And You Wonder Why Mentalism is Popular?

[Guest]

The human brain operates as a pattern recognizing mechanism. Jeff's experience is exactly how we "see" ghosts: out of the corners of our eyes.

I remember seeing the "ghost" of my favorite pet dog, long after she had been killed by a car, but only out of the corner of my eye where I would see something that was similiar to her shape. My brain and memory would then "fill in the blanks" and I would "see" my dog.

Of course, when I turned to look directly at where I thought I saw my dog, the image would resolve properly in my mind.

There have been a number of tests over the years to determine just how little information is necessary for the brain to recognize a pattern and fill in what is needed to make the patter "whole." Perhaps the most famous is the surreal painting "Lincoln in Dalivision" where Salvador Dali used a minimalist image of Lincoln that had been created by two scientists I believe, that originally appeared on the cover of Scientific American.

Just an arrangement of black, white and gray squares, we "see" it as Abraham Lincoln.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Terry Holley:
"Overall, the 48 percent who accept ESP is less than the 66 percent who gave that answer to a similar 1996 Newsweek question."

I wonder what the reason is?

I would guess the folks moved on to Christian fundementalism, which appears to be on the rise since prior to Y2K. Many who consider themselves Christians also believe in ESP, but more conservative doctrines don't allow for that belief so depending on which Christianity you found you might have to give up on ESP as part of your belief system.

[Guest]

Does anyone on here believe in ghosts? I won't go as far as to say that I do believe in ghosts myself, but I am hesitant to say with absolute certainty that they don't exist. Just wondering if anyone else shares my agnostic attitude regarding ghosts.

[Richard Kaufman]

Oh, I think it's pretty easy to say they don't exist.
THEY DON'T EXIST.
There is no tangible proof that anyone has ever seen a ghost. It's very easy to fool yourself into thinking that you may have, but you can't prove it. Without proof there is no science, merely faith.

[Guest]

Or as Ashley Montague once said, "Scientists believe in proof without certainty; most people believe in certainty without proof."

[Guest]

Originally posted by Slavatron:
Does anyone on here believe in ghosts? ...

sure, all sorts of things are believed and based upon faith and anecdotal evidence, tales and ... let's say anchors to meaningful sentiments.

But if you mean in the scientific sense where a thing is only introduced when necessary to account for what is known in the most elegant possible manner... not in the storybook sense. Ghosts as shared stores and memories and a facade for the unconscious are viable but internal entities rather than things we can treat as shared reality measurables.

[Guest]

So Mr. Kaufman, to be very clear, you're saying that if there is no tangible proof of something, then it does not exist, correct?

[Richard Kaufman]

Gee, why do I think that's a trick question ...

[Guest]

I think the thing this people desperately want to believe in something so they are willing to buy into ghosts, ESP and the like.

Anyone who has done a show for college kids knows they hate "magic" but love mentalism and hypnosis because it's "real".

Tony Brent
Outta Control Magic Show
Orlando

[Brad Henderson]

Tony,

I disagree. College kids love magic if presented intelligently. They are fascinated by both the psychological and aesthetic elements, and appreciate the historical context of its development.

Now, if you're just doing the Bandana Bannana...maybe.

[Guest]

If not a "trick question" Iain's question is certainly loaded cheekily.

There was no tangeable proof a human could run a four minute mile--until somebody did it.

I am willing to go out on a limb here, and willing to risk becoming one of humanity's greatest laughing-stocks, by putting into black and white, and onto the internets for all time, "Correct: Until someone produces a ghost, I say there's no such thing."

It's not as if nobody's been trying, by every means devised, unsuccessfully, to contact ghosts for 150 years or so...

I swear:
The day that 1st ghost shows up (I can vaguely picture it being Lou Gherig) I will be there, and will kiss the patootie of every single person that comes by and says I told you so.

[Guest]

I was at a college show a client had booked and introduced the crew.

In a private moment, I was asked by the sound engineer if I had ever met Criss Angel
(..yeah)
then the "COLLEGE" student then tried to impress
me with how he knew the secret to Criss' levitation.

I humored him by listening and prepared to shrug my shoulders.

As it turns out, (and I wasn't familiar with this method), Angel has powers of mentalism that allow him to sense where the soft spots of gravity will soon be on the Earth (due to how the planets are constantly changing alignment),
and he sort of catches them just as a surfer catches a wave.

I just looked at him, depressed, knowing that he would eventually breed and also recognizing the fact that his future votes will cancel mine out

[Guest]

Originally posted by Chris Ritter:
powers of mentalism that allow him to sense where the soft spots of gravity will soon be on the Earth (due to how the planets are constantly changing alignment), and he sort of catches them just as a surfer catches a wave.

I used to use that method. But it seemed like cheating - not real conjuring - so I started using a harness instead.

Dave

[Guest]

Originally posted by Chris Ritter:
powers of mentalism that allow him to sense where the soft spots of gravity will soon be on the Earth (due to how the planets are constantly changing alignment), and he sort of catches them just as a surfer catches a wave.

That statement reminds me of a line I use occasionally, when I drop something during a performance:
"Oh, I see, the power of gravity is rather strong here."

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
Actually the report was about GOATS, not ghosts -- which makes the statistics even more astounding.

Oh my!

My 'adult' PK Touches has been a secret for so long. now you let the goat out the bag Mr Farmer.

Bah.

[Guest]

Hey!!! We're trying to have a serious conversation here! :whack:

[Guest]

As far as I know all are welcome to an inner world full of whatever we desire. Whether or not the things in that world are reliably shared is where we get into scientific method.

The question begged by accepting anecdotal or storybook things as "real"* amounts to facing this:

Let's presume the existance of ghosts for a moment here. How, specifically, can you tell that the thing you wish to believe is a ghost of X is not actually a ghost of Y presenting itself to you as X for its own purposes?

The larger question which most people shy away from is "how could you tell which X it is you are listening to or speaking for?"

Those are some of the questions which can help distinguish the childlike fantasy world from a more adult world concerned with certainty and consequences.

* the criteria for X being "real" in a modern sense includes things like other people being able to detect X, a reliable procedure for eliciting X and some significant statistical measure of distinction between the X and random perceptions.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, we can't use physical science to detect or measure non-physical things. So what else do we have?

[Guest]

IMHO the reason Mentalism is popular, IF it is, is because as an entertainment form mentalism allows suspension of disbelief much more easily than watching a guy in a cheap suit with a pair of Hippy Hop Rabbits.

[Guest]

You know, I want to jump in here, partly because this thread and the article interests me, but mostly because I cannot think of any other time I will ever be able to say this.
Science pretty much begins with math. Scientists were able to predict black holes with math far before we found them. Science was able to predict planets and moons far before we found them.
but in all the years I have been interested in the occult. In the years I believed in it, the year I was a part of it and all the years since where I have been a watcher, I have never, ever, ever seen anyone anywhere claim that they can predict the occult with math.
If ghosts exist, and can be detected, then there should be some math somewhere to prove it.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, none.
I would, of course, be interested in seeing someone try.

On the other hand, I have yet to see someone predict with math a decent Hippity Hop Rabbit routine either, so take with it as you will.

Gord

[Guest]

There is also no mathematics to describe dark matter which makes up 96% of our universe. Yes, 96% of what is there cannot be observed because it does not reflect light. Why? Because it is made of a different molecular stucture. But is it there? Yes. I wonder what that 96% does? Who knows, but one thing is for sure- we know very little about this realm, regardless of how much we think we know.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Scott Priest:
There is also no mathematics to describe dark matter which makes up 96% of our universe. Yes, 96% of what is there cannot be observed because it does not reflect light. Why? Because it is made of a different molecular structure. But is it there? Yes. I wonder what that 96% does? Who knows, but one thing is for sure- we know very little about this realm, regardless of how much we think we know.

Actually there is a lot of math to describe dark matter. We wouldn't have a theory of dark matter without math. But perhaps an example is in order HERE.

And a quick Google search of DARK MATTER MATH brings us 1,760,000 results, some of which provide various mathematical calculations on dark matter.

Gord

[Guest]

Closer to home, there is no math to represent the functioning of the human brain. Sure, we can mathematically represent the aggregate behavior of a gazillion humans (more or less); we can mathematically represent the behavior of a single neuron; but practically everything in the middle is quite mysterious. Sleep? Dreams? Language? Love? Wonder? Emotion? Morality? Genius? Art? Attempts to reduce these things to mathematics have all failed, and are likely to continue to fail far beyond our lifetimes. You think that math will eventually explain all these things? That invokes one I failed to mention: faith.

[Guest]

Doug
You may be correct in saying that there is no math in describing the human brain. (I only say "may be" because I don't know, not to belittle.)
But, to look at things another way. We know the brain exists. We also know what the parts of the brain do. We know where in the brain things such as reasoning, movement, emotion etc happen.
We also know how the different parts of the brain communicate with each other to form the whole that is a person.
As for such esoteric things as Love, I don't need faith to know I love my wife. Actually, I would go as far as to say that after seeing all the love in the world, from my parents to my family to my friends to me, that there is enough of it around to prove it exists. (But don't take my word on it.)
But as for ghosts or ESP, two things that should be a little easier to prove than Love, there is nothing, nada, zilch, zip amount of scientific proof.
And that there is pretty much where the period goes.

Gord

BTW: As for anyone who is interested in the brain and it's functions, I found this nifty web site HERE.

[Guest]

Robert A. Baker and Joe Nickell have written a helpful book titled "Missing Pieces", dealing with how to investigate ghosts, UFO's, psychics and other mysteries.

It contains a humorous story on how to "ghost-bust."

Terry

[Guest]

Originally posted by Iain Hamilton:
Unfortunately, we can't use physical science to detect or measure non-physical things. So what else do we have?

What we have are the start of tools to look at what's happening inside a person when they are seeing a ghost or having a "paranormal" experience.

And IMHO science does not begin with math. Mathematics may be the Queen of the sciences but it all begins with observation.

We don't have a science of invisible flying elephants which eat phantom trees which grow from the bad dreams of three headed cats because we have yet to observe the three headed cats, phantom trees and the elephants are not so cooperative either. ;) IMHO science started with procedures to reliably reproduce an observed finding.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Gord Gardiner:
But as for ghosts or ESP, ... there is nothing, nada, zilch, zip amount of scientific proof.

How about dreams? The best we can do is monitor brains to be able to observe that a subject is "experiencing" during a dream. Does that constitute scientific proof of dreams? How do you know that ghosts are any different than dreams? Would a 24x7 brain monitor "observing" someone's reaction to a ghost be scientific proof of ghosts? (FWIW, I am not an advocate for ghosts; but I am an advocate of clear thought ;) )

[Guest]

Originally posted by Doug Peters:
...Would a 24x7 brain monitor "observing" someone's reaction to a ghost be scientific proof of ghosts? ...

It would be a record of what happened while someone claimed to be experiencing ghosts. Get enough of that data from enough people to start using the mathematics and you might get a hypothesis about what happens in the brain during the time folks have an experience they report as X - whatever X is.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
...get a hypothesis about what happens in the brain ...

This would only be sufficient for qualiophobes. ;)

[Guest]

Originally posted by Gord Gardiner:

Originally posted by Scott Priest:
[b] There is also no mathematics to describe dark matter which makes up 96% of our universe. Yes, 96% of what is there cannot be observed because it does not reflect light. Why? Because it is made of a different molecular structure. But is it there? Yes. I wonder what that 96% does? Who knows, but one thing is for sure- we know very little about this realm, regardless of how much we think we know.

Actually there is a lot of math to describe dark matter. We wouldn't have a theory of dark matter without math. But perhaps an example is in order HERE.

And a quick Google search of DARK MATTER MATH brings us 1,760,000 results, some of which provide various mathematical calculations on dark matter.

Gord [/b]

Well played, Gord. I have several books on Quantum Physics, But I was refering to what Dark Matter does, not if it is there. There are theories on what it does, but only theories, no absolutes. Until then, we can only ponder. There is also a theory for the existence of a shadow universe (See the book: 'Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything' for an intresting read.)
Personally, I am not sold on string or superstring theory but it does make for interesting debate/study. But, back to the subject at hand. If there is such a thing as a ghost or spirit it would seem that it is relative to the observer as to what they would appear to be. Our world looks the way we observe it be, so it would logically follow suit that if such things are 'real' then they would also appear in the form that we give them.... hmmmm.

[Brandon Hall]

Are we yet able to distinguish between the brain and the mind?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Brandon Hall:
Are we yet able to distinguish between the brain and the mind?

We tend to use one word to denote the object itself and the other to describe the result of its functioning in situ.

[Guest]

If we admit that science is limited to space and time as we know it, does that mean we cannot allow for anything outwith those limitations?

What gives us the right to "demand" that our limited means should be able to comprehend something perhaps much larger? Or else simply dismiss it as hogwash?

Much of what we now take for granted would be considered downright magical and/or impossible only a century ago. And that progress is STILL within the bounds of science. What more might exist beyond it?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy"... and science.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Iain Hamilton:
...
Much of what we now take for granted would be considered downright magical and/or impossible only a century ago. And that progress is STILL within the bounds of science. What more might exist beyond it?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy"... and science.

Dreaming is fine. Expecting reality to be full of surprises is healthy. But counting invisible elephants which fly and expecting others to get the same count is kinda silly.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Iain Hamilton:
If we admit that science is limited to space and time as we know it, does that mean we cannot allow for anything outwith those limitations?

What gives us the right to "demand" that our limited means should be able to comprehend something perhaps much larger? Or else simply dismiss it as hogwash?

Much of what we now take for granted would be considered downright magical and/or impossible only a century ago. And that progress is STILL within the bounds of science. What more might exist beyond it?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy"... and science.

Science is not limited to space and time, it also includes dimension. And there are a lot of amazing and wonderful things that go on within space, time and dimension. So many that I wonder why anyone needs something like the occult.
But ok, let's throw out science for a moment. Let's just say that, beyond any double blind experiment, I just want some proof.
Show me a picture of a floating skull that isn't just light reflected/refracted through condensation.
Show me a bigfoot picture/video that isn't shaky and fuzzy.
Show me one voice in the static that is clear and dead.
One thing, anything, that I can look at and say "Wow, ain't no way to explain that."
I got a bright shiny penny to anyone who can.

Gord

[Guest]

Originally posted by Scott Priest:

Well played, Gord. I have several books on Quantum Physics, But I was referring to what Dark Matter does, not if it is there. There are theories on what it does, but only theories, no absolutes. Until then, we can only ponder. There is also a theory for the existence of a shadow universe (See the book: 'Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything' for an interesting read.)
Personally, I am not sold on string or superstring theory but it does make for interesting debate/study. But, back to the subject at hand. If there is such a thing as a ghost or spirit it would seem that it is relative to the observer as to what they would appear to be. Our world looks the way we observe it be, so it would logically follow suit that if such things are 'real' then they would also appear in the form that we give them.... hmmmm. [/QUOTE]

I agree on many things here. First of all, this whole "String","Superstring" theory is extremely interesting. I too am not completely sold on it, but the possibilities are staggering.
As for the second part ... Dude I have to admit you've got me on this one. Observation of the same effect can be different for multiple parties.
Except that we aren't talking quantum mechanics, we are talking ghosts or ESP. Phenomena that should be observable and measurable and provable.

Gord

[NCMarsh]

I am very hesitant about using recent physics to make models about the world and how things work; and am very skeptical about books purporting to explain recent work to laymen.

Mathematical physics, traditionally, abstracts magnitudes from things in the world; finds truths about those magnitudes; and then is able to re-integrate what it has learned in a way that is physically comprehensible.

I create a standing wave in a length of thread. I can make measurements of magnitudes associated with the wave; then go to my chalkboard and calculate other magnitudes; then I can take the calculated magnitudes and understand what they mean in terms of the phenomenon.

I.E. I calculate the frequency of the wave, and I know that is the number of times my hand sends an impulse through the string in some given amount of time. I calculate the amplitude, and I can point to a diagram of a standing wave to show what it is that I am measuring.

I can, thanks to De Broglie, calculate the "frequency," or "wavelength," or "amplitude" of an atom (or, for that matter, a football stadium). I cannot, however, make a an accurate and meaningful picture of an atom. I cannot make a drawing of a thing with a nucleus and a cloud of electrons (which do not have a measurable location, except that there are places where they are not) and show you -- on that drawing -- what I am measuring when I calculate the "wavelength" of the atom.

I do not have the mathematics (or the time) to read more recent papers in the field. My understanding, from conversations with one person who has both, is that the work has become even more "symbols on a chalkboard": internally coherent and non self-contradicting statements, but not tied to anything in the world that we can point to. Relations between magnitudes, but with no one able to say what it is that the magnitudes are...we get numbers without knowing what we're counting

This is a very long way of saying that to talk about whether or not one is "sold on" string and superstring theory is to put the cart miles ahead of the horse.

[Guest]

What IS all this science talk, and demand for scientific proofs, of something that is BEYOND science?

I'm not simply suggesting a potential we just haven't realized yet - I'm referring to a SEPARATE SPECIES of being. One that has no possibility of being "proved" scientifically as it operates outwith the scope of scientific investigation itself.

I can't "prove" [using scientific method] that it exists anymore than you can "prove" it doesn't!

[Guest]

Originally posted by Iain Hamilton:
What IS all this science talk, and demand for scientific proofs, of something that is BEYOND science?

I'm not simply suggesting a potential we just haven't realized yet - I'm referring to a SEPARATE SPECIES of being. One that has no possibility of being "proved" scientifically as it operates outwith the scope of scientific investigation itself.

I can't "prove" [using scientific method] that it exists anymore than you can "prove" it doesn't!

I'd appreciate a translation of the second paragraph and as far as proving something doesn't exist, that's now how it works. You who make the assertion that "something" exists must produce the evidence to prove that your assertion is correct and describing something that is real..as opposed to something you're mis-identifying or fantasizing.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Iain Hamilton:
What IS all this science talk, and demand for scientific proofs, of something that is BEYOND science?...

Experience is what it is. Whether or not there is a process to reproduce that experience or even measure some aspects of that experience is irrelevant. People feel what they feel and believe what they believe. The subjective reality of their experience is not a matter of scientific dispute.

The basic reported truth of subjective experience offers its own field of study which may well return its own findings.

have you ever noticed that not many Europeans report seeing ancient Chinese ghosts?