• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'6th Sense'

John Freestone said:
I haven't read to the end yet to see if anyone picked this point up:

So as sources of subliminal or conscious cues about when the strike might be starting we can add the body-language of 50-100 people watching it, wondering if their fellow will get bashed/cut or pass an important test. They're going to give tiny involuntary movements - or great big obvious ones in some cases. This, to my mind, is probably a greater source of information than the sounds, air movements, changes of lighting and shadows, vibration through the floor, etc.
Click to expand...



I alluded to it in my post about creating a testing protocol:

Horatius said:
But it would be interesting to try to come up with a protocol to test this, to see if he's really sensing the "intention" to attack, or some subtle physical cue.


Things we would need:

  • Uniform lighting, from the front, to avoid shadows that might give away the attack.
  • A solid (concrete?) floor, to reduce vibrations/flexing.
  • Tight fitting clothes on the swordsman, to reduce rustling/air movement.
  • Isolated from observers, to eliminate seeing people react to the swordsman's movements.
  • Swordsman willing and able to cut from a ready posture without windup or any noise.
  • Some means of randomly determining when to cut, and conveying that to the swordsman undetected.
  • A determination of how close to the cut the "avoidance" would have to be, to count as a hit.
  • Blindfold and earplugs for the ninja?


Anything else?
Click to expand...
 
Horatius said:
This one?

Click to expand...
Probably. Like I said, I can't check. :)

e-sabbath said:
The reason I suspect it might not work so well in a helmet is because I think I'm sensing wind on my hair. Like a cat's whiskers, only much less well suited for the job.
Click to expand...
Ah, fair enough. Well, we could try it with a shinai, but it'd still hurt your head if I hit it.
 
Horatius said:
I alluded to it in my post about creating a testing protocol:
Click to expand...
Ah so. And a very good protocol it is too. I just hadn't got to it yet, and felt I'd better post while I thought of it.

As you also say in that post, it's unlikely that anyone could react in time to the air-pressure changes of a sword starting to descend; it would have to a reaction from wind-up movements (bunny-ears behind the head, that kind of thing:rolleyes:).

The random waiting time limit and its relationship to the approximate time of the action and distance of miss would be important, and raises some difficult problems (to me; I'm not used to analysing such things, though). The shorter the time that the swordsman waits, presumably, the easier it is to make a lucky guess as to when to roll, because of that ratio (and the relatively long time it takes to roll - I presume that if we were judging someone's ability to click a mouse just when a dot appears on a screen, the waiting times can be shorter, because a lag of only a few milliseconds might be considered a miss). However, if we're testing to see if someone has a significant ability to detect the intention of the swordsman, we might also assume that they are psychically advanced enough to do so with very little error, and to have the mental control to maintain even a sensitive concentration for minutes.

One of the most important biases in the tests I've seen online (apart from the audience) is the short waiting time, reducing the risk of just going for it and hoping the sword was coming when you decide to roll. And, of course, there is a lot of background communication and unwritten rules involved here: in the group situation, students learn from the increasing number of previous demos the sort of length of time the master is going to wait - making that window of lucky guesses smaller. In the ones I watched, it only went up to about 5 or 6 seconds. There's little reason why a participant couldn't sit for 5 minutes or more, if their ability is real, and still react only once, at the right moment.

The protocol you suggest, and a reasonably extended waiting time, would dispel the myth. Ha - another bit of woo for sceptics to go to all the trouble of disproving! Still, if the scpetics get to hit the woos on the head in the process, we're making progress. This could become a standard protocol. "So, we're about to start testing your psychic powers. Your blindfold is in place. Comfy? Right. Now, at an unspecified time, I'm going to smack you in the nose with my fist. Ok?"
 
Kuko 4000 said:
1) Is there really an "intention to kill"?
Click to expand...

I think this is probably the most important point and hasn't had enough attention. The claim is not that people can sense someone about to swing a fake sword, the claim is that they can sense the intention to kill them. Clearly the tester has absolutely no intention of actually killing anyone (either that or he is absolutely the worst martial arts master ever to have existed), so the claim is trivially false.

The question of whether a person might be able to sense a swing coming and how they would do so may be an interesting one, but it really has nothing to do with the claim in question.
 
Cuddles said:
I think this is probably the most important point and hasn't had enough attention. The claim is not that people can sense someone about to swing a fake sword, the claim is that they can sense the intention to kill them. Clearly the tester has absolutely no intention of actually killing anyone (either that or he is absolutely the worst martial arts master ever to have existed), so the claim is trivially false.

The question of whether a person might be able to sense a swing coming and how they would do so may be an interesting one, but it really has nothing to do with the claim in question.
Click to expand...
The ability to sense and project a "intention to kill" is a rather common martial arts mythic belief.

I believe it is mostly Japanese in origin, but the ability to sense this intention allows a warrior to sense threats while the ability to project this intention allows the warrior to scare their opponents.

That being said, in a test, a sensei will need to be a rather disturbed person to desire to kill a student.
 
Yes, the intention to kill problem is interesting, but I'm not sure it makes a difference concerning the claim. It is, of course, the kind of issue that a believer brings up if they fail to show their psi ability. "I could do it, but the sensei wasn't projecting properly". Still, if the ability is real, it involves the claim that the projection of intent is real too, and the two claims stand or fall together. It is important, because the projection by the swordsman is under scrutiny too, and in the case of a scientific test, the claimant would have to agree that the swordsman's ability was real as well as their ability to sense it. They'll go off and blame each other, no doubt.

But essentially it makes no more difference than if a mind-reader said that they could read minds, but not the internal states of computers. You'd just test using a person rather than a random number generator.
 
Cuddles said:
I think this is probably the most important point and hasn't had enough attention. The claim is not that people can sense someone about to swing a fake sword, the claim is that they can sense the intention to kill them. Clearly the tester has absolutely no intention of actually killing anyone (either that or he is absolutely the worst martial arts master ever to have existed), so the claim is trivially false.
Click to expand...


I'd suggest that sensing the "intention to hurt you a lot" would be fundamentally similar.

But it does add one more requirement to our testing protocol: A Location in which premeditated murder (or at least, mayhem) isn't a problem!


Cuddles said:
The question of whether a person might be able to sense a swing coming and how they would do so may be an interesting one, but it really has nothing to do with the claim in question.
Click to expand...


But it does come into designing a protocol, so as to eliminate all those other possibilities.



paximperium said:
That being said, in a test, a sensei will need to be a rather disturbed person to desire to kill a student.
Click to expand...



Good thing they're not my students then, right? ;)


They talk about this in terms of sensing an intention to "kill"; however, it's clear that they are sensing no more than an intention to "smack", if that. If we were to test this, we'd have to do an "open" test, without all the above controls, just to show that the testee can "sense" whatever "intention" the swordsman is projecting. Basically, replicate the events of any of those YouTube videos. Then, if that's successful, we see if he can still do it with all the controls in place. That precludes the claim that the swordsman "couldn't project" his intent, or "didn't have a true intention to attack".
 
Horatius said:
They talk about this in terms of sensing an intention to "kill"; however, it's clear that they are sensing no more than an intention to "smack", if that. If we were to test this, we'd have to do an "open" test, without all the above controls, just to show that the testee can "sense" whatever "intention" the swordsman is projecting. Basically, replicate the events of any of those YouTube videos. Then, if that's successful, we see if he can still do it with all the controls in place. That precludes the claim that the swordsman "couldn't project" his intent, or "didn't have a true intention to attack".
Click to expand...
Can you help me understand that better please, Horatius? When you say 'then, if that's successful', do you mean that replicating the tests in the videos would allow one to produce a situation in which the claimant said "Yes, I'm happy that I could sense and respond to the master's intention to bash me"...so that, with the next stage, controlling for vibration, noise, audience participation, etc., they can't easily claim that the intention isn't being projected?

If that's what you mean, presumably it's not about whether its an intention to smack or kill, just whether there's something 'psychically' detectable.
 
John Freestone said:
Can you help me understand that better please, Horatius? When you say 'then, if that's successful', do you mean that replicating the tests in the videos would allow one to produce a situation in which the claimant said "Yes, I'm happy that I could sense and respond to the master's intention to bash me"...so that, with the next stage, controlling for vibration, noise, audience participation, etc., they can't easily claim that the intention isn't being projected?

If that's what you mean, presumably it's not about whether its an intention to smack or kill, just whether there's something 'psychically' detectable.
Click to expand...



Yes, that's what I mean. They claim they're detecting something other than a physical cue that the attack is coming. They describe what they sense as the "intention to attack", however, this is merely their interpretation of what they're sensing. But it's clear that it's not a very accurate interpretation based on the "no one actually gets killed" videos we've seen. So, as you say, it's really nothing more than some indeterminate "psychic" power, regardless of what the actual "intention" is.


Once we've shown that Ninja A can detect the "whatever" from Swordsman B under conditions similar to those Ninja A always uses, we can then control for as many of the physical cues as possible, to see if he's really sensing the "whatever", and not just light/shadows/noises/vibrations/"whatever else".
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
Yes, that's what I mean. They claim they're detecting something other than a physical cue that the attack is coming. They describe what they sense as the "intention to attack", however, this is merely their interpretation of what they're sensing. But it's clear that it's not a very accurate interpretation based on the "no one actually gets killed" videos we've seen. So, as you say, it's really nothing more than some indeterminate "psychic" power, regardless of what the actual "intention" is.


Once we've shown that Ninja A can detect the "whatever" from Swordsman B under conditions similar to those Ninja A always uses, we can then control for as many of the physical cues as possible, to see if he's really sensing the "whatever", and not just light/shadows/noises/vibrations/"whatever else".
Click to expand...
I see. Thank you. It assumes, however, that they are successful, i.e. that they are sensing something. I think that's why your suggestion surprised me, because I imagine that ascertaining whether anyone is sensing something would be difficult. Of course, if the cues we have already listed are strong enough, the adept might demonstrate a significant success rate, however that is determined. It's just that I'm not at all convinced there's a large element of detection, or perhaps any at all. Even an open test, therefore, given a fair analysis (controlling for simple confirmation bias, etc.) might show a success rate no better than chance. That part of the test, if anyone is serious about doing one, would perhaps be the most important part, since even if all possible cues are eliminated, all the usual biases of human interpretation remain.

I'm not criticising your suggestion, and I was genuinely interested to understand it. It would be a useful principle, and, if there is some detection going on, would help to dispel the belief that it is a violent intention being detected.
 
All the time when swordfighting I see people make swings that are not intended to strike the opponent. Sometimes it is timidity, sometimes it is a recognition that the defender is going to easily be able to parry the shot, sometimes it is a deliberate second intention or feint. If you're paying intention, it's easy to spot.
 
John Freestone said:
I see. Thank you. It assumes, however, that they are successful, i.e. that they are sensing something.
Click to expand...



Yes, it's possible that every claimed "success" is just a random occurrence that the sensei decided counts as a pass, but from watching the videos we've seen, it's clear to me that the sensei is actually deliberately telegraphing his attacks to those he wants to pass. So I'd say they are detecting something, just that the "something" is nothing mystical.

But yes, we'd need to do some trial runs to see if the ninja could do anything at all, under any circumstances, with a swordsman who isn't deliberately telegraphing his attack.
 
arthwollipot said:
That is actually quite difficult to do...
Click to expand...

Under the current understanding of the claim (that it is the INTENTION being transmitted in some way), perhaps not. A Mythbusters type sword swinging robot could be used triggered either randomly or by a human being who the test subject has agreed possess the claimed ablility to project their intention. The trigger person can be given a random cue that is not detectable to the subject and would then only have to hit a button. Set up properly the circumstances could be as close to identicle as could be hoped, perhaps even a double blind protocol could be designed where EITHER the human or timer triggered the sword.
 
arthwollipot said:
That is actually quite difficult to do...
Click to expand...



Difficult, but not impossible, depending on the circumstances. However, if we can show that Ninja A can't do this at all when the swordsman isn't helping him out, then it pretty much debunks the whole "sensing the intention" bit, in any case.


But, funny story time: Last night at class, I was showing the application of one of out kata, and discussing, "What could the guy on the receiving end do, to try to escape/stop/reverse this technique?" Even when I knew what the other guy was going to do, it was very hard to react fast enough to stop him in any way that didn't get me hurt in some way. I wasn't hurt the way the attacker had planned, mind you, but really, if you've got a sword stuck through your stomach, at the end of the day, are you really going to quibble about, "Well, you didn't intend to stab me there!"?
 
John Freestone said:
I see. Thank you. It assumes, however, that they are successful, i.e. that they are sensing something.
Click to expand...

Not really, they may believe they are sensing something but really it is irrelivent whether they are or not, it's just a sensible part of the protocol. The OP has stated that just as the abilty to sense the intention is not universal, the ability to project it is also limited to certain people. As such it is wise to allow the subject to verify that the person he is working with has said ability to his own satisfaction, otherwise the argument that he failed because his partner can't project is actually valid and the test is objectively flawed. Obviously had the proposer said they could detect an assult from anyone this would not be the case.

A similar situation is hypnosis, hypnotists claim that not everyone is succeptable, therefore it makes sense to allow them to select subjects they believe are for testing purposes.
 
John Freestone said:
It assumes, however, that they are successful, i.e. that they are sensing something.
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
Yes, it's possible that every claimed "success" is just a random occurrence that the sensei decided counts as a pass, but from watching the videos we've seen, it's clear to me that the sensei is actually deliberately telegraphing his attacks to those he wants to pass. So I'd say they are detecting something, just that the "something" is nothing mystical.

But yes, we'd need to do some trial runs to see if the ninja could do anything at all, under any circumstances, with a swordsman who isn't deliberately telegraphing his attack.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I believe I understand. And from the video first linked to here, I think you may well be right about the deliberate (or perhaps even self-deceptive, but clearly observable) telegraphing.

P.J. Denyer said:
Not really, they may believe they are sensing something but really it is irrelivent whether they are or not, it's just a sensible part of the protocol. The OP has stated that just as the abilty to sense the intention is not universal, the ability to project it is also limited to certain people. As such it is wise to allow the subject to verify that the person he is working with has said ability to his own satisfaction, otherwise the argument that he failed because his partner can't project is actually valid and the test is objectively flawed. Obviously had the proposer said they could detect an assult from anyone this would not be the case.

A similar situation is hypnosis, hypnotists claim that not everyone is succeptable, therefore it makes sense to allow them to select subjects they believe are for testing purposes.
Click to expand...
Yes. I think I confused matters by using the word 'sensing' above, to refer to the student reacting to natural stimuli telegraphed somehow. It was a bad choice of word in the circumstances, and I think you read it as meaning sensing the claimed intention, i.e. 'supernatural' or 'as yet unknown to science'.

With enough time, I guess it would even be quite feasible to do tests with each of the possible sources of cueing at a time to ascertain how the telegraphing is happening. I for one would love to know.
 
Horatius said:
I'd suggest that sensing the "intention to hurt you a lot" would be fundamentally similar.
Click to expand...

Sure, but there are still two big problems with that. Firstly, it's still obvious that the students don't actually get hurt too badly any more than they get killed. If the sensei is genuinely trying to hurt them a lot, he's seriously incompetent. And if he's not, then obviously he didn't have that intention either. This is really a fundamental problem with the claim, since anyone who was actually any good at hitting people who actually had the intention to do serious harm would in fact manage to do serious harm. If the intentions being picked up are simply the intention to swing but not actually hurt anyone too badly, that's a more reasonable claim, but this then falls foul of the second problem:

Which is that it's not actually what is claimed. When discussing people's claims, it often needs to be pointed out that we have to address what they actually claim, not what we think they should claim. This is a particular problem in the Challenge section, but it applies in general discussions as well. If a person says that they can talk with dead people and find out what they died of, it doesn't matter that this obviously means they should be able to find the gender of the person and that that would be an easier test, if that's not what they claim, it's not what gets tested. In this case, the claim is that acomplished martial artists can sense the intention to kill. Not the intention to hurt. Not the intention to swing and pull it at the last moment. Kill. And this claim is trivially false, because they don't actually kill anyone.

As I say, the questions of where this kind of belief comes from, discussion of more plausible similar beliefs and possible ways of testing them all are interesting matters for discussion, but they won't change the fact that the original claim is still false. In addition, it would be impossible to test the original claim, since unless the testee could sense the intention 100% of the time (and be similarly successful in getting out the way) such a test would result in deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom