Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
From: lew@ihuxr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.tv
Subject: My thoughts on NOVA's ESP show
Message-ID: <849@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 13:25:23 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.849
Posted: Fri Jan 20 13:25:23 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 07:10:42 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 72

[ I posted this yesterday, but it didn't get out. Last night I bought
Martin Gardner's SCIENCE: GOOD, BAD, AND BOGUS and stayed up late
reading most of the parts relevant to Targ and Puthoff, which is a lot.
I'll post my comments on this to net.books ]

I'd like to comment on the "remote viewing" experiments described in
the recent NOVA ESP show. First, I think that if you accept Targ and
Puthoff's experiment at face value, you'd have to believe that the
subject really had the power of remote viewing. The attempts to find
loopholes in the procedures seemed beside the point.

For my part, I cannot accept that the subject had the power of remote
viewing, or indeed that such a power exists. I know this opens me to
charges of close-mindedness, so I would like to state the reasons that
I reject these claims. I'll try to organize these into categories.

1. THEY'RE NOTHING NEW - The claims are identical with the power of
crystal ball gazing that have existed for millenia. These were once
accepted as a matter of course before they were rejected in the enthusiasm
of the Enlightment. I still share this enthusiasm for a new view of the
world.

2. LACK OF MECHANISM - "Have I not eyes, with which to see?" That this
power should be isomorphic with a physically placed aerial camera seems
incomprehensible. Just think about this. It advances the view that
the physical world is simply a correlate of some sort of dream world.

In fact the whole realm of ESP breaks so sharply from the scientific
view, which consists in modelling the world, that I don't hesitate
to place it outside of science. Parapsychologists are eager
for the mantle of Science, but they practice it little. The whole aim
of these experiments is to establish the credibility of these mental
powers, not to elucidate or advance them. What does rubbing a gelatinous
suspension of silver particles have to do with conjuring images of remote
places? Don't ask.

In one sequence of the show, a remote viewer answered an objection to
her claim to have drawn an island from remote viewing. The objection was
that she might have drawn on some knowledge of geography and drawn the
island from memory after being shown its coordinates. Her answer was that
she could do this even when the coordinates were shown in binary form.
Here the model is clear. The coordinates, whatever their form, embody the
QUINTESSENCE of the island. I'm sorry, but I just puke on this sort of thing.

3. WHAT WOULDN'T YOU BELIEVE? If someone claimed to have conducted a
controlled experiment showing that a subject could lift a diesel locomotive
off the ground, would you believe it? I think few would. I also think this
is the reason no such claims are made. The claims made show no respect for
physics, but ARE bound by the limits of public credulity.

4. WHAT CAN'T THEY DO? A lot. Why can't a remote viewer just tell us the
composition of the earth's core? Answer: They operate in the subjective 
world of human experience, not the physical world. I find this
most obvious in the case of telekinesis. The range of feats claimed
encompass acts which would require expenditures of energy varying
over many orders of magnitude. Yet this never correlates with the
apparent difficulty of the feat, just as the Incredible Hulk struggles
equally with a file cabinet, and an auto compactor.

Aside from the question of the reality of these powers, I'm disturbed
by the social establishment of ESP groups in the form of corporations
and so on. I see this leading not forward, but backward - to a time
when wizards held sway.

Finally, I like to think that I maintain an open mind to the extent that:
1) I totally respect everyones right to their opinion on these issues,
and I don't lower my personal respect for anyone on the basis of them -
and 2) I don't plan to cease reading, watching and thinking about the
subject. My current opinion is firmly held, but I by no means give it
the status of an unshakable conviction.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew