What is "paranormal"? Part II

[Timothy]

[continued speculation]

What if you had never heard of the concept of a mathematical savant before, and someone claimed "Present to me two 10-digit numbers. Upon seeing them I will transmit them mentally across the Great Barrier to the Spirit World whereupon Udu the Magnificent (who knows all) will multiply them and transmit the answer to me, and I will be able to speak the answer within three seconds ... much faster than you could even type them into a calculator."? The claimant may even truly believe this story about the source of his ability.

Without the knowledge that such a mental ability exists in the realm of human variability, one might start to be conviced that a "paranormal" ability existed in this person. One might not believe in Udu, but without having a previous knowledge of mathematical savants, how does one distinguish between the Spirit World and "Boy, that guy's really, really good at multiplication!"

Now, let's examine auras, and what constitutes an "extrasensory perception". The following is not an attempt at actually explaining observations, but a what-if in that fuzzy realm between extreme woo-woo and hard scientific fact.

Auras are frequently claimed to be colored halos around living objects that only the subject can see. Others can't see them, they can't be photographed, they can't be measured by conventional means. However, if you know about how perception works in a small percentage of the population, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that auras actually exist *for that person*... that is, they are actual perceptions by the subject of the world he sees, and not merely hallucinations or imagination. Input from other senses may affect the nature of the "aura", hence a happy person appears as one color and a sad person another color.

Take it one step further ... some people are extremely good at picking up subtle emotional and physical clues from other people to the point that they can tell with accuracy when the person is lying or telling the truth. Combining these all into one pot you can conceivably have a person who claims *absolutely truthfully* "I see red auras around people who are lying and green auras around people who are telling the truth."

So, while not being "extra-sensory" (outside of the five senses), it is "extra sensory" ... supplemental or enhanced beyond the normal experiences of the population.

- Timothy

 

[jmercer]

Well written... I see this is your third post, so welcome to the forums.

The problem with the mathematical savant and Udu is classical, except that it presumes that there is[/u] no Udu. I'm a regular user of Occam's razor, but I also realize that Occam doesn't always come up with the correct answer.

Here's one issue... we know that mathematical savants exist. We don't know the mechanism by which they work. How do we know that all of them (but one) aren't using Udu without being aware of it? Maybe they all take the 2 10 digit numbers and Udu inserts the answer into their minds.

Also, if all the savants in the world don't use Udu except one, does that necessarily invalidate the one who claims s/he does?

The real problem becomes proof. If there is an Udu (who knows all, according to the savant), then Udu doesn't need the savant to transmit the information, just to receive and speak the result. So write the 10 digit numbers down on paper, and wait for the answer. (Or more likely wait for the excuses about why all-knowing Udu cannot perform this way.)

 

[Suggestologist]

[continued speculation]

What if you had never heard of the concept of a mathematical savant before, and someone claimed "Present to me two 10-digit numbers. Upon seeing them I will transmit them mentally across the Great Barrier to the Spirit World whereupon Udu the Magnificent (who knows all) will multiply them and transmit the answer to me, and I will be able to speak the answer within three seconds ... much faster than you could even type them into a calculator."? The claimant may even truly believe this story about the source of his ability.

The problem, as I see it, is that an uninformed skeptic might ask about hidden calculators, or earbuds. Rather than accept that a person could do this without assistance. It's like people who think that walking on hot coals involves coals which are not hot. And the rejection of obviously wrong skeptic hypotheses strengthens the belief in the supernatural hypothesis.

It's one of the Polya patterns of plausibility. If you have two competing hypotheses for a phenomenon and one is shown to be false; the other is strengthened. As far as logic, this is incorrect -- but as far as how people think about things, that is the reality of what happens.

Without the knowledge that such a mental ability exists in the realm of human variability, one might start to be conviced that a "paranormal" ability existed in this person. One might not believe in Udu, but without having a previous knowledge of mathematical savants, how does one distinguish between the Spirit World and "Boy, that guy's really, really good at multiplication!"

Now, let's examine auras, and what constitutes an "extrasensory perception". The following is not an attempt at actually explaining observations, but a what-if in that fuzzy realm between extreme woo-woo and hard scientific fact.

Auras are frequently claimed to be colored halos around living objects that only the subject can see. Others can't see them, they can't be photographed, they can't be measured by conventional means. However, if you know about how perception works in a small percentage of the population, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that auras actually exist *for that person*... that is, they are actual perceptions by the subject of the world he sees, and not merely hallucinations or imagination. Input from other senses may affect the nature of the "aura", hence a happy person appears as one color and a sad person another color.

Yes, and there has been recent scientific investigation which seems to say that people with highly developed synesthesia do just that.

Previously on these boards, and before that study was published, I had speculated that semantic-synesthesia was probably the cause of people seeing auras. To some extent everyone is synesthetic -- has sensory overlaps; hear colors; see (emotional) feelings (likely how auras work); feel odors; etc.

Take it one step further ... some people are extremely good at picking up subtle emotional and physical clues from other people to the point that they can tell with accuracy when the person is lying or telling the truth. Combining these all into one pot you can conceivably have a person who claims *absolutely truthfully* "I see red auras around people who are lying and green auras around people who are telling the truth."

So, while not being "extra-sensory" (outside of the five senses), it is "extra sensory" ... supplemental or enhanced beyond the normal experiences of the population.

- Timothy

It would be sensory overlap. Extra to the sense being sensed; but not extra to the set of sensory systems.

 

[Timothy]

In retrospect, I should have posted this as a second message in the "Part I" thread, because it wasn't the *specifics* of that example that I was concerned with as much as giving an example of my area of interest ... that is, the where the fuzzy line between hard, established scientific fact melds into claims of the paranormal, and what separates the two when there is unusual phenomena involved (i.e., the savant and the physical perception of color by some rare individuals).

My topic was more illustrate an example of the difficulty in separating claims of the paranormal from claims of the really unusual in some circumstances.

- Timothy

 

[IIRichard]

I suppose part of the difference between a skeptic and a woo would be the reaction of the two.

The skeptic would look for other, rational, explanations, would search for other examples and insist on repeatability. Fortunately, there are other examples and research would proceed into seeing what's happening under MRI and so on. Extensions would be made to other savants, say Williams syndrome. All of this would be published in peer reviewed professional publications.

Over time, science is self correcting. Even if the first savant discovered was dismissed as a fraud, other examples would follow and science would change.

The woo would hold a press conference, establish a travel company to offer meetings with the savant, sell books on the savant and generally not care about what the reality of situation is. No expansion of knowledge would occur.

 

[Timothy]

The "power" of synesthesia

Suggestologist --

Ah, I thought I was going to have to go into a windy discourse about synesthesia, and the post was already too long, so I simplified it as much as I could.

Of course, semantic synesthesia was exactly what I was talking about. Another "power" that some synesthetes have is the ability to instantly discern a pattern in a field of seemingly random characters, say digital "2"s and "5"s. It would take an average person minutes to scope out the differences and finally say "Hey, those 2s all form a triangle" ... while the synesthete perceives the differently colored characters instantly and "sees" a colored triangle.

- Timothy

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

The problem, as I see it, is that an uninformed skeptic might ask about hidden calculators, or earbuds. Rather than accept that a person could do this without assistance. It's like people who think that walking on hot coals involves coals which are not hot. And the rejection of obviously wrong skeptic hypotheses strengthens the belief in the supernatural hypothesis.

It's one of the Polya patterns of plausibility. If you have two competing hypotheses for a phenomenon and one is shown to be false; the other is strengthened. As far as logic, this is incorrect -- but as far as how people think about things, that is the reality of what happens.

Interesting point. Thats why is wiser to doubt, not to draw easy conclusions, until a functional explanation is presented. Saddly, some "skeptics" I have found on this forums are not like that.

 

[Luke T.]

Several years ago, Randi did a live TV show with Penn and Teller in which he tested several people who claimed to have paranormal abilities. The Million Dollars was up for grabs.

One of the contestants was a woman who claimed she could see auras around people. Randi devised a simple test, to which she agreed, for this ability. He had a opaque screen behind which ten people stood. The screen was just high enough to block the contestant's view of the people, but low enough for her to see their auras. Or so she said. She claimed she could see all ten people's auras. Randi then explained that a number of the people were going to walk away from the screen and offstage in such a way that the contestant could not see who left and who stayed. He then asked her to state which places behind the screen still had people standing there.

She failed miserably.

I seriously doubt anyone can see auras around people. If they do, they probably would see auras around any object, inanimate or animate.

It would be nice to know what mood my old, decrepit Jeep is in before I leave for work, though...

 

[Suggestologist]

Several years ago, Randi did a live TV show with Penn and Teller in which he tested several people who claimed to have paranormal abilities. The Million Dollars was up for grabs.

One of the contestants was a woman who claimed she could see auras around people. Randi devised a simple test, to which she agreed, for this ability. He had a opaque screen behind which ten people stood. The screen was just high enough to block the contestant's view of the people, but low enough for her to see their auras. Or so she said. She claimed she could see all ten people's auras. Randi then explained that a number of the people were going to walk away from the screen and offstage in such a way that the contestant could not see who left and who stayed. He then asked her to state which places behind the screen still had people standing there.

She failed miserably.

I seriously doubt anyone can see auras around people. If they do, they probably would see auras around any object, inanimate or animate.

It would be nice to know what mood my old, decrepit Jeep is in before I leave for work, though...

Well here is the problem. People do see auras; they attach what would be considered supernatural meanings to their seeing of auras. Mr. Skeptic says, you don't see auras, you're lying. Mr. Aura Seer knows that Mr. Skeptic is wrong; because they do in fact see auras; the fact that Mr. Skeptic is so obviously wrong bolsters their belief in the supernatural meanings they've attached to what they see.

But the problem is that the real dispute is over the meaning of seeing auras: is it secret information from the spirit world; or is it scientifically explainable synesthesia?

And the fact that Mr. Skeptic was so obviously wrong, means that Mr. Aura Seer is less likely to consider more hypotheses from Mr. Skeptic.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

The problem, as I see it, is that an uninformed skeptic might ask about hidden calculators, or earbuds. Rather than accept that a person could do this without assistance. It's like people who think that walking on hot coals involves coals which are not hot. And the rejection of obviously wrong skeptic hypotheses strengthens the belief in the supernatural hypothesis.

It's one of the Polya patterns of plausibility. If you have two competing hypotheses for a phenomenon and one is shown to be false; the other is strengthened. As far as logic, this is incorrect -- but as far as how people think about things, that is the reality of what happens.



Yes, and there has been recent scientific investigation which seems to say that people with highly developed synesthesia do just that.

Previously on these boards, and before that study was published, I had speculated that semantic-synesthesia was probably the cause of people seeing auras. To some extent everyone is synesthetic -- has sensory overlaps; hear colors; see (emotional) feelings (likely how auras work); feel odors; etc.



It would be sensory overlap. Extra to the sense being sensed; but not extra to the set of sensory systems.

Yes, this makes a great deal of sense (pun only slightly intended). I can easily detect the aura of a person who has not bathed in several days. I might even perceive him as having a "dirty" aura, or perhaps the little wavy lines that cartoonists use to indicate that something smells.

I can also "feel" when someone is standing next to me because they radiate heat.

The key for testing this would be to isolate the sense of vision from the other senses, which can be difficult, though the test that Luke described seems to be good enough for screening the applicants (yeah, that one was intended too).

On a slightly different path, someone here, I think it was Mercutio, said that humans have more than five senses. He listed some examples, like kinesthetic sense, which is the sense of where your body parts are. You can touch your finger to your nose even with your eyes closed. Like other senses, these can be dulled by drugs, which is why the cops use the nose-touching-test for inebriation. Some of these other more subtle senses might account for perceiving "auras" which could "overlap" into the visual sense.

 

[Luke T.]

Why would a person see an aura (halo effect) around a person but not around a rock?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

The problem, as I see it, is that an uninformed skeptic might ask about hidden calculators, or earbuds. Rather than accept that a person could do this without assistance. It's like people who think that walking on hot coals involves coals which are not hot. And the rejection of obviously wrong skeptic hypotheses strengthens the belief in the supernatural hypothesis.

It's one of the Polya patterns of plausibility. If you have two competing hypotheses for a phenomenon and one is shown to be false; the other is strengthened. As far as logic, this is incorrect -- but as far as how people think about things, that is the reality of what happens.

People on here clearly do not understand this. I've often thought the same.

 

[Suggestologist]

Why would a person see an aura (halo effect) around a person but not around a rock?

People automatically recognize familiar objects without having to consciously think about it, don't they? If for some reason Mr. Aura Seer believes that only living objects should have auras, and I'm not sure that all Aura Seers do, synesthetic response would work the same way any conditioned reflex works.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

The problem, as I see it, is that an uninformed skeptic might ask about hidden calculators, or earbuds. Rather than accept that a person could do this without assistance. It's like people who think that walking on hot coals involves coals which are not hot. And the rejection of obviously wrong skeptic hypotheses strengthens the belief in the supernatural hypothesis.

It's one of the Polya patterns of plausibility. If you have two competing hypotheses for a phenomenon and one is shown to be false; the other is strengthened. As far as logic, this is incorrect -- but as far as how people think about things, that is the reality of what happens.

People on here clearly do not understand this. I've often thought the same.

LOL. Really Ian? Are you sure you understand what Suggestologist is saying? I believe he is saying that if a skeptic suggests some method of cheating that turns out to be incorrect then because of human nature, woo-woos take that as support for their claims, even though it is not. It is what is called in logic, "false dichotomy". I believe that most people here (who are a cut above the "average" skeptic) understand this quite well.

Am I close, Suggestologist?

 

[Luke T.]

People automatically recognize familiar objects without having to consciously think about it, don't they? If for some reason Mr. Aura Seer believes that only living objects should have auras, and I'm not sure that all Aura Seers do, synesthetic response would work the same way any conditioned reflex works.

Sounds like Randi's test I described above would work very well for such people then.

 

[Timothy]

Sounds like Randi's test I described above would work very well for such people then.

No. A synesthete would perceive colors based on the input of other senses. A colored aura around a person seen by this hypothetical synesthete (remember, I have no reports of such a person, but the other reports and manifestations of synesthesia would indicate that an aura-around-people seeing synesthete does not strain the bounds of credulity) would be triggered by either sight or smell or hearing or feel. The experiment you propose (if done properly) excludes these, and rightly so.

- Timothy

 

[Beth]

Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

Yes, and there has been recent scientific investigation which seems to say that people with highly developed synesthesia do just that.

Previously on these boards, and before that study was published, I had speculated that semantic-synesthesia was probably the cause of people seeing auras. To some extent everyone is synesthetic -- has sensory overlaps; hear colors; see (emotional) feelings (likely how auras work); feel odors; etc.

Do you have a reference for that study? I'd be interested in taking a look at it. Thanks.

Beth

 

[Timothy]

Do you have a reference for that study? I'd be interested in taking a look at it. Thanks.

Beth

http://www.bookofjoe.com/2004/11/behindthemedspe_2.html

Also, simply Google "synesthesia" and read up on it, it's quite fascinating in even its most common form, that of seeing letters and numbers as colored.

Two good books are "The Man Who Tasted Shapes" by Richard Cytowic, and a rarer text by A. R. Luria that chronicles the amazing and sad life of a Russian five-fold synesthete in about the 1920s.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

LOL. Really Ian? Are you sure you understand what Suggestologist is saying? I believe he is saying that if a skeptic suggests some method of cheating that turns out to be incorrect then because of human nature, woo-woos take that as support for their claims, even though it is not. It is what is called in logic, "false dichotomy". I believe that most people here (who are a cut above the "average" skeptic) understand this quite well.

Am I close, Suggestologist?

Well sure, it is not entirely rational, but if sKeptics wish to persuade people to reject the paranormal, then making up ludicrous explanations for peoples' experiences is simply counter productive! And in my eyes this makes them just as irrational as the worst type of "woo woo" who just simply believes everything.

If you would see think and consider for a moment, rather than automatically simply disagreeing with everything I say, then you would realize that this is simply obviously true.

Edited to add: And I am aware that Suggestologist is just as irrational as sKeptics in his dismissal of all things paranormal, but at least he has somewhat more intelligence than most of you guys.

 

[Suggestologist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

LOL. Really Ian? Are you sure you understand what Suggestologist is saying? I believe he is saying that if a skeptic suggests some method of cheating that turns out to be incorrect then because of human nature, woo-woos take that as support for their claims, even though it is not. It is what is called in logic, "false dichotomy". I believe that most people here (who are a cut above the "average" skeptic) understand this quite well.

Am I close, Suggestologist?

Yes, you could look at it as a sort of false dichotomy effect. But the point is not that it's a false dichotomy; but that showing an opposition argument to be false causes people to increase their certainty in their own position. That's true for most skeptics and believers.

And Interesting Ian is right; I've seen skeptical arguments that show a poor understanding of the subject under contention. And the classic skeptic example is the argument of people claiming that hot rock walkers are walking on cold rocks. On the believer side; it's like the second law of thermodynamics argument against evolution; -- it shows a poor understanding of both thermodynamics and of evolution theory.