The Deep End...

POSTED BY: Iremisst
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 02:17
VIEWED: 5737
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 28, 2009 4:23 PM

I don't think psychic abilities exist. I think people convince themselves that they have them. Then, they remember every coincidental "confirmation," and forget the contradictions.

I pretend like I might have psychic ability sometimes. A flickering light, out of body experiences, guessing ten dice throws in a row, predictions made months before that come true, even seeing something happen five to ten seconds before it happens. But if I'm honest to myself, even if the event seemed uncanny and even startled me, I'm not psychic. With me, I know that it's coincidence and a high innate ability with pattern recognition. Hallucination may also play a role, I'm not entirely certain. My brain is weird.

I find the echolocation training highly dubious. Human ears aren't very sensitive, and as I understand it, the return sounds that these people are supposed to be detecting are their own unamplified voices. Humans can hear an echo if there's, well, an ECHO, but other times...? Just the very quiet bouncing back of sound off of walls in open air, with no audible echo effect? Hmm. And don't animals like dolphins and bats have special centers for interpreting bounced signals that evolved over tens of thousands of years? You might be able to sense something directly in front of you, but mapping your environment in your head without seeing it, using sound, as in true echolocation?

MANGOLO

Friday, August 28, 2009 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I find the echolocation training highly dubious. Human ears aren't very sensitive, and as I understand it, the return sounds that these people are supposed to be detecting are their own unamplified voices. Humans can hear an echo if there's, well, an ECHO, but other times...? Just the very quiet bouncing back of sound off of walls in open air, with no audible echo effect? Hmm. And don't animals like dolphins and bats have special centers for interpreting bounced signals that evolved over tens of thousands of years? You might be able to sense something directly in front of you, but mapping your environment in your head without seeing it, using sound, as in true echolocation?

You are absolutely right- even millions of years of evolution for this one trait. I did see a doc about a blind woman who could used her voice to help her sense objects, but she was blind since birth. It wasn't true echolocation like dolphins, but it did help her get around. The scientists were saying she was using the part of her brain that most people used for vision which makes it more interesting though.

Dolphins can even see into objects with their echolocation. Sense density changes akin to a sonogram or ultrasound.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

RAHLMACLAREN

Friday, August 28, 2009 8:45 PM

Actually it's Rahl as in:
Richard Rahl (also known as Richard Cypher) is the protagonist in The Sword of Truth
fantasy series by Terry Goodkind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rahl
Also the surname Rahl means wolf in Norse, I think. (That fits, since I seem to be a lone wolf by default)
www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Rahl
And MacLaren is like the car McLaren, but with an extra 'a'.

I hale from the Magical Land of Missouri (pronounced- "mizery"), which is near Penguin's
Mythical Land of Iowa.
(I should probably put this stuff in my profile just to beat back confusion(And...done))

Back when we got the Original Star Wars Trilogy in THX on VHS in the mid-90's, we
were obsessed much like with Firefly now. So of course, we have all the dialog, English
and most of the non-English, etched into our DNA.

"Sorry I can't help. We never covered this in shop class."
I totally ripped this line from Michael McKean's character Dalboz from the game Zork
Grand Inquisistor.

Edited to fix stuff and add: That was very informative Cybersnark, and I didn't even have to break out the dictionary. I'll have to ponder....
[returns to starring up at the sky]

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

IREMISST

Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:41 AM

I realize that the slang term Rah really doesn't have anything to do with your handle, I'm just passing on useless bits of info for really no good reason... I do that. At least I'm not cussing and hurling about things- well, not today anyway!

Passed on the wolf information to my other half- he likes wolves, but you kinda have to when they are always (figuratively) one step behind you... Wait, I think I hear the wolv-I mean my wonderful in laws now... who also hail from the great state of Mizery BTW.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:10 AM

Why would anyone name a state "Missouri?"

It's like naming a kid Wayne Kerr.

No offense to anyone living in Missouri. Or anyone named... Actually, no, if you're named that, I'm going to call it "justifiable homocide." Go ahead, society owes you one.

RAHLMACLAREN

Saturday, August 29, 2009 3:12 AM

http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/history.asp

Quote:
Missouri gets its name from a tribe of Sioux Indians of the state called the Missouris. The word "Missouri" often has been construed to mean "muddy water" but the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology has stated it means "town of the large canoes," and authorities have said the Indian syllables from which the word comes mean "wooden canoe people" or "he of the big canoe."

I don't think you wanna mess with the Sioux.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

IREMISST

Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:11 AM

Why does "he of the big canoe" sound so kinky right now?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, August 31, 2009 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iremisst:
I have several questions that have been rattling around for the last year or so about space, the human mind, and the nature of our actual 'verse- and since this is the ONLY kinda social site I visit ('cause people creep me the hell out!) here's where I'm askin'.

I'm askin' ya keep yer answers to somethin' less than a novel's length and please, no feedin' the Troll-ies which I'm sure will be along shortly!

First Question(s) of the Week-

Psychic Abilities? Do they really exist?

Yes.
Quote:

Are you psychic
No
Quote:
or have you ever experienced anything?
Yes, but not anymore
Quote:
Is life just sooo mathmatically predictable that people guess what will probably happen and call themselves psychic?

This is a seperate train of questioning, right?
Many genuine psychics do not have intimate familiarity with mathematics, and a large number have a very loose grasp on the concept. Most psychics' use of numbers is limited to their value as guideposts, markers, targeting points for their searches, as images, and not for their numerical value or implications.
Quote:
Do you have an innate fear of men with blue hands?
No.

Quote:

Welcome to The Deep End...

Beat you to it.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 2:36 AM

I wasn't even going to read your response. But, I got curious. At any rate, you're probably going to take this the wrong way, so I'm not going to try hard to put things in a "proper" manner. You know, because it's likely that you'll misinterpret regardless (you seem quite pissed in that response).

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

Look. I wasn't looking for a pissing contest.

Well, neither was I. But, your conclusions don't follow from your "evidence" and that is what I pointed out. Which you are currently attempting to avoid. But, I should point out that this response of yours is certainly the start of a pissing contest. Wait to take things out of context. And btw, you're *way* off topic here. This thread is about psychic stuff. QM was brought up as an example of just how badly you don't know what you're talking about (which you seem to still not get).

Point of fact just because something is an approximation, doesn't mean that it isn't accurate (if you want to get technical, the integral itself is an approximation, etc). And I didn't solely use the term accurate. I used the same term that you did, 'rough representation' along with 'very accurate' which are both *very* different from 'absolutely accurate' or 'the complete truth' or similar which you seem to be interpreting my response as (god knows how, I was quite specific in my wording). Very very different. But, those are just details now aren't they...

In other words, if you don't want someone to come along and point out crackpottery that you post, then don't post it.

Oh, and if you really think that I'm going to start talking PHILOSOPHY of QM then you are sadly mistaken. No serious Scientist/Mathematician would start to argue about current/future research like they know exactly every detail and exactly where things will go. Very smart people, smarter than either of us, are currently writing *very* long papers on the smallest detail regarding this stuff and they don't have an idea of what's going on. So, what do you really think will be accomplished from a couple equations written on this web forum. Oh, and nice (equivalent to) name dropping. Or did you think that I wouldn't notice you talking about *very* old stuff? Seriously, pop science books are no substitute for proper (advanced) education.

All I have to say is this to your line of questioning here: strawman. Try again. Fail.

I should also point out that I know that it sucks when people point out that you don't know what you're talking about. I've been on the receiving end of that numerous times and I have every confidence that it'll happen again. However, it is one's personal choice how to deal with it. One can either attack back or take it as a learning experience. Looks like you've made your decision.

To the overall notion of this thread trying to use Science to explain psychic abilities, it's nothing but pseudo-science; application of real science where it aught not be applied. There are very specific limitations of these theories that need to be respected for extensions to hold. And that's exactly what's not going on here e.g. we don't actually know that the brain works solely by electrochemical means and in fact there are counter-examples to that (how psychiatric drugs work).

Bytemite is right about the coincidence thing. I watch a news show (US news), years ago where this guy guessed with high accuracy who was calling him. The conclusion was that he had this uncanny ability and weird things go on. The problem is that that little experiment isn't Science. What would be Science is reproducing it over and over hundreds and thousands of times using other people, etc. Btw, they did this and guess what, FAIL. That didn't make the news though. Shocking...

At any rate, I quite done with this thread. Nothing but pseudo-science. When it comes to actual Science, there's no evidence to date to support this (not for lack of trying though). And that's the only fact that can be said about this stuff. An

MANGOLO

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
did you think that I wouldn't notice you talking about *very* old stuff? Seriously, pop science books are no substitute for proper (advanced) education.

See, this is what I don't understand. You choose to aim for a put down, rather than engage in a discussion. Where do you think I studied mathematics and physics? Where do you think I was doing 3D modeling of mathematical equations?

BTW You are correct. Quantum Mechanics IS old stuff. It started in the 1800s and my work with chaos theory ended when I stopped plugging equations at the San Diego Supercomputer Center in the 1980s. So, yes, I'm not up on the latest math, but QM hasn't changed since that time. Physicists have moved on to more exotic things. But, I'd appreciate you to lay off the personal attacks- because I did have a proper advanced education - you know those fancy texture maps you see on all the 3D objects from Avatar to World of Warcraft? That is an off shoot of the math we were doing there-didn't exist before we worked it out. 3D mapping the human genome? Also, another project we worked on.

Some of my professors:
Marshall Rosenbluth (aka the Pope of Plasma Physics)
Geoffrey Burbidge
and
Zachary Fisk (a condensed matter physicist who ironically was married to one of my later art history professors whom I did field work with)

Actually, the math is worth talking about BECAUSE it leads to the philosophical discussion about the implications of QM. And if you could indulge me- though it was not my intent- it does have a link to the psychic discussion.

Bryce DeWitt formulated the MWI (multi-worlds interpretation) in the late 60s from his studies of QM. Are you sure you aren't interested in discussing the implications of determinism in the context of quantum entanglement? (A re-expression of the idea of non-locality in an event - hence its psychic implications)

BUT that was not the point of my original post. You actually summed up the intent of my original post: "Very smart people, smarter than either of us, are currently writing *very* long papers on the smallest detail regarding this stuff and they don't have an idea of what's going on." That was the point of my original post.

AND ALL discussion of quantum mechanics end up as discussions of philosophical views beginning with the Bohr–Einstein debates. My professors in QM did discuss it as a series of belief systems. I appreciated their candor.

I haven't bashed a single thing you've written. I affirmed that QM is old, I concurred with your point that some of the smartest people in the world don't have a clue where all this is leading and I have linked quantum entanglement to the discussion (though that wasn't my original intention). The only thing I took issue with is your presumption that I didn't have a proper science education which I hope I've laid to rest.

Peace.

Some shots of me swimming with dolphins to ease out of the vibe we have created here:

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE