It's just a coincidence!!!

[Beth]

These are the kind of studies I am referring to (with reference to individual studies (or individuals) with larger effect sizes).

http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en...t?+Replicable+evidence+for+an+anomalous+..."+
http://www.boundary.org/articles/presentiment99.pdf
http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/experiment_tests.pdf

Thank you for the links. I wasn't able to find the effect sizes by quickly scanning them, but I'll assume that they were of the amount you had claimed. I'll accept your figures as correct on that point. However, I don't find them particularly applicable to the casino situation.

The first link is a paper on ganzfeld experiments, which place the reciever in a quiet environment free of distractions. Nothing like a casino. The second link is to Dean Radin's paper which is taking measurements of autonomic arousal levels of calm versus emotional stimuli. This is a very interesting experiment, but I don't see how the results, assuming they are legit, would indicate that such an ability would be useful in a casino environment.

Finally, the last link is for Sheldrake's telephone telepathy experiment. That relates to predicting a phone call and the probability of success was considerably higher for callers with a close relationship. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that these results, if legit, would lead to an advantage in casino gambling.

I haven’t read the book, but it was my understanding that they did win money before they had to stop because the device broke? I found stories of other players who managed to win big using similar strategies (narrowing the possibilities and therefore improving their odds - sometimes only slightly).

They did indeed win some money. They did experience some problems with their equipment. More than that, I can no longer remember. My point in bringing up the non-fiction account is to provide a counter example to the assumption that if one has a slight increase in odds, one can go to Vegas and win win win! If one takes this account at face-value (and I see no reason not to) then that assumption is simply not valid, not even when the participants are well-educated and very intelligent folks. Winning big from a casino is apparently a very difficult feat to pull off even with a edge on the odds.

Putting aside the issue of environment for the moment (the environment isn’t always detrimental – online gaming can be done in the quiet of your own home), why wouldn’t the claimed abilities be useful in a casino setting?

I thought we went over this before. If the person needs a quiet environment free from distractions, then the casino is NOT going to provide this. BTW, I'm glad you eliminate online gaming from the consideration. I agree, the environment wouldn't be an issue there.

The Ganzfeld studies claim that a person can know which of several pictures was chosen by another. Would that not allow for someone to know whether the person sitting next to them saw an eight or a jack when looking at their hidden card in Blackjack, and so give an advantage? Wouldn’t knowing several seconds beforehand what colour was coming up next be an advantage in roulette? The kinds of abilities that are claimed are those that would be useful in a casino setting, if they were real.

The Ganzfeld studies isolate the subjects and allow them to concentrate. Thus, even if one assumes the results are legit, one can't assume the same success rate for a different environment.

So one has to ask why it isn’t a common claim. These abilities would also apply to things like picking winning lottery numbers and online gambling, or in other areas like finding missing children or prisoner interrogation. Even if these things only occasionally worked in these situations, they would still provide a tremendous advantage.

It's a good question. My understanding, from talking with people who feel they are psychic, is that specific details are NOT communicated, instead, what is communicated are emotions. Something like "I'm lonely and want to see you" might get through, but not "I'll be over in 30 minutes". Since gambling would require that people sense very specific details that are devoid of emotional content - i.e. what number will come up next on the roulette wheel, that description is consistent with the idea that such abilities would not be useful when gambling. I understand that isn't what such experiments are testing for, I'm saying that's my understanding of what real people I know who consider themselves psychic claim to be able to do. I gather it's much more limited that what you are thinking of.

The reason we have researchers asking these questions is because these events are “apparent to the naked eye”. They are driven by people noticing within themselves a particular skill – “I know who is calling before I pick up the phone”, “I had a premonition the plane would crash and cancelled my flight”, “I can control the direction of a candle flame”.

With the first two examples you give, indeed with almost all anecdotal accounts of that nature, there is an strong emotional element present. The emotional element is not present when gambling. The direction of the candle flame example is of particular interest to me as I spend a great deal of time and effort investigating such an ability. I'll only say that it is extremely difficult to measure with accuracy.

This already implies effect sizes that are at least medium, more likely large. Using Cohen, for things like the Ganzfeld studies, small, medium and large effect sizes translates to differences of about 9, 20 and 35 percent (or 1.36 to 2.56 times chance). The use of casinos as an example is just an indication of the larger problem. If these effects are obvious to the naked eye, by those who have experienced them – i.e. these effects are large – why do they not show up in situations with the power to detect even tiny effects? Why do they not show up whenever the existence of such an ability (even if sporadic or slight) would provide a tremendous benefit?
Maybe we can’t expect believers to find the lack of a casino effect convincing, but if you’re sincere shouldn't you at least be asking, “why can’t we see an effect at the casino?” “Am I satisfied with my excuses?”

A good question. My answer is that if such abilities exist, they are connected with our emotions, not our intellect. Aside from the environmental issues (which prevent me from assuming that what works in the lab would also work in a casino without first testing that assumption), I think that winning at gambling requires an intellectual approach to evaluting the information available. Thus, I don't see it as a good candidate for psi experiments and I don't see casinos as an indicator that such abilities don't exist because the abilities I'm willing to concede might exist, I don't see as being useful in that situation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My answer is that if such abilities exist, they are connected with our emotions, not our intellect.

What does that mean? Aren't they making the claim to be able to obtain information through paranormal means? How can you obtain information without it involving "the intellect"?

Back to the noisy environment argument: what is the range of this claimed paranormal power? I thought believers claim that there are no limits. Is there any reason why a quiet hotel room wouldn't work?

Surely if the effect were real, we'd be able to measure the distance it can cover.

 

[Beth]

What does that mean? Aren't they making the claim to be able to obtain information through paranormal means? How can you obtain information without it involving "the intellect"?

I'm sorry, I phrased that rather imprecisely. This is my personal subjective opinion based on the people and stories I find credible and my own personal experiences. It's not that the intellect isn't involved at all, but rather that the stories I find credible and the experiences I've had personally typically have an emotional context that is meaningful to the person involved. I think this emotional context is an important aspect of the phenomena that isn't easily investigated.

Back to the noisy environment argument: what is the range of this claimed paranormal power? I thought believers claim that there are no limits. Is there any reason why a quiet hotel room wouldn't work?
Surely if the effect were real, we'd be able to measure the distance it can cover.

No reason at all that I can think of why a quiet hotel room wouldn't work. I've no idea about what distance might make a difference, but you're correct in that many people do claim distance is not a issue. If you want to set up an experiment and give it try, go right ahead. I'd be interested to hear the results.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sorry, I phrased that rather imprecisely. This is my personal subjective opinion based on the people and stories I find credible and my own personal experiences. It's not that the intellect isn't involved at all, but rather that the stories I find credible and the experiences I've had personally typically have an emotional context that is meaningful to the person involved. I think this emotional context is an important aspect of the phenomena that isn't easily investigated.

Might the lack of precision reflect a very fuzzy idea?

Isn't winning a lot of money an emotional context? I thought they needed a quiet, distraction-free environment? Now they need an emotional context. I don't think the two are simultaneously possible.

No reason at all that I can think of why a quiet hotel room wouldn't work. I've no idea about what distance might make a difference, but you're correct in that many people do claim distance is not a issue. If you want to set up an experiment and give it try, go right ahead. I'd be interested to hear the results.

To refresh you memory, the casino stuff came up as evidence that synchronicity at best is incredibly unlikely, since an entire multi-billion dollar industry is based on random events coming out in the long run just the way chance would dictate, and individual people failing to realize that low probability events are certain to happen regularly given really large numbers of attempts. The noise and distraction thing was an ad hoc rationale as to why psychic abilities aren't useful in casinos. I was merely refuting it. If psychic abilities were real, there would be some way to get around the noise and distraction issue.

I'm quite content that since 30 years or so of testing has yet to produce any reliable, reproducible evidence of any PSI abilities, it is highly unlikely that there is anything to it.

Meanwhile, the gaming industry and JREF's million dollars are quite safe.

 

[kbm99]

Sort of back to the OP with regards to coincidence:

A couple hours ago I fired up my "Psychobilly Freakout" Pandora (Internet Radio) station and was listening to to a little rockabilly while I was working. In the middle of a nice juicy Mike Ness song, I thought to myself "Odd that this station has never played any Bill Kirchen. I'd love to hear 'Hot Rod Lincoln' about now."

So, what do you suppose was the very next tune?

The difference between me and a credophile, of course, is that I immediately thought "Wow, what a cool coincidence!' and not "I can predict the future!"

 

[Beth]

Might the lack of precision reflect a very fuzzy idea?

Yes. Quite so. I've no problem admitting that. Emotional issues are fuzzy by nature.

Isn't winning a lot of money an emotional context? I thought they needed a quiet, distraction-free environment? Now they need an emotional context. I don't think the two are simultaneously possible.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. I'm talking about the information being emotionally meaningful to the person who receives it (this my opinion based on my observations - a number on a roulette wheel is not emotionally meaningful even when you've placed a bet on it while a sense of someone you loved having died unexpectedly would be) and an environment that is conducive to recieving information being a quiet one free of distractions. These are requirements of different aspects of the set up and they are not mutually exclusive.

To refresh you memory, the casino stuff came up as evidence that synchronicity at best is incredibly unlikely, since an entire multi-billion dollar industry is based on random events coming out in the long run just the way chance would dictate, and individual people failing to realize that low probability events are certain to happen regularly given really large numbers of attempts.

Yes. I recall. I don't happen to agree with you that the existance of the gaming industry negates the possibility of such things. I do agree that it pretty well eliminates any consistent and accurate ability to control or predict events of that nature. But I consider the two claims as being sufficiently different that I'm not willing to agree that because the laws of chance operate on a large scale exactly as predicted in casinos that such things are not possible under other circumstances.

The noise and distraction thing was an ad hoc rationale as to why psychic abilities aren't useful in casinos. I was merely refuting it. If psychic abilities were real, there would be some way to get around the noise and distraction issue.

Not an ad hoc rationale, but a long-standing reason why I'm not convinced by your argument. You are correct if you add a few more caveats. If psychic abilities were real AND if they work on gambling games AND if the edge provided is sufficiently large AND if someone who has both the desire and the belief in themselves and is willing to put forth the effort to do so in a disciplined manner, then yes, there would be ways to get around the noise and distraction issues.

I'm quite content that since 30 years or so of testing has yet to produce any reliable, reproducible evidence of any PSI abilities, it is highly unlikely that there is anything to it.

Okay. Clearly you feel that the existance of the gambling industry is proof that PSI abilities don't exist. That's fine. I'm not convinced because if they exist, I don't think that they would work in that situation. That's all.

Meanwhile, the gaming industry and JREF's million dollars are quite safe.

Yes, I'll agree with that last statement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay. Clearly you feel that the existance of the gambling industry is proof that PSI abilities don't exist. That's fine. I'm not convinced because if they exist, I don't think that they would work in that situation. That's all.

Completely wrong. I don't accept the existence of PSI abilities because there is no compelling evidence. I don't seek to prove the non-existence of PSI abilities. I don't believe in them just as I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between the orbits of the Earth and Mars. People who make the claim should provide the evidence.

 

[Beth]

Completely wrong. I don't accept the existence of PSI abilities because there is no compelling evidence. I don't seek to prove the non-existence of PSI abilities. I don't believe in them just as I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere between the orbits of the Earth and Mars. People who make the claim should provide the evidence.

Sorry. I misunderstood you. I though you were making the argument that the existance and profitability of the gaming industry provided evidence for the lack of any such abilities. If you're not saying that, then we have no disagreement. I'm not claiming that such abilities do exist; I'm pointing out that I don't find such evidence convincing proof that they don't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry. I misunderstood you.

No biggie--it's not like you can read my mind or anything!

I though you were making the argument that the existance and profitability of the gaming industry provided evidence for the lack of any such abilities. If you're not saying that, then we have no disagreement. I'm not claiming that such abilities do exist; I'm pointing out that I don't find such evidence convincing proof that they don't.

Actually I would say that the gaming industry's ability to depend on the odds in games of chance to be spot on over the long run argues against the existence of synchronicity or PSI abilities (or the validity of "The Secret" for that matter). I think you're using "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably.

Again, not believing something doesn't require evidence. It's the default position. Believing something, especially something for which there's no reasonable theoretical explanation (what exactly is an "acausal connection" for instance?), requires evidence.

 

[fls]

Thank you for the links. I wasn't able to find the effect sizes by quickly scanning them, but I'll assume that they were of the amount you had claimed. I'll accept your figures as correct on that point. However, I don't find them particularly applicable to the casino situation.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were looking for. I purposely linked to papers that provided an overview, with references to multiple studies in order to give a broader picture, rather than to single studies. I didn't realize you were looking for something to skim. I could cherry-pick individual studies to support exact numbers, but what I really wanted to accomplish was to show something representative of the field (I think). That studies in areas that seem to be considered supportive of paranormal phenomena show a range of effect sizes from small to large, not just small or tiny effects.

The first link is a paper on ganzfeld experiments, which place the reciever in a quiet environment free of distractions. Nothing like a casino. The second link is to Dean Radin's paper which is taking measurements of autonomic arousal levels of calm versus emotional stimuli. This is a very interesting experiment, but I don't see how the results, assuming they are legit, would indicate that such an ability would be useful in a casino environment.

What I found useful in Radin's paper was the discussion of other experiments that had been carried out along that line. Even an emotional response could be useful - a sensation of disappointment or excitement before the event can guide your choice. However, there were experiments that did not involve calm and emotional stimuli, but rather pre-knowledge of whether a red or green light was going to come on. Knowing what colour is going to come up next seems to be directly applicable to roulette. Knowing what picture (i.e. playing card) another person looked at also seems to be useful under conditions where you are playing with others.

Finally, the last link is for Sheldrake's telephone telepathy experiment. That relates to predicting a phone call and the probability of success was considerably higher for callers with a close relationship. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that these results, if legit, would lead to an advantage in casino gambling.

This ultimately would depend upon the explanation as I don't think the experiments provide a way of specifying how the information became known (e.g. it could be a form of precognition or a form a psi).

They did indeed win some money. They did experience some problems with their equipment. More than that, I can no longer remember. My point in bringing up the non-fiction account is to provide a counter example to the assumption that if one has a slight increase in odds, one can go to Vegas and win win win! If one takes this account at face-value (and I see no reason not to) then that assumption is simply not valid, not even when the participants are well-educated and very intelligent folks. Winning big from a casino is apparently a very difficult feat to pull off even with a edge on the odds.

But I'm not saying that they can "win win win". I'm saying that the payouts would no longer reflect the odds. Instead of paying out 90 cents for every dollar taken in, the casinos would find they are paying out 95 cents. Or a rare event may happen two or three times as often.

I thought we went over this before. If the person needs a quiet environment free from distractions, then the casino is NOT going to provide this. BTW, I'm glad you eliminate online gaming from the consideration. I agree, the environment wouldn't be an issue there.

The Ganzfeld studies isolate the subjects and allow them to concentrate. Thus, even if one assumes the results are legit, one can't assume the same success rate for a different environment.

I think this constraint is premature, for a number of reasons. For one thing, the Ganzfeld results have not been consistently replicable, so we are not at the point where the conditions can be varied in order to see what factors increase or decrease the proposed ability. So we don't yet know that distractions decrease the ability. As I mentioned earlier, even if the ability is impaired by the environment, any effect may still show up as a slight advantage. And the conditions under which these abilities are first noticed - not in the laboratory doing experiments, but in everyday life - are not under the isolation of the Ganzfeld experiments. Also, I think you are overestimating the distractability of the environment. I don't gamble as I find it unexciting, but I have been in a few casinos in Las Vegas. I actually find the environment a bit soporific - the background din is almost like white noise, as the sounds of the slots/bells/whistles is essentially constant. I am someone that would be considered to have psychic powers, and I definitely can (have) enter(ed) the state under which my "powers" work best while in a casino. Within the anonymity of a crowd it is not hard to isolate yourself from those around you and focus your concentration. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but because of my experience I am unwilling to dismiss the possibility.

It's a good question. My understanding, from talking with people who feel they are psychic, is that specific details are NOT communicated, instead, what is communicated are emotions. Something like "I'm lonely and want to see you" might get through, but not "I'll be over in 30 minutes". Since gambling would require that people sense very specific details that are devoid of emotional content - i.e. what number will come up next on the roulette wheel, that description is consistent with the idea that such abilities would not be useful when gambling. I understand that isn't what such experiments are testing for, I'm saying that's my understanding of what real people I know who consider themselves psychic claim to be able to do. I gather it's much more limited that what you are thinking of.

There would be nothing to discuss on this forum if it was as you say. A certain degree of specificity is required or no one would find any of this wonderful. Fran's OP was remarkable because a specific name was given and the alarm clock went off at a specific time. EeneyMinnieMoe named a specific person when asked to guess. Experiments are performed that are devoid of emotional content - other than familiarity, there was no emotion involved in Sheldrake's experiment. And it seems to me that the winning and losing of money has the potential for strong emotional content. Your constraints seem unreasonable and are contradicted by the evidence used to support the idea of paranormal phenomena.

With the first two examples you give, indeed with almost all anecdotal accounts of that nature, there is an strong emotional element present. The emotional element is not present when gambling. The direction of the candle flame example is of particular interest to me as I spend a great deal of time and effort investigating such an ability. I'll only say that it is extremely difficult to measure with accuracy.

I chose the candle flame example because I remembered your discussion for the MDC. It's one of the things that made me think about the issue of noticeability in the presence or absence of noise (as in interference).

I didn't get the impression that there was much emotional content to your experiments.

A good question. My answer is that if such abilities exist, they are connected with our emotions, not our intellect. Aside from the environmental issues (which prevent me from assuming that what works in the lab would also work in a casino without first testing that assumption), I think that winning at gambling requires an intellectual approach to evaluating the information available. Thus, I don't see it as a good candidate for psi experiments and I don't see casinos as an indicator that such abilities don't exist because the abilities I'm willing to concede might exist, I don't see as being useful in that situation.

Rather than referring only to the abilities that you are willing to concede might exist, I was thinking about the abilities that are claimed generally and the experimental effects that are touted as evidence. Actually, looking over this discussion, what I think the information coming from casinos provides for us is constraints on what is possible. As you agreed with earlier, consistent, large specific effects don't seem to exist. I just think the process is sensitive enough to go further and say that inconsistent, small to medium effects of certain types also don't seem to exist. And that much of what parapsychologists/paranormalists/believers claim would actually fall into that category.

Linda

 

[Beth]

No biggie--it's not like you can read my mind or anything!

Actually I would say that the gaming industry's ability to depend on the odds in games of chance to be spot on over the long run argues against the existence of synchronicity or PSI abilities (or the validity of "The Secret" for that matter). I think you're using "evidence" and "proof" interchangeably.

Again, not believing something doesn't require evidence. It's the default position.

Depends on what the something is that you are not believing in. I'll grant you the it's the default for a great many things, but not everything. There's no evidence for life on other planets, but I believe that extra-terrestrial life is possible without such evidence. I see no reason to make non-existance the default position for all conjectures.

Believing something, especially something for which there's no reasonable theoretical explanation (what exactly is an "acausal connection" for instance?), requires evidence.

Evidence can take many forms. I can consider evidence that is based on my personal experiences. It's not reproducible, it's not going to be convincing to anyone else, but it's quite reasonable for me to include such evidence in my personal subjective evaluations. Further, there is a great deal of difference between 'believing' that something exist and allowing for the possibility that something might exist. I do not believe in ESP or extraterrestrail life, instead I feel that they mightexist and I do not have sufficiently convincing evidence to draw a firm conclusion one way or the other.

But I'm not saying that they can "win win win". I'm saying that the payouts would no longer reflect the odds. Instead of paying out 90 cents for every dollar taken in, the casinos would find they are paying out 95 cents. Or a rare event may happen two or three times as often.

I misunderstood you. Earlier you talked about people hitting at roulette for several consecutive plays and breaking the casino bank. Now you are talking about an small effect that is so pervasive that it would noticably effect a casino's overall profitability. Clearly this isn't happening. Why not? Perhaps it is because they don't exist, but one cannot draw that conclusion with certainty as other explanations are possible.

I think this constraint is premature, for a number of reasons. For one thing, the Ganzfeld results have not been consistently replicable, so we are not at the point where the conditions can be varied in order to see what factors increase or decrease the proposed ability. So we don't yet know that distractions decrease the ability.

It makes no sense to me to assume that they would work under different environmental conditions and then conclude that since they are not observed to work under different conditions that they don't exist.

As I mentioned earlier, even if the ability is impaired by the environment, any effect may still show up as a slight advantage. And the conditions under which these abilities are first noticed - not in the laboratory doing experiments, but in everyday life - are not under the isolation of the Ganzfeld experiments.

The conditions under which they are noticed in everyday life typically include an emotional compenent. That component is almost always missing in experiments - it's very difficult to ethically manipulate other people's emotions in a controlled way.

Also, I think you are overestimating the distractability of the environment. I don't gamble as I find it unexciting, but I have been in a few casinos in Las Vegas. I actually find the environment a bit soporific - the background din is almost like white noise, as the sounds of the slots/bells/whistles is essentially constant. I am someone that would be considered to have psychic powers, and I definitely can (have) enter(ed) the state under which my "powers" work best while in a casino. Within the anonymity of a crowd it is not hard to isolate yourself from those around you and focus your concentration. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but because of my experience I am unwilling to dismiss the possibility.

Fair enough. I can't stand the lights and noise of a casino and find it extremely difficult to concentrate there. Thus, it seems quite reasonable to me that those who claim such abilities would not be able to function in such an environment.

There would be nothing to discuss on this forum if it was as you say. A certain degree of specificity is required or no one would find any of this wonderful. Fran's OP was remarkable because a specific name was given and the alarm clock went off at a specific time. EeneyMinnieMoe named a specific person when asked to guess. Experiments are performed that are devoid of emotional content - other than familiarity, there was no emotion involved in Sheldrake's experiment. And it seems to me that the winning and losing of money has the potential for strong emotional content.

The experimental evidence does not typically make use of emotional content, but the telephone telepathy experiments did claim better results for calls from close friends than calls from strangers. At any rate, it seems to me you are claiming these experiments as proof of an ability and then using the failure of such abilities to be manifestly obvious in casino gambling as evidence that the results of those experiments are invalid. Even if results of those experiments were due to actual abilities, we have no evidence that those abilities would manifest themselves in the environment of a casino, so I don't see it as evidence against them.

As far as the emotional content of winning or losing, it's true that would create a lot of emotion. But in general (and keep in mind that I love numbers) I don't see outcomes of routette wheels, dice or cards as having emotional content, not the same way that sensing a loved one's death would. However, I will grant you that they have an emotional content of about the same level as some of the experiments you referenced.

Your constraints seem unreasonable and are contradicted by the evidence used to support the idea of paranormal phenomena.

You can certainly consider them unreasonable if you like. I don't. I stated earlier they are based on my personal subjective opinion of the accounts I find credible.

Rather than referring only to the abilities that you are willing to concede might exist, I was thinking about the abilities that are claimed generally and the experimental effects that are touted as evidence. Actually, looking over this discussion, what I think the information coming from casinos provides for us is constraints on what is possible. As you agreed with earlier, consistent, large specific effects don't seem to exist. I just think the process is sensitive enough to go further and say that inconsistent, small to medium effects of certain types also don't seem to exist. And that much of what parapsychologists/paranormalists/believers claim would actually fall into that category.

Linda

I'll agree we can use such information to place some constraints on what is possible. I even agree that much of what parapsychologists/paranormalists/believers claim would fall into that category, though I doubt we would agree on exactly what constraints are reasonable to claim based on such evidence.

 

[fls]

I misunderstood you. Earlier you talked about people hitting at roulette for several consecutive plays and breaking the casino bank. Now you are talking about an small effect that is so pervasive that it would noticably effect a casino's overall profitability. Clearly this isn't happening. Why not? Perhaps it is because they don't exist, but one cannot draw that conclusion with certainty as other explanations are possible.

I was following different points as they came up, but it does get confusing when one ends up going off in different directions. Ways it might show up in casinos are an increased frequency of rare events (matching several numbers at roulette), a shift in the percentage paid-out, a change in the distribution of outcomes (going back to your original point about telekinesis).

I think we all agree that there isn't a noticeable effect when it comes to casinos. So what can that tell us?

It makes no sense to me to assume that they would work under different environmental conditions and then conclude that since they are not observed to work under different conditions that they don't exist. The conditions under which they are noticed in everyday life typically include an emotional component. That component is almost always missing in experiments - it's very difficult to ethically manipulate other people's emotions in a controlled way. Fair enough. I can't stand the lights and noise of a casino and find it extremely difficult to concentrate there. Thus, it seems quite reasonable to me that those who claim such abilities would not be able to function in such an environment.

I'm trying to differentiate between that which has been tested and that which has not. Why do people not duplicate the results of the Ganzfeld studies (i.e. the ability to know what cards other players see in their hand)? The excuse of a lack of emotional content is contradicted by the experiments which also lacked emotional content (i.e. it wasn't necessary). The issue of the environment is untested. It is a reasonable option, but not supported by evidence one way or the other.

The experimental evidence does not typically make use of emotional content, but the telephone telepathy experiments did claim better results for calls from close friends than calls from strangers. At any rate, it seems to me you are claiming these experiments as proof of an ability and then using the failure of such abilities to be manifestly obvious in casino gambling as evidence that the results of those experiments are invalid. Even if results of those experiments were due to actual abilities, we have no evidence that those abilities would manifest themselves in the environment of a casino, so I don't see it as evidence against them.

But the question is, why wouldn't they manifest themselves in the environment of a casino? I'm not saying that there are no alternate explanations, just that some of those given are contradicted by the experimental evidence.

As far as the emotional content of winning or losing, it's true that would create a lot of emotion. But in general (and keep in mind that I love numbers) I don't see outcomes of routette wheels, dice or cards as having emotional content, not the same way that sensing a loved one's death would. However, I will grant you that they have an emotional content of about the same level as some of the experiments you referenced.

You can certainly consider them unreasonable if you like. I don't. I stated earlier they are based on my personal subjective opinion of the accounts I find credible.

And how can I possibly consider those when trying to approach this issue in any way that is useful?

I'll agree we can use such information to place some constraints on what is possible. I even agree that much of what parapsychologists/paranormalists/believers claim would fall into that category, though I doubt we would agree on exactly what constraints are reasonable to claim based on such evidence.

It seems that in order for the abilities to not show up, they need to be non-specific, small to tiny, or subject to interference. So I have to ask, if these are the characteristics of the phenomena, how did we notice them in the first place?

Linda

 

[Beth]

I was following different points as they came up, but it does get confusing when one ends up going off in different directions. Ways it might show up in casinos are an increased frequency of rare events (matching several numbers at roulette), a shift in the percentage paid-out, a change in the distribution of outcomes (going back to your original point about telekinesis).

I think we all agree that there isn't a noticeable effect when it comes to casinos. So what can that tell us?

I agree, there isn't a noticable effect of the type you describe. Your question is a good one, and I think we can draw some reasonable assessments of things that aren't happening, yes.

I'm trying to differentiate between that which has been tested and that which has not. Why do people not duplicate the results of the Ganzfeld studies (i.e. the ability to know what cards other players see in their hand)?

Actually, the Ganzfeld experiments are so diverse I'm reluctant to say that they have not been duplicated. I've looked into it a bit and it really requires such a great deal of effort to assess whether or not the experiments are compariable, whether the statistics have been properly computed, etc. I just gave up on it. I wasn't interested enough to invest the sort of effort to plow through it all. Meta analysis can be manipulated to provide the results wanted, so I don't tend to place a lot of stock in them either. Bottom line, the results there are pretty nebulous for me.

The excuse of a lack of emotional content is contradicted by the experiments which also lacked emotional content (i.e. it wasn't necessary).

Not really. I'm not sure exactly how the emotional content figures into things, but it seems crucial to me based on my own subjective evaluations of what stories/people are credible. It would explain why the experiments you reference show only weak effects that aren't replicated while anecdotal evidence suggest large, easily noticable connections that don't seem likely through sheer coincidence.

The issue of the environment is untested. It is a reasonable option, but not supported by evidence one way or the other.

I'll agree, it's an unknown. But it's also a common, though not universal, request of those who claim such abilities. Given my experiences in engineering projects moving from prototype to production, my default assumption is that when you move something out of a laboratory environment and into the 'real' world, stuff changes and what worked in the lab often doesn't in the field.

But the question is, why wouldn't they manifest themselves in the environment of a casino? I'm not saying that there are no alternate explanations, just that some of those given are contradicted by the experimental evidence.

Good question. The change in environment and the lack of emotional context for people are adequate reasons to withhold judgement on the possibility of some abilities manifesting themselves in other enviroments and contexts.

And how can I possibly consider those when trying to approach this issue in any way that is useful?

I'm getting ready to head out of town for a while, but if you'll pm me your email address and a promise not to share it with others, I'll try to send you some write-ups I've done on my experiences and experiments before I leave tomorrow.

My son is insisting I stop typing now. I'll talk with you in a couple of weeks.

 

[Cuddles]

a number on a roulette wheel is not emotionally meaningful even when you've placed a bet on it

I think you'll find casinos are actually very emotional places. Have you ever seen someone win or lose tens of thousands of pounds? If you had, you really wouldn't be claiming that it isn't an emotional event.

 

[Rodney]

My corresponding odds would be 6,785,714,200,000/762,500,000 to 1 = 8899 to 1 . . . But 8899/12 = 741.6 years.

Over the past weekend, I sent an e-mail to two statistics professors at Purdue University who had, a few years ago, gotten a letter published in the New York Times about the probability of someone winning two lotteries over the course of time. The letter concluded that it wasn't that unlikely. So, in my e-mail, I submitted my estimate of the probability of someone winning two lotteries on the same day. I just received a response from one of the two professors, Steve Samuels. It reads, in relevant part:

"Your calculations seem to be quite reasonable. And I can't argue
with your assumptions. Your bottom line is that for someone,
somewhere to win two lotteries in the same day is indeed quite rare.
It's much rarer than for someone somewhere to win more than one
lottery . . . Of course the bottom line is quite sensitive to some of your
assumptions. If there were 100 million players, instead of 25
million, that would cut the number of years from 742 to about 185.
And if you allowed pairs of lotteries both of which have daily
drawings, that would cut it down quite a bit further. My guess is
that the very fact that this event did occur suggests that the number
of plays is quite a bit higher than you have assumed. But it's only
a guess."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Depends on what the something is that you are not believing in. I'll grant you the it's the default for a great many things, but not everything. There's no evidence for life on other planets, but I believe that extra-terrestrial life is possible without such evidence.

Saying you believe something is possible is not the same as saying you believe something. Similarly, not having a belief in something isn't the same thing as believing that something is not possible.

I'll even grant you that PSI powers are possible. Since there's no evidence to support those claims, though, I don't believe in them. If someone claimed that there was ET life, and had no evidence, I would doubt the claim. In other words, I don't believe it--it doesn't mean that I believe there is no ET life in the universe. It means that I don't accept their claim without sufficient evidence. (Remember the Mars "fossils"?)

Of these two examples, I would say ET life is far more probable than PSI powers based of the principle of parsimony. ET life could exist without trashing any major branches of science. If PSI powers exist, major fields of science would need at least serious revision.

Funny you used ET life as an example. Here's what Carl Sagan had to say about ET intelligence:

I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.

 

[blobru]

Over the past weekend, I sent an e-mail to two statistics professors at Purdue University who had, a few years ago, gotten a letter published in the New York Times about the probability of someone winning two lotteries over the course of time. The letter concluded that it wasn't that unlikely. So, in my e-mail, I submitted my estimate of the probability of someone winning two lotteries on the same day. I just received a response from one of the two professors, Steve Samuels. It reads, in relevant part:

"Your calculations seem to be quite reasonable. And I can't argue
with your assumptions. Your bottom line is that for someone,
somewhere to win two lotteries in the same day is indeed quite rare.
It's much rarer than for someone somewhere to win more than one
lottery . . . Of course the bottom line is quite sensitive to some of your
assumptions. If there were 100 million players, instead of 25
million, that would cut the number of years from 742 to about 185.
And if you allowed pairs of lotteries both of which have daily
drawings, that would cut it down quite a bit further. My guess is
that the very fact that this event did occur suggests that the number
of plays is quite a bit higher than you have assumed. But it's only
a guess."

Cool. I guess I'm flattered that a Purdue stats prof thinks my formula for calculating lotto odds is "quite reasonable".
And I do agree depending on which numbers you plug in (you use 25 million, he suggests 100 million) and which assumptions (e.g., [daily?] drawing frequency; + how many lottos, horizontal spiking, vertical deviation, combinatorics, etal), the answer will vary considerably (from quadruple digits using low-end estimates to single using high-end as we have seen), given that the "bottom line is quite sensitive to some of your assumptions". So at least we're on the right track, eh?
Where he says "I can't argue with your assumptions" suggests he doesn't have detailed lottery stats handy, which is a bit worrisome -- if not him, who?

 

[Rodney]

Where he says "I can't argue with your assumptions" suggests he doesn't have detailed lottery stats handy, which is a bit worrisome -- if not him, who?

I agree. I was hoping that he and his fellow Purdue statistician had done a detailed analysis of lotteries, and that was why they wrote the letter to the New York Times about the odds of someone winning the lottery twice over a period of time. Apparently, however, they did only a back of the envelope calculation.