Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Reality Gaming System Tests for Telepathy
Big Ben writes "UK scientists have built a virtual computer world designed to test telepathic ability. Approximately 100 participants will take part in the group gaming experiment at the University of Manchester which aims to test whether telepathy exists between individuals using the system. The project will also look at how telepathic abilities may vary depending on the relationships which exist between participants." Note: for their sakes, I hope they succeed in proving anything paranormal's going on — if they can reproduce such a result, it could earn them the $1 million prize long offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Now let's invest some more tax money on finding UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster and inventing the perpetuum mobile!
I'd rather not have a paranormal outcome. It is likely that if telepathy is possible, it is not paranormal; rather, certain theories and hypotheses previously thought true would need a little tweaking. If telepathy were possible, and explainable in scientific terms, that would be cool.
That just about sums up the paranormal. It's a cute stage act, but anyone who thinks its anything more is reaching for straws. Randi has had his prize out there for how many years, and not even a dowser has been able to prove they can do better than dumb luck. Look at that faker Sylvia Brown - she's so scared of Randi exposing her that she won't go near his tests.
They've gone to great lengths to keep the first subject from marking the objects in any way to indicate which one was chosen, but this won't completely eliminate false positives.
The first subject still has to make an entirely subjective choice of objects. If the second subject knows the first subject extrememly well, it may still be possible for that person to guess which object was originally chosen just because he or she knows which object would grab the attention of the first subject.
More cynically, there's nothing to stop the subjects from creating some kind of heuristic before the test. For example, always choose the larger object or the one with the name that comes first alphabetically. Of course, I suppose you prevent this by refusing to reveal the details of the study to either participant before they are separated.
Can someone tell me why this isn't as outragious 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?
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".
I see. 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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Are you for real?
About 4 years ago, I went to a local music venue for the weekly talk show hosted by musicians and some pathetic psychic was there claiming "quantum physics proves crystals can heal you". Every other claim she made was punctuated with a bunch of keywords about quantum mechanics (esp. strange action at a distance and observability).
I finally got the mic and asked her opinion of Schrodinger's dissent and if she could respond to one of the founder's main gripes, and she had never even heard of Schrodinger. I asked how she could possibly quote QM every other sentence and never had heard of it's primary founder. She brushed it off with some analogy about knowing how to hit a baseball without understanding all that complicated math.
Don't fall for people who pick a hole in scientific understanding and try to defend pseudoscientific babble while hiding behind things they don't understand.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Help fight continental drift.
Find some evidence of the kind of nonsense that Randi refutes and your belief that he's arrogant will make some sense.
His dismissive attitude towards the "supernatural" is well founded.
By the way, why do you say "so-called skepticism."
Axe to grind? He resents pseudo-science and the load of crap that is the occult. What is wrong with that?
You would have to be some kind of spectacular idiot in order to think you are telepathic based on this game. Wow!
How can it exist but be unprovable? If you and your family have a super-natural connection, or at least one that is not currently explained by science, it can be tested.
Too many times to be coincidence has things like this happened. But trying to force it never has produced any results...
That statement implies that you've done the statistics. Let's see them. How many times have you guys not thought the same thing at the same time vs. how many times have you thought about the same thing? Keep in mind that because you are in the same family, some of the things you think about will inevitably be related. I mean if you're thinking about your mother, it's pretty reasonable to think your daughter might also think about her grandmother at some point during the day.
There is a wealth of literature on what is likely going on. You are only noting the times it happens, rarely or never the times it doesn't. So when you "think back on it" the hits greatly outnumber the misses in your memory when in reality the hits are just coincidences amidst a sea of misses.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Two hundred years ago such questions would have made sense. Today we know there isn't any mechanism for that.
This is an argument from ignorance. You're saying that you haven't seen a mechanism, therefore one doesn't exist.
Can you honestly tell me that in a universe where 90% of the matter is, by our best science, missing - there is no possibility that we may have overlooked something?
Remember, less than a hundred years ago we thought radio traveled through the luminiferous ether. And at the time, it made sense.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Can't you just prove that it does exist? :-)
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?
I find it disappointing that TFA 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.
I predict that this will have the same outcome as all other parapsychology experiments: a very slightly better-than-chance statistical outcome, and endless ambiguity and debate about whether the statistics were done in a valid way.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Randi's "silly excuses" are simply science in action. Extraordinary cliams require extraordinary proof, although in this case, I think what he asks adds up to simply ordinary scientific methods. In order to prove that you have paranormal powers, you have to show that what you are doing is not being done by other means. Randi's challenge simply says that the parameters of the test assure that. For example, claims that a person can turn the page of a book by telekinetic powers never work if the book is inside of a clear plastic box. Strangely, the person who claims these powers will claim that this is unfair. If you need more details, check out the rules.
When you get down to the nut cutting with Occam's Razor, the paranormal claims always fade out. They always reappear with the same claims and no evidence. The credulous will always be with us. The good news is that many of them like to play cards for money.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Actually, they didn't get results:
In one particular study on remote viewing, the "psychics" scored above the result expected from chance by getting the right answer approximately 33% of the time when there were four choices, which Science News characterized as "a moderate increase over chance." But the judgment of success was determined by the project's director, who rated the similarity of each response to the target display and to other randomly chosen pictures. Hyman argued that these studies offer no insight as to why the scoring is above chance--it's just assumed that it must be psychic ability. He also noted that the accuracy ratings should have been done by independent judges--not the project director--and that none of the studies have yet undergone peer review. In other words, there were severe methodological flaws in those studies that did seem to show a hint of something. Indeed, a former CIA technical director who monitored these programs said on Nightline that he wasn't aware of any significant results from the "psychics."
An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study! (The Straight Dope)
The only form of "remote viewing" that has been shown to work involves a video camera, a monitor, and a cable or wireless link connecting them.
What a load of bullshit. It'd only take one person who actually has these magical powers, and is willing to demonstrate them, to legitimize the whole thing. If there were visible proof that even a single person is psychic, claims of psychic abilities would be taken far more seriously. The first person to stand up and prove his magical powers would be a hero, vindicating everyone else who has been ridiculed for making such claims. But so far, everyone who has attempted to prove them has failed, and most people who make the claims make no attempt to prove them at all ("it doesn't work when nonbelievers are around", "I'm not in this for fame or money or contributing to human understanding", etc.).
Again, there is no such thing. The success rate of so-called psychics solving crimes is no better than educated guessing.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Just google "esp tests" and take a couple you might be surprised.
Or you might not. I think the operative word is "might".
But if you take the test 100, 200 times and average the results......
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.
Circumstantial I know, but it's hard to prove that something doesn't exist...
Here's my prediction of what will happen.
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 staistical 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.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Among other things, Dubois told Schwartz "the deceased was telling me that I must share the following - I don't walk alone," a seemingly innocuous piece of information, but critical to him.
"My friend had been confined to a wheelchair in her last years - there is no way Allison could have known that," he said.
Gosh! That's incredible! Or... not. How about the other example:
According to a summary of the reading done by Schwartz, she told him the deceased person was a man of great stature, extremely handsome, had beautiful women around him, was known to politicians and other well-known people, and was cremated - all accurate, according to Chopra's evaluation.
But she also told him his father was connected to the U.S. oil and steel industry, and there was a small dark terrier dog in his life - not true, Chopra said. Her accuracy score - 77 percent, according to Chopra's scoring, Schwartz said.
Maybe she meant me. I'm tall, handsome, have a beautiful fiance, and I'm known to politicians and other well-known people. Haven't been cremated yet, though.
See? This is goofy - all of the things she got right would apply to just about anyone... "great stature" could mean tall, important, etc. Everyone knows a "well-known" person. Also, the specifics - oil and steel, the terrier - were wrong.
The scoring is also questionable... If I guess that you're "handsome, have great stature, have beautiful women around you, and are a member of the royal family of Greece", did I just score 75 percent? 'Cause if so, I'm psychic too. I'll even say that despite having never met you, I know you're male. Now I'm at 80 percent, beating out Schwartz.
... a fraud
Really? Randi's made claims for which he has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever? People have demonstrated categorically that what he claims is false? Wow, there must be a WEALTH of information to support that assertion - I mean, he's THE public skeptic, so surely if he's been discredited you'll be able to provide a link or 3?
My favorite part of your post is:
He's a very smart man. "I only work with scientists" (he's now retired). He'd prepared some notes, and held up his copies of Scientific American and other mainstream sources...
Nothing like a little rented credibility! I can hold up a copy of a magazine and read from notes, too. It doesn't say a thing about my intelligence, nor about the veracity of what I'm saying. If my audience, however, is easily fooled by simple props, it might say something about their intelligence, however...
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!
A story my mother told me as a child was about a group of blind women. Everyone they ever knew was blind. But one of them had just partial peripheral vision in one eye. She would tell the others, "Sometimes I just seem to know something is there, it is blurry and off to the side, but I just know it is there." The other blind women would mock her and make fun of her. The whole idea that someone could "see" was simply ludicrous.
Imagine if there are senses most people are "blind" to. The people who have them, even mild versions would seem, well ludicrous.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Bullpucky. If telepathy were proven they would be shouting their results from the mountaintops to let everyone know. The CIA et al would be all over them like flies to a 3-day old raccoon carcass on the Alabama asphalt in mid July. Oh wait, they already have and found that if there is such as a thing as remote viewing it is highly subjective and not able to be used for anything other than parlor tricks. In other words, it's reproducable.
Further, if they could prove and replicate their results they would go to the James Randi Foundation (as others above have said), sign the contract and get their $1 million.
The fact is that they can't reproduce their results under controlled conditions, they haven't proven anything other than they can manipulate their subjects AND they haven't gone to claim their million dollar prize.
In short, they haven't proven squat.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower