Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell studying ESP in autstic children.

I don't know. But I don't think we can say that matter is just some dead and inert substance any more :P. That said, I like that Massimo has decided to shun reductionism.
The standard view of matter is that it follows the laws of QM, and that involves a purely random component which limits your ability to prdict how it evolves.

My guess is that if someone could simulate a brain at the QM level (what a gedanken experiment!) it would end up after a few minutes with a smear of probabilities covering just about every possibility, or the simulation would simply not produce sensible results because it would not model some non-material input - much as a simulation of a radio would be pretty boring if it didn't include the information coming from radio waves. The difference is that we know about radio waves, but as yet we don't know about the coupling with the non-material - though there are obvious candidates.

You should beware of "stochastic reductionism" - i.e. thinking that the purely random contribution of standard QM makes much difference.

Of course, my guess is that matter is linked with a non-material realm - particularly if the matter in question is the human brain - and that the current scientific view is just an approximation.

David
 
I'm most concerned with your aggressively pseudo-skeptical tone. Including:
"Craig, your hostility says it all..."
"Craig. You obviously have issues with denial. "
" it will be very clear if telepathy is occurring or not."
"And this may surprise you, Craig, but I WANT TO BELIEVE".
"I don't want to BELIEVE in anything".
"Craig, you're really starting to scare me. You react the same way a religious person does when you explain to them that you think what they believe is just a myth"
"Toot your own horn a little more why don't you"
"This is about knowing, not believing. It's AMAZING how some of you interpret things".
"I'm curious what Wiseman would say about this case (!!!)
"Enough with your condescending attitudes. For me, this is about science. There is plenty of science where there are no outs".
"Of course you agree with Gabriel. You have your beliefs just like pseudo skeptics do"
."You two are cut from the same cloth".
" from the effects she has claimed, this will bury her reputation".
etc, etc, etc.

If certainly sounds like another science fan boy showing how smart he is and how gullible everyone else is. Such people are ten a penny here, they blow in, make a lot of noise, and blow out again.
I've spent time defending myself after being constantly attacked as a pseudo skeptic. One thing I do know is where I stand. Your opinion is not only invalid but patently wrong. And please stop taking what I say out of context.

With Craig pounding his chest and saying " don't you know who I am?" with the shock that I didn't, that was my response to him because I should have known he was some self-proclaimed expert.

Again, if you want to discuss actual subjects or tests rather than continue to attack me, I would be more than happy to.
 
Last edited:
KMarantz, almost every one of your posts has contained an attack on someone. Most are full of straw men. All show arrogance. If you really are as neutral as you claim, you'll discover what you are being told about the way psi phenomena are handled by the mainstream, is true. Until such time, I'd curb your self-righteousness and open your mind.
 
KMarantz, almost every one of your posts has contained an attack on someone. Most are full of straw men. All show arrogance. If you really are as neutral as you claim, you'll discover what you are being told about the way psi phenomena are handled by the mainstream, is true. Until such time, I'd curb your self-righteousness and open your mind.
My comments are out of defense of being attacked. Go back and reread what happened. I have been attacked first EVERY TIME. In no way have I used a strawman argument. I have only been talking about research at hand, the bias and necessity for proper controls and replication. Dr. Powell has even said there needs to be tighter controls, as well as staging what she thinks about telepathy has her beliefs based on preliminary observations and experimentation.
 
Last edited:
C

Chris

In fact, if there's a difficulty with anyone else being in the room, it could be reasonably well controlled remotely using a webcam and a mobile phone.
 
I think I was fooled at first. I think the mother reveals the fraud. Towards the end after number 14, I think, the kid gives this look and then the mother goes, "UH," and repeats the last number as in to cue him where he left off. I not buying this. Plus, she seems to promote the heck out of him, or tries to anyway.
 
I think I was fooled at first. I think the mother reveals the fraud. Towards the end after number 14, I think, the kid gives this look and then the mother goes, "UH," and repeats the last number as in to cue him where he left off. I not buying this. Plus, she seems to promote the heck out of him, or tries to anyway.
There's nothing to "buy" here :)
Those YT videos are informal "experiments" with little to no evidential value for obvious reasons, besides attracting some attention.

It would take a fairly low budget to assess this case with appropriate controls and try multiple replications.
 
C

Chris

Those YT videos are informal "experiments" with little to no evidential value for obvious reasons, besides attracting some attention.
Yes. I do find a bit off-putting the way the mother writes in the final set of numbers before our very eyes, as though to prove that the boy couldn't have memorised them earlier (describing them as random numbers for good measure). It smacks too much of showmanship for my liking, and obviously proves nothing.

It would take a fairly low budget to assess this case with appropriate controls and try multiple replications.
One properly controlled demonstration would be astonishing enough.
 
Yes. I do find a bit off-putting the way the mother writes in the final set of numbers before our very eyes, as though to prove that the boy couldn't have memorised them earlier (describing them as random numbers for good measure). It smacks too much of showmanship for my liking, and obviously proves nothing.



One properly controlled demonstration would be astonishing enough.

Exactly. Why one would need 500 large to prove this is beyond me.
 
Top