Welcome to all the REDDITers! Someone asked if this will be broadcast on TV: not TV as such, but we’re talking about recording it or possibly streaming it live! Stay Tuned.
I just found out that there will be a LIVE test for James Randi’s $1,000,000 Challenge at TAM 5.5!
This is very cool: Chris Cordero is a gentleman who claims that he can psychically project images into someone else’s mind. Something like this is pretty easy to test, obviously, and can be done in a statistical sense as well. For example, he can try to make someone see a specific playing card, and this can be done, say, 100 times. Statistical tests can be applied to see if the person was correct the number of times you’d expect from random guessing, or if there really is something going on.
Randi has one million bucks set aside for anyone who can prove they have some sort of paranormal power. The person has to go through a preliminary test first before getting the real test for the money. Mr. Cordero has agreed to do the prelim test live at TAM 5.5.
I’m excited by this; I’ve never participated in anything like this before, and I get to MC it! W00t!
You can find out more on the JREF forum.
It’s not too late to attend! Sign up now!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I would love to see this.
Sadly, nothing cool ever comes to Ohio.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I wish I could go to any TAM.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
That’s easy- the BA is going to be thinking of SkepChicks at TAM. I’ll accept my prize via check or money order.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I’m free for that BA! If you buy me a plane ticket down to there I’ll buy you supper. *checks wallet* Well, maybe a light lunch…. alright, a continental breakfast.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
*sigh* I don’t get to see it in person, and now that the Challenge will be discontinued in two years, I might never see the Challenge in action
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/144/1/#i4
January 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
March 6 2010, the challenge will be over,
according to Randi’s Swift column of
January 4 2008.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I don’t really see how this will “prove” anything. After all, don’t illusionists like Criss Angel “demonstrate” the same abilities? The difference is, Angel does not ascribe his ability to “supernatural” abilities, but has always maintained it is an illusion. As a “Prayer Counselor/minister” in a charismatic church, I had the “ability” to read people’s “mail”, believing this was a spiritual gift. No, it wasn’t. It was the very natural ability to read body language, emotional reactions, a fair amount of intuition, knowledge of basic human psychology, and the ability to ask leading questions, without the person knowing what I was doing.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:30 am
@Michael
This isn’t a stage show performance, but an actual experiment. My guess is the designated recipient of the claimant’s “messages” will be isolated from the claimant to prevent using such leading and cues and the messages chosen in advance and hidden from the claimant and recipient until test time. If I were designing the experiment, I’d have the messages to be sent be nonsense words or phrases, something that uses the phonemes with which we English speakers are familiar, but not real words. This drastically reduces the likelihood of the recipient coincidentally thinking the same thing. If he claims he can only do images, make them combinations of combinations of simple shapes. And the recipient wouldn’t know the form of the messages (s)he is to receive (doesn’t know if the messages are images, words, or numbers).
January 5th, 2008 at 3:56 am
I find these tests quite interesting.
As far as I understand, both parties do agree that the phenomenon can be reliably identified under the test conditions,
This means that the persons alleging extraordinary powers (or talents) are sincere.
Regards
Eric
January 5th, 2008 at 6:15 am
curious..
if chris fails..could he not claim that the subject “lied” about the info that he received and that the subject purposely chose the wrong object?
January 5th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I believe that ESP of some kind actually exists, because I’ve had personal experiences that can’t be explained any other way. Unfortunately, since I can’t reproduce the events in question, it’s not testable, and therefore science can’t comment on it one way or the other. It remains true that there is no good empirical evidence for ESP. I’m dubious that the type where the alleged psychic can exhibit the power continuously even exists, since every time such an effect has turned up, tightening controls on the experiments eliminated the effect. This is an issue where you absolutely have to have double-blind experiments and independent review, because the human propensity to see patterns, and to discount “bad” runs for arbitrary reasons, is so strong.
I’ve always been kind of sad that people like Robert A. Heinlein, whose writing I love even though he was a crazy right-winger, bought into the Duke U. experiments so completely. People wanted to buy into the conclusion that “science has proved that ESP exists,” and that’s the most probably reason that it took so long to check the Duke studies and demonstrate the glaring statistical and procedural errors.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Barton, I’d be interested in hearing about your experiences. I’d be willing to suggest that they can be explained in other ways.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Yea, shoot, Barton. We’d love to hear it.
Lots of things that folks told me “can’t be explained any other way” can be explained pretty simply.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am
JB, that is the problem. I don’t see how any test can truly be effective. When it comes down to it, it’s really, “He said, she said.”
January 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
“if chris fails..could he not claim that the subject “lied” about the info that he received and that the subject purposely chose the wrong object?”
The test conditions state that Chris can choose the person to receive the images.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Reading the protocol, I am a little surprised that they chose playing cards of the same suit.
Pictures or flags or symbols seems more likely to work.
Comparing to dreams for example, I can remember dreaming of a tree or a lake, but if I see a flock of geese I have no idea of how many there are.
Also there are many ways for the brain to form such images, from the properties of the object itself, as well as context and cultural tie in like Christmas trees or the tree or knowledge.
But you can’t really describe a number without using numbers.
You can mime a tree by standing on one leg an waving you hands above your head. How would you mime the value of 4?
I don’t know if the analogies apply, but then again, neither does anyone else. It just seems to me they are making it unnecessarily hard.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Michelle:
The very first SciFi story I ever read was a post WWIII story that was placed in Labrador, about telepathic mutants in a society trying to rebuild and delete all those nuclear mutants. The essence of the story was that the telepathic mutants could only communicate with each other and could not be distinguished from “norms”. A very scary idea, to the “norms”.
In 1987, while working at E.F. Industries in El Segundo, Calif, I was talking with my manager and one of my employees, one Mike King. Our discussion was about the emasculation management offt times imposes on employees and I clearly “heard” Mike say, “Yeah, and then they cut off your balls,,,” I was startled to hear Mike say that and repeated it back to him as a question. Mikes eyes expanded(metaphorically), he took three steps back and said,”Hey, I was thinking that, but I didn’t say it,,,”
Anecdotal stories could be just a poor memory(not one of MY problems) or an out and out lie(but I’m too lazy to keep such in order) or a misinterpretation of a mundane event(probable) however, when we have no external observer to keep track of our lives, we’re sometimes left with peculiar events for which we have no other explanation than “It musta been a real thingy,,,” however, I would like to note that Mike thought it was a real, transnormal event and it scared the heck out of him,,,he left our employment shortly there after.
Which is exactly how most people would behave in similar circumstances(skeptics excepted). So I expect if there are “real” teeps around, they would be silent about their ability, even to passing up a shot at big bucks. It’s one thing to be able to (telepathically)pick up Bill Gates pin number, something else entirely for Bill to find out what you’ve done,,,
Gary 7
January 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I would also like to note the biblical injunction against the Great Liar. One of the hall marks of the bible is that God is a truth teller, ergo, I would expect skeptics to sit upon the right hand of God, because they are dedicated to rooting out liars great and small. If I were God, it would be a great deal more important to me that people speak true and give from their hearts, whether they believe in my existence or not. It would be better for me if they were friends, rather than supplicants and butt kissers,,,
GAry 7
January 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
It seems like Joseph McMoneagle would have taken this challenge. He worked for the CIA from 1972 – ? as a remote viewer.
http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoclips/Precog/precog.html
Has anyone ever seen any documentation that indicates his ability was not legit?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“One of the hall marks of the bible is that God is a truth teller”
That just reminded me about the story in the garden of Eden. God told Eve that if she ate of the tree of knowledge, she would surely die. The serpent came along and said, nah, you won’t die, you’ll gain great knowledge. I find it amusing that the “evil” serpent never lied, God did.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Zoot, that they chose playing cards was not some attempt to skew the test in favor of the testers. The psychic and the testers came up with a plan together that would properly demonstrate his abilities. I’m sure if he wanted to use flags instead of cards they would have been fine with that, but he didn’t.
This really is the least loaded test possible. A guy comes along and says he can do this psychic ability with 96%+ accuracy. He agrees to a test under conditions that are completely fair, that have little to no chance of cheating and would require incredibly amazing luck to ‘win’ without actually performing the task as he claims he can. I don’t see what else one could ask for.
I’m sure when the guy fails, he will say “I wasn’t feeling right” or that the moon is in the wrong position or some crap… they always do.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Gary I have a perfectly reasonable explanation for your, supposed “telepathic” experience. Is it possible, that the saying you “heard” your friend “speak”, is a common saying that he utters in similar situations. In other words, it’s not uncommon to hear him say this. I’ve had this experience many times in my life, where I have been with someone, something has happened, and I have uttered a phrase that they have used in the past. For example, I worked with an individual who used the phrase, “Well stab me with a spoon”, when something would go awry. One day, as we were working together, something went wrong. I looked over at him, and said, “Well, stab me with a spoon!” His response: “Took the words right out of my mouth!” Nothing telepathic. Nothing psychic.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
TSFrost, I’m an atheist, but the story goes that Eve did die – like all of us – at the end of her life. What Adam and Eve lost was both immortality and “innocence”.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
William, I just watched the video linked in your post. My problem with this is, if Mr. Mc Moneagle can see the future, as he claims, and if others have this ability, why were they not able to warn authorities about the attacks of 9/11? Why were these people not able to warn others about the devastating Boxing day Tsunami 2 years ago, or other natural disasters? Could his “psychic” ability merely be a highly attuned sense of human intuition?
If these people do have the abilities that they claim, why are they not using their abilities to win lotteries, sporting bets, or reading the stock markets?
January 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Quoth Michael Lonergan: “If these people do have the abilities that they claim, why are they not using their abilities to win lotteries, sporting bets, or reading the stock markets?”
It’s entirely possible that the phenomenon is so unreliable so as to be very hard to distinguish from chance, yet still exit, and become apparent under very particular circumstances. This would explain why so many people become convinced of psychic events being real.
Also, I would throw in that in the context of woo woo, telepathy is the one most likely to exist (at least if you assume that it is some kind of radiation) because all examples of all necessary components can already be found in nature, plus the evolutionary advantage for pack animals is obvious.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
While I agree that telepathy is the most likely to exist, the odds are still pretty small. There has to be a way of moving the information out of person A’s head and into person B’s head that doesn’t involve magic. Whether it’s electromagnetic, or gravity or what have you, something detectable has to move the information from A to B.
And if something detectable has to move the information, then it should be possible to eavesdrop on the information flow, and it should be detectable with instrumentation.
More importantly, even if the technology does not yet exist to detect the information flow, it should be a simple matter to test for information transfer – show person A a simple image, have him telepathically transmit it to B, and have person B state what it is. This test has been done many times without results that differ from chance.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Zoot, is it actual psychic ability, or just highly attuned intuitive ability, which I maintain is different than psychic ability. I agree with you about the unreliability of the phenomena, as McMoneagle himself claimed a less than 50% success rate. My understanding is that the Stargate Project he was part of, was shut down because it did not produce any results that would give a significant tactical advantage.
However, this raises an interesting point. Could we be witnessing an evolutionary step? It would be highly advantageous to have this form of communication. Also didn’t one of the Lunar astronauts do some kind of ESP test from the lunar surface. (I seem to remember Mitchell being interested in this type of phenomena.)
January 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Evolving Squid, what about MRI technology? If telepathic abilities do exists, and it is some sort of function of the brain, then this is the most likely technology to detect it.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“show person A a simple image, have him telepathically transmit it to B, and have person B state what it is. This test has been done many times without results that differ from chance.”
True, but there are other types of information in our heads. If I got to design such an experiment I would try to transmit moods or even levels of excitement without the good/bad label. Emotional energy so to speak.
Like, the transmitter could listen to an audio track with calm nice music, and (assuming the transmitter is a rationalist) interrupt it with a couple of choice snippets of Kent Howind. The receiver should be in an adjoining room and every 30sec make a note of his own emotional state, and what he thinks the transmitters emotional state is. Then check for correlation.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Zoot, that would be some interesting feedback coming from the receiver if the transmitter was listening to calm music interrupted by snippets of Kent Hovind! ROFL!
January 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Yes, well, they would have to have good sound proofing in case the transmitter throws a screaming fit. =D
But I guess my point is that if it’s there at all, it might be a form of communication resembling body language or pheromones. I.e not something we are usually aware of, or even can be aware of, but works none the less.
Because, thus far, the woo woo has had way too much influence over the experiment protocols. Nothing suggests that the person who experiences telepathy actually knows whats happening and is qualified to make a good test for it.
And given that it obviously does not involve good conscious control in the manner that speech does, physical testing is sort of moot as well.
Behavioral type testing is the way to go I think.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Man,
I HATE my life!
I’ve always wanted to see a “Randi challenge” live and I’m not going to make it to TAM, this year. (Fates I CURSE you!!!)
Next year, FOR SURE, but I’m going to hate missing this test.
What’s the fun in being a Skeptic if you can’t make fun of the weirdos (yes, I e-mail Nancy Leider, watch Reverend X and read Richard C. “Hyperdimensional” Hoagland’s webpage, all the time…I confess, it’s a guilty pleasure that has me laughing in no time…and others, when I read it out loud…)
Of course,
He may just do it.
THAT would be cool as well, however, I’m not betting more than a dollar on that, though (and I want insane odds or it’s no deal).
Oh, to be one of those judges…
That would be SO cool,
rod
PS:
Let me practice a little, just in case…: Ummm, ya failed! (Thee end).
January 5th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I have the same problem Barton does: a few personal experiences, but to anyone else they are just anecdotal. And, no, you, a bunch of strangers, can’t try to explain them because none of you were there or experienced them. It’s as simple as that, so I keep them private and for my own amusement.
—If these people do have the abilities that they claim, why are they not using their abilities to win lotteries, sporting bets, or reading the stock markets?
If you were, would you tell anyone? Especially if your success rate was anything less than perfect and could fail at a crucial moment? I’d would do as well as I could and just shut up about it. Who knows what sort of attention it would bring, and from what sorts of people?
Don’t you watch Heroes?!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Hey, I just went outside and looked up, and saw an alien spaceship. None of you strangers here can tell me I didn’t because you weren’t here. So I saw it.
Quiet, I’m not sure if your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek, but do you see the problem with that way of thinking? It flies in the face of rational thought. I have no problem with people experiencing something out of the ordinary. But it does become a problem when they try to build a following out of their experience, or convince others that their experience is true, without allowing others to examine the evidence, and provide alternative explanations.
Also, if I had the ability to “see” the future, you’d better believe I’d take advantage of it, even if I only had a less than 50% success rate!
January 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’ll be at TAM 5.5 and can’t wait to see this! Is the test really going to be observable by all attendees?
January 7th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Michelle writes:
[[Yea, shoot, Barton. We’d love to hear it.
Lots of things that folks told me “can’t be explained any other way” can be explained pretty simply.]]
You didn’t read the rest of the post, did you?
January 7th, 2008 at 6:18 am
TSForst writes:
[[That just reminded me about the story in the garden of Eden. God told Eve that if she ate of the tree of knowledge, she would surely die. The serpent came along and said, nah, you won’t die, you’ll gain great knowledge. I find it amusing that the “evil” serpent never lied, God did.]]
I find it even more amusing that you claim to understand the Bible when you’ve clearly made no effort to understand the culture that produced it. I take it that, along with the creationists, you think “day” has to always mean a 24-hour day? That if I say something happened “in Lincoln’s day” I must mean a particular individual date?
And note the “great knowledge” that Adam and Eve gained by eating the fruit — that it was shameful to be naked and that they could avoid God by hiding behind trees.
If you don’t know how to read books written for grown-ups, read something else.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Michael:
1)The named individual was NOT a friend, just an acquaintance and employee, so I didn’t know him well enough to know his repetitive sayings.
2) I thought at the time I was just picking up on his “sub-vocalizations”, but some later experiences seemed to belie that assumption.
3) I expect, if we ever Do varify such phenomena, they will be some subtle, quantum level aspect of reality. There, that puts us in the realm of presently non-falsifiable theory/postulate. Wunnerful! Now we’re in the company of such as string theory. Someday, we may know it all,,,and how boring THAT would be,,,
GAry 7
January 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Hey, I just went outside and looked up, and saw an alien spaceship. None of you strangers here can tell me I didn’t because you weren’t here. So I saw it.
You’re being an ass.
Quiet, I’m not sure if your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek, but do you see the problem with that way of thinking?
No. It’s a sound, skeptical, scientific way of thinking. I have some unusual experiences, but I know they would only be anecdotes to a bunch of strangers, so they are of no value to anyone but me. What exactly is wrong with that? If Barton hadn’t posted I would never have mentioned them.
It flies in the face of rational thought.
It’s the definition of rational thought. Despite my experiences, I know they offer no real proof to anyone else, so I leave it be.
I have no problem with people experiencing something out of the ordinary.
Gee, thanks.
But it does become a problem when they try to build a following out of their experience,
Where did I do that?
or convince others that their experience is true, without allowing others to examine the evidence, and provide alternative explanations.
What evidence? That’s my whole point. I have no evidence to give you other than anecdotes, which I recognize as being useless. I could never really recreate the situations properly with just words or descriptions.
Also, if I had the ability to “see” the future, you’d better believe I’d take advantage of it, even if I only had a less than 50% success rate!
I asked “would you TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT” not “would you use it”. The implication was that anyone who could would use it, but keep quiet about it so as to not attract attention.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
How do we find out about the contest for $1 million to prove ……