Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Worlds and ESP
"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.
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, 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.
... couple of wavy lines.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
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...
Energy: time to change the picture.
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.
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?
-- dR.fuZZo
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?
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
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.
--
make install -not war
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!
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!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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.
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
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.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
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.
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.
:-) 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
--I gots 99 problems but a new machine ain't one!
AMD! Asus! Whoot! 6 years!
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.
No one is dictating to anyone what to think. The problem is the sharing of a limited resource (language). When different groups of people use the same word (science) for to represent different concepts it creates a namespace collision. We all know how inconvenient that is.
Imagine a scene from a school playground:
Children A,B,C,and D are playing basketball. Child E walks up with a baseball and bat and says "I want to play basketball with you".
Child A: "Ok, but you need a basketball to play with us, not a bat"
Child D: "I have a basketball"
Child A: "No, that's a baseball. If you want to play baseball you can go over there and play with those people in the baseball field."
Child D: "My ball is every bit as good as yours! Who are you to say what is or isn't a basketball? You can't dictate to me what kind of ball to play with!"
Child A: "Fine, call it whatever you want. Who said anything about dictating anything? You can play with whatever ball you want. There's plenty of room on the playground, you can do whatever you want. But if you want to play with us, we only play with the large-bouncy kind of balls, not the small,not-bouncy ones."
Child D: "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You're trying to oppress my intellect!"
That is unfortunate because your insight was incorrect. You must find something that cannot be explained rationally and perform it. If you say you can move a rock with the power of your mind using a force that is currently unknown to science and you do so, you win. What process enabled you to do so? Quantum Mechanics? Dark energy? The will Allah? Nobody knows? Doesn't matter, you still win.
After having done so, many people will naturally be interested in finding out how you do so in an effort to advance human knowledge and maybe even greater things. Maybe many dangerous activities could be made less dangerous for humans if more of them had powers of telekinesis.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.