Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virtual Worlds and ESP

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the wait-I-know-what-you're-thinking dept.

310

Yesterday's post about an experiment using virtual worlds in an attempt to investigate the possibility of telepathic ability elicited nearly 400 comments from readers who had points to raise about experimental design, skepticism and credulity, and quantum mechanics. Read on for the Backslash summary of the discussion.Many readers' comments focused on the likelihood generally of a hitherto undetected, unexplainable mechanisim for mind-to-mind communication. Okian Warrior was one of a handful of readers who presented the argument that telepathy is unlikely to both exist and not be widely distributed among the population (or at least widely noticed). He writes:

"Instead of thinking about telepathy from a present perspective, as in 'we have/use it now,' consider it from an evolutionary standpoint.

Prehistoric humans with even a little telepathy would have enormous survival advantage. You'd be able to tell whether a predator was hiding behind the next rock, or whether it's an animal you're hunting for food. Or nothing, in which case you go off and hunt somewhere else.

In that case, natural selection would at the same time pressure animals, both predators and prey, to evolve to a form where they could block the effect so that their adversary (human or other) would have no idea where they were hiding.

Even if we can't tell where animals are hiding, even a little telepathy between humans could be used in group hunting and teaching offspring, or summoning help in a dire emergency. Even a brief feeling which influences your actions based on information from another human would confer enormous advantage.

Some people have reported that they have gotten 'feelings' that some loved one is in trouble, but frankly there is an overwhemingly enormous number of dire incidents throughout human history, each one of which would select for having the telepathic trait. Something as simple as children having the ability to alert their parents that they are in trouble would still confer enormous survival advantage.

From an evolutionary perspective, telepathy is a strong survival trait. Since we don't see it in the gene pool, it's unlikely that it's even possible."

Sesticulus raises a similar idea in a more compact form (it could be called the haven't been slapped" argument): "Invariably if I'm in a public place, there will be someone I find attractive and I will think "hey now". I've never had someone come up and slap me for thinking rude thoughts, so at the very least, women I find attractive, as a rule, do not have telepathy."

Reader seanellis writes with his prediction of the experiment's outcome:

"This experiment is very poorly controlled (who's to say that two people aren't also on the phone to one another, for example?), and some startlingly accurate correlations will occur. These will be debunked as the players come under scrutiny and the communication channels between players are detected.

However, after these have been removed, some correlations between players will still remain, below the level of statistical significance. Rather than being dismissed as insignificant, the woo-woo crowd will seize on these random correlations as 'proof of need of more research.'

This prediction is not the result of clairvoyance, rather it is an educated guess based on previous observations of this kind of setup."

Even more dubious, dpbsmith writes not to "discount the possibility of outright fraud," asking: "Are they planning to strip-search the participants for hidden transmitters and receivers? To test and debug the system, have they hired a couple of good magicians skilled at 'mentalist' acts, with a promise to pay them well for their time if they can successfully cheat? Or, like most scientists, are they just protecting against unconscious cheating by honest, good-faith participants?"

Further, dpbsmith is disappointed that the article "doesn't really discuss the possibility of conscious, clever cheating... or implies that it's impossible because, well, gee, the system is so high-tech. ... People have smuggled transmitters and receivers into casinos, where the management is probably far more savvy, cynical, and experienced at detecting cheating — and financially motivated to do so — than these scientists."

Reader mdkemp took issue with the implication in some readers' comments that this research was disreputable, pointing out that such research is also undertaken "at respected institutions," writing: "Research into this stuff isn't just for [k]ooks and crazies -- even Princeton has a small lab the goal of which is to experimentally gather a 'better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality.' It's called the 'Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research' (PEAR) lab, and its web page can be found at princeton.edu/~pear."

This met with an acerbic response from reader aepervius, who calls PEAR "a laughing stock" with "bad hypotheses, bias, bad statistical analysis, etc." He points out critical reports critical of PEAR at skepdic and at the Skeptic Report.

Reader RexRhino expressed a common sentiment:

"Can someone tell me why this isn't as outrageous as spending tax money to research 'intelligent design'? I mean, there is no real scientific theory that describes how telepathy would work, and virtually all scientific evidence says that telepathy doesn't exist. Telepathy is pretty much to fortune telling what Intelligent Design is to creationism — turning superstition into pseudo-science to make it palatable to the modern audience. I realize that England doesn't have the same strict legal seperation between religion and state as other countries, but even if research into the mystical and supernatural isn't strictly illegal it is certainly a questionable use of taxpayer money, no? Why are people outraged over Intelligent Design but not this kind of stuff?"

Reader Pyromage provided one answer to that question, writing: "Because it's possible to devise an experiment that could provide scientific evidence in its favor. ... Such an experiment does not — even in theory — exist for [Intelligent Design]."

Other responses to the story show that at least many Slashdot readers are none too happy with research into telepathy being done with tax monies. A long thread on that very topic raised several good points:

Reader denoir kicked off this thread with a sarcastic call to "invest some more tax money on finding UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster and inventing the perpetuum mobile!"

To this, reader misleb responded "I'm always been surprised at the kind of reaction anything labeled 'paranormal' gets from rational people. Why exactly couldn't telepathy exist? Is there some fundamental law of nature which states that two people cannot communicate over a distance without sound or visual cues? Obviously, you'd have to identify a mechanism for the communications. If telepathy exists, it isn't magic. ... If you had told someone from 200 years ago that you could communicate with people across the globe in real-time, they'd probably think you were some kind of sorcerer. But since then we've discovered radio waves..."

Reader Alsee has a satirical reponse: "Why exactly couldn't invisible pink unicorns exist? Is there some fundamental law of nature which states that invisible pink unicorns cannot exist? Obviously, you'd have to identify a mechanism for invisible pink unicorns. If invisible pink unicorns exist, it isn't magic. ... Telepathy, invisible pink unicorns, elves, Zeus, telekenesis, Narnia, rain dances, flying potions, the Tooth Fairy, I'm always surprised at the reaction of rational people when they think that these things do not exist."

Wavicle offers another reason for the widespread skepticism about such research:

"While there may be some out there shouting paranormal things couldn't possibly exist, most of us are just pissed. Pissed that for every genuinely deluded person who believed they had witnessed a paranormal event, there are 20 others out there looking at using it to scam people out of money.

We have looked, and looked, and looked and come up empty handed EVERY TIME. The vast majority of the people who have said they had special powers were LIARS. The rest were just wrong. Nobody has ever passed muster. There are people out there doing genuine harm to others under the veil of paranormal abilities.

For example EVERY instance of 'psychic surgery' (where someone performs surgery with just their hands, leaving behind no scar or wound) has been a scam for money."

The same corner of the discussion led to a freewheeling exchange of comments on scientific credulity and exotic explanations for telepathy involving quantum mechanics.

Reader kfg writes "I am, at least nominally, a physicist. You wouldn't catch me saying any such thing as 'telepathy can't exist.' However, you first need to demonstrate that it does exist if you expect me to do work on that basis. If and when that happens I will not posit any 'paranormal' event, but rather that there is a quite normal mechanism at work. Then it will be my job to find it, because, at the moment, there is no valid theory of such a mechanism. ('Well, maybe it could be ...' is not a theory.) A theory is model that is concordence with data. ... Which brings us back to the need to show me it exists, particularly since everything I have ever seen so far indicates that the world works just spiffily in accordance with the rules of chance."

Reader Thing 1 asserts "if the human brain works on quantum principles, and one of those principles is communication at a distance, then that tells me that telepathy is possible," and mentions the phenomenon of entanglement as a mechanism for instantaneous communication: "Through a process, two electrons become 'entangled,' and when separated experimentally up to 10 km, when the spin on one is changed, the spin on the other is changed immediately--with no speed-of-light delay."

To this, reader aardvarkjoe responds that "The problem is that, in these 'entanglement experiments,' no information is being transmitted from the first site to the second. By measuring the state of the first electron, you can instantaneously affect the state of the second electron — but according to all of the current theories, there is no way to actually use that to communicate. (If that sounds weird ... it is. Quantum theory is rather unintuitive.)"

Several readers' comments were not about the experiment at issue in this case, but rather about the James Randi Educational Foundation prize I mentioned. Two comments in particular sum up many of the others: Reader nido calls Randi a fraud with an agenda" and says this is how Randi is viewed by "people who can," to which Mr2001 responds "Well, there's also the slight difference that he has facts on his side. None of these so-called 'people who can' have ever been able to demonstrate their alleged abilities under controlled conditions. Until they can do that, they're nothing more than 'people who lie to others,' or at best, 'people who lie to themselves.' ... It's a pity that there's no evidence that these experiences actually took place in reality, not just in the participants' imaginations, don't you think? Because if there were evidence, someone would be a million dollars richer."


Many thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion, in particular those readers whose comments are quoted above.

cancel ×

310 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ESP, I sensed that. (2, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739706)

I think for the large part, the world of psychics is snake oil, predators preying on the gullible.

But, if you're familiar with the double-slit "interference" experiment [physicsweb.org] , you may get an uneasy sense there is much for us to learn about interaction of particles, forces, energies, etc. It's not for me to determine ESP is real but I've experienced unexplainable phenomena at least to my level to understand.

One example, a very close friend in college, she was an identical twin, and talked about the typical entanglements with her twin, who was back in her hometown 200 miles away. Her twin came down on her birthday and I was there when they opened their cards, identical (and not with any "twin" theme... just random typical birthday cards). Not a HUGE example of unexplained communication, but at least odd.

There are things we don't know, and we don't even know we don't know. And, the more we learn, the less we know, at least that's been my paradox. Things that seemed black and white seem grayer as I learn more. (Consider this: can you really determine whether you cross a defined landmark by some predefined time? By what reference point? Can you really feel objects, considering no real contact is made and that the actual real occupied space in atoms is virtually nothing?)

Yeah, there's a lot we don't know about ESP, and may never learn -- though, you can be pretty sure those who say they know all about ESP don't.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (3, Insightful)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739766)

Pfft. You have to people of common genetic origin, similar upbringing, similar schooling and life experiences who can pick the same things? I'd say they think alike rather than believe in ESP.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (4, Funny)

vancondo (986849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739894)

I knew that you were going to say that, and I've just got to say that what you're thinking about now is very inappropriate.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (2, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739795)

I think for the large part, the world of psychics is snake oil, predators preying on the gullible.

Don't forget the gullible dancing for money. Not everyone who operates on a false premise are predators; some are just ignorant.

But, if you're familiar with the double-slit "interference" experiment, you may get an uneasy sense there is much for us to learn about interaction of particles, forces, energies, etc. It's not for me to determine ESP is real but I've experienced unexplainable phenomena at least to my level to understand.

Or not so uneasy. "ESP" -- which is a pretty broad term, when you get down to it -- in cases like you describe is just similarities in taste. Two people who like the same things picking the same mass-producted widget to give to someone, with no communcation, isn't really ESP. Two people picking the same set of things, and correctly deciding who will get the one and who will get the other, would be closer.

Ee:ESP, I sensed that. - NOT ESP!! (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739798)

This poster is a fraud. He did not 'sense' that this article was going to be on ESP. He is a suscriber and this allows him to see into the mysterious future. He then writes a long first post in the future and travels back in time to the present to get lots of karma. It is nothing to do with ESP!

I have proof! See the star next to his name!

Re:Ee:ESP, I sensed that. - NOT ESP!! (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740272)

You can't get much more psychic than being able to see into the mysterious future!

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739800)

Agreed. There have been occasions when I knew that I had to call a certain friend even though they were hundreds of miles away and there was no reason other than a "feeling" that I would know to call. I did and sure enough he had huge news and was going to call me later that night. Just like I don't think that psychic enegies revolve around us constantly, I think there are many events that cannot simply be explained as "coincidence."

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (4, Insightful)

blancolioni (147353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739903)

Why don't you keep a record of all the times you call a friend because of a feeling. Put down a tick if they had big news, and a cross if they didn't. Get back to me in a couple of years. The human brain is extraordinarily selective about these things.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (2, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739947)

The reason it stands out so much is that it was the first and last time it has happened and it was once in a lifetime kind of news. If I had such feeligns all the time then I think coincidence makes far more sense. But, as it is, I can count on one hand with no thumb the number of times I've had a "feeling" that I needed to call someone and it was accurate both times.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740326)

For completeness, also keep a log of when bad things happened to your friends and you did not have a feeling.

Gullible (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739936)

he had huge news and was going to call me later that night.

Advice: When someone says 'I was going to call you later' do not take it literally.

Re:Gullible (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740357)

You don't know me, my friend, or the event in question, yet you somehow know he didn't mean it. How could that be unless... You're psychic!!!

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (2, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739981)

I think there are many events that cannot simply be explained as "coincidence."

Why not? Things with long-shot odds happen everyday. Somebody winning the 'jackpot' in a lottery has obscene odds (far worse than those two girls picking the same card) yet I don't hear people attributing ESP to it.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740398)

From the perspective of the population, "Somebody winning the 'jackpot' in a lottery has obscene odds", but from the perspective of time, it happens all the time, so the odds aren't bad. Of course I'm actually talking about two different sets of odds, but then when odds get reported, it's so sloppy that it's not entirely clear which odds are actually being reported. A lot of experiments are like that. Nobody's quite sure what it is they are measuring.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1, Insightful)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739867)

You're a jackass. The double-slit experiment has been explained completely via quantum mechanics. Your anecdotal evidence of "unexplainable phenomena" can be explained very easily... by the word COOINCIDENCE! Wow, two people with identical genetic structures, raised by the same parents and undergoing many of the same experiences in life, happen to have the same taste in birthday cards, and maybe even shop at the same stores? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!

When you break into your "can you really feel object" metaphysics tirade you really show your jackassitude. Macroscopic physics is a result of the statistical interaction of a bunch of smaller things. That doesn't make the real world any less real, or Newtonian physics any less accurate, for the situations in which they are appropriate. God do I hate when people who don't understand it latch onto particle physics as an attempt to use science to justify some mysticism mumbo jumbo.

You say there's a lot we don't know about ESP - there's one thing we DO know about ESP. NO ONE has EVER been able to reliably and reproducibly produce any statistically significant evidence of ESP and have it published in a major scientific journal.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740021)

I'm in no way trying to support the Gp, but how exactly has the double slit experiment been "explained completely via quantum mechanics."?

Sounds like you're taking that a little too far to me. There were multiple interpretations, but no complete explainations, the last time I checked.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740169)

> I'm in no way trying to support the Gp, but how exactly has the double slit experiment been "explained completely via quantum mechanics."?

Try reading a book on QM other than The Dancing Wu Li Masters and get back to us.

It's just standard procedure for every woo-woo to pull out the word "quantum" these days. And really it's just gotten old. My computer works on actual understood quantum principles that are repeated a billionfold, but there still ain't one ghost, telekinetic, telepath, or dowser that can stand up to experiment.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740465)

Amen - shit I've personally carried out the calculations that explain the double slit experiment. Now that the true pioneers have laid the groundwork, it's an advanced undergrad-level problem, at best.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740032)

well, according to Prof Ashar [wikipedia.org] this might not be the case.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740059)

Dude!, a little less coffee!

-yagu

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (4, Funny)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739906)

I think for the large part, the world of psychics is snake oil, predators preying on the gullible.

Depends. I think I have latent psychic powers, but its not very useful.

Mostly, I notice it when people call in to my job at tech support and I already know what the problem is.

And I already know the solution to their problem.

You know... Rebooting the computer

Unfortunatley I haven't been able to figure out how to strangle people remotley with my mind... yet.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739950)

Mostly, I notice it when people call in to my job at tech support and I already know what the problem is. And I already know the solution to their problem. You know... Rebooting the computer

I'm getting something... here it comes... you do Windows support for a living!

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

Chris Kamel (813292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739917)

Yeah, except that if you're familiar with quantum mechanics you'll have figured out we learned all we could from the double slit experiment more than 50 years ago and have moved on to other experiments. But you do need a *proper* *scientific* experiment to begin with for ESP.

Re:ESP, I sensed that. (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739975)

Yeah and you didn't notice the billion other non-correlated things that happened leading up to that. Nobody notices when ordinary stuff happens.

see you in cow town fuckerbugs! (0, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739740)

I submit David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist
And I have the proof

How can one explain the phenomenal global success of one of this country's least talented individuals? There are only three ways.

* Mr. Hasselhoff actually is talented, but this goes unnoticed in his own country.
* Mr. Hasselhoff has sold his soul to Satan in return for global success.
* David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

I vote for the latter -- and perhaps, after seeing the facts involved, the rest of the world will agree.

The Facts First, the obvious. Add a little beard and a couple of horns -- David Hasselhoff looks like the Devil, doesn't he? And the letters in his name can be rearranged to spell fad of devil's hash.

What does this mean? Well, Baywatch is David's fad. David is the devil. The Hash is what makes Knight Rider popular in Amsterdam.

(I was actually hoping to make the letters in his name spell out he is of the devil, which would be possible if his middle name was "Ethesis," which it might be. I'm sure his publicist would hide such a middle name if it were true.)

Second -- and most importantly -- David Hasselhoff and his television series were foretold in the Bible. Biblical scholars worldwide may quibble over interpretations, but they all agree on this. For a few telling examples let's skip to the end of the Bible. If any book of the Bible will tell us who the AntiChrist is, it's the Revelation of Saint John, which basically describes the AntiChrist and the Armageddon He causes. I'll just give you the verse, and the current theological interpretation of that verse.

Who is the Beast?
Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns The Beast, of course, is David Hasselhoff. The Heads are His separate television incarnations. Young and the Restless, Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Knight Rider, Terror at London Bridge, Ring of the Musketeers, Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. The ten horns represent His musical releases: Crazy For You, David, David Hasselhoff, Do You Love Me?, Du, Everybody Sunshine, I Believe, Looking For Freedom, Night Lover and Night Rockers. Not only does Mitch The Lifeguard literally "rise out of the sea" on Baywatch, but David's musical career has mostly occurred in Europe, a metaphoric rise to fame from across the sea. Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Of course, this is a reference to his third head: Knight of the Phoenix, the first episode of Knight Rider. In this episode, "Michael Long, a policeman, is shot and left for dead. The shot is deflected by a plate in his head, but ruins his face. He is saved and his face reconstructed. He is reluctant, but agrees to use K.I.T.T. to help the Foundation for Law and Government fight criminals who are 'beyond the reach of the law'. " Knight Rider has been shown in 82 countries. Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. The following blasphemies are actual quotes from David Hasselhoff -- I read these while he was 42 years old.
"I'm good-looking, and I make a lot of money."

"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me."

"I'm six foot four, an all-American guy, and handsome and talented as well!"

"Before long, I'll have my own channel -- I'll be like Barney."

"(Baywatch) is responsible for a lot of world peace." which the Hoff said at the Bollywood Oscars. Don't believe me? Read the original article!

And here's a blasphemy that came from David's recent (Feb 2004) visit to the Berlin Wall museum. I couldn't have made something this great up by myself. He was upset that the museum didn't spend more time devoted to his personal role in the fall of Communism. You can read more about it here, if you don't believe me.

The Second Beast: Television
Rev 13:11-13And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

The Second Beast, with it's dual antennae, is obviously the Television -- merely a pawn in Hasselhoff's underworldly regime. His stereo speaker (the dragon's voice) spews forth the blasphemy of Baywatch until He has caused all people of the earth to worship and watch Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. How well has he done? Baywatch is now seen by about one billion viewers in 140 countries -- the most watched series ever.

You probably never knew this, but the entire historical purpose of television has been to attract a worldwide audience for the eventual syndication of Baywatch. And how does it accomplish this global distribution? Via satellite - from heaven to the Earth.

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. How does television work? By giving life unto Hasselhoff's image. I'm pretty sure the second part hasn't happened yet.

Lifeguards: Denizens of the Underworld

These biblical revelations will show that the lifeguards on Baywatch are foretold as servants of the Devil. (Need I say who that is again?)
Rev 20:11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them

Rev 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them...
Doesn't this sound like an exact description of what the lifeguards on Baywatch do? They sit on their big white wooden throne, and watch out over the sea -- waiting for a dying person to get cast up. Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek to find death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

One word: CPR
Rev 10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, Sounds like a lifeguard, eh? Standing on the beach reading a paperback?

Rev 17:3-5 ...and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

and if that wasn't enough, try Ezekiel 23:17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

The fabled "Whore of Babylon." Well, people have been calling Hollywood "Babylon" since long before I was making web pages. And of all the women in Hollywood, whose wedding night video is the most popular? Hmmm.... Did someone say "Barb Wire?"
Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more Do you know any merchants who invested heavily in the acting career of this "whore of Babylon?" I've seen that "VIP" show of hers, and I'd be weeping if I had spent money on the merchandising rights.
Rev. 18:21 ... a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea,...

Speaking of lifeguards chucking rocks at innocent people, listen to this excerpt from a recent lawsuit against his Hasselness: "while Plaintiff was in the audience of the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Defendandt DAVID HASSELHOFF came on stage and threw a stack of cards depicting himself into the audience, striking Plaintiff in the eye. . . [he] should have known that throwing cards into an audience could cause injury to the audience."
Rev 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. He stands to lose money in this lawsuit -- or maybe even all those dainty and goodly things he bought.

The Number of the Beast
The Bible shows us another way to prove a person is the AntiChrist, namely through numerology. Rev 13:18 says: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

That's a bit cryptic, to be sure. One score is twenty, so threescore is 60, the number of the beast is 666.

Now, the way biblical scholars and numerologists usually convert the names of men into their numbers is through a simple numerical code. Let's assign the 26 letters of the alphabet the numbers 1 through 26. It looks like this:

a 1 i 9 q 17 y 25

b 2 j 10 r 18 z 26

c 3 k 11 s 19

d 4 l 12 t 20

e 5 m 13 u 21

f 6 n 14 v 22

g 7 o 15 w 23

h 8 p 16 x 24

Now, we take the letters from Mr. Hasselhoff's name, assign numbers to them, and calculate his number.

D A V I D H A S S E L H O F F

4 1 22 9 4 8 1 19 19 5 12 8 15 6 6

Now, since thirteen is such a fitting number for evil, let's multiply the first 13 numbers together. The total (65,874,124,800) is approximately 6.6 billion. Tack on the remaining 6's from the end of his name, and you've got yourself the mark of the beast.

Another tactic you could use would be to add the letters in "David" (I think you should get 40) and the letters in Hasselhoff (99) and then multiply them together. 40 x 99 = 3960. Now, 3960 is 660 x 6. And of course, 660 plus 6 is -- again -- the mark of the beast.

Not enough proof for you? Well, let's see what else the winning combination of the Bible and numerology have in store for David.....

As he explains it in his interview, David Hasselhoff first decided to act at the age of 7 when he saw a local production of Rumplestiltskin. His acting debut was in Peter Pan. Knight Rider ended its run in 1986, when Hasselhoff was 32. Baywatch debuted in 1989, when Hasselhoff was 35. His first televised role was as Snapper Foster on the Young and the Restless at the age of 19. If we look at the 37th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible (Psalms) -- at verses 32 and 35, we notice an interesting phenomenon. Take a look:

32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Viewers of Baywatch may have thought they were watching the good leader Mitch Buchannon -- whose main job as head lifeguard is to watch over the righteous babes at the beach, and save them. According to the Bible, he is really trying to slay them. But can we be sure that the show in question is actually Baywatch? Well, count the number of letters in Rumplestiltskin and Peter Pan. 15 and 8, right? Now look at those bible verses again. Find the 15th word of verse 35 - and the 8th word from the end of verse 32. Put them together. 35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. 32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

I was just gonna say, "8 o'clock" (4, Funny)

_pi-away (308135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739743)

... couple of wavy lines.

Context (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739930)

What are you trying to prove here anyway?

I'm studying the effects of negative reinforcement on E.S.P. ability.

The effect? I'll tell you what the effect is, it's pissing me off!

Futurama Analogy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15739754)

Did anyone else think of how the slurm queen gut stuck drinking slurm out of it's anus while reading that summary?

Of course it's possible! (3, Interesting)

apsmith (17989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739765)

As all the discussion about cheats indicates, "telepathy" is a word for some "magical" form of communication between people; given that we have lots of real-life means of communciation between people, and more and better ones coming out every year, it's almost certain that within a few decades humans will be communicating with one another via means that are essentially indistinguishable from classic telepathy.

That doesn't mean it was likely to have evolved naturally though. There does seem to be a whiff of real "irreducible complexity" in an iPod...

Re:Of course it's possible! (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739790)

Well iPods don't breed, so they couldn't have evolved. They might be a complicated by product of another animal however ... an animal such as humans.

Re:Of course it's possible! (1)

iMac Were (911261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739960)

Well iPods don't breed
Neither do their owners, smoochybuns. Mmmm.

Only 400 posts... (3, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739776)

I thought the minimum number of posts for another article appearing the very next day is 800 posts. I guess someone is desperate for click through traffic.

Only 400 posts..."/." theater. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15739884)

I'm wondering. Should I pop some popcorn before reading the slashback?

Duh! Editors w/ ESP (5, Funny)

Wescotte (732385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739896)

I thought the minimum number of posts for another article appearing the very next day is 800 posts. I guess someone is desperate for click through traffic.

Obviously the editor has a strong premonition the other 400 were on the way!

Paranormal Scmaranormal (4, Insightful)

dR.fuZZo (187666) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739833)

I'm always been surprised at the kind of reaction anything labeled 'paranormal' gets from rational people. Why exactly couldn't telepathy exist?

There's nothing logically impossible about the idea of telepathy. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Or UFOs.

The thing you need to realize, however, is that they're labeled 'paranormal' for a reason. If we had solid evidence of any of them, we'd call them scientific fact. People look down on these ideas because, while there may be some people who believe in them, rigorous studies haven't been able to substantiate any of them.

That being said, I don't see any reason there shouldn't be some continued research into these areas. The more basic research, the better, I say. What doesn't make sense, however, is sinking substantial amounts of money into research in areas that show no actual promise of ever turning up anything. Or, spending a lot of time doing non-scientific work in these areas. I'm sure paranormal enthusiasts can point to lots of "evidence" for telepathy. How much of it would actually stand up to scrutiny, though?

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740012)

That being said, I don't see any reason there shouldn't be some continued research into these areas. The more basic research, the better, I say. What doesn't make sense, however, is sinking substantial amounts of money into research in areas that show no actual promise of ever turning up anything. Or, spending a lot of time doing non-scientific work in these areas. I'm sure paranormal enthusiasts can point to lots of "evidence" for telepathy. How much of it would actually stand up to scrutiny, though?

There IS research in these areas. Hundreds of hours of fruitless, pointless research every single year. And it is fatally flawed and contains some form of experimental bias, or it comes back with exactly the result you would expect - indistinguishable from random chance. There are reputable research facilities that investigate paranormal claims and none have produce anything which could be called compelling or even promising. Even groups with a vested interest in providing evidence of the paranormal (e.g. cults like TM, scientology etc.) can't provide any valid evidence for its existence.

How many times do the same experiments have to be repeated before it is reasonable to conclude no such phenomena exists? Of course you can keep looking and looking, but if it doesn't exist to begin with, you can never conclusively state that it isn't there. I have a miniaturized Titanic floating in my bath complete with a tiny crew and tiny Kate Winslet. Prove that I haven't. You can't see it? Oh I meant to say it's invisible. You can't touch it? It's very fast, and it's insubstantial to the touch. You could concoct the most elaborate tests to search for my Titanic and you'd always have an "out" that you couldn't find it.

I hear skeptics often say things like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but paranormalists, offer no evidence whatsoever. They claim this and that but their claims cannot even a cursory inspection. Some skeptic societies even offer cash prizes for any self-claimed paranormalist who demonstrates their claim in a controlled environment. There is no trickery involved, the person must demonstrate their claim in a way previously agreed and they get a large sum of money. One prize is even a million dollars. So it is very strange that of all these astrologers, pet psychics, clairvoyants, remote viewers etc., not a single one claims this money. If someone offered me $1,000,000 to write a "hello world" program in Java, I'd sure as hell do it. What's so damned special about the paranormal that not a single one of them will provide a conclusive 10 minute demonstration of their powers? Many have no problem selling their services, so its certainly nothing to do with money.

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (4, Interesting)

ardor (673957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740196)

What if telepathy is real, but the experiments are wrong? I wonder if telepathy actually works differently than one usually thinks. After sorting out the clear frauds and hoaxes, one can see that most psychics seem to be very intuitive. If telepathy is some sort of enhanced intuition, then maybe the ability depends heavily on the environment and situation. For example, being in a very familiar room triggering telepathic abilities. Unfortunately, this would render telepathy unprovable.

It goes further than that, though. This touches the question whether there are phenomena that cannot be described by current scientific practices or not. If true, then telepathy may well be unproved for a very long time.

Also, if someone is REALLY capable of telepathy, chances are high that this person keeps it a secret. Reading thoughts allow revealing true motives. If one reads the minds of ESP-interested people, one may well find some rather sinister motives (like, abusing it for stealing, blackmail, military applications..) Also, reading other's minds could be quite scary and disturbing, so it would not surprise me to find lots of insane people among the real psychics.....

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740252)

What if telepathy is real, but the experiments are wrong? I wonder if telepathy actually works differently than one usually thinks. After sorting out the clear frauds and hoaxes, one can see that most psychics seem to be very intuitive. If telepathy is some sort of enhanced intuition, then maybe the ability depends heavily on the environment and situation. For example, being in a very familiar room triggering telepathic abilities. Unfortunately, this would render telepathy unprovable.

Intuition is not telepathy. Intuition is being able to read other people's emotions from the signs they give off. You and they may not even be aware of the subconscious signals that may being read. If you want to demonstrate telepathy is real, I suggest you conduct an experiment when the test subject has to determine the age, sex, mood and other characteristics of people they cannot see or hear or smell, e.g. because they're behind a wall. I expect the result of that experiment will be no better than chance. Or perhaps ask this telepathic person to suggest their own test, and then conduct it in a manner that precludes cheating.

Also, if someone is REALLY capable of telepathy, chances are high that this person keeps it a secret. Reading thoughts allow revealing true motives. If one reads the minds of ESP-interested people, one may well find some rather sinister motives (like, abusing it for stealing, blackmail, military applications..) Also, reading other's minds could be quite scary and disturbing, so it would not surprise me to find lots of insane people among the real psychics.....

This is akin to saying the fairies are shy of people, and that's why you can't see them. It's an excuse to rationalise away the non-existence of the phenomena to begin with.

This stance also requires that any psychic who appears on tv, writes a book, sells tours, offers advice through a premium phone number, holds seances, helps the cops, takes part in studies etc. is by definition not a psychic. After these folks are clearly not shy or even afraid of lining their pockets, so what's their excuse other than they're frauds?

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740327)

Intuition is being able to read other people's emotions from the signs they give off.

Empathy would be a logical step above intuition. If people's emotions emit signs we do not know of, and if these signs are just crude psychic projections or whatever, then it would be hard to distinguish it from intuition in the first place. Of course, once detected, an experiment would be easy: sit the supposed psychic in a sealed chamber, stick a totally random person whose mood is known (sad, amused, enraged...) in a second sealed chamber. If the psychic senses the emotions correctly, then its empathy.

This would predict that most psychics with empathic abilities may never become aware of their unique traits, simply seeing it as deep intuitiveness.

This is akin to saying the fairies are shy of people, and that's why you can't see them. It's an excuse to rationalise away the non-existence of the phenomena to begin with.

This wasnt mentioned as evidence, just some random thoughts. I am allowed to have random thoughts without some rationalist inquisition knocking on my door, am I not?

This stance also requires that any psychic who appears on tv, writes a book, sells tours, offers advice through a premium phone number, holds seances, helps the cops, takes part in studies etc. is by definition not a psychic. After these folks are clearly not shy or even afraid of lining their pockets, so what's their excuse other than they're frauds?

If one thinks about the implications of having ESP abilities, I really doubt one would be able to behave the way these psychics do. I would rather expect them to be mostly insane, very bizarre, loners, etc.

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (1)

Grab (126025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740456)

Nope, you're confusing the phenomena with the method.

Suppose you're watching a cardsharp. He has you extract all the queens, put them back in the deck, then he shuffles it and the queens appear on the top. How did he do that?! Buggered if I know. This doesn't mean that it's "unproved" that a cardsharp can do that, bcos we've seen it happen. All it means is that we don't know the method yet.

Now telepathy. Can someone read someone else's mind? It's really a very simple test - do they continuously get it right more often than random chance would allow? If they do, then telepathy is happening, and it's been proven. What the method is, well that's up for grabs, but the fact that it happened would be indisputable.

Sadly that's not the case, and all those people who spent years of their lives investigating this have come back with nothing more than a big fat zero. At some point, a smart person has to realise that there's a reason they're not finding things...

Grab.

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740447)

I have a miniaturized Titanic floating in my bath complete with a tiny crew and tiny Kate Winslet. Prove that I haven't. You can't see it? Oh I meant to say it's invisible. You can't touch it? It's very fast, and it's insubstantial to the touch. You could concoct the most elaborate tests to search for my Titanic and you'd always have an "out" that you couldn't find it.

You are missing the point. It isn't about detecting ESP, UFOs, ghosts, it's investigating unexplained phenomenon. People tried to explain the stars in the sky, why they moved, and what they were with paranormal explainations. They simply did not have the technology or understanding to come up with anything better. Eventually technology improved, so that investigations into the "magical" sky had more concrete results.

We may simply not have the technology or understanding of the universe to rationally describe such phenomenon.

Re:Paranormal Scmaranormal (1)

norman619 (947520) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740267)

Paranormal is a junk term. Much like supernatural. LOL Thin about it. If you see something happen then it must be 100% normal and natural. By definition nothing can happen within this universe that is against the laws that govern it's existance. Now why do peopel get so bent when they hear there is real research being done into ideas most "logical" people deem fantasy? Coudl it be that it's treatment as a worth while subject of research means it may not be the total BS they believe it to be? Keep in mind the government's long run with what is termed "Remote Viewing." Their accuracy was reportedly over 80%. That alone tends to say there was more at work there than mere chance. if it was BS you'd expect their accuracy to be more like 50%. But no it makes more sense to attack it and call it BS. Please leave your religious or superstitions preconceptions at the door and look at this whole thing with an open mind. Yeah.... Sure.... Like that's gonan happen!

Subjectiveness (5, Insightful)

Suffering Bastard (194752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739864)

If someone claims to have had a telepathic experience, it is not up to you to decide the validity of their experience. What irks me is people immediately dismissing such a person as a nutjob. There is certainly a lot more going on around us than we can directly sense, and anyone with any amount of intuition who is in touch with themselves has had experiences that demonstrate at least the possibility of "paranormal" awareness.

People with greater than average skill are always derided by the masses. Or, as Einstein put it: "Great thinkers will always face violent opposition from mediocre minds." Just because someone might be more perceptually evolved is no reason to cast them away.

Moreover, it is vastly ignorant of us to think we know everything there is to know about consciousness or any aspect of the physical world. As soon was we start thinking that way, the sooner the evolution of science stops.

We should honor this experiment, not immediately dismiss it. Yes, let's make sure rigorous checks are in place, and that the data is properly validated. But give it a chance, eh?

Re:Subjectiveness (4, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739958)

People with greater than average skill are always derided by the masses.

It is not uncommon for people with psychological disorders to think they are better than everyone around them, or "more aware" of what's truly going on in the world. Especially people that have severe insecurity issues.

Re:Subjectiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15739966)

The fact that some of the physical forces in our universe cannot be seen with our eyes does not mean by extension that it's possible for someone to read another person's mind. That'd be kind of like saying that progress in the sciences would stall if we stopped believing in ghosts and goblins.

Maybe the ignorant like yourself are willing to believe in fairy tales to make their own lives interesting (I assume that's why you do it, as no one with a life would subscribe to Slashdot). The rest of us will quite happily continue on with _real_ scientific progress, and you and the rest of the loons can convert to Wicca.

Re:Subjectiveness (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739996)

If someone claims to have had a telepathic experience, it is not up to you to decide the validity of their experience. What irks me is people immediately dismissing such a person as a nutjob. There is certainly a lot more going on around us than we can directly sense, and anyone with any amount of intuition who is in touch with themselves has had experiences that demonstrate at least the possibility of "paranormal" awareness.

Your response is the typical defensive "nutjob" response - whether you actually are one or not, I don't know. The worst part is the "anyone with any amount of intuition who is in touch with themselves" - what you're saying is that anyone who hasn't had a paranormal experience is somehow damaged. There's no evidence of that, however; in fact, there's more evidence that anyone who has had one is fooling themselves.

Personally, I'm agnostic on the subject, but I do have some suspicions. I'm also willing to make wild postulations, but I do always insist on including a disclaimer with them. Let's say, for example, that the nature of the universe is holographic, one of the fun theories floating around right now. If so, then just the shape of your brain might let you tune into certain things other people can't pick up on - in which case, people who don't have paranormal experiences have about as much choice about it as the genetically homosexual (assuming THAT research isn't flawed...)

Either way, you came off as just as much of an ass as the people whose actions you decry.

Re:Subjectiveness (1)

luder (923306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740047)

If someone claims to have seen a flying donkey, it is not up to you to decide the validity of their experience. What irks me is people immediately dismissing such a person as a nutjob.

Re:Subjectiveness (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740107)

What irks me is people immediately dismissing such a person as a nutjob.

Yes, instead they should be searching for a really big slingshot.

Re:Subjectiveness (1)

FirmWarez (645119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740069)

The problem with treating this as an "experiement", to me personally, is that the very nature of the paranormal is that it is not scientific. Like dreams. Do they exist? We'd all agree on that. Are they "real"? Well, what do you mean, real? The "reality" of the dream or the "reality" of the biological functions during a dream?

These things are turbulence; "tubuls" I call them in my personal notes on it, and as such are not repeatable. That doesn't diminish the "reality" of Fortean events; but it destroys the utility. And the scientific reality.

I won't claim that events just on the fringe of our preception occur, too many otherwise credible people have seen ghosts, UFOs, cryptids, visions, etc. But what I will claim is that these events, lacking the fundamental repeatability of 'science' are themselves mere apparitions, and not something the scientific community should focus on chasing.

Re:Subjectiveness (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740100)

If someone claims to have had a telepathic experience, it is not up to you to decide the validity of their experience. What irks me is people immediately dismissing such a person as a nutjob. There is certainly a lot more going on around us than we can directly sense, and anyone with any amount of intuition who is in touch with themselves has had experiences that demonstrate at least the possibility of "paranormal" awareness.

Actually it is up to whomever the claim is being made to decide the validity of the experience. Do the claimant provide irrefutable evidence of their claim? Is there claim just one of string which never happened? Was their claim specific? Is it verifiable? Did they attempt to fiddle the claim to fit the facts after the happened? etc.

Worse yet if they are using their claimed experience to charge people for advice, or telling them that they should dump their spouse because the spirits say so, or to hand over all their cash to be "cleansed" or that they should stay away from doctors because of negative "energies". etc.

I have no problem if someone thinks they have had a paranormal experience, but if they push their claim on me, or boast their claims in a public manner, or use their claims to make money, or use their claims to convince a friend or family member to make an irrational decision then I'm sure as hell fully entitled to say exactly what I think of those claims.

People with greater than average skill are always derided by the masses. Or, as Einstein put it: "Great thinkers will always face violent opposition from mediocre minds." Just because someone might be more perceptually evolved is no reason to cast them away.

Clowns and jesters are derided by the masses too. Comparing yourself or others to Einstein doesn't mean that you or they are Einstein or anything comparable.

Besides which, I doubt Einstein made that quote and certainly didn't mean it in the way you claim if he did. Cite your source. Einstein provided scientific theories that could be tested with observation. Where are your paranormal theories that can be tested with observation?

We should honor this experiment, not immediately dismiss it. Yes, let's make sure rigorous checks are in place, and that the data is properly validated. But give it a chance, eh?

The paranormal has had three centuries to demonstrate it exists. How many more centuries of statistical noise should be gathered before we state that we are as certain as experiment allows to say it has absolutely no basis in fact?

Re:Subjectiveness (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740225)

> Einstein provided scientific theories that could be tested with observation.

General relativity (as opposed to special relativity) wasn't testable then. But to his credit, at least the model was consistent and backed by rigorous formalism, which is far more than can be said for the woo-woo crowd.

Nowadays, our GPS satellites depend on compensating for both special and general relativistic effects, otherwise they'd be off by miles. Science wins another one. I bet that flaming ball in the sky actually isn't a chariot or a big ol chakra either.

Re:Subjectiveness (1)

Fullhazard (985772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740275)

I agree wholeheartedly. I have recently created a cure for cancer, diabetes, the common cold, unwanted pregnancy, and why the hell not, alzheimers. And you know what? It's MY decision wether or not i'm 'right'. You people have no right second-guessing my claims! Despite the fact that I have no Scientific evidence, I have anecdotal evidence. And that means anyone who say's i'm a 'crackpot' or a 'whacko' or a 'liar' is just a narrowminded asshole trying to hate on me.
Who is the scientific community to say i'm wrong? Just because my specially patented combination of sucrose and aqua has failed to have any effect (Except for agravating diabetes) in thousands of medical trials that cost billions of dollars doesn't mean it doesn't work! I have evidence from deranged housewives in nebraska that says it does! and the minute, the very minute, that people stop pumping money into my wonderous creation, medicine as we know it will die.

Just paraphrasing your post.

Meta: Escaped Backslash (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739868)

I like these Backslashes better than nothing. They give Slashdot's editors a way to get some articulated grip on the stories Slashdot covers and Slashdotters' response to them. Which helps develop an editorial consciousness through which new stories are filtered before they're published.

But I wish it were less centralized. Slashdot is better than newspapers because it's mainly "letters to the editor", sparked by editors' published stories. Because those LoE's are letters to each other. Maybe the top 5% by moderated points, weighted by metamoderation and negative comments (also metamoderated), of posters to each day's top story or two (by comment count), could be autoinvited to a Backslash discussion among themselves, summarizing and highlighting comments. That competition might also encourage better comments.

reader aardvarkjoe responds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15739879)

To this, reader aardvarkjoe responds that "The problem is that, in these 'entanglement experiments,' no information is being transmitted from the first site to the second.

I take it thta aardvarkjoe isn't married?

Plenty of information is transmitted when I'm entangled with my wife!!!

Opps! Shit, she's home! Gotta gooo..

Deja Vu .. The First Time Around (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739914)

I haven't had much of this lately, but I used to see before I'd be somewhere I'd never been, people in place and all. I wasn't sure it was the same as Deja Vu as I'd actually see these places in my dreams and be stunned when I saw them come together. I think something works, but I haven't had one of these episodes for years.

Score: -5 Daft?!? I didn't foresee that!

Re:Deja Vu .. The First Time Around (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739955)

I'm having Deja Vu right now, embarrassed all over again. If I were precognative I would have previewed, spellchecked and edited.

KFG

Re:Deja Vu .. The First Time Around (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739968)

I haven't had much of this lately, but I used to see before I'd be somewhere I'd never been, people in place and all. I wasn't sure it was the same as Deja Vu as I'd actually see these places in my dreams and be stunned when I saw them come together. I think something works, but I haven't had one of these episodes for years.

The problem with such anecdotes is that memory is simply not reliable. Really, you forget more than you remember, and your brain just sort of invents things to fill in the gaps. Over time, it gets pretty good at this, and comes up with more and more plausable content to fill the gaps.

Thus, when you believe you've dreamed something, your brain remembers it had a dream, and there were a bunch of congruences, so it maps the memory to match reality - "oh, I've been here before!"

Or at least, that's one argument, and the one with the most scientific weight.

Re:Deja Vu .. The First Time Around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740009)

Not sure who to credit for this one, but I read somewhere that re-incarnation exists, but backwards in time. All those that claim to remember past lives in the Middle Ages or Renaissance are big fat liars. Those that really do remember become science fiction writers.

Re:Deja Vu .. The First Time Around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740246)

I used to have that all the time. I'd have precognative dreams too. I'd wake up with a vague sense of what happened in the dream and then forget about it until the event came up months later.

Too bad it was never anything important. Also too bad that I can't prove that I had the dreams before I remember them later. I don't have them anymore now that I'm older and wiser and eager to jot them down for proof.

Re:Deja Vu .. The First Time Around (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740253)

There are some [mb-soft.com] explanations [yahoo.com] around that explain the "Deja Vu" phenomenon physiologically. (Those are only the first two I've got on Google, many others are avaliable, but mostly centered on the "separated routes" theory).

My High School psychology class Experiment... (5, Interesting)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739935)

When I was in high school I ran ESP tests on the kids in my psychology class. I had twenty five cards with five different symbols on them. I shuffled the deck and looked at each card and each student wrote down which symbol he/she though I was looking at. The cards were behind a bind so they would not be visible in any way to the class. I ran the test three times and collected the forms.

Everyone scored between four to six right answers except for one kid who on all three tests scored between twelve to fifteen correct answers.

Re:My High School psychology class Experiment... (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739984)

And that proves what, exactly?

Hint: if your answer isn't "nothing", then that explains why you aren't teaching maths or statistics.

Re:My High School psychology class Experiment... (1)

norkakn (102380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740144)

Actually, that would be a very good reason to be teaching statistics.

Re:My High School psychology class Experiment... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740208)

Did you teach statistics when you were in high school?

Re:My High School psychology class Experiment... (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740418)


Everyone scored between four to six right answers except for one kid who on all three tests scored between twelve to fifteen correct answers.

Yah, and when I was in high school I measured the acceleration do to gravity, g, and found the published value to be off by 20% by my experiment. Obviously there's nothing wrong with my experiment, and someone wrong with the published value of g.

Proof that ESP exists! (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739987)

I totally saw this Backslash coming.

I want my million dollars in small bills.

The question is (1)

palantir0 (945761) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739997)

whether taxpayer money should be spent, probably not. My grandfather died and the same night I woke up telling my wife there is someone at the end of my bed. I remember it, didn't look like my grandfather but it was a person. It is real or memorex? Dunno, just know what happened. You probably couldn't test this in a controlled experiment. Even though there could be something about telepathy, etc., doesn't mean I want any tax dollars to go to it. Of course, I don't really want my tax dollars going to politicians but unfortunately I'm screwed there. Cheers

The problem is (1)

DoubleRing (908390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740219)

How many people's grandfather's died and they didn't see someone at the end of the bed? Or, even better, How many people saw something at the end of the bed and--no one had died? Who knows though, maybe you're just special...in your own special way.

Better spent on Telepathy (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740265)

I much ratter they spend my tax money studing telepathy theories than developing new weapons and general means of murdering people.
Then again, that's just me. And, like you, I'm screwed there.

Shameful display of ignorance. (1)

Arketype (958431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15739999)

While I can understand the comments suggesting that using tax payers money for such an investigation is not worthwhile, I am totally flabergasted by the defensive posture adopted by so many. So many low-brow insults were tossed about, it made me feel sad. Discounting something as "obviously ludicrus", is fools talk. In science nothing is obvious, always be suspicious of any statement containing the word obvious. So many theories we now take for granted (and apply to modern industry) were once laughed at by the scientific establishment. Keep an open mind. I feel it very strange that people would suggest that because we have not discovered a phenomenon, or a mechanism to explain some phenomenon, then it does not exist. Using the course of logic, we have literally invented the world from scratch. Some people actually hold this to be true, but at least they have an internally coherent web of reasons. Also to note, some of the most balanced and insightful comments were moderated really low, so go through them if you want another dimension of the conversation.

You want proof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740023)

Please see the videos on www.psipog.net - we exist

If you're from the UK (1)

tehgimpness (984446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740028)

You'll understand why this comment:

have they hired a couple of good magicians skilled at 'mentalist' acts

is quite amusing. If you're not: Nothing to see here.

Re:If you're from the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740297)

There are few things more pettily sadistic than telling someone that there's a joke they're missing and failing to explain it so that they can laugh in the future.

I got to meet Randi (1)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740036)

It was a couple of years ago, when I was still in high school, my science teacher was friends with him. He took questions from the class; the most insightful thing that I garnered from the whole experience was that the million dollars isn't attainable. Don't take this the wrong way, i'm not saying that telepathy or anything else definately doesn't exist. The only way to claim the million dollars is to find something that cannot be explained rationally, and explain it rationally. If said 'thing' is explained, it is no longer eligible. He might as well offer a billion dollars.

Re:I got to meet Randi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740080)

You don't need to explain it, rationally or otherwise. You just have to demonstrate it.

How about man - machine telepathy? (1)

Tandoori Haggis (662404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740040)

Okay, I don't actually believe that systems are consciously projecting their thoughts in to your mind. But it does freak people out slightly when you expect a system to do something nobody expected - then it does. Colleagues start wondering if you're psychic or something. I think if you spend enough time looking at stuff on your systems, you get a feel for what may happen and when, even if you can't offer a great deal of proof.

Ever heard a tune in your mind then switched on the radio and it was there? Maybe your hearing is better than you think. Sometimes, in buildings really close to powerful transmitters, otherwise inanimate objects demodulate the broadcasts in to audible sound.

Genetics vs Telepathy (1)

Billy the Mountain (225541) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740086)

Okian Warriors argument is sound at first, but the argument, I think, unravels when you ask: "How is telepathy genetic?" Since we don't know how telepathy works, it's odd to assume that there would be a genetic component.
For example, what if telepathy worked only when you were standing at a particular location? When you moved, no more telepathy. This would clearly be an environmental factor NOT genetic.

BTM

There have been both (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740217)

There have been accounts of people (or couples of people) whom have a strong "sense" of precognition, of people who have a strong emotional/mental connection over distances (such as twins, etc), and of places that have a resonance (hauntings, stonehenge, etc).

Indeed, both person-associated (genetic or chance) phenomenoa have been said to occur, as well as environmental/locational.

Lack of evolution != doesn't exist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740108)

There are rare conditions that cause things like rubbery skin to exist in one of a million people, and regardless of how advantageous or disabling rubbery skin may be, it's not passed on from father to son. It appears, it disappears. Telepathy or empathy may exist in one individual and not be an inheritable trait...

Re:Lack of evolution != doesn't exist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740179)

it is an inherent trait but requires activation thru neural restructuring.

Evolution is not instant (3, Interesting)

Drakonite (523948) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740122)

The whole argument Okian Warrior poses is based on the idea that telepathy has no prerequisites and could be spontaneously aquired via evolution, which as with other traits that have evolved over time simply does not seem to be the case.

If we make the relatively trivial assumption that telepathy would require a relatively high level of brain function (both as a matter of technical requirement, and also of being able to process and understand the information) then suddenly the point in our evolution it would be most possible for these traits to begin to appear we have already began stagnating our gene pool by artificially protecting those of weaker traits, thus significantly reducing any evolution.

If we look through recorded time, and due to our nature likely much before recorded time as well, people who can 'hear voices' or otherwise know things they should not be able to know are typically regarded as crazy, devilspawn, witches, or some other name in which heavy medication, stoning, or burning at the stake would be prescribed. I would pose that because of this, not only would telepathy not be a survival advantage, any marked ability would indeed be a disadvantage.

IMO it's also very realistic to assume telepathy would be like other ability, and require some practice and training before it would be any more than rare and involuntary flashes of thoughts.

...and yes, I am a firm believer in telepathy. I have seen and experienced enough that I'd be crazy not to believe in it. I just appears that like any other ability (sight and hearing included) different people have different levels of innate ability, and in the case of telepathy the vast majority are below the threshold of being able to notice it at all, and those few that do lack the a significant way of testing and training the ability.

Re:Evolution is not instant (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740164)

If we look through recorded time, and due to our nature likely much before recorded time as well, people who can 'hear voices' or otherwise know things they should not be able to know are typically regarded as crazy, devilspawn, witches, or some other name in which heavy medication, stoning, or burning at the stake would be prescribed.

Generally I hear voices after getting stoned.

Re:Evolution is not instant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740230)

there is a relatively easy way to train it -- drive a car with blindfolds on and windows rolled up.
p.s. only in deserted areas please. BTW, its not telepathy---no such thing--just something else.

Ayahuasca (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740127)

A psychoactive drink from the Amazon called Ayahuasca is known for creating group visions, and drinkers of the brew often report of telepathic experiences.

Why Always with the "Quantum"? (4, Informative)

TexVex (669445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740145)

People always like to bring up QM, especially entanglement, when talking about magical things like FTL travel or communication, super-duper-duper-computers, and time travel. Now it's telepathy too? Nice.

Quantum Mechanics is not magic. It's also not dimly understood. It is counterintuitive, but that doesn't mean that it somehow turns black into white.

The big problem with QM is how people write about it. With the double-slit experiment, for example, you'll read a phrase like "when you observe which slit each photon goes through, the interference patterns disappear". The problem is, most people think of observation as something completely passive. But in the realm of QM, observation is very active and very destructive. In QM-speak, it goes without saying that to observe something is to change it. If the above phrase were written "when you jigger with each photon to try to get an idea of which slit it goes through, the interference pattern vanishes", it would be equally accurate and sound a lot less magical. A pretty pattern of waves on the surface of a pond will vanish if you jump into the pond to get a look at the waves up close.

Entanglement is described with equal misguidance. Usually you get a phrase like "when you measure measure one photon of the entangled pair, the other one's spin changes instantly across any distance to match". Sounds magical, right? But it ain't. The spin "changes" from a state where it has all possible values with equal probability of each into a state where you know what the value of that spin is. QM is all about probabilities and information and not so much about the actual particles. Instead of saying "the particle's spin changes", it would be more correct to say "what we know about the particle's spin changes". But instead we get shorthand that is clear to anyone who groks QM but is counterintuitive to the layman. By observing your electron (and remember, observing means you've destroyed information in it by getting the spin information out), you've gained some information about it. Because of the entanglement, you've also gained information about the other memeber of the pair, without disturbing it, at that very moment, no matter where the other member of that pair is. That's it.

Conjecture and questions (2, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740184)

A few points that came to mind as I read the above...

Haven't been slapped: women I find attractive, as a rule, do not have telepathy

Depending on what you find attractive in women, chances are that such women will also be attractive to others. In that event, I believe they'd be somewhat immune due to constant hinting thoughts of passerby.

Taxpayer's money: research into the mystical and supernatural isn't strictly illegal it is certainly a questionable use of taxpayer money

How many expeditions across the world, expected to fall off the "edge" were funded by what would have then been something similar to taxpayer's money?

Why exactly couldn't invisible pink unicorns exist?

There's a likelyhood to all things, as well as a case history. Cases of various paranormal events exceed those of invisible pink unicorn reports (although how something can be pink when invisible?). It leaves the possibility of lots of crazy people, lots of easily influenced/misled people (more likely), or the possibility that various paranormal circumstances may exist. Lots of things that would have been 'witchcraft' or paranormal years back are commonplace. I suppose the trade-off is in exactly how much money is spent vs the results received.

By measuring the state of the first electron, you can instantaneously affect the state of the second electron -- but according to all of the current theories, there is no way to actually use that to communicate

Why not? If you can in any how tell that the state of the second electron has been altered, and you could consistently alter/un-alter/re-alter the second electron, you could transfer binary data... with the limits being on how quickly one could read the changes given or affect a change.

It's a pity that there's no evidence that these experiences actually took place in reality, not just in the participants' imaginations, don't you think

Which leads to a previous statement. Not everyone is a liar, some people honestly (but mistakenly) believe in a paranormal ability or event that may have an existing scientific explanation beyond their own knowledge. Of course, some other unexplainable/supernatural events over time have become normal scientific data as science progressed as well.


One thing I do wonder is about experiments done with twins (quite a few interesting cases of people having an unusual 'connection' there), and experiments vs situations of duress. Sure, a million bucks is a nice incentive, but if one did have an invisible supernatural transmitter in one's head... say a weak one... a life-threatening situation might just be the thing that squeezes out the juice in it, and that's not really something that can be (legally) simulated. Certainly there are cases where humans put in "impossible" situations have gone beyond what science dictated should be possible.

Re:Conjecture and questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740356)

Why not? If you can in any how tell that the state of the second electron has been altered, and you could consistently alter/un-alter/re-alter the second electron, you could transfer binary data... with the limits being on how quickly one could read the changes given or affect a change.

Because Heisenberg says "No!". You can't observe the second electron's state without changing it somehow, so you don't know if the bit you read from the second electron's state corresponds to the bit the person twiddling the first electron sent or not.

PEAR results (2, Insightful)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740190)

If you read the PEAR research they are reporting extremely small telekinetic effects. Basically they acquire data from a noise source and devise someway of generating ones and zeros at a 5 hz rate. The "operator" is supposed to think of ones or zeros in an attempt to skew the results. The "success" rate is something like %50.02 from the expected of %50. Not very impressive results and probably explainable by temperature variations, cosmic rays or maybe even the odd neutrino detections.

I think they ought to have a World Wide Telekinetic Westling Federation where they pit two cerebral pro's against each other in ring with a noise generator between them; each combatant would either have with a big 0 or 1 on his jersey. After the bell the cumulative results in big readable digital displays in real-time above their heads.

Summary of the Backslash Summary (1)

bananaendian (928499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740191)

The Experiment
Many readers pointed out flaws in the experiment, it was not controlled enought to the point that any results from it would be completely invalid and would only play into the hands of the crackpots.

Proving Telepathy doesn't exist
Althought it is not possible to "prove that something doesn't exist", it is possible to show that the consequences of something existing would disagree and conflict with present knowledge and would lead to absurd consequences - reductio ad absurdum et al...

For example it was pointed out that the absense of any unexplained evolutionary advantages that could be due to telepathy existing, does strongly suggest that telepathy is very unlikely to exist (or that most of our knowledge of evolutionanary and behavioural biology is outright wrong).

Some people were desperately clutching straws by suggesting that since we do not know everything (the weirdness of double-slit-interference-experiment e.g.), that we should give the benefit of the doubt to such experiments. However this same argument could be made of any unexplained/unknown phenomenon, pink unicorns, elves, Narnia etc. and is therefore irrelevant since resources for research are finite.

Some people went as far as to suggest mechanisms for how telepathy might work: unknown signals, quantum effects etc. to justify the research. The psychology behind such attempt is imply credibility where there is none. If you cannot devise a method of testing such phenomenon then the value of them, however 'based on science', is nill. Indeed, this should be the very definition of pseudo-science.

Science and Magic
Although I'm often called a strict spectic I find science and biology magical and exiting just because of all the things we don't know. However I'm dismayd by the lack of cricitical mind and imagination that people have. There are plenty of magic left even after you ignore all these weak speudo science ideas.

For example how do oyster and various sea creatures know the phases of the moon when all apparent external signals are blocked and their location is moved thousends of miles? How do birds use geomagnetic fields for navigation and what is the sensitivity and selectivity of their receivers? Or do they have a long endurance inertial navigation system coupled to terrain mapping when available? Even a three year old can devise experiments for these phenomenon and learn volumes about the secret of nature...

Re:Summary of the Backslash Summary (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740247)

Although I'm often called a strict spectic I find science and biology magical and exiting just because of all the things we don't know. However I'm dismayd by the lack of cricitical mind and imagination that people have. There are plenty of magic left even after you ignore all these weak speudo science ideas.

Sounds like a mental dictatorship.

"We decide what your scientific interests have to be! Deviating from them is heresy and will be punished by exclusion from the scientific community! Be a good scientist! You must not think what you are not allowed to think!"

Might explain why there is a decline in science students.

In other words: what YOU see as magic means nothing. Magic is subjective. You are in no position to force everyone what has to be seen as interesting.

dCi3k (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740204)

fea.r the reaper [goat.cx]

Okian Warrior: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740213)

Umm, I have to point out two things...

One, evolutionary pressures do not cause mutations, period. Mutations are either beneficial or detrimental, depending on evolutionary pressure. Just because telepathy might exist in primitive hunter/gathers puts no pressure on prey animals to block their thoughts, as it were. Evolutionary pressure would however favor those individuals expressing the ability to block their thoughts. The fact of telepathy in a predator does not stimulate the ability to block thought in the prey, it does favor prey that develop such an ability via mutation.

Two, I don't think telepathy is a reasonable mutation to achieve, certainly not within a single species. I'd suggest telepathy would be the end result of evolutionary pressure favoring empaths whose abilities are closer to true telepathy.

Empathy is not a favorable mutation in a hunter/gatherer. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to fell the pain of all my prey...

Meh, we've all had those moments. (2, Interesting)

Jtoxification (678057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740249)

:-) I'm actually not really trying to be funny.
Some "coincidences" do occur for many people often everyday mainly because of our own intuitive processes and subconscious processes picking up a lot more subtleties than our conscious minds are aware of - is this "telepathy" per se? Probably not, but many people make a very good business out of reading others almost as good as the real thing. Even then, our subconscious minds pick up so much of what we don't that often we'll get excited about something bad that happens because it might have affected a loved one - sometimes nothing happens, yet other times, you're glad you checked. Sometimes a last-minute reflex saves your ass from death - I'm pretty sure everyone has at least one of those stories, and I'm positive that most people have a lot more than one. Think about that! We evolved through unspoken communication and split-second deductive logic. ESP, or just good heuristic hypotheses generation in our brains? Both? Who knows, but think about the fact that we're able to communicate complex ideas to each other through small chunks of black-on-white markings.

Gosh, Neal Stephenson, Joseph Campbell, and Neil Gaiman should be so proud ...

Glitches in perception? (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740285)

One thing I wonder: what if those paranormal phenomena are actually glitches in our perception of the world? Remember that the conscious mind is aware of only fractions of the actual input. The subconscious is full of wonders. This goes all the way down to the question whether the world actually behaves like our understanding of causality. If causality is actually a simplification constructed by our mind, then there might be a chance that there are situations where this approximation is just plain wrong.

Of course, this raises some serious question about how to verify this in an experiment.

Whose looking at me? (1)

consoneo (442007) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740291)

Soo... you're telling me, all of you, that you have never been able to sense someone looking at you?

When someone pulls past you on the road, you can't look over and see them quickly turning their head back forward?

Alright, I guess I can buy that.

But it happens to me all the time. I turn to look at someone and see them turn their head away from me. All the time :)

Re:Whose looking at me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740390)

Exactly what I was about to ask. Skeptics, anyone have an explanation for this one?

ID test (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740336)

" Reader Pyromage provided one answer to that question, writing:
"Because it's possible to devise an experiment [slashdot.org] that could provide scientific evidence in its favor. ... Such an experiment does not -- even in theory -- exist for [Intelligent Design]."
"

I replied that :

I don't think it would be too hard to come up an experiment that could falsify a particular stain of ID.

First, we'll define an impersonal ID: the intelligent designer is simply a phenomena that is intelligent, like a human being or other intelligent animal. Not that we're saying that this creator has a body, or is organic, wears a crown, writes on stone tablets, or anything else; just that it is an intelligent phenomena.

Second, we'll have to define a criteria for detecting intelligence. This is essentially the same project as SETI. We've recieved lots of interesting radio signals from outer space; the problem is, we have no definition or set of criteria to distinguish signals arising from intelligent activity from other natural, even biological phenomena. We have some signals that *might* be from life, but then again they might not. If we had a criteria, we'd have a better idea. But we don't. So, once we do have the set of criteria, we could easily apply that to any observable phenomena.

Here's the example experiment. We'll look at the background radiation from the big bang, and we'll see if it meets the criteria for intelligence. If the background radiation meets the criteria for a signal arising from intelligent activity, then we know that the phenomena that created the universe is somehow intelligent. (Obviously that doesn't mean that the Bible is completely true, etc. etc). If we can somehow determine that we have the *only* criteria for intelligence, then if the background radiation does not meet that criteria, we will then know for certain that there was no intelligence involved at or around the beginning of the universe.

An old argument for the existance of God is that the heavens act very much like a watch -- the motions of the heavenly bodies are so precise, an intelligence must have created the system. It would be like finding a watch on the ground on a desert island and not thinking that a person had dropped it there. Obviously we now know that the planets aren't as graceful and watch-like as they seem to be. But essentially this is the same test. If we can decide what intelligence is, and a set of criteria for determining if a phenomena is influence by intelligence, then we can test for ID.

Slap Theory (2, Interesting)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740406)

Sesticulus raises a similar idea [...] "Invariably if I'm in a public place, there will be someone I find attractive and I will think "hey now". I've never had someone come up and slap me for thinking rude thoughts, so at the very least, women I find attractive, as a rule, do not have telepathy.
That assumes that these are things that, if you will, percolate up the old brain stem to the point where we recognize we are reading thoughts. From what I understand, the brain doesn't necessarily work that way. Lots of data from lots of senses comes into play and we attach different importance to each of them. An example would be the sense of taste--it's made up both the olfactory senses in your nose and the chemical senses in your tongue.

Consider this scenario: You're in the public place. You see the woman. You look her up-and-down and think, "Hey now." The woman turns around and sees you looking her over and thinks, "Gads. What a jerk." Well, obviously, there was no telepathy involved here. She saw you looking at her like a hungry dog at a piece of meat and immediately knew what you were thinking. But what made her turn around at that moment? Was it just a coincidence? Obviously, it had to be. There's no way she could have known what you were thinking.

Or, her "sixth sense" told her there was a potential mate/threat/whatever. Automatic reaction was to look around for it. When she saw you looking her over, she figured she'd found the target of the problem (since the feelings went away) and the rest of her senses allowed her to form a better picture of what was happening and since she never really knew why she was looking around (lower brain function caused the reaction), she wouldn't chalk it up to telepathy.

Remember, there are tons of things that we do that we don't consciously do. A simple example is we pull our hands away from hot things. There's no conscious decision there. We know why we did it, sure, but there was no higher-brain decision process involved.

What about The 100th Monkey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15740407)

I thought this was interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_Monkey [wikipedia.org]

+5, Preinsightful (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15740442)

I predict that copying and pasting +5 comments from the previous discussion will result in quick and easy karma.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>