Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lobstrosity · 03-10-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim
You speak of mathematical calculation while I speak of event calculation ... where a person take into account of various events - the way a person speak, act and reacts and his behaviors to come out various possible outcomes from him and add that to whatever events thrown at him and you get a possible prediction of the "future" of a person.

Not everyone who can predict such things are good at maths, why? Because Maths are too simplified data and there is too many rules governing mathematical calculation - like those within bracets must be solved first, + before - etc. In human events, there is no such rules and regulations except that which set by him or herself.

No offense, but that's pretty stupid. First of all, in human events there are rules known as "physics." You may or may not have heard of these rules, but I assure you they exist. Such rules would govern the way a die rolls across a table top. The die is not governed by the rules we humans decide to set for ourselves. Furthermore, the physics one would need to utilize to calculate future events given initial conditions is math. It's incredibly complicated math. It's a lot more complicated then "+ before -" (although I have no idea what you mean by this--are you talking about the kind of math they teach in third grade?). I doesn't sound like you've actually put any thought into what you're saying. It's like you're grasping at straws to keep your ideas as nebulous as possible. Perhaps you should take the time to figure out what the term "event calculation" actually means and how one might go about performing such an act. Once again, I'll repeat: seeing the future does not require one to witness initial conditions. No calculations are required. Predicting the future based on initial conditions is purely calculation-based and deals with no transimssion of information backwards through time. The two are wholly different processes although in select instances they may give identical results.

Quote:

My reply : Again ... you don't get the picture of it. When I refer to mind reading, I was referring to COMMUNICATION. Communication between two organic "machines".

You do realize that there's already such a thing as communcation between two organic machines, right? That communcation is called "speaking/listening." The communication between televisions and radios is analogous to the communcation between two humans that are talking to each other. Mind reading doesn't even come close to entering the picture, so again, what do TVs and radio have to do with anything? I think you're confusion might be arising from the fact that you think TVs and radios work via magic, but I can assure you they do not. They physically communicate just like humans do using their voices. You may not be able to see radio waves with your eyes, but you can't see sound waves with your eyes, either. Also, TVs need specific devices to receive their signals, just like we need ears to receive sound.

Quote:

Question 1 : How does the information leaves the skull? My answer is ... it doesn't.
Not sure how the actual process works but it is like ... putting a tracing paper (not sure if your country has one ... it is a very thin paper which you put over another paper with some sketch on it and just draw onto the tracing paper to get the pattern). The person who "read" minds simply "trace" your thoughts by comparing it with his/her own and come out with similar thoughts. Maybe that is why my friend doesn't like the whole process and sometimes even avoid physical touchs.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If your brain in location A is able to detect thought patterns in another brain at location B, I assure you that data is travelling over a physical distance (specifically data is going from point A to point B). Data is being transmitted. It is leaving one person's skull and entering another. How can you not see this? Relativity can even place a limit on how fast that information is travelling. The data transfer cannot be instantaneous but must rather be no faster than the speed of light.

Quote:

My reply : That is a good way to put it. But you do know that communication can be achieved from one computer to another without physical communication. Example is communication from satellites and receiving stations on the Planet.

Once again, like TVs and radios, computers do not work via magic. When two computers communcate using satellites and receiving stations, that is physical. How is it not physical? They have specific transmitters and receivers that transmit and receive physical data. So with mind reading what is transmitting and what is receiving the data? What is the data?

Ensign Steve · 03-10-2003, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim
My reply : And HOW do you propose they do that? By going around to some happy families and putting guns to their kids' head and see whether their mothers will rush back home to save their children?
We are talking about life and death situation here and I don't see how you can duplicate that in a lab.

Gee, Seraphim, how did you go from "Just looking for Views, nothing more..." to "DEFEND ALL YOUR VIEWS NOW, MUAHAHAHAH!!" ?

And HOW do I propose they do that? By using the Scientific Method, of course. I don't know the exact steps (I think there are four of them), but then I'm not a scientist. I do, however, know that there IS a Method to testing and proving/disproving all hypotheses in a controlled setting. But if pointing guns at children's heads is what gets you off, that's your business.

03-10-2003, 10:31 PM

By Shadowy Man

Well, they generally use an electroencephalogram (EEG), a diagnostic test that measures the electrical activity of the brain (brain waves) using high sensitive recording equipment attached to the scalp by fine electrodes.

My question : I asked about Thoughts and whether anyone measure the chance in electrical activities in the brain when a person fully awake and doing something like reading a books. Is there such machine which could detect the difference in the brain in such activities?

Now, I'd really be impressed if someone could set up an EEG machine not in contact with a person and still be measuring that person's brain waves! That could probably count as decent evidence of telepathic transmissions.

My reply : Not sure what you meant actually. But one thing I can say is that if two person facing each other or near by and one of them can read minds, then there is a chance that the person could detect the other person's thoughts (depending on individual's strenghts) without the need of physical touch.

By Lobstrosity

No offense, but that's pretty stupid. First of all, in human events there are rules known as "physics." You may or may not have heard of these rules, but I assure you they exist. Such rules would govern the way a die rolls across a table top. The die is not governed by the rules we humans decide to set for ourselves. Furthermore, the physics one would need to utilize to calculate future events given initial conditions is math. It's incredibly complicated math. It's a lot more complicated then "+ before -" (although I have no idea what you mean by this--are you talking about the kind of math they teach in third grade?). I doesn't sound like you've actually put any thought into what you're saying. It's like you're grasping at straws to keep your ideas as nebulous as possible. Perhaps you should take the time to figure out what the term "event calculation" actually means and how one might go about performing such an act. Once again, I'll repeat: seeing the future does not require one to witness initial conditions. No calculations are required. Predicting the future based on initial conditions is purely calculation-based and deals with no transimssion of information backwards through time. The two are wholly different processes although in select instances they may give identical results.

My reply : Hmph ... I wonder if you understood what I had spoken. Physics is as useful as it is related to physical conditions - a person running, jumping, falling etc. When I said "Human Events" I mean in emotional way. Each person is unique in thoughts and their behavior due to their background and understanding of things. You cannot predict what another person could do or say because you won't know what other person thinks.

My only sin here is that I had tried to simplify things for others to understand ... and obvious failed to do so because even the simplified version seems to be too hard to understand.

You do realize that there's already such a thing as communcation between two organic machines, right? That communcation is called "speaking/listening." The communication between televisions and radios is analogous to the communcation between two humans that are talking to each other. Mind reading doesn't even come close to entering the picture, so again, what do TVs and radio have to do with anything? I think you're confusion might be arising from the fact that you think TVs and radios work via magic, but I can assure you they do not. They physically communicate just like humans do using their voices. You may not be able to see radio waves with your eyes, but you can't see sound waves with your eyes, either. Also, TVs need specific devices to receive their signals, just like we need ears to receive sound.

My reply : "speaking/listening" - Yes but you forgot "understanding" which is in the middle. Do you understand EVERYTHING you heard? Seen? Felt?

If your mind/brain needs more information that what your sight, hearing and touch could provide, then what? What is your next course in action to obtain more information?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If your brain in location A is able to detect thought patterns in another brain at location B, I assure you that data is travelling over a physical distance (specifically data is going from point A to point B). Data is being transmitted. It is leaving one person's skull and entering another. How can you not see this? Relativity can even place a limit on how fast that information is travelling. The data transfer cannot be instantaneous but must rather be no faster than the speed of light.

My reply : You yourself told everyone here that signals could travel from one machine to another (Radio/TV receiving the signal YET the signal is invisible to us) WITHOUT any physical means (like a wire or cable) YET you cannot accept that thoughts could travel the same way.

For a person who cannot answer the simple question whether anyone had made machines which could measure thoughts in a person who is wide-awake and active, what good of Relativity in determining the speed an information travels?

Once again, like TVs and radios, computers do not work via magic. When two computers communcate using satellites and receiving stations, that is physical. How is it not physical? They have specific transmitters and receivers that transmit and receive physical data. So with mind reading what is transmitting and what is receiving the data? What is the data?

My reply : It is not physical because there is no physical medium by which the signal is carried from one machine to another. Both means of receiving and emiting the signals lies in both side of the machines and signal travels (through air) without any other means.

Physical data is produced ONLY after the machines on both side had received their information and processed it to turn into a medium which we could understand.
Data in this context is simply signals which is converted from one form to another which can be send from one machine and to another which convert it again.

03-10-2003, 10:42 PM

by JenniferD

Gee, Seraphim, how did you go from "Just looking for Views, nothing more..." to "DEFEND ALL YOUR VIEWS NOW, MUAHAHAHAH!!" ?

My reply : Hmmm .... force of habit I guess. Sorry to all if I've gone a bit out ... I'll get a bit carried away sometimes.

And HOW do I propose they do that? By using the Scientific Method, of course. I don't know the exact steps (I think there are four of them), but then I'm not a scientist. I do, however, know that there IS a Method to testing and proving/disproving all hypotheses in a controlled setting. But if pointing guns at children's heads is what gets you off, that's your business.

My reply : Just to tell you that sometimes, scientific methods cannot duplicate the actual stress/conditions which the brain could need to produce the required effect.

I mean, you sit there and this scientists will do everything in their power to duplicate a life-threantening situation but in your mind, you know you are not going to die ... WHY? Because this scientists are still humane and they will not let others die for sake of science alone (if it is not humane, then the pressure of laws and ethics and all that crap will make short work of them).

I had watched a show called "Fear Factor" in Cable for a few times and I couldn't help wondering whether they actually doing anything useful with that. I mean, they say fear is all in the mind - true but let loose a babe with a safety gears around her body, a rope attached to her butt and an ambulance waiting in case of anything goes wrong and do you think this babe will be pissing on her pants while walking a tightrope between two tall buildings? She will have fear of falling, maybe fear of height BUT definately NOT fear of dying.

Ensign Steve · 03-10-2003, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim
My reply : Just to tell you that sometimes, scientific methods cannot duplicate the actual stress/conditions which the brain could need to produce the required effect.

I mean, you sit there and this scientists will do everything in their power to duplicate a life-threantening situation but in your mind, you know you are not going to die ... WHY? Because this scientists are still humane and they will not let others die for sake of science alone (if it is not humane, then the pressure of laws and ethics and all that crap will make short work of them).

Okay, but I'm not going to start believing something for which there is no evidence. This sounds exactly like a similar argument for theism. Science can't explain it, so it must be God. I mean, it must be psychic powers.

Besides, you never addressed any of the other (far simpler) possible explanations that were brought up. Like how mothers worry about their kids constantly so it is not amazing or extraordinary that they worried about their kid at the exact same time that their kid was actually in danger.

I've never seen Fear Factor, so I can't comment on that.

03-10-2003, 11:28 PM

By JenniferD

Okay, but I'm not going to start believing something for which there is no evidence. This sounds exactly like a similar argument for theism. Science can't explain it, so it must be God. I mean, it must be psychic powers.

My reply : Good enough. Maybe someday, science could actually bring forth some evidence of such things exist OR doesn't exist. As far as God is concern, that is individual choice to believe or not, after all, if He doesn't strick you down for not believing in Him, why should I strike you down?

Besides, you never addressed any of the other (far simpler) possible explanations that were brought up. Like how mothers worry about their kids constantly so it is not amazing or extraordinary that they worried about their kid at the exact same time that their kid was actually in danger.

My reply : I did actually, to another person ... I think he too brought the same matter as you did.

I told him that it maybe true that mothers do attend to worry about their children all the time (evidence is my mother as well, she too constantly worry about me), but the actual question is WHY does she rush home ON THAT VERY DAY her child was indeed has something life-threantening?

I mean the odds of something like that happening once a day is 1/365 (days), she should be rushing home EVERYDAY or calling one an hour.

I've never seen Fear Factor, so I can't comment on that.

My reply : Never mind, it was an example only to how methods Humans uses sometimes don't exactly produce the same effect as real-life event.

echidna · 03-10-2003, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Seeing the future requires that information travel backwards in time. No mechanism for this has been even remotely postulated, current physics, which works exceedingly well, forbids this, and no one can provide any evidence that they have been able to see the future.

Sorry for dropping in late, but at the risk of giving credibility to ESP & the like (something I have no interest in), IIRC the Transactional Interpretation of QM actually requires information to travel backwards in time. Last time I checked the TI seemed to carry some credibility, but then again it's up against the like of the Coprenhagen Interpretation. Throw in the MWI & it's all pretty counter-intuitive if you ask me.

echidna · 03-10-2003, 11:52 PM

Seraphim, are you familiar with the mathematical horse ? A horse who could count & perform sums & answer basic mathematical questions asked by his owner. He bewildered thousands by consistently giving the correct answers in hoof-stamps. Even his owner was genuinely convinced he could understand math.

True ? Of course not. In reality the horse was only responding to barely perceptible changes in his owner's facial expressions as to know when to stop stamping his hoof. Even his owner was unaware of these changes in his own expression. People give off countless minute expressions which cold readers can tune their perception to. Often it's even subconsious so a large part of so-called telepathy or ESP between minds, is simply interpreting these non-verbal signals.

Because whenever, let's repeat that, whenever an experiment is set up to screen for these false inputs (as Randi does), the experiment fails. Hence, scepticism.

03-10-2003, 11:53 PM

echidna,

What is this "Transactional Interpretation of QM" and the other thinks you mentioned? Links could be nice but anything will do.

Thank you for whatever your reply will be beforehand.

echidna · 03-11-2003, 12:08 AM

Oh dear, as I feared. Still ...

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/in...qm/TI_toc.html

From � http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/in...TI_38.html#3.9

Quote:

Since the transaction is atemporal, forming along the entire interval separating emission locus from absorption locus "at once", it makes no difference to the outcome or the TI description if separated experiments occur "simultaneously" or in any time sequence. There is likewise no issue of which of the separated measurements occurs first and precipitates the SV collapse, since in the TI both measurements participate equally and symmetrically in the formation of the transaction. Further, the paths across which the correlation enforcing exchange takes place are lightlike four-vectors and remain so under any Lorentz transformation. Therefore, the outcome and the TI description of any correlation experiment is the same independent of the inertial reference frame from which it is viewed, as it must be if quantum mechanics and relativity are to be compatible theories.

The obvious "backwards in time" character of the transaction model warrants careful consideration of whether causality is preserved. In a sense the TI tells us that absorber "causes" the transaction which precedes it in time sequence, in violation of cause-before-effect. To come to terms with this aspect of the TI it is necessary to carefully consider the nature of causality and the physical evidence which supports it. In a previous paper (Cramer, 1980) we have made the distinction between the strong principle of causality, which asserts that a cause must always precede its effect in any reference frame, and the weak principle of causality, which asserts the same thing, but only as it applies to macroscopic observations and to observer to observer communication. There is no present experimental evidence in support of any causal principle which is stronger than the weak principle.

The TI is completely consistent with the weak principle of causality. As discussed previously, the completion of the transaction removes all interacting advanced fields except the one connecting emitter with absorber, and the remaining advanced/retarded superposition can be reinterpreted as purely retarded. Thus there are no "advanced effects", no evident acausal behavior even at the microscopic level. Dispersion relations, etc., are completely consistent with microcausality as it is conventionally interpreted.

Nature, in a very subtle way, may be engaging in backwards-in-time handshaking. But the use of this mechanism is not available to experimental investigators even at the microscopic level. The completed transaction erases all advanced effects, so that no advanced wave signalling is possible. The future can effect the past only very indirectly, by offering possibilities for transactions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 10:31 PM	#63
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By Shadowy Man Well, they generally use an electroencephalogram (EEG), a diagnostic test that measures the electrical activity of the brain (brain waves) using high sensitive recording equipment attached to the scalp by fine electrodes. My question : I asked about Thoughts and whether anyone measure the chance in electrical activities in the brain when a person fully awake and doing something like reading a books. Is there such machine which could detect the difference in the brain in such activities? Now, I'd really be impressed if someone could set up an EEG machine not in contact with a person and still be measuring that person's brain waves! That could probably count as decent evidence of telepathic transmissions. My reply : Not sure what you meant actually. But one thing I can say is that if two person facing each other or near by and one of them can read minds, then there is a chance that the person could detect the other person's thoughts (depending on individual's strenghts) without the need of physical touch. By Lobstrosity No offense, but that's pretty stupid. First of all, in human events there are rules known as "physics." You may or may not have heard of these rules, but I assure you they exist. Such rules would govern the way a die rolls across a table top. The die is not governed by the rules we humans decide to set for ourselves. Furthermore, the physics one would need to utilize to calculate future events given initial conditions is math. It's incredibly complicated math. It's a lot more complicated then "+ before -" (although I have no idea what you mean by this--are you talking about the kind of math they teach in third grade?). I doesn't sound like you've actually put any thought into what you're saying. It's like you're grasping at straws to keep your ideas as nebulous as possible. Perhaps you should take the time to figure out what the term "event calculation" actually means and how one might go about performing such an act. Once again, I'll repeat: seeing the future does not require one to witness initial conditions. No calculations are required. Predicting the future based on initial conditions is purely calculation-based and deals with no transimssion of information backwards through time. The two are wholly different processes although in select instances they may give identical results. My reply : Hmph ... I wonder if you understood what I had spoken. Physics is as useful as it is related to physical conditions - a person running, jumping, falling etc. When I said "Human Events" I mean in emotional way. Each person is unique in thoughts and their behavior due to their background and understanding of things. You cannot predict what another person could do or say because you won't know what other person thinks. My only sin here is that I had tried to simplify things for others to understand ... and obvious failed to do so because even the simplified version seems to be too hard to understand. You do realize that there's already such a thing as communcation between two organic machines, right? That communcation is called "speaking/listening." The communication between televisions and radios is analogous to the communcation between two humans that are talking to each other. Mind reading doesn't even come close to entering the picture, so again, what do TVs and radio have to do with anything? I think you're confusion might be arising from the fact that you think TVs and radios work via magic, but I can assure you they do not. They physically communicate just like humans do using their voices. You may not be able to see radio waves with your eyes, but you can't see sound waves with your eyes, either. Also, TVs need specific devices to receive their signals, just like we need ears to receive sound. My reply : "speaking/listening" - Yes but you forgot "understanding" which is in the middle. Do you understand EVERYTHING you heard? Seen? Felt? If your mind/brain needs more information that what your sight, hearing and touch could provide, then what? What is your next course in action to obtain more information? I have no idea what you're talking about here. If your brain in location A is able to detect thought patterns in another brain at location B, I assure you that data is travelling over a physical distance (specifically data is going from point A to point B). Data is being transmitted. It is leaving one person's skull and entering another. How can you not see this? Relativity can even place a limit on how fast that information is travelling. The data transfer cannot be instantaneous but must rather be no faster than the speed of light. My reply : You yourself told everyone here that signals could travel from one machine to another (Radio/TV receiving the signal YET the signal is invisible to us) WITHOUT any physical means (like a wire or cable) YET you cannot accept that thoughts could travel the same way. For a person who cannot answer the simple question whether anyone had made machines which could measure thoughts in a person who is wide-awake and active, what good of Relativity in determining the speed an information travels? Once again, like TVs and radios, computers do not work via magic. When two computers communcate using satellites and receiving stations, that is physical. How is it not physical? They have specific transmitters and receivers that transmit and receive physical data. So with mind reading what is transmitting and what is receiving the data? What is the data? My reply : It is not physical because there is no physical medium by which the signal is carried from one machine to another. Both means of receiving and emiting the signals lies in both side of the machines and signal travels (through air) without any other means. Physical data is produced ONLY after the machines on both side had received their information and processed it to turn into a medium which we could understand. Data in this context is simply signals which is converted from one form to another which can be send from one machine and to another which convert it again.

03-10-2003, 10:42 PM	#64
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	by JenniferD Gee, Seraphim, how did you go from "Just looking for Views, nothing more..." to "DEFEND ALL YOUR VIEWS NOW, MUAHAHAHAH!!" ? My reply : Hmmm .... force of habit I guess. Sorry to all if I've gone a bit out ... I'll get a bit carried away sometimes. And HOW do I propose they do that? By using the Scientific Method, of course. I don't know the exact steps (I think there are four of them), but then I'm not a scientist. I do, however, know that there IS a Method to testing and proving/disproving all hypotheses in a controlled setting. But if pointing guns at children's heads is what gets you off, that's your business. My reply : Just to tell you that sometimes, scientific methods cannot duplicate the actual stress/conditions which the brain could need to produce the required effect. I mean, you sit there and this scientists will do everything in their power to duplicate a life-threantening situation but in your mind, you know you are not going to die ... WHY? Because this scientists are still humane and they will not let others die for sake of science alone (if it is not humane, then the pressure of laws and ethics and all that crap will make short work of them). I had watched a show called "Fear Factor" in Cable for a few times and I couldn't help wondering whether they actually doing anything useful with that. I mean, they say fear is all in the mind - true but let loose a babe with a safety gears around her body, a rope attached to her butt and an ambulance waiting in case of anything goes wrong and do you think this babe will be pissing on her pants while walking a tightrope between two tall buildings? She will have fear of falling, maybe fear of height BUT definately NOT fear of dying.

03-10-2003, 11:28 PM	#66
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By JenniferD Okay, but I'm not going to start believing something for which there is no evidence. This sounds exactly like a similar argument for theism. Science can't explain it, so it must be God. I mean, it must be psychic powers. My reply : Good enough. Maybe someday, science could actually bring forth some evidence of such things exist OR doesn't exist. As far as God is concern, that is individual choice to believe or not, after all, if He doesn't strick you down for not believing in Him, why should I strike you down? Besides, you never addressed any of the other (far simpler) possible explanations that were brought up. Like how mothers worry about their kids constantly so it is not amazing or extraordinary that they worried about their kid at the exact same time that their kid was actually in danger. My reply : I did actually, to another person ... I think he too brought the same matter as you did. I told him that it maybe true that mothers do attend to worry about their children all the time (evidence is my mother as well, she too constantly worry about me), but the actual question is WHY does she rush home ON THAT VERY DAY her child was indeed has something life-threantening? I mean the odds of something like that happening once a day is 1/365 (days), she should be rushing home EVERYDAY or calling one an hour. I've never seen Fear Factor, so I can't comment on that. My reply : Never mind, it was an example only to how methods Humans uses sometimes don't exactly produce the same effect as real-life event.

03-10-2003, 11:52 PM	#68
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Seraphim, are you familiar with the mathematical horse ? A horse who could count & perform sums & answer basic mathematical questions asked by his owner. He bewildered thousands by consistently giving the correct answers in hoof-stamps. Even his owner was genuinely convinced he could understand math. True ? Of course not. In reality the horse was only responding to barely perceptible changes in his owner's facial expressions as to know when to stop stamping his hoof. Even his owner was unaware of these changes in his own expression. People give off countless minute expressions which cold readers can tune their perception to. Often it's even subconsious so a large part of so-called telepathy or ESP between minds, is simply interpreting these non-verbal signals. Because whenever, let's repeat that, whenever an experiment is set up to screen for these false inputs (as Randi does), the experiment fails. Hence, scepticism.

03-10-2003, 11:53 PM	#69
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	echidna, What is this "Transactional Interpretation of QM" and the other thinks you mentioned? Links could be nice but anything will do. Thank you for whatever your reply will be beforehand.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.