|
 Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
 
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,834
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
 Feeling of being watched.... 
#621564 - 04/28/02 05:48 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Just before the "energy" thread appeared on this forum, I was planning on typing up an essay on why I think sensing someones energy is evidence of a "soul". Well, the athiests shot that down, saying that you're just either smelling their pheramones or you're just paying attention to body language that tells the story.
Now, I have another belief I want to share. I believe that I can look at someone who has their back to me, and make them turn around and look.
They can feel my eyes on them. How can science explain this?
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: The Deep - Turned On
|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Learyfan]
#621575 - 04/28/02 06:07 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
They can feel my eyes on them. How can science explain this?
If true, science would have no explanantion. I will attempt to find the reference, but this was tested some years back with the lookers and lookees being separated by sound-proof glass. The testers were unable to ascertain when they were being looked at.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Learyfan]
#621965 - 04/29/02 03:26 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
yay, i love it when people confirm stuff 
i have no double blind reconstituted Maltesian progressive humpbacked case study to base this on, but the fact of the shared stare often begins in my exp. with one party or the other delivering a probing glance while altogether out of sight, causing the other person to look around - if both people are open the share will start a-thumpin'.
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622016 - 04/29/02 06:13 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
no personal experience, but i have given you a reference about this being true in another thread a while ago.
(Rupert Sheldrake & Matthew Fox, "natural grace", p.79)
Sheldrake : "I've devised a very simple experiment to test whether or not people can tell when they are being looked at. You look at someone from behind, or you don't look at them, according to a randomized schedule. They have to guess whether or not they're being looked at. This test has now been done thousands of times and the results are clear. This effect really does seem to exist, implying that our psychic world, our mental world, isn't just inside us, it extends around us."
you considered him a liar. ok.
please, provide your reference if possible.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: raytrace]
#622077 - 04/29/02 08:43 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
you considered him a liar. ok.
Huh?
From Sheldrake's Website:
The feeling of being looked at from behind is remarkably common. So is the experience of looking at someone from behind and finding that they turn round. Surveys show that about 90% of the population have personally experienced these phenomena.
The score in looking trials is usually above the 50% chance level, often as high as 60%, whereas that in not-looking trials is close to the chance level of 50%.
So according to Sheldrake:
1. People cannot tell when they are not being looked at.
2. Assuming the average hit for being looked at is 56% and 90% of the population believes that they have this ability, that means that 35% of the population (a HUGE number) are deceiving themselves.
3. "The score in looking trials is usually above the 50% chance..." Then that means that some amount of the time, the starees actually guess worse than chance as would be expected in any guessing game.
4. The sample size of this test is not very statistically significant.
This hardly sounds convincing; and this does not even take into account any possible bias.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/29/02 08:46 AM)
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622089 - 04/29/02 09:09 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i dont reallty have any personal anecdotes, but it seems like this is the kind of thing that scientific experimentation would spoil. I mean, being put in a room seperated by sound proof glass, and being asked over and over again if they think they are being looked at can hardly be compared to an instictive, visceral experience in a real life situation; my opinion.
Peace.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JPAtanat]
#622099 - 04/29/02 09:27 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
but it seems like this is the kind of thing that scientific experimentation would spoil
This is such a lame excuse for failure. Let's do the logic one more time:
Assumption A: A sixth sense actually exists.
Results of test A: It fails under scientific scrutiny.
Assumption B: A sixth sense does not exist.
Results of test B: It fails under scientific scrutiny.
See my second quote.
Let's do another experiment under controlled conditions. When not looking, someone taps you on the shoulder. My psychic prediction is, that unless you are wearing some heavy duty shoulder pads, you will get it correct 100% of the time; even under the watchful eye of those pesky scientists.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,834
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Learyfan]
#622158 - 04/29/02 10:53 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe i'm pushing my luck here, but I have an example.
When i'm deep into my mushroom trip, and i'm sitting there and I look over at my cat who is in the kitchen eating her food with her right side to me. Now she's eating her food, not paying attention to me. Then, without moving, I look at her, and concentrate on glaring at her for a moment, and then she'll jerk as if she's been shocked, and look up to see me, and then get weirded out, and leave the room. I've done this many times, with animals as well as humans. It works much better when i'm tripping or tweaking on adderall. My energy level is cranked up to 10, and I am at the controls of my ship.
When you're in the room with me, or if i'm far away from you when i'm on shrooms, and I look at you, you will probably turn around and look at me. My energy level gets turned from a drip to a gush. Girls love me when i'm in this state of mind because girls love power. When I am on shrooms I am the most powerful person in the room no matter where I am. I feel that this power gives me the ability to make a person, at the very least, turn around.
I know i'm really pushing my luck here, but might I suggest that conducting this experiment in some scientificly control experimentation room doesn't produce accurate results all of the time. When they did LSD testing in the 60's in a cold scientificly controled environment, the results were skued because that environment isn't the kind of place where you're going to produce good results. But, I know I couldn't possibly be right, so i'll conceed "defeat" right now.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: The Deep - Turned On
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Learyfan]
#622211 - 04/29/02 12:04 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
When they did LSD testing in the 60's in a cold scientificly controled environment, the results were skued because that environment isn't the kind of place where you're going to produce good results.
Am trying to put together a So Cal gathering next month out in Joshua Tree National Forest. Intend on doing some experiments there with willing participants. A natural desert setting under the stars will be quite far from the laboratory. I will keep scrupulous notes and report back here.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/29/02 12:14 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622219 - 04/29/02 12:06 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Swami,
"... this was tested some years back with the lookers and lookees being separated by sound-proof glass. The testers were unable to ascertain when they were being looked at."
A test such as this is flawed. Not everything can pass through glass, especially soundproof glass. Glass can act as a barrier to other things besides sound. How do we know that the communication they were trying to verify (other than sound) was not physically blocked or muted by the glass? Ear plugs and sound proof ear muffs would have been a better choice because the barrier would have been more specific. Of course, there could be olfactory clues or something else that has a normal explanation. A better test might have been to selectively block out certain known senses and compile data from each.
Edited by evolving (04/29/02 12:08 PM)
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622232 - 04/29/02 12:20 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No, fool. It is not a lame excuse for failure at all. You have no problem taking events completely out of context and isolating them, and expect the results of that sort of testing to be some sort of fact.
I, and many others, do not buy that. "Scientific scrutiny" is not the same as the real world.
So let's not do the logic one more time.
Lets also not do another experiment under controlled conditions. How about, instead, the next time you shoot someone the piercing glance, and they turn around and make eye contact, ask them why they turned around. Take note of their response. I will do this, and I encourage others to do the same. I don't need no fucking scientist telling me what's right and what's not. Then, if I believe it, I believe it - you dig?
Peace.
Edited by JPAtanat (04/29/02 01:10 PM)
|
Catalysis
EtherealEngineer
Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JPAtanat]
#622261 - 04/29/02 01:10 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"Scientific scrutiny" doesnt mean that we have to totally understand how something works. It simply asks the question "does this work?". As a chemist i can tell you that, in science, we utilize an immense number of phenomena which we have little or no understanding of. If it works, we can use it scientifically.
The questions i have are; does this work? can you tell me how to use it? are you using this skill beneficially?
If these questions cant be answered, then the existance of such phenomina doesnt matter and the debate is pointless.
Sorry, i dont mean to be negative. i think that you are all very intelligent and have some very good ideas. i am just giving my viewpoint.
P.S. Please explain what led you to make the assumption that im an atheist. thanks
--------------------
Edited by Catalysis (04/29/02 01:18 PM)
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Catalysis]
#622274 - 04/29/02 01:28 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you, however, asking if something works in the real world is different from asking if it works in a controlled environment, especially under the prying eyes of some guys with clipboards.
My idea of this sort od phenomena is that it is a collection of many - hundreds, perhaps even millions - subtle perceptions that would cause someone to turn their head, or whatever. Maybe I am wrong about that, but either way it seems like you cannot take an event like that and take it out of the original environment, and expect to get worthwhile results. Furthermore, results of any kind apart from your own experience are worthless. For some things this is not true, but for something like this, personal experience is paramount. There may be heaps of 'evidence' that supports the existence (or non-existence) of such a thing, but if you have experience to the contraryt, it is useless.
So:
Does it work? Personal experience.
How to use it? No, this cannot be answered. Maybe you meant how does it work? Either way it doesn't really matter.
Are you using the skill beneficially? Don't know how to answer that question
For the most part, I agree this debate is pointless. At any rate I would definitely say that citing scientific evidence here is meaningless.
You don't have to apologize, I don't think you were being negative at all. I thank you for your response.
Peace.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JPAtanat]
#622392 - 04/29/02 04:35 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
No, fool.
From dictionary.com
fool: One who is deficient in judgment
judgement: The capacity to form an opinion by distinguishing and evaluating
Rephrased: One who is deficient in the capacity to form an opinion by distinguishing and evaluating.
Which one of us is actually trying to evaluate an event?
You have no problem taking events completely out of context and isolating them, and expect the results of that sort of testing to be some sort of fact.
Ahem. Let's look at the original poster's COMPLETE thought:
I believe that I can look at someone who has their back to me, and make them turn around and look.
I took nothing out of context. I must have missed some part that you imaginarily inserted as to what set of circumstances are or aren't necessary for this cognitive power to function.
"Scientific scrutiny" is not the same as the real world.
Whatever that means. All attempts at understanding something try to limit the "noise" or number of variables, so that one can can distill the essence of what is or is not affecting the experience. Forget the word scientific and insert "independant observer". I would happily do this verificationon on a crowded downtown street (the "real world"), the zoo or wherever you choose.
Try walking behind a woman on a lone street at 11PM and see if she doesn't turn around to see who is behind her. You might get close to a 100% "hit" rate.
I don't need no fucking scientist telling me what's right and what's not.
A double negative means that you DO need a fornicating scientist. Now you have switched to right and wrong? Eye stare recognition has suddenly become a moral issue? The correct phrasing is verified / unverified.
Then, if I believe it, I believe it - you dig?
Oh, yes! I dig the believer's need to keep his precious fables intact and that he will respond with expletives and emotionalism rather than face facts.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622426 - 04/29/02 05:18 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Assuming the average hit for being looked at is 56% and 90% of the population believes that they have this ability, that means that 35% of the population (a HUGE number) are deceiving themselves.
hehehe... this is called a "sophism"
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: raytrace]
#622450 - 04/29/02 05:46 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Assuming the average hit for being looked at is 56% and 90% of the population believes that they have this ability, that means that 35% of the population (a HUGE number) are deceiving themselves.
hehehe... this is called a "sophism"
Oops! The Swamiji made a HUGE error in favor of the believers. I got the math way wrong on this. As the expected hit rate for chance would be 50%, yet the testing (flawed or not) shows 56% have some ability, then that would mean that 50/56 don't have any ability.
50/56 = 89% of the believers are in error not 35%. 90% * 89% or 80% of the entire population is mistaken. Note that the skeptics help to drop the percentage from 89% to 80%. Where would we be without them?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622464 - 04/29/02 05:55 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
and definitely swami can be an amazing sophist...
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: raytrace]
#622471 - 04/29/02 06:01 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622561 - 04/29/02 07:33 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You said very little of any value in your response Swami. But I will address it anyway.
1. Defining fool added nothing to this discussion.
2. We are both trying to evaluate an event, but your are trying to evaluate an event in a controlled environment, and take the evidence collected from that as your own view. I wish to do the research in real life situations, and I will be the judge of whether I think it exists or not, since ultimately no one else can be.
3. Perhaps you took nothing out of context in your post. But the experiment which you were citing as evidence, or perhaps as your stance on the situation, takes the event in question out of context. Of course I think that you knew that already, but you simply wished to call me on something irrelevant to "sidestep" what I was really trying to say.
4. By scientific scrutiny I meant scientific experimentation. You probably knew that already too, but are too in the habit of calling people on semantics. Great way to make an argument, Swam. I think I made it clear in my other post why I think experimentation in a controlled environment would be ineffective. YES, what I was suggesting was that you yourself go into public places and try to find out some answers. If you can't take the word of people here, you shouldn't take the word of any scientist either. Like I said, it's meaningless in the face of personal experience.
5. Thank you for, yet again, pointing out something irrelevant, that was not written for the sake of having proper grammar, but was written for the sake of communicating my emotion. Apparently you condemn emotion. Perhaps because it is not rooted in any 'facts.'
6. Which leads me to: "Oh, yes! I dig the believer's need to keep his precious fables intact and that he will respond with expletives and emotionalism rather than face facts. " I don't know what fables you are reffering to. The only thing I have said with regard to the existence of this 'thing' is that I though it was probably made up of many many subtle percptions which cannot be isolated or taken out of their orignal context, and I also mentioned that I could be dead wrong. Yes, I can see what your idea of a 'fable' is. Or perhaps I should copy down a definition of fable from a dictionary - would that help out this discussion at all? All those expletavies and emotionalism! Whatever... And finally, I do not see any facts to face.
I wish you would stop wasting my time with these meaningless arguments.
|
cHeMiCaLbLuE
member
Registered: 04/07/02
Posts: 158
Last seen: 22 years, 11 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Learyfan]
#622597 - 04/29/02 08:34 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
for me people always stare at me when i get close and yes i do the same, its natural. If you really think you are detecting energy, then you have to be able to see it to confirm it, or else you are only applying a theory of individual perception. I get those same feelings that i can know stuff about people, but i say if you really want to know how acurated you are, go talk to that person?
--------------------
insanity with a plan, a plan to stop exercising truth as compared to breathing thin air, but to experience truth as all there is to experience, for what do i not already have that exsists? All i can do is enjoy the ride.
|
TheShroomHermit
Divine Hermit of the Everything
Registered: 02/19/02
Posts: 7,575
Loc: border of Canada and Mexi...
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: cHeMiCaLbLuE]
#622602 - 04/29/02 08:39 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Eyes are very important to animals...
I know i can tell if a person is lying, in a good or bad mood, or sick by looking into there eyes....
and apes in captivity have been known to finger-paint eyes as a subject...
maybe it's just built into us.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JPAtanat]
#622741 - 04/30/02 12:09 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
1. Defining fool added nothing to this discussion.
As opposed to your calling me a fool which added deep content to the conversation.
2. We are both trying to evaluate an event,
So far, so good...
but your are trying to evaluate an event in a controlled environment,
Gee, whatever was I thinking? Let's add as many factors as possible, so that is nearly impossible to sort out cause and effect.
and take the evidence collected from that as your own view.
That is the beauty of independent observation and controlled experiments. They stand OUTSIDE of anyone's view as they can be repeated by others! I think that you can understand this concept.
I wish to do the research in real life situations, and I will be the judge of whether I think it exists or not,
The lord JPA has spoken!
since ultimately no one else can be.
Yes, you are the supreme arbiter...
You probably knew that already too, but are too in the habit of calling people on semantics.
Sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy experimentation and/or thinking. Do you honor poor quality autmobiles? Or do you like precision? Did the Challenger blow up because the designers were "too anal" or because they they were too "loose"?
Apparently you condemn emotion. Perhaps because it is not rooted in any 'facts.'
I do not condemn emotion, but it adds nothing to the veracity of your viewpoint.
I though it was probably made up of many many subtle percptions...
Cool! Nows let's find out what they are.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622862 - 04/30/02 02:49 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Let's add as many factors as possible, so that is nearly impossible to sort out cause and effect.
I think this phenomena depents on many factors. Maybe a combination of pheremones, interaction of the brain's electrical fields, or some other "energy"
But maybe trying this out in a lab is bound to failure so a lab isn't the best place to perform a "controlled" experiment. Maybe the glass blocks the pheremones, maybe the equipment in the lab disturbs the body's electrical/magnetic field, maybe the experimenters suppress the "psychic energy" or whatever.
My point is that a lab, while trying to isolate cause and effect can add it's own influences to an experiment. So just because something doesn't work in a lab doesn't mean that it's not true.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622895 - 04/30/02 03:57 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
swami
the bit with the numbers really is good old fashioned sophism. i'm actually glad there's someone still playing the logic game on here (although your refusal to respond to posts, by myself and others, that offer legitimate challenges to the fundamental assumptions of your logic shows an embarrassing lack of skepticism-skepticism on your part )... but you can't be playing around with statistics like this, it doesn't further your cause.
the stat that 90% of people claim to have personal experience, and the stat that only 60% can demonstrate it in the lab, are unrelated and unrelatable. a false correlation is a basic fallacy. why couldn't all 90% of us be correct, but only 60% adept enough to demonstrate it in the lab? why couldn't the small sample account for the lower score? maybe they got 50 people just like you, who would be so freaking worried about taking good note of what's going on that you totally miss it? any number of possibilities. you can't just slam two stats into one another. it's like saying that there are more violent video games out, and more murders in schools; therefore the one causes the other. doesn't follow; you haven't ruled out the other possibilities. BAD SCIENTIST!
90% say they've experienced it; this is an interesting stat on its own. the appeal to majority is also a fallacy, BUT in cases where 90% are reporting a CONTRARY phenomenon - one that the prevailing dogma does not allow for - it reveals a *possibility worth exploring*. better than 50% in the lab demonstrate this; also interesting, though not related, because it shows a better than chance percentage that this is going on. a *possibility worth exploring*. better tests that rule out more possibilities and better simulate the conditions where this phenom is reported might generate better results. it's *worth exploring*.
okay, as an aside, while i am typing this, my right ear has turned off and my left ear seems to have tuned in to the murmur, an eerie, uplifting, quiet music, which reminds me of the times when i have calmed down in the company of a girl i liked, or relaxed while devil sticking, and suddenly the wind picks up and stirs the trees or a bird flys like two feet in front of me or a little girl smiles at me... IT COULD BE A COINCIDENCE (so could the sun rising each day) but it happens too often and its correlation to positive decisions on my part is almost total, so I believe it's happening; call me crazy.
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JustFootsteps]
#622953 - 04/30/02 07:19 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
although your refusal to respond to posts, by myself and others
Yes, with my shroomery record-breaking 1300 posts/responses on every subject possible, I am ducking issues. OK. I will quit my job and take amphetamines so as to stay glued to my computer 24 * 7 to make you happy. The several hundred times where I have done research and shown posts to be clearly incorrect (to both sides), not one person has ever said, "Nice job there Swami." Or thank you for sharing your wide range of experience with us. But, if I posted some wild-ass quackery, then I am a knighted into the alien brotherhood or whatever nonsensical flavor-of-the-month.
90% say they've experienced it; this is an interesting stat on its own.
Not very. In studies done in the '70s and '80s where the exact same "psychic" or astrological reading was given to random people "in the real world" - a mall; showed that the respondents rated the readings as 90% accurate.
This just shows that people are either easy to fool or not very aware and was NOT indicative of any external phenomenon whatsoever.
the appeal to majority is also a fallacy
Agreed, so why even bring it up, then take up the opposite stance?
it's like saying that there are more violent video games out, and more murders in schools; therefore the one causes the other.
I would not say cause and effect, but they are both reflective of a serious societal pathology.
why couldn't...why couldn't ... maybe...
*sigh* Why is it some people never tire of hearing the same thing over and over again? People that want to believe in something have all the excuses in the world as to why their favorite paranormal ability won't stand up to scrutiny.
Psychic prowess yields the exact same results as no psychic prowess. *Gag!* Even I am getting tired of saying it - a DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
If a believer cannot design a valid test then on what grounds should I accept their claims?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622998 - 04/30/02 08:25 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, with my shroomery record-breaking 1300 posts/responses on every subject possible, I am ducking issues.
ohp. it doesn't follow that because you have a lot of posts you are not ducking issues. i have seen several posts, and posted a couple myself, trying to explain the whole 20th century rejection of transcendent logic thing you seem to have missed and, despite your having replied to any number of quacks, boobs, and sundry intellectual welterweights, you never, ever reply to these posts. at least, that's my observation
the 90% stat isn't interesting because it proves anything, it is interesting because it presents an interesting possibility that requires further study. if the further study turns up nothing, then maybe it was nothing, or maybe the study was designed wrong. in this case, the further study turned up yet ANOTHER interesting result, the >50% result. neither proves anything, but they suggest together that the odds are good, rather than bad, that some phenomenon is taking place which could be studied and accounted for more accurately, if you're into that sort of thing.
This just shows that people are either easy to fool or not very aware
does it follow that our instincts are easy to fool? those same people who couldn't distinguish a bunko astrology reading were once infants and successfully rooted their mother's breast, and they probably pull their hands away from hot things, sense sexual chemistry, breathe regularly, and the other things our unconscious mind takes care of for us. perhaps this eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head thing is similar?
the appeal to majority is also a fallacy
Agreed, so why even bring it up, then take up the opposite stance?
because recognizing a fallacy allows you to argue in its favor. if i make an appeal to authority, but recognize this, and point out that the authority is the world's leading expert on the subject and has a good track record of objectivity, than my appeal to authority, while still a fallacy (just because all the world's scientists insist we evolved from monkeys doesn't PROVE that this is true), does carry some weight. similarly, an appeal to majority doesn't prove anything, but it does powerfully suggest a possible solution. it may be that it proves nothing, that they're all fools, etc, but the further data DOESN'T suggest that (a better than 50% chance is a positive result, and that's what happened in this test). if the majority of people have a belief that is NOT part of their programming, some explanation must exist, and experience of the phenom seems like the best explanation. ocham's razor etc.
why couldn't...why couldn't ... maybe...
*sigh* Why is it some people never tire of hearing the same thing over and over again?
are you suggesting that exploring other possible explanations for a result is bad science? are you suggesting that scientists are infallible despite your already having criticized the sample size? is it impossible for you to imagine that the right kind of test is necessary to see some phenomenon take place? we new about the existence of black holes mathematically a long time before observations could be made; the technology and the language of science hadn't caught up with what was already a necessary part of the picture.
Psychic prowess yields the exact same results as no psychic prowess.
60% and 50% are not the same result. and the people in the study weren't psychic pros. don't go around conflating, it's just not rigorous. we're not talking about esp, we're talking about the stare in the back of the head, and in this case the tests definitely did show a positive result. it could be accounted for by error, but that doesn't mean it IS an error; it may be an error on the low end of the true value, too.
If a believer cannot design a valid test then on what grounds should I accept their claims?
do you believe in the existence of quarks? are you capable of designing a 'valid' test that would demonstrate their existence to me? or would you rather leave that to scientists with some understanding of the mathematics and equipment involved? i don't know what kind of test would demonstrate this phenom better, but i do recognize unflattering conditions when i see them. these uncanny things don't really happen on cue, they pop up randomly when it's important for them to. that's what makes it uncanny. i'd love to see good science supporting what i know to be the case from experience, because it would help people like you past that stumbling block of doubt and we could work together (we are anyway, this only seems like an argument, everything is part of the path, waves have crests and troughs). but i won't be dismissed out of my beliefs just because i lack the training to put together a test myself. it's not my business, it's not what i do.
i do think more of us SHOULD be trying to do good science; i agree with you on this point. we will only get better at working with these various abilities or whatever once we don't have to be scared of proving their existence to the Doubters. that would be cool. but you can't really expect an internet messaging board to poop out the revolutionary science of a new theory of mind. we're mostly liberal arts people with too much free time and drug habits. :P
okay, i have to go pretend i know something for a while. that will be fun.
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JustFootsteps]
#623022 - 04/30/02 09:10 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
ohp. it doesn't follow that because you have a lot of posts you are not ducking issues...and sundry intellectual welterweights, you never, ever reply to these posts
"Me Swami! Oh, Oh, reply to me, Swami!" So many to please...
There is no one I fear to take on in a debate. Maybe you will be THE ONE to show me the error of my malformed thought processes.
perhaps this eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head thing is similar?
The hand-on-the-hot-stove test works in a lab 100% of the time. The eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head phenomena; if it exists, is slippery and clearly in another catagory.
if the majority of people have a belief that is NOT part of their programming
I would agree with this if true, but believe the programming is part of human culture myth and therefore does not fit your assumption. This one would be too difficult to argue strongly for/or against, as a researcher would have to review the entire life experience (every contact, book, movie, story, meeting) of these people which is clearly impossible.
60% and 50% are not the same result. and the people in the study weren't psychic pros. don't go around conflating, it's just not rigorous.
Fine, but don't overlook 4 MAJOR points.
1. Small sample size.
2. No verification by other researchers.
3. 60% was the max; 56% was the average. This could easily be attributable to random fluctuation/ bias.
4. The "not being looked at" results were WORSE than chance. Average that in with the results of "being looked at" and it is very close to a random result.
do you believe in the existence of quarks?
Irrelevant.
these uncanny things don't really happen on cue, they pop up randomly
Sometime they are correct and sometime not. Just like guessing. I don't see the DIFFERENCE.
we don't have to be scared of proving their existence
Real phenomenon exist independant of emotional state.
you can't really expect an internet messaging board to poop out the revolutionary science of a new theory of mind
We have never got close to the theory part because we first need observable phenomenon on which to base it.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623100 - 04/30/02 10:39 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"Me Swami! Oh, Oh, reply to me, Swami!" So many to please...
i think this is the fallacy known as downplaying :P if you don't want to respond to the posts that offer up real challenges to your way of thinking and arguing, then say so and don't try to belittle me for asking you to. if you don't mind responding to that kind of challenge, then get on it and stop picking on people who lack your particular ability. there are several people on this board who are, at least, your mental/logical equal, and who will happily assert and argue that your insistence on logic *alone* is hooey. respond to them, not Joe 14-year-old and his space alien dreams.
(that is such an awesome band name)
The hand-on-the-hot-stove test works in a lab 100% of the time. The eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head phenomena; if it exists, is slippery and clearly in another catagory.
this gets into an interesting notion. the instincts i mentioned are all very direct and involve primitive lizard and mammal parts of our brain, and they have clear survival value. the third brain, what Tom Robbins called the flower brain, is the neocortex, a large and 'unnecessary' (from a survival POV) section the is dense with neurons and stores memories and connections. could this part of the brain house its own kind of instinct, a growth instinct, a spiritual instinct? or perhaps we have simply 'forgotten' some of our instincts - i, for one, am capable of ignoring a heat that i know is not hot enough to damage my hand. perhaps we just 'lost track' of our other instincts because they weren't as obviously useful as reason, somewhere along the line. *shrug*
anyway, as to being clearly in another category - when this works for me, there is a marked similarity to pulling my hand off of a stove. my (three) eyes focus on them before i think about it; it's something my mind or my godchild or whatever wants to do. the resonance sets in without any effort on my part; i just acknowledge it and don't start doing something else with my mind. maybe it sounds like hooey; it's just me observing myself, i could be wrong. but it feels like a natural movement of the consciousness, unplanned, instinctual, 'genuine.'
I would agree with this if true, but believe the programming is part of human culture myth and therefore does not fit your assumption.
could you elaborate on this? i'm not sure what you mean by 'human culture myth.'
4. The "not being looked at" results were WORSE than chance. Average that in with the results of "being looked at" and it is very close to a random result.
why would you average those two figures? they're the results of two different tests. half of my apples rotted in 6 days; half of my oranges rotted in 14. the average time for my apples to rot is therefore 10 days. nope. the negative result in the not-looking test could result because the being-looked-at had no stimulus to respond to and was just guessing, while the positive result in the looking test resulted from their being a stimulus to respond to. in fact i think the two results go together pretty well.
do you believe in the existence of quarks?
Irrelevant.
just saying 'irrelevant' doesn't prove it was. if you believe in the existence of quarks, it is because of an experience you've had (reading about it in a book or hearing about it from someone, i wager). i have had experiences of 'paranormal' phenomena and abilities. however, if i held you to the same standard you are trying to hold us to, i would not accept your assertion that quarks exist unless you (personally) could provide me with a test i could perform to prove it to myself. but you can't, because you know beans about quantum mechanics. which is fine. i believe you when you say quarks exist because i've heard it myself more than once. in lieu of the personal resources to test a phenomenon scientifically, we ALL accept its existence based on bald assertion and belief in the authority of others who claim direct experience. you believe in quarks, i believe in quarks and esp.
we don't have to be scared of proving their existence
Real phenomenon exist independant of emotional state.
oh? are you saying love isn't real? are you asserting that fear isn't real? i contend that they are much more real to me than quarks or my car's pistons.
anyway, i would rather have said that we don't need to busy ourselves trying to prove the existence of blah to doubters. i'm not scared of doubt; i think it's a lot better than blind acceptance, but not half so good as genuine faith forged in the fire of the Real. what i meant was that, rather than try to explain this to you a million different ways even though you can never legalize shrooms or fund a center for practice or radically reshape society so children can start practicing before they get rigid, i could be sitting in a practice center working on it with my Siblings in the Sun and making the world freaky and cool. my lifeforce will end up going towards assuaging the perpetual doubts of perpetual doubters, one at a time, which is less interesting but currently more important.
We have never got close to the theory part because we first need observable phenomenon on which to base it.
*ehhhhhhhhhhh* <- buzzer
that's old-fashioned, Baconian inductivism. Science hasn't worked that way for 100 years and change. scientists FREQUENTLY have a theory they are trying to find data to support. most breakthroughs happen because scientists know something must be happening based on other phenomenon, but struggle to invent a test or equipment that can demonstrate it absolutely. the theory often precedes the proof. read some about the philosophy of science; it's a trip. most good science gets done by egomaniacs hell-bent on getting a reputation for themselves, who devote their whole careers to proving something they know is true but can't prove fnord.
dinner time! feed your mind, or your chest will hollow.
farfiegnugen
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/30/02 11:28 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JustFootsteps]
#623149 - 04/30/02 11:24 AM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
there are several people on this board who are, at least, your mental/logical equal, ...respond to them, not Joe 14-year-old and his space alien dreams.
Are you denigrating the people with space-alien dreams? Did I miss the part where age is displayed? Do younger people have nothing to offer in your view? I am fairly equanimous in my replies.
argue that your insistence on logic *alone* is hooey
Please do not do that. My posts on this thread have argued, not about logic, but about the lack of a demonstration.
this gets into an interesting notion...
I am uninterested in theory until the phenomeon can be demonstrated. Should we wax poetic about why aliens come into my room at night and discuss their motivation in depth? Or would you be more interested in "Do they actually appear at night?
could you elaborate on this? i'm not sure what you mean by 'human culture myth.'
I left out the slash. I was referring to the fact that people believe that they can sense another viewing them was part of our culture / myth.
why would you average those two figures? they're the results of two different tests.
Ok, let's just toss the results that do not support one's hypothesis. This is called BIAS. Can you not tell when someone stops touching you?
just saying 'irrelevant' doesn't prove it was.
It means that I want to stay on the subject, not go off on tangentials. PLease explain how quarks are related to the feeling of being watched?
oh? are you saying love isn't real?
Where did I say that? (more tangential stuff!) But as an anecdote (which means little), a woman that I am not interested in just invited me to fly to her city on her nickel. Apparently she is unable to sense my complete lack of interest. I love my ex dearly, yet she cannot feel that.
*ehhhhhhhhhhh* <- buzzer
This is your brain on drugs, with eggs and two strips of Baconian Induction...
More anecdotes, but I find this to be a highly relevant (albeit unethical) type of real-world test: I knew two guys who would drag women home for one-nighters. They made some 40-50 videos of each other fucking women. The camera was behind a one-way mirror, manned by the roommate. Not one woman alluded to the fact that she was being observed. You may toss this story by saying that the women were likely to be alcohol-laden and distracted by sexual stimulus; which is true. But the fact remains that none noticed and it was a real-world test.
Of course, this is why I argue for controlled testing.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623190 - 04/30/02 12:06 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
HAHAHAHHAHA!!
Swami-
Your anecdotes fucking kill me!
I'd quit responding to this guy... he is obviously missing the point...
{{{DEMONSTRATION PLEASE}}}
And he takes your argument personally- probably because he has misperceived your intentions (which is only to come up with an unbiased test to demonstrate the phenomenon).
1. It's not pheromones. Since the phenomenon is allegedly controllable, I don't think it would be pheromones as we don't have voluntary control of them. ALSO, pheromones do not code for information, so the person would not know to LOOK anywhere in particular.
2. It could be sound, but we all agree that sound should obviously not be a part of the phenomenon (hence the soundproof glass).
I have a suggestion: DISTANCE. Or do they have to be within three feet of you? I didn't think distance would matter.
Okay, we can get past the sound thing with distance (and quiet participants). So, let's do this somewhere (NOT in a lab, because something with the sterility somehow *fucks up* the phenomenon...
How about an airport, mall, bus terminal, subway? Lots of people, a little background noise (would this matter), NOT STERILE (we'll leave the lab coats at the lab), and there are usually long hallways or open areas (good for creating distance in the experiment). Oh yeah, we'll probably need a time limit for this sort of thing, and the non-lookers will have to pick out (randomly) the turners, and we'll pick out a good sample size (Swami- is 200 different people okay?), and would video taping the whole thing *fuck up* the phenomenon?
Does this sound like a good experiment?
(Swami- there are other factors, I know, but I think this could easily debunk this "phenomenon")
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Sclorch]
#623255 - 04/30/02 01:04 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Those are some good ideas/observations. Shifting from your public place for a moment, I will do several "experiments" (that word has evil connotations to believers!) at an upcoming shroomery camping gathering.
One difficulty in your experiment would be in defining a "hit". I frequently eye-sweep through a crowd and will notice if someone is looking at me. Not through any mysterious sense, but just by scanning. Someone in a public place may be looking for someone and spot a group of shroomed-out geeks in tie-dyed shirts and aluminum foil hats staring at them and become startled. You will need the equivalent of a duck-blind. Someone will have to hide in a trash can or mailbox like in the old "Get Smart" TV series.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623333 - 04/30/02 02:55 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Swami, I've noticed that when I look at and concentrate on a woman's ass, the woman will only randomly notice that I'm staring at her. However, when I concentrate on her breasts, the woman will almost invariably notice! Explain that, mister 'observable phenomena' smarty pants.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: ]
#623360 - 04/30/02 03:40 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
if you combine the results, you get a 75% hit. this, combined with the fact that 80% of people are being self-deceived, gives a 15% correct hit. now, taking under consideration your bias and that your sample size was selective (I don?t think you do that for EVERY woman you see + you concentrate longer on breasts), then almost 0% notice it. stare freely my friend...
Edited by raytrace (04/30/02 04:19 PM)
|
Insomniac
Stranger
Registered: 03/17/02
Posts: 35
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623385 - 04/30/02 04:21 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
that's old-fashioned, Baconian inductivism. Science hasn't worked that way for 100 years and change. scientists FREQUENTLY have a theory they are trying to find data to support. most breakthroughs happen because scientists know something must be happening based on other phenomenon, but struggle to invent a test or equipment that can demonstrate it absolutely. the theory often precedes the proof. read some about the philosophy of science; it's a trip. most good science gets done by egomaniacs hell-bent on getting a reputation for themselves, who devote their whole careers to proving something they know is true but can't prove fnord.
Umm... is there a reason why you didn't make a comment about this Swami? I may not be up to par with your level of intelligence but I think he made a pretty good point here.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: raytrace]
#623390 - 04/30/02 04:25 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We need some experiential data on right vs. left breast staring. I have observed that young, large breasted women are more cognizant of your stare. Any explanation for their increased acuity?
A few years back at a secluded public beach in northern California, there was a hot little mama suntanning topless. Every guy on the beach hurt himself trying NOT to stare. The Swami, aka Mr. Smooth, sauntered up and cleverly said, "Hey babe, how ya doin' ?" She gave me her best smile and politely replied, "Get the FUCK away from me, you freak!" Yes folks, I have a way with the ladies...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/30/02 05:28 PM)
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Insomniac]
#623414 - 04/30/02 04:53 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The theory precedes the proof, yes, but EVIDENCE precedes the theory.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Insomniac]
#623450 - 04/30/02 05:35 PM (22 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Umm... is there a reason why you didn't make a comment about this Swami?
Schlorch already answered for me, but I guess you did not read this line from my post:
I am uninterested in theory until the phenomenon can be demonstrated.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/30/02 05:38 PM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Swami
Anonymous
Kurt
lucid
Grav
Fliquid