Pseudo-paranormal phenomena

[Timothy]

In light of the Challenge applicant who claims to be able to increase dopamine levels at will ...

What sort of unusual physiological abilities would be acceptable? When I first read this application, my thought was "Okay, this guy can change his dopamine levels. What's so strange about that? He may or may not be rearranging his chi, but there's nothing inherently paranormal about his claim. Hell, for all I know, half the population might be able to do this."

For instance, what about the following claim? "While sitting in a chair motionless, temperature-measuring thermocouples taped to my palms, I will simultaneously raise the temperature of my left palm by 1 degree F and lower the temperature of my right palm by 1 degree F."

Sounds pretty damn bizarre, especially if I toss in words like "chi" "energy" "spiritual" and "magnetic". But should it be considered paranormal?

It shouldn't, because there's evidence that a multiple synesthete examined by A.R. Luria in Russia was able to do so in the 1930s*. His other documented mental abilities are so profoundly bizarre, that while not having the documentary evidence in front of me, I certainly wouldn't discount it.

What separates paranormal from physiological variation, and does the JREF staff have the expertise to tell the difference?

To me, Oliver Mills showing up at JREF and hand delivering an application smacks of someone trying to rush an odd, but completely explainable, phenomenon through the process.

This application once again trudges the fuzzy line between "unusual, not immediately recognizable, but explainable by an expert in the field" and "paranormal", just as the several possible explanations of the "lack of conservation of momentum machine" of several months ago did.

- Timothy

* Luria, A.R., "The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book About a Vast Memory"

 

[KRAMER]

What separates paranormal from physiological variation, and does the JREF staff have the expertise to tell the difference?

No. This particular staff member does not possess the expertise.

That's why we consult those who DO, and we are now awaiting their reply.

If the claim is determined to not be a paranormal one, it will be rejected, of course.

 

[Timothy]

To me, it's unclear in the Application and FAQ that JREF reserves the right to reject an application on that basis, and when in the process it can occur.

In further rereading of the thread, I see that I was under the mistaken assumption that he was already off having his blood drawn, implying that the *protocol* had been accepted, when in fact it was only the *application* that had been accepted. My bad.

------- Semantics and such which may or may not interest you below --------

It still raises the question of fairness to the applicants. At this point, one could argue that it's still a question of mutual agreement of a protocol. JREF can claim that no mutually agreed upon protocol could be reached and that's that.

But what about a fully agreed upon protocol, signed by everybody, preliminary test days away, and suddenly someone associated with JREF finds a completely explainable rationale behind the claim?

Does JREF simply take the PR hit, announce that they made a mistake in accepting the claim, publicize it as their mistake in rigor (to prevent negative PR from the woo side), and point out the care one must take to avoid misinterpreting the weird and obscure from the paranormal?

- Timothy

 

[-42-]

Isn't there a lot of ways to fake this, even if it is deemed not 'medically possible' to will ones levels +15%?

For example, what about some drug in a protective membrane implanted at various points in the body that can be released/ruptured with a certain amount of pressure?

Like implant some drug in a protective structure under my first finger, and to rupture I simply need to press hard against it with my thumb.

I'd do it for a million bucks. Well. I'd have a doctor do it for me for a million bucks ;p as long as the drug was deemed safe anyway-lol

....or even some 'oral' drug instead of iv, like small hard pill implanted just barely under the skin in the cheek/lips and biting it free.... lol..... or surgically making a small pouch that would easily be missed on examination...or...or.... well. you get the point.

 

[Rolfe]

This point struck me when I saw that "acupuncture" was among the things listed as being applicable for the challenge, with no definition of what actualy had to be demonstrated.

As far as general responses go, sticking pins in the body can be shown to produce a number of responses such as increased blood glucose and cortisol. Is that "acupuncture"?

Even if you reject that as being unaffected by the position of the pin-prick and so not actually acupuncture, there are at least a couple of very specific places where sticking needles will produce a very repeatable reaction.

A technique for re-starting breathing in animals under anaesthesia by sticking a needle in the nasal septum has actually been written up scientifically as "acupuncture", complete with acupuncture-point names for the places you can position the needle. This does actually work, I've seen it.

I have also observed myself that if you get the position of the needle exactly right, needling a point on a horse's neck near where the jugular vein enters the thoracic inlet will cause the horse to fall over in a dead faint. (I did it several times by accident while attempting to collect blood samples, and very alarming it was too!) Now I'm damn sure I could find an acupuncture-point name for that spot too, if I looked it up.

Would demonstrations of these effects, which could plausibly be represented as "acupuncture effects" be eligible for the Challenge?

Now I don't think they should be, because they're perfectly real and prefectly non-paranormal. I think it's quite unwise to list something like acupuncture as eligible, because it's just laying the JREF open to people who present a claim that a perfectly natural phenomenon is included in that category, and so should count for the prize.

Homoeopathy is a special case as regards woo-woo medicine, along with other techniques in which the patient isn't actually touched at all (reiki and radionics and stuff like that). However, woo-woo methods where something is actually done to the patient seem to me all to easy to fake up.

Rolfe.

 

[drkitten]

This point struck me when I saw that "acupuncture" was among the things listed as being applicable for the challenge, with no definition of what actualy had to be demonstrated.

I think this is best addressed on a case-by-case basis; I think that for any phrase that we agree generally describes the paranormal, I can come up with a pathologically normal thing that fits under the heading.

Ultramolar homeopathy? I can treat dehydration with a 200C solution of anything you like.

Remote viewing? I can tell you what's happening on the Senate floor or my housemate's webcam-equipped room right now.

Precognition? I can tell you what band will be playing at the Dew Drop Inn at 9pm next Saturday, and I can probably even name some of the songs they will play in their set.

Acupuncture? I can demonstrate pain response in any of my subjects.

I can also influence a fair die to roll any number on command, within a reasonable margin of error; I can speak to the dead (although I have no expectation of a response), and can even fly through the air for extended periods of time, and can usually even score a small bag of preztels from the flight attendants while doing it.

 

[Ashles]

Ultramolar homeopathy? I can treat dehydration with a 200C solution of anything you like.

Are you sure?

 

[drkitten]

Are you sure?

Absolutely. It's my solution, and I won't bother to put it into pill form.

 

[Ashles]

Oh, okay.

 

[KRAMER]

We take the PR hit and move on -

But what about a fully agreed upon protocol, signed by everybody, preliminary test days away, and suddenly someone associated with JREF finds a completely explainable rationale behind the claim?

Does JREF simply take the PR hit, announce that they made a mistake in accepting the claim, publicize it as their mistake in rigor (to prevent negative PR from the woo side), and point out the care one must take to avoid misinterpreting the weird and obscure from the paranormal?

- Timothy

Yup. We take the PR hit.

We announce that certain information has been brought to our attention, we then publish that information on our website, and the test is cancelled.

It's a Paranormal Challenge. If we accept a claim, arrive at a protocol, and then discover conclusively that the claim is not a paranormal one, that's that. It's all over.

Back to the claim in question: We have yet to decipher the parameters involved, so much of what is being debated here is quite premature.

We need to find out what "normal" levels of dopamine are, and what abnormal levels are. If, for example, we find that it would be possible for persons with "training" to raise their dopamine levels 15%, we would then ask the applicant to raise his levels 30-40% or higher.

We would be requiring an extraordinary demonstration.

Trust me. Mr. Mills is going to be given a lot of leg room here, but he is NOT going to fly back to Liverpool 1st class with a million bucks in a suitcase unless he demonstrates his extraordinary claim most extraordinarily.

We've accepted his claim, but we have yet to come anywhere near the commencement of protocol negotiations. There is much research to be done prior to that, and Mr. Mills is entirely open to the alteration of his claim. He wants that million, and he believes that he has special abilities that are paranormal in nature.

He clearly wanted to be tested in due haste, though, so it is disappointing for him that things cannot proceed as quickly as he had hoped they would.

Neither Randi nor I feel that he is trying to pull anything over on us. He's really just a kid who thinks he can do something that he will soon discover he cannot do, if a test actually occurs, and for that reason, we'd like to see him tested.

BUT - What are we testing for here, folks? What do these rare tests really prove or disprove, and to whom?

Are we testing for paranormal claims, really, or are we testing the applicant's ability to face their delusion and admit they were wrong?

And if they'll never confess to themselves that their delusions were wholly misguided, and they all go away continuing to believe in themselves and their claim, then might I ask what the hell we're doing here? Preaching to the choir?

The Emperor has no clothes. How much nakedness do we need to see before we poke our own eyes out with a stick?

I dunno, folks. Dealing with applicants in cyberspace is one thing.

Looking them in the eye is a far, far different thing, and a far, far sadder experience, to say the least.

 

[jmercer]

Re: We take the PR hit and move on -

Are we testing for paranormal claims, really, or are we testing the applicant's ability to face their delusion and admit they were wrong?

And if they'll never confess to themselves that their delusions were wholly misguided, and they all go away continuing to believe in themselves and their claim, then might I ask what the hell we're doing here? Preaching to the choir?

The Emperor has no clothes. How much nakedness do we need to see before we poke our own eyes out with a stick?

Nyet, Comrade.

We are, in fact (or rather you are, because I don't test diddly-squat) seeking truth and educating the public during the process. It's not the deluded we should attempt to help, but the undecided and the marginally credulous - the majority of people, I believe. The deluded should be referred to professional care.

Remember, it's not the Emperor that's important - it's everyone else around him, and somebody always needs to point out his nakedness so others recognize it.

 

[-42-]

Re: We take the PR hit and move on -

Are we testing for paranormal claims, really, or are we testing the applicant's ability to face their delusion and admit they were wrong?

And if they'll never confess to themselves that their delusions were wholly misguided, and they all go away continuing to believe in themselves and their claim, then might I ask what the hell we're doing here? Preaching to the choir? [/B]

You're testing for the many unnammed fence sitters, who find this website, browse it - never register, nor post - and walk away more seated in reality.

Compare your hits on the website to the number of registered members who post. I'm sure it'd illustrate that

Of course, educating the applicant is certainly (seldom seen) bonus. It's like gettin an extra food in gauntlet when you just put a quarter in. Sure, it's neat and all, but it's just one food ;p

erm...

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: We take the PR hit and move on -

Remember, it's not the Emperor that's important - it's everyone else around him, and somebody always needs to point out his nakedness so others recognize it.

Wow - I think that is a really quite excellent summary of the situation.

I award that my highest honour, i.e. I will steal it and use it in conversation as though I thought of it.


Before the JREF I considered myself sceptical, but I didn't realise the extent to which we should ask questions about everything - these days I realise what a small percentage of anything we are told seems to be the literal and full truth - embellishment is evident in seemingly most claims we encounter every day.

Probably the clearest example that occurs to me is the famous example of the study in which people are told they are about to be burnt by a hot coal, then, at the last moment they have an ice cube placed on their skin. Yet it blisters anyway - that's the power of the brain and how much it can control the body.

But then (ironically in a discussion with Interesting Ian) I began questioning this story. I had never read the experiment itself, so I decided to look it up.
Guess what, it never happened. There is no study like it that I can find and the story appears to be only traceable back to an old novel.

Most people will take most claims at face value due to
a) Lack of knowledge on the subject
b) The claim is interesting and exciting
c) People generally feel it is rude to question claims and stories

Look at the 'Duck's quack doesn't echo' story. It doesn't make any sense, sounds ludicrous, would require new physical laws and is easily checkable (it takes about a minute of reseach to discover it is false), yet still many people believe it the instant it is told to them. Why?

That is what I take as the message of the JREF - A request that we Question Claims - the more outlandish and unusual the claim, the more questions need asking.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: We take the PR hit and move on -

Wow - I think that is a really quite excellent summary of the situation.

I award that my highest honour, i.e. I will steal it and use it in conversation as though I thought of it.

Aww... Ashles, you flatterer, you. Steal to your hearts content, amigo...

 

[Timothy]

Re: Re: Re: We take the PR hit and move on -

Probably the clearest example that occurs to me is the famous example of the study in which people are told they are about to be burnt by a hot coal, then, at the last moment they have an ice cube placed on their skin. Yet it blisters anyway - that's the power of the brain and how much it can control the body.

[snip]

Most people will take most claims at face value due to
a) Lack of knowledge on the subject
b) The claim is interesting and exciting
c) People generally feel it is rude to question claims and stories

And in this example

d) There's a kernel of truth behind it

If you touch something that is very hot or very cold, in the fraction of a second after you touch it, your body will reflexively pull your hand away (signals to the spinal cord activate motor nerves before your brain actually can process the signal, in order to protect you) before you can distinguish between the two. Therefore, being convinced that something is actually very hot when in fact it is actually very cold often results in
1-contact
2-reflex response to quickly pull hand away
3-conscious observation of pulling hand away
4-conscious though "I've burned myself" (based on a priori "knowledge")
5-pain signal finally reaching and processed by brain - "It's cold"
6-relieved realization that pain was from cold, not hot

I can easily see how this could mutate into the other version.

- Timothy