I do. Small, but effective.

No one's claimed to be able to reproduce each texture stroke of a Van Gogh. :rolleyes:

Small, but effective. That's the 'psi effect'.
 
Alexius said:
As an addendum to Stu's comments, I'm unhappy with the FTMB test runs being employed as fodder for a feud.

I sincerely hope it will not happen again.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, I won't be involved any further.

And perhaps you'll not get involved yourself by suggesting certain people go "head to head" during these tests :rolleyes:
 
Just as a bit of background, on JREF I've successfully replicated the "psi" effect of Chris "Dream Detective" Robinson's experiments with Gary Schwartz and also supplied "psychic medium" cold readings of a high enough quality that some couldn't tell them from "genuine" mediums, so I DO have a history of replicating these "psi" effects. And, of course, on this very thread I replicated one of Lucian's predicitons.

Now, Lucian, would you care to explain why you believe my prediction is vague, while yours is significant? I do believe you never satisfactorily answered the question.
 
Ladies, can we please put the handbags down and play nice? We call all see who is playing Queen Bitch and I would cordially suggest they stop it now.

After all, we've seen that bad feeling can adversely affect 'psi-effect' in other experimentation. We don't want the pitch being queered down the line now do we?

For future, I am Uncle Alexius' nasty cop when he is not around :)

Goading will be slapped down and regarded as an attempt to damage the experiment. It would be recommended that the user should be placed on ignore for the duration if that happens :) Infact, I would suggest that we place each other on ignore now to prevent further outbreaks. :)

End of message... I'm heading back to the Donut shop...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top