Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: Professional Psychics (Re: how about *real* psi info? Message-ID: <214@cci632.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 23:10:21 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.214 Posted: Fri Jul 11 23:10:21 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 05:35:48 EDT References: <3719@decwrl.DEC.COM> <136@cci632.UUCP> <1314@psivax.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 52 Summary: Psychology currently understands the exact nature of thought? In article <1314@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <136@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >> >>The problem here is that Randi would want Dykshorn to read specific thoughts, >>Dykshorn only gets "symbols" of whatever the person has strong feelings >>about at that moment. Rather than respond to the rebuttal, I would simply suggest that anyone interested, read about Dykshorn. There was a book on him called "My Passport Reads Clairvoyant" or something to that effect. >>There was one fellow who used to get up in front of an audience and simply >>blurt out whatever he was thinking and ask if someone else was thinking it. >>Sure enough, someone would be thinking about it. >>Clairvoyance or suggestion? >of a couple of hundred or so it is almost certain that *someone* in >the audience will be thinking the same thing as the guy in front! It >is not even necessary to invoke suggestion to explain this. > Really, until those who want to believe in PSI can tell the >difference between a simple parlour trick and a truly unexplainable >event, they will have very little credibility. Actually, I was assuming it was a parlour trick. Suggestion makes more sense. But why did the "mentalist" think the thoughts he thought? We'll assume he wasn't out in the audience before the show. >>Most of those who experience thoughts and images of this type don't know >>what they are. Most would be happy to admit that it was cognition, or >>suggestion, or whatever. > Probably because they believe such things are actually >unusual, rather than ordinary results of human psychology! The question here is not basic "cause effect" psychology, but spontaneous "random" thought. When simply letting our minds drift, what causes two people to "drift to the same thought at the same point in time". Actually, there is an answer, but it has to do with my earlier definition of ESP. Psychology can tell me why this thought is significant, where it might have originated from, possibly even what it means, but not why I thought it at that time. Actually, I agree, psychology will eventually find the answer, and it will all make perfect sense. But you have to study the phenomena to explain it. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Rex B.