Conference noted::sf

My guesses for how telepathy works is as follows:

Most of man's thoughts/reactions are transmitted to himself by electrical 
energy (via the nerves).  If our minds and bodies can interpret our own 
messages, why not that of other people?  If you can do that, why not send 
messages?  The messages don't need to be restricted to thoughts, since the 
electrical impulses from nerve ending to brain are not restricted to thoughts. 
This means picking up and sending physical sensations as well.  As for 
dowsing, water is an excellent conductor.  Just "look" for a place where 
transmitted messages move as though in water.  Pyrokinesis could be focusing 
enough electricity on an object fast enough for the friction (I don't think I 
explaining this correctly) to cause fire (i.e. shorts will cause a fire in 
material that burns).  Telekinesis is using the electricity to create a 
magnetic field which will affect the object (or perhaps a variation on a 
gravitic field).

So, I didn't just cover telepathy.  Because to me, telepathy implies some of 
the others.

Beth

Larry Niven did an excellent job of debunking Teleportation and 
Precognition (a form of time travel - information wise) in layman's 
terms.  He used mostly classical physics, such as the conservation of 
mass, energy, and momentum in his explanations.  I think it appeared in 
_All_the_Myriad_Ways_, but it might have been _A_Step_Farther_Out_ with 
Pournelle.

He then described some effects that these technologies would have on 
societies if they *did* exist through some flaw in our understanding of 
the laws of nature.  For example if teleportation is possible but 
limited to small masses, Automobiles disappear, but cargo haulers, such 
as trucks and airplanes remain, but if the cost of technology is the 
reverse such that only large masses may be moved economically, then 
trucks and planes disappear, but cars remain.

 [} Mike {] 

Re .1:

> Most of man's thoughts/reactions are transmitted to himself by electrical
> energy (via the nerves).

Thoughts are not transmitted to the thinker.  They are the thinker.  And they
are more conducted than transmitted, if you are using "transmitted" in the
sense of "broadcast".

> If our minds and bodies can interpret our own messages, why not that of other
> people?

The impulse from a neuron just reaches neurons it is connected to.  If the
signal were strong enough to affect neurons in someone else's brain, the signal
would also affect neurons in the brain it is in, which would screw up the
entire brain.

Therefore, something more sensitive than a neuron would be needed to receive
the signals.  This is why other people probably cannot "interpret our own
messages".

> As for dowsing, water is an excellent conductor.  Just "look" for a place
> where transmitted messages move as though in water.

There are other conductors.  What separates water from other conductors?

> Pyrokinesis could be focusing enough electricity on an object fast enough for
> the friction (I don't think I explaining this correctly) to cause fire (i.e.
> shorts will cause a fire in material that burns).

Shorts do not cause fire directly.  Shorts create a low resistance in a
circuit.  This permits a high current.  When electrons are forced (by a
voltage) to cross a resistance, they interact with particles in the resisting
material (the interaction _is_ resistance).  This causes the particles to get
energy from the electrons, in a disorganized fashion.  This is called heat.
When resistance decreases, the current increases.  Although the resistance is
lower, the nature of electromagnetism causes the current to increase enough so
that the rate at which electrons interact with the resisting material is
increased.  The resisting material gets hotter.  This heat can be conducted (or
radiated or carried by convection) to nearby materials.  When a material
becomes hot enough, some of its particles may receive enough energy to break
certain molecular bonds.  This frees up atoms to react with each other.  Some
reactions may release more energy than it took to free the atoms in the first
place.  This energy can cause other bonds to break, freeing up more atoms,
leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction.  Oxygen is a common participant in
such reactions.  This is called fire.

As you can see, your hypothesis for a cause of pyrokinesis is missing a
significant number of contributing factors.  Electricity is not enough.

> Telekinesis is using the electricity to create a magnetic field which will
> affect the object (or perhaps a variation on a gravitic field).

The amount of energy necessary to create such fields would destroy the brain.

While there may be explanations for such phenomena, these ain't them.


				-- edp

re:.2

How do you know it would destroy the brain?  What is that other 90% designed 
to handle?  And as I said, I didn't think I was entirely explaining things 
correctly.  It's just that there is some form of energy/whatever which the 
human body uses/creates (I'm not sure which) which can be manipulated.


NOTE: Any testing for abilities assumes a certain amount of skill.  How would 
you test for potential?  I do realize that these tests are also fairly 
inconclusive.  Is there a way to improve them?

Re .4:

> How do you know it would destroy the brain?  What is that other 90% designed
> to handle?

The voltages present in the brain are, I believe, on the order of millivolts.
I do not know what the amperages are, but I am sure they are several orders
of magnitude less than "ordinary" currents found in mechanical devices.
Creating a field strong enough to move even a small piece of metal a few
millimeters away from the source takes an appreciable amount of current (try
it, using a battery and some wire wrapped in a helical shape).  Do you know
what would happen if the necessary voltages were applied to your brain cells?

> And as I said, I didn't think I was entirely explaining things
> correctly.  It's just that there is some form of energy/whatever which the
> human body uses/creates (I'm not sure which) which can be manipulated.

Just don't use electromagnetism.  Any explanation for these phenomena will
probably involve things beyond the current discoveries of science.

> NOTE: Any testing for abilities assumes a certain amount of skill.  How would
> you test for potential?  I do realize that these tests are also fairly
> inconclusive.  Is there a way to improve them?

Methods to improve the tests will be obvious, once we figure out what we are
testing for. 


				-- edp

Isaac Asimov began to develop the concept of 'mind-touching' in
the Galactic Empire novels. [Later, in the Foundation books, the
aberrant Mule nearly conquers the universe with his mind-touch
skills.]

One of Asimov's characters gets treated in an experiment designed
to lower the resistence in the regions lying between nerves. The
experimental apparatus is called the 'synapsifier'; and the idea is
that the micro-currents that are transmitted along the nerves can now
travel faster. The scientist who's doing the experiments anticipates
faster learning speeds and increased analytical abilities.

Anyways, the character that gets zapped does begin to learn very quickly.
As time passes, he also begins to note that he can 'sense' where his 
companions are without turning his head to look for them. He realizes
that the thing he senses is their unique states of mind; hence, the phrase
'mind-touching'. With more practice, he learns that he can explore deeper
and can even interpret the thoughts and visions of other minds.

How does Asimov explain this? The micro-currents inside a body and brain
produce an electromagnetic field; and the characertistics of the field
bear a direct relation to the content of the thoughts (voltages) that
created it. Asimov's protagonist, through the use of the synapsifier, has
become sensitized to these subtle fields, and has learned to interpret
how they reflect the content of a person's thoughts, feelings, and memories.

Has anyone else interpreted Asimov differently?

Re .6:

Which story/novel is that in?


				-- edp

Computers give off electromagnetic waves in just the way that previous responses
attribute to the brain.  It's called EMI, and is actually a nuisance.  If you
think that telepathy might work in this manner, just try to imagine following an
instruction flow by monitoring the noise produced by the main bus!  The military
worries about this because it might give spies an indication of how much a
computer is being used.  As a result, they put their computers in Faraday cages.
I doubt, though, that even they think that someone
could steal a program by recording its noise.  

However, there are similar cases where remote monitoring can be done.  TV
cameras, for instance, produce a single strong signal.  I've heard that the
NSA can pick up the image that a TV camera is looking at from a hundred yards
away.  If the human nervous system produced a single signal like that then
perhaps someone else could sense it.  Perhaps the alpha wave from an EEG
could be picked up.  That doesn't tell you much beyond whether the other
person is awake or asleep, but it might be part of a crude empathic sense.

/jlr

PS  The wavelengths are all wrong anyhow.  In order to emit EM waves at all
efficiently, the size of the transmitter must be of the same order as the
wavelength being transmitted.  At computer bus frequencies the wavelengths are a
few meters, so there is some transmission.  At nervous system frequencies (100
Hz and below) the wavelengths are hundreds of kilometers, so emission is
nil.

Re .8:

Our government is able to read data from a CRT by its electromagnetic
emissions, which is why secure terminals must be at least 80 feet from any
unsecured area.  I do not know if they have been able to get data from more
complicated devices, such as a bus or a processor, but I would not be
surprised.  The hard part would be accurately recording the necessary signals;
analysis by computer could then take place at leisure.

Reading the mind by examining electromagnetic emissions might be theoretically
possible, at least up to a distance where quantum effects interfere, but it is
not possible without instruments more sensitive to the emissions than another
brain.


				-- edp

re: .8 (on the PS)

Take care!  Emissions are clearly not "nil" or electroencephalography
wouldn't work (electrode contact notwithstanding).  Also, although
neuron repeat rates are at 100's of hertz, the nerve pulses have very
(well, relatively) fast rise and fall times, menaing that there are 
relatively large high frequency (short wavelength) components in a pulse.
And then too, the ear/brain system has an excellent "single source" filter,
allowing us to converse understandably in a room full of conversations,
and still pick out items in conversations we are not directly attending
(as when someone a few speakers over mentions our name).
Hence the EMI analogy has some merit.

- tom powers]

re .7:

	It sounds like "Pebble in the Sky".

					/ed featherston/

re .8 - the "emi noise" analogy reminded me of a story about a girl who
is telepathic and hides in the desert to escape the constant barrage of
psychic noise that she is suscpetible to.  Can anybody cite the story -
I can't.

len.

Re: the Brain, EMI, and telepathy

Yes, the brain does give off small amounts of EMI, which can be picked 
up by an EEG. As far as their use in telepathy goes, it is highly 
unlikely. Messages are NOT transmitted from one neuron to another by 
electromagnetic means, but rather by chemical means.

I will not bore you with all the details, but this is essentially what 
happens: In the resting state there is a potential difference of about 
70mV between, the inside and the outside of the neuron. When a 
neurotransmitter locks into a receptor site on the cell membrane, it 
lowers the potential difference. When the potential difference is 
lowered by a certain amount, the cell membrane in that area becomes 
fully permeable, reversing the potential charge. The area of full 
permeability ripples down the length of the neuron. When it gets to the 
end of the neuron, where its own neurotransmitters are stored, the 
change in the cell membrane cause the release of the neurotransmitters. 
These neurotransmitters may, or may not, propagate the message along the 
next neuron.

MartyJ

As I understand EEGs, they are not picking up electromagnetic waves.  Rather,
they are measuring minute voltages through electrodes.  Skin contact could
probably be avoided by using a large coil as an inductive pickup, but the
range would be short.  The coil would detect the varying magnetic field produced
by currents in the brain.  Normal dipole magnetic fields drop off in intensity
as the cube of the distance, ie if you are twice as far away the field is
eight times weaker.  EM waves drop off in intensity as the square
of the distance, and so can be detected at much greater distances.

re .10:
Even if the rise time of a neural pulse were 100 microseconds, the highest
frequency component would be about 2.5 kHz, which corresponds to a wavelength
of about a hundred kilometers.  Even if the rise time were 1 us, the wavelength
would be 1.2 km.
/jlr

Re .13:

> Messages are NOT transmitted from one neuron to another by electromagnetic
> means, but rather by chemical means.

To be sure, some synapses do use electromagnetic transmission.  According to
"The Brain" by David H. Hubel in a _Scientific American_ offprint: 

	Finally, to complicate things even more, some synapses are 
	profoundly different from the usual chemical type, depending on 
	flow of current rather than diffusion of a transmitter.  These 
	were discovered in the 1950's by Edwin J. Furshpan and David D. 
	Potter at University College London.  Why nature resorts to 
	chemical transmission for some synapses and electrical 
	transmission for others is still a puzzle.


				-- edp

Yes, PEBBLE IN THE SKY is the Asimov novel to which I referred.
The protagonist who is exposed to the synapsifier is Joseph Schwartz.
The 3 Galactic Empire novels (independent of each other thematically)
are:
	THE STARS, LIKE DUST
	THE CURRENTS OF SPACE
	PEBBLE IN THE SKY

 -peter

	While I do not necessarily endorse nor censure the concept, let me
add a little confusion to the matter by throwing in what I will term the 
"Pheronome phenomenon."  As is no doubt known to a large percentage of the
file's readership, some animals communicate by chemical means -- aerosol
hormonal material that can communicate such things as sexual availability.
Pheronomes can be detected in very minute quantities -- in the parts per
trillion or fewer.  One should believe that the signal-to-noise ratio would
be so high that the receiving animal would never be able to sort one signal
out from the whole mess it's receiving.  Yet obviously the mechanism works.
	It may well be that there could be an analogous mechanism in telepathy,
if, indeed, it's part of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than something
else (assuming it exists at all).  Without some differentiating mechanism,
the "recever" couldn't be tuned fine enough to get a clearsignal from
the sender.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Perhaps the brain doesn't channel the "energy" (since type is unknown) but 
directs it (first the brain senses something, then adds an amount of energy to 
that already acting, thus altering its affect).  


NOTE:  If my explanations seem low tech, they are.  I understand a concept, but 
don't have the vocabulary to express it as clearly as I would like.

re: 17 - I know it's impolite to correct spelling etc., but it's
pheromones, rather than pheronomes.  It's not clear that ordinary
concepts of signal to noise ratio apply here, as it's not the concentration
that affects our senses of smell and taste so much as it the molecule's
shape.  The "signal to noise ratio" would be defined in "shape-space"
rather than "concentration-space" if you know what I mean.  I guess
you could say that the shape matching stuff (I'm not sure anybody
really knows how it works) acts as a filter or autocorrelation kind
of thing to really tweal up the S/N ratio.

(that's tweak, not tweal.)

len.

Re .-1:  I don't mind people correcting eithert spelling or typos; I'm
guilty of both.  My point is that there's possibly another way of fil-
tering out an individual signal from the hash.  Another example that fits
loosely into the pheromone phenomenon is the situation at Carlsbad Cav-
erns and other high concentrations of bats:  although bats have good
eyesight, they aerial navigate in enclosed spaces by ultrasonic echo-
location.  Now imagine (as at Carlsbad) thusands of bats airborne in an 
enclosed space like a cave opening, each screaming out its signal.  *Each
bat can differentiate its signal from the hash of ultrasonic babble.*  How?
Each signal is pulse-coded in a complex sequence that's individual to each
bat.  Yet even so, there's an awful lot of noise for an individual chirp,
no matter how complex, to be heard through...  It, too, is a "shape match-
ing" rather than intensity matching phenomenon, but the mechanism's totally
unclear.

	My point: *if it exists*, could telepathy work on something similar,
where signal strength isn't the critical factor?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Military radios now use something like what you are describing for bats. It's
called spread spectrum transmitting.  The idea is that the radio transmitter
frequency changes in a pseudo-random fashion.  It broadcasts for a moment at one
frequency, then switches to another and then another.  The receiver knows the
pattern of changes, but to an outside (hostile) observer it looks like random
noise.  A number of different transmitters can use the same frequency band so
long as they have different change patterns. 

Something similar happens at cocktail parties, when you are able to pick one
person's voice out of the general babble.  The ear locks onto the particular
frequency characteristics of that voice and filters out all the others. A dozen
people may be speaking at once, but if the timbre of their voices is distinct
enough they can be individually understood. 

The problem, though, is still one of bandwidth versus number of transmitters. If
each transmitter is sending N bits per second of information, and there are M
transmitters, then the bandwidth must be at least N*M for them to all be
received (this is Shannon's theorem, one of the fundamentals of information
theory). The cocktail party channel works because the information content of
speech is quite low compared to its bandwidth.  The data rate when you speak is
perhaps 25 bits per second (two words per second out of a vocabulary of 8000
words => 13 bits per word), but the bandwidth of speech is about 2000 Hz.
Theoretically, one could fit 2000/25 = 80 speakers into one room and have them
all be intelligible (sounds like the UN). 

The bandwidth of the insect pheromones mentioned earlier is determined by how
quickly the bug can analyze the molecules.  Say that the bug's detectors
separate molecules into two categories: going-my-way-sailor and 
back-off-jerk.  Then every time it analyzes a molecule, it gets one bit
of information.  If it can process a thousand per second, then the data rate
for pheronomes is 1000 bps, quite respectable.

The bandwidth of telepathy (assuming it has any) is likely to be small, on the
order of 100 Hz. Neurons just don't fire that quickly.  Even the data rate of
speech is likely to be greater than what you could get out of EEG-style
telepathy.  If the data rate is comparable to the bandwidth, then telepaths
would have great difficulty reading minds with more than one person in the room.
If the data rate were much less than the bandwidth (say, a fraction of a bit per
second), then many more people could be read at once. In that case, though, only
the simplest of thoughts or feelings could be transmitted. 

Irrelevant digression:  assuming that feelings could be transmitted, how
much information would that represent?  How many distinct emotional states
are there?  Of course, emotions blend into one another continuously, so strictly
speaking there are no boundaries between them.  But colors do that too, and
we still set up separate categories for them.  Most people when they look
at a rainbow will see distinct bands even though the spectrum is continuous
(curiously enough, women tend to see more bands in the rainbow than men).
Likewise, we have different categories for emotion.  A sensitive person,
a poet say, might be able to classify dozens or even hundreds of states.
I doubt if anyone could distinguish a thousand different emotions, since
there just don't seem to be enough terms in English.  Perhaps if we asked
a French poet...

Anyhow, there is another way that transmitters can be distinguished, and
that is by direction.  Antennas can be sensitive to signals from
only one direction, or one cone of directions.  Perhaps telepaths could
orient themselves to face the person they are trying to read, and so filter
out other minds.  If not, then crowded rooms would seem intolerably noisy
to them.

John Redford 

   As was  said in the cocktail party theory a person can single out a 
solitary voice and still distinguish and recognize other relevant noises - a 
dinner bell or background music - without having to filter the original voice 
from primary attention. It does however filter out white noise. The entire 
process is primarily upon a subconscious level following directives established 
in the conscious mind.  The brain does this by placing a set of priorities for 
its filter system. To most people this filter has *possibly* placed a low 
priority upon the psi transmissions-assuming they do exist. Therefore most of 
us do not *hear* these transmissions because our brains have filtered out these 
messages so that we can concentrate upon the matter at hand. In the Darkover 
series, those people with the laran for telepathy could only use it with great 
concentration upon the lowering of their thought barriers (i.e. the filter).

Sean "Beth's significant other" Griffin

I think the points in question are whether there's any legitimate mechanism
for twlepathy and if so, how the signal's recognized.  For instance, on the
pheromone question, even understanding that it's not a matter of signal in-
tensity but a matter of signal fit, as it were, is both interesting and frus-
trating: With a *very* low concentration, how does the male find the female?
And suppose he gets a whiff of an out-of-range female; does he fly until he
drops?  There's probably something going on that we haven't considered or
discovered yet.  On bats/echolocation: my thought here was that there are 
*so* many bats coming out of some areas, it's remarkable that the noise level,
no matter how one divides the signal, isn't overwhelming.  Obviously, it isn't
or bats wouldn't do things that way.

Interestingly, tradition says that identical (i.e., maternal) twins are very
close.  Some separated-from-early-childhood twins and triplets prove remark-
ably alike when they meet.  Is the link/bond telepathic?  And is it easier
for twins/multiples than single-birthed people because the pattern-fitting
requirements are easier to satisfy?

Steve Kallis, Jr.

re:.23 and twins

Identical twins that are separated from birth are alike because of 
hereditary factors. Most people don't realize to want extent genetic 
makeup determines behavior. They look at the complex, stylized dances 
that certain birds do - knowing that it is all hereditary, and say,
"That's nice, but it could never happen in a human being." It does, but
not as obvious. 


MartyJ

Having followed this for a while, I'd like to put in my two cents worth.
The subject seems to have narrowed down to bats and bellfries, and I'd like
to expand it again. I've yet to see anyone referance the reserach that is ding
--- being done on this subject and the results of it. Scientific American has
run at least on article I'm aware of on this and there are quite a few others
in the normal trade mags. Point is, Cal-Tech, Berkley, Princeton, et.al. are
doing quite a bit in this area, and have been for 15 yrs that I know of.

Findings to date have indicated that Psi does exsist. No one has been able
to determine the means as yet. The best info I have been able to collect to
date indicates all the functions normally associated with Psi are available to
any individual, however development is the key. I'm not technical enough in
this area to explain it all (or understand it) but it seems to have to do with
senses that are not developed. In that regard, there are 52 know senses. It
doesn't stop with the six we all know. (Now some one will ask for a list and
we will start another discussion) We all can to some degree sense anothers
emotion. That is a form of Psi (in a very broad sense - no pun). It would
appear that this is what the reserachers are trying to understand. It doesn't
take an S.F. buff very long to carry this forward.

As an aside to this, one of the best works of "Doc" Smith was his last book.
Actually published after he died, it is the second in his Space Explorers
series. As with most of his books, it dealt with Psi. Makes good reading for
those interested in the subject.

Ron

re .24,.25:

I'm among the first ones who would like to see the scope expanded.  The con-
centration with bats, etc., was not to narrow the discussion, but to give a
demonstrable example of something where we may know some, yet not all, of the
answers.

Identical twins' *behavior* isn't  exactly what I had in mind when using that
as an example.  There have been many documented cases of one of a pair of twins
apparently sensing distress, danger, or even accidents experienced by the other
(note: *not the pain, transfiguration, or whatever; just the sense that whatever
is happening is taking place): this has a strong implication of telepathy or
telempathy, either of which would be psi functions.

the point is, if any Psi functions exist, it would be interesting to determine
(if possible) what mechanisms might be involved.

On _Subspace Encounter_ (.25) by Doc Smith, he explored a number of Psi func-
tions here, but the predecessor, _Subspace Explorers_ is in some ways more
instructive.   had the honor to know Doc while he was working on the books
(originally to be a trilogy: _Subspace Explorers_, _Subspace Second_ [a pun],
and _Subspace Safari_ [named after the ship]).  He confided to me that he
was a successful dowser (saying, offhandedly, "You don't have to believe I
am," calling himself a "water witch," which I believe is an old country ex-
pression -- but then, he was once a lumberjack and started writing SF before
1920).  It is interesting that his lead characters, the Destons, are super-
dowsers, above all their other Psi functions.  One does write better about
things one is expert in.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re:.26

I find your insight to "Doc" most interesting and revealing. That in and of it-
self explains his long history of writting stories with Psi as the corner stone
of the plots.

In so far as the "twin" data is concerned, it can be carried much further than
that. The annals of Parapsychology contain numerous referances to the types of
occurances you mention. husbands/wifes; parents/offspring; very attached pairs;
etc. The common thread thoughtout these records is obviously strong emotional
ties. To my knownledge, this is still unexplained but non the less true. 

To carry this a bit farther, and tie in some other "psi" talents, you only have
to look to the newspapers, T.V. (mainly Public Stations), and various mags. I
do not include as such the "national enquirer" (caps ommitted on purpose), al-
though others might argue. The "little ole lady" that lifts a car up off her
husband - telekinesis???? The women that jumps out of a burning building with
her young child and lands 45 ft below unharmed, but doesn't remember falling -
teleportation????? Far fetched? Maybe, but true and documented.

I think all of us at one time or other have experienced some form of "psi".
Take for example the little things we don't often think about. The most common
is of course - de-ja-vu'e : precog????
While I can't personally vouch for this one, many people (at least 2 or 3), haveexpressed the thought that they know what a person is going to say just before
they say it - telelepathy????

At any rate this meant to be more food for thought or fuel for the fire, which
ever is more appropriate.

ron

OOPS---- The system deleted a line from my last input. The sentence starting
with: While I can't personally vouch for this one, many people (at least 2 or
3), have said they knew what another person was going to say before they said
it - telelepathy????

Since I'm here I'll just mention another one in passing - Hunches. I think
all of us have at one time or another had them. Don't know where to put this
(catagory) but I believe it fits into the realm of "psi".

How about that - I managed to hit the "le" twice in both of my notes and
misspell telepathy twice. 

Again - ron

re .28: "Hunches" could fall either into the category "precognition" or 
"intuition," which, in its highest form _might_ be a Psi function.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

The difficulty with psi phenomena so far is that it has not been possible
to determine circumstances under which the phenomena can be reproduced
consistently. To get back to the SF relation here - imagine the ramifications
if we could determine those circumstances, and thus produce any given
psi talent at will? First, of course, the author would have to decide just
what the circumstances included - body chemistry, perhaps, so it wouldn't
work except in the presence of high levels of adrenaline? Or some kind of
tidal influence, which would mean that phases of the moon could have a
real bearing on it. Or simply a certain biochemical setup - in which case
the proper injection might enable anybody to use a psi talent temporarily.

Now that we've got the circumstances, what are the ramifications to society?
How easy is it to reproduce these conditions, and does it work on anybody
or only on individuals with certain genetic traits? I believe it's Anne
McCaffrey who wrote the "Rowan" stories, about a select group of psi talents
who earned their living by sitting around on a moon of Saturn or somewhere
and teleported cargo back and forth... sounds a bit prosaic, but maybe it's
the single most useful thing that society could do with that kind of ability.

In contrast to that is another McCaffrey book (come to think of it, maybe
she *didn't* write "The Rowan" stories - Jerry?) called "To Ride Pegasus",
which deals with the use of psi powers in a sort of detective-agency setting,
and points out the logical consequences of making a mental link with a
deranged individual...

-b

re: .30

I think the "circumstances" mentioned are well worth talking about. For my part
I feel that everyone can get into this arena. The major item that keeps us out
is the lack of KNOWING we can do it. While I can advocate this position, I too
am at a loss getting to the point of knowing I can do it. Having known a 
"TALENT" when I lived in Florida and talked with her at some length, I got some
insight into this arena. She could not explain HOW she did it, but do it she
could. I mean this lady was a real working "psi". Alot of my current beliefs
on how this all works came from this time. She is the one that told me that it
"seems" like a sense, and she was always worried that she would lose it (them)
as she got older. i.e. Hearing, eyesite type loss. I completely lost track of
her in the mid 70s, so I have no idea of how things progressed.

Comment(opinion) on your prosaic thought of how talents would work in a social
group. First - I don't feel that the group owns the talent in any fashion and
that "fear" would be the biggest enemy. This scene has been played out in many
stories. Again, based on my friend's input, this is real!! Her overiding desire
was not to talk about her talents because of the fear that she would be mis-
understood and hounded by various groups. According to her this has happened
to others. This leads me to the thought that we already have functioning "psi"
people in this world, but they don't talk about it. ANY OUT THERE READING THIS?

ron

Hate to be a wet blanket, but I'm terribly skeptical about all this psi
stuff.  I won't deny its possibility, but I have yet to see a convincing
demonstration.  Everything I've heard is second or third hand at best, and
a lot of it is easier to explain without having to invoke psi.  E.g., I've
had my share of deja vu, and having studied some neurophysiology and
neuropsychology its easier to explain as a spurious "this is familiar"
recognition signal than as a psi effect.  Similarly, a lot of "precognition"
is post facto; it's awfully easy to describe something after it's happened
and (in conjunction with the deja vu effect) really believe you knew
beforehand it was going to happen that way.  A lot of "psi" is just
coincidence - most people have a very poor understanding of probability and
statistics, and perfectly reasonable chance occurences may appear to have
some psi component.  Regarding people falling out of buildings - I'm not
sure I'd want to remember such a thing - the human mind is really good
at suppressing accurate recollection of unpleasant experiences, especially
in traumatic situations.  My cat has fallen four stores and walked away
from it - he just happened to land right.

Again - I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the evidence to date is
unconvincing.  I'd like to believe Psi is real, but compared to so many
other things that I have to believe in, the evidence leaves a great deal to
be desired.  Wild extrapolations based on shoddy evidence do a gross
disservice to real Psi research.

len.

RE .32

You are in the boat as the rest of us. We all have a hard time trying to
understand that which doesn't fit in with our learning experiences. The 
comment you made - "things I have to believe in" sums up the problem with
the unknown. The atom bomb was thought of the same way in its time and (ref 
note 249) star wars is now being thought of that way. Overcoming our "this
is the way it is - so it must be right" way of looking at things is the only
way we can get to new vistas. 
ron

A point:  I have a ratger silly "ability."  I can wiggle my ear.  I don't
say "ears" because only  the right one wiggles.  However, I don't know
how I can wiggle one and not the other.  I try the same degree of (psi-
chic[?]) energy to each ear, and one moves; t'other doesn't.  I can't
explain or describe the reason either is as it is.

Why bring up this?  Only because probably the last person who would be
able to explain a psi talent (if one exists) is the person doing it!

Isaac Asimov's story, "Belief" touched upon this aspect of the problem.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Geez - that's not what i said.  I do lots of things that I don't understand
how they work - think for one.  I didn't said I wouldn't believe, I didn't
say it was impossible - I said the evidence that had been presented was more
easily explained other ways.  If it's real, then it can be observed, tested,
etc.  I believe in the scientific method.  It works.  I'd like to see it
applied in this domain.  Experimenets that only work when you're not looking
aren't experiments.  I have a hard believing such explanations for the
failure to objectively verify Psi phenomena as "well, it doesn't work in
the presence of skeptics".  Maybe that's true.  But please understand
(and respect) the differences between ignorance, gullibility, close-mindedness
and skepticism.  I am a skeptic, that's all.  My mind is not closed.

len.

On retrospect, my last entry was incomplete.  Let me digest/expand what I
was trying to get at:

1)	If psi has any validity, it must not violate principles ("laws")
	we're already familiar with, though it can refine them (just as
	Newtonian gravitation refined Galilean, or more to the point,
	just as electricity and electromagnetism did simple mechanics).

2)	Currently, all manifestations reported or classified as psi seem
	to be erratic and relatively nonrepeatable.  This makes it diffi-
	cult to conduct meaningful experiments.

	a) By understanding the mechanism well enough to encourage the
	   phenomenon under study.

	b) By developing a hypothesis that can be metered closely enough
	   in an experimental arrangement to test its validity fully.

3)	Reported practitioners of psi phenomena might be able to perfoem
	their operations with no conscious knowledge of their mechanisms.
	Like my example (in -.1), if a person cannot explain how he or she
	is doing whatever he or she is doing, the practitioners may be the
	last persons who are able to point a researcher in the right direc-
	tion.  This would be particularly true if a psi ability is genetic
	(inherited or mutation) rather than being common to all humans.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

re .36 - Steve, I agree with you 100%.  Most of my flaming was in response
to .33, which seemed to be saying I didn't believe in Psi because it wasn't
accepted as fact by the rest of the world.  The one thing most likely to
get me up on a soapbox is somebody telling me what I think or why I think
something.

Again, I cannot disallow Psi a priori, but nobody's made a convincing enough
case.  In this regard I am more like an agnostic than an atheist.  I'm not
convinced, one way or the other.  I just don't know.  And until I do know
(or believe strongly, which is, for many people, operationally equivalent),
I will continue to say, "well, I don't know about that...".

len.

RE: 35 
Skeptism is fine as it usually requires the experimenter to prove his/her
thesis beyond the "shaddow". Carried to far it keeps the skeptic from learning
new or novel ways to increase his/her abilities. There was a recent exposure
of a "psychic" who was using "magic" and passing it off as psychic powers. Only
a skeptic would have (and did) expose him. The trick he used was to use small
puffs of air to apparently move objects with mental power. Unfortunately, it is
this type of behavior that gets in the way of our understanding the real 
Psychic and leads people to po-pa the entire subject. Hence, skepticism works,
but the outfall from it can lead to completely unrelated conclusions. "--this
person was a fake, therefore all psychics are fake --". There is a book out
right now "Fakers and Magicans" (I may not have the title right) whose entire
premiss is, psi is the work of the devil and therefore can't be real. Now to
a religious person this may the complete answer and no more may be said. To the
true skeptic this conclusion would also be questioned. Point is, the skeptic
has to be on both sides of a question or he/she is not a true skeptic. I find
that some "skeptics" (relating to the above book) are really "sophists" in 
sheeps clothing. None the less the book does make for some interesting reading.
While I support the "theory" of psi, I also read the opposite view points. I
think it helps to keep me from going to far afield (maybe).

RE: 36

The very definition of "psychic" is non physical power. To quote from the Web-
ster on my desk: 2: lying outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge:
immaterial, moral, or spiritual in origin or force.
Using this as the basis for my earlier comments, I would advance that this area
is outside that of the normal and therefore you can't tie it with something 
else or
build it on past learning. As I see it, it's a new field. Quantum Mechanics was
not build on what had gone before, but was and is a completely new field of
science with its own laws. It was a complete departure from the then known
world of physics. When and if all of this psi stuff settles out, its my 
thought that we will have done something very similar; build a completely new 
science. My own hope is that everyone will be able to partake in it when 
completed. If it works out otherwise I don't think I'd like to be one of the 
"gifted".

RE:37

I'm sorry that in my haste I didn't make myself clearer. I was questioning and
offering an opinion, not making a statement on yours or anyones beliefs or
positions. We all have ways of looking at things and as I see it, no one has
of yet come up with the "way". Please accept my apology if I was out of place.
ron

Re .36:

> 1)	If psi has any validity, it must not violate principles ("laws")
> 	we're already familiar with, though it can refine them (just as
> 	Newtonian gravitation refined Galilean, or more to the point,
> 	just as electricity and electromagnetism did simple mechanics).

New theories almost always violate previous ones.  For example, Newtonian
mechanics does not say adding velocity a to velocity b gives approximately
velocity a+b, it said the addition yield _exactly_ a+b.  Relativity says this
is wrong.  Newtonian mechanics is false.

A proper statement of the way most new theories relate to old theories is that
the old theories remain approximately correct according to the new theories in
"familiar" domains, such as ordinary speeds or sizes or strengths.  However,
this is not a requirement.


				-- edp

re .40:

>A proper statement of the way most new theories relate to old theories is that
>the old theories remain approximately correct according to the new theories in
>"familiar" domains, such as ordinary speeds or sizes or strengths.  However,
>this is not a requirement.

Gee.  That's approximately what I said! :-)

Eric's clarification is important enough to expand on a bit, however.  Obvious-
ly, there have to be *some* modifications when one theory is superceded by
another.  Newtonian/Relativistic phenomena are perhaps the most obviou and
hence most quoted examples of this.  If we found anotgher complete energy
spectrum (Williamson's rhodomagnetism or Heinlein/Campbell's electrogravitic
spectrum), its very existence would impact the way we treat those energies
we already know and love; further, there would have to be some sort of inter-
action between them, even if very subtle.

My point is that a new theory couldn't *grossly* violate what we already
know with preexisting theories (e.g., the Copernical solar system didn't
grossly violate Ptolemaic astronomical theories on planetary motion -- the
new model still had epicycles and deferents -- however, it did simplify
the problem immensely....).

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re .41:

> My point is that a new theory couldn't *grossly* violate what we already
> know with preexisting theories (e.g., the Copernican solar system didn't
> grossly violate Ptolemaic astronomical theories on planetary motion -- the
> new model still had epicycles and deferents -- however, it did simplify
> the problem immensely....).

To me, moving the center of the solar system from the Earth to the Sun is
a pretty big thing.

Let's consider to views of a theory, or system of theories:  intrinsic and
extrinsic.  The intrinsic statement of a theory tells us how we should think
of the universe (e.g., Earth-centered/Sun-centered, relative/absolute, or
certain/uncertain).  The extrinsic statement of a theory tells us what will
happen in the universe when certain things happen (e.g., planets will
occasionally seem to move backward, velocities will seem to add up at
ordinary speeds).

The intrinsic part of a new theory may be significantly different from the
intrinsic part of an old theory.  The extrinsic part of a new theory is often
very similar to an old theory -- in previously explored regions.

Note that these are not requirements.  Old and new theories may be extremely
different extrinsically, provided the new theory agrees with all known
observations.  For example, Newtonian mechanics tells us a person walking north
1 mile per hour (mph) on a train moving north at 10 mph is moving at 11 mph.
It also says a person walking north at 3 mph on a train moving north at 10
mph is moving at 13 mph.  Let's suppose this has been verified by experiment.
Newtonian mechanics also says 2 mph plus 10 mph is 12 mph.  Along comes Sam's
theory of motion.  Sam says 1 mph plus 10 mph is 11 mph, and 3 mph plus 10
mph is 13 mph.  But Sam says 2 mph plus 10 mph is 9343 mph.  This is
obviously grossly different from Newtonian mechanics.  But if we perform an
experiment, never performed before, and find out Sam is correct, we would
have to accept Sam's theory of motion over Newton's.

Belief that new systems will be extrinsically similar in familiar regions
comes from two things:  previous experience and human faith.  Neither of
these constitutes proof.


				-- edp

re .42:

Since I specified "planetary motion," I think we're actually in sharp
agreement.  

My point was that if an alleged psi phenomenon is "explained" by a hypo-
thesis that violently disagrees with current theories, its credibility
may be put into sharp question.  Isaac Asimov once wrote an essay called,
as I remember, "My Built-In Doubter," where he set, in a popular vein, some
ideas about how rationally to evaluate a "scientific" claim.

In this discussion, we've expended many notes on the idea of telepathy.
The basic question began to evolve into something like, "Well, if it works,
how can we reconcile the phenomena with what we already know?"  We know
about the inverse-square relationship of a signal strength, so how can
a signal travel thousands of miles, as some cases have claimed (particularly
in the psychic literature), for instance?  

The "easy" way out is to postulate a wholly undiscovered effect that brings
this about.  But without some way to verify the effect, it isn't very use-
ful (and may be more fantasy than hypothesizing).

A point here is that for a *working model* we can sometimes adapt an
outmoded theory: Ptolemaic astronomy works *very* well for celestial
navigators who work in a geocentric reference: that the model has very
little relation to reality-as-we-know-it is immaterial.  

I could easily dismiss pyroticism (fire-raising) be saying, "Well, there's
this whole alternate energy spectrum that's saturating the universe and a
pyrotic can "tune into" it and direct its forces.  That's not impossible,
but it's the kind of hypothesis that helps very little until and unless it
can be related to what we know, if for no other reason than so we'd be
able to detect the posited new spectrum and measure it.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

I don't think there is any big disagreement here. I think the need for a model
is what all the reserach is about. I do think that you need an hypothesis and
as many as you can come up with to have a starting point. The proof of the
hypothesis (or disproof) would be how you build the working model. I believe
you need a starting point to come to any conclusion. That the starting point
of necessity be in the realm of the now understood should be accepted. The
concept of an energy plane that is not detectable as of yet doesn't rule it
out. It just indicates that we don't have the knowledge (equipment) to get
to it and measure it, if its there. The Chinese had the sun in the center of 
our solar system around 500 B.C. They also had the math to do the calculations.
It took the rest of us a little longer, thats all.

   I've not been in this file for a while so please forgive the latness of 
this.  

   I almost hestitate to put this in here but here goes...

   I don't think that can dismiss dejavu' as a neurological quirk in all 
cases. 
   I will occasionally dream things that are going to happen, especially
small snatches of conversation and facial expressions.  Usually I get a
picture of how everyone in the conversation is positioned, "hear" 3 or 4
lines of conversation and the dream stops at the point I say "dejavu'" or
"I've dreamed part of this conversation".  I wake up in the morning, 
remembering the dream and knowing that it will happen sometime.  
   After hearing the arguments about the "familiar feeling" and so on, I kept a
log for a few months to prove to myself that this was really happening.
I wrote down who was involved, how they were positioned, what they were wearing
(if I could remember it, this was the hardest thing to remember for some
reason) and what was said.  Most of the dream situations occured within 2 
months of the dream.  A few never occured(yet?).
   To forestall a coming argument, this conversations were not all "typical".
By that I mean that I couldn't have approxiamated the conversation ahead of
time by knowing the persons involved and how they usually sat, spoke etc.
In fact, in one case, I dreamed a situation that involved someone I did not 
know at that time.  When I recorded the dream, I put a description of him down.
When I met him 3 months later, I thought he looked familiar but didn't make
the connectionat the time because I'd never dreamed of someone I've never met 
before.  When I had a "dejavu" I looked it up and realized that's where I'd 
seen him.  (To forestall another forthcoming argument, I doubt I had seen Wes
before we met since we lived about 250 miles apart and only met through a 
summer honors program for high school students in Charleston, S.C.)
    My reaction to this is "well that's odd".  I don't feel it's a talent.
I can't control it and it doesn't have much significance since the only things
I dream are silly fragments of conversation.  The only thing remotely 
approaching significance out of all the ones I recorded, was Dreaming about
Wes before I met him.  We dated for a short time.
    It also doesn't really affect my opinion about psi except to make me keep
me mind open until I see it proved one way or the other.

For what it's worth...
tlh

re .-1 ; that's exactly what I was saying.  I didn't say NO deja vu was real,
only that Occam's razor argus for a simpler neurological "false match"
pheonomena.  I applaud you for keeping a before the fact log and verifying
after the fact - that's (assuming you're honest) incontrovertible evidence.
I've always said we should be skeptical, not resistant.  I've never said
it was impossible, only that there's an alternative explanation that fits
with we already know.  And that means no more than that - all genuinely
new knowledge DOESN'T fit with what we already know.  That doesn't make
it impossible.

len.

re .45, .46:

To do it right, one should keep *two* logs: one is "before the fact,"
when one's got an idea that something he or she's experienced (usually
via dream) is, for want of a better word, prophetic.  the second book
is to note what he or she experiences and belives was prophesized in the
dream -- the experience that dives one the feeling of deja vu.  Then, 
a time period later (a week, month, or whatever), the two books should
be compared.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Anne McCaffrey wrote both the "Rowan" stories and "To Ride Pegasus."
I recall reading the Rowan stories in a collection that included at
least one of the stories in "Pegasus," but can't remember the title
(my collection is at home).

Carleton

Sorry, last response was RE: 30.


cc

This is a really late response (was very busy until lately):

For one, the Marion Zimmer Bradley DARKOVER series has much information in it 
that according to a friend has an aspect of reality to it.

Now for the other, this friend.  He seems to be able to test individuals for 
psychic potential and can "train" people.  More, he assists while you learn 
for yourself.  And someone had it right, fear is the biggest barrier to 
finding if you can do it or not.  You have to trust your "senses" or the input 
is never interpreted correctly, if at all.

As for people who have such abilities, they may site experiences all day, but 
that doesn't make it easier to believe its existence.  Too few people have 
done so in the past and its too easy to say "they have an active imagination" 
or "they're eccentric" or bluntly "nuts".

RE .35, .36, Psi Experiments.

Psi may be nonrepeatable, BECAUSE we do not know enough about it to set up
identical experiments to repeat them.

There are many psychological experiments where "who knows what" IS important
to the outcome, Psi experiments are most likely similiar.

RE: Telepathy.

There are many times when I knew what another person was going to some people
may interpet this as Telepathy, but to me it feels more like I know enough
about people in general, and usually about the person, to know what they
are going to say;  to me, they are predictable.  Actually, this can cause
problems, because sometimes I THINK I know what they are going to say, and
I DO NOT listen to them.  I do not give them a choice in what I hear them
say.

About Precognition, as with Tarot cards, there are a surprising number of
situations which can fit a predefined description.  Even if a log is kept
(as mentioned) of the prophecies, there are many situations which might fit
that prophecy.

With a lot of supposed Psi talents, it is a toss up whether a 'psionic' event is
happening, or whether it is your brain working overtime, and subconciously
producing results which are attributed to Psi, normally.  Does it matter if the
mechanism is Psi, or the subconcious?  This is a fine distinction, can you
see the idea I am mangling here?

I do believe that you have to beleive in Psi to do/she it.

I also agree that in many cases a theory or law may perfectly describe a
behavior (as known), and yet have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
In some cases a bogus theory may be more usefull then an incompletely known
fact.  Shrugging your shoulders, and saying "I don't know", is not very usefull.

I DO believe in Psi.  I refuse to limit my thinking on what is ACTUALLY
happening though.  There are pet theories that I have, but nothing is certain.

Jim.

    Re .51:
    
    Well, here we go again -- at least to a certain extent.  My original
    idea, when we started out the note, was to see if we could come
    to some idea of which sort of mechanisms might make these things
    happen.  If a bogus theory is better than no theory, we've neatly
    painted ourselves into a ciorner:
    
    Big, bulky things bumping together can cause loud, crashing noises.
    Under certain circumstancves, collissions can also produce sparks.
    Reasoning by analogy, a thinker of, say, the Fourteenth Century
    might reason that thunder and lightning are caused by colliding
    clouds (in those days, nobody could be _certain_ that clouds were
    water droplets in suspension).  If we accept this model, though,
    we would have a _very_ difficult time reaching the conclusion that
    lightning and static electricity were the same thing, as Franklin
    did.  (Interestingly, the occult scholar Paracelsus suggested that
    lightning and thunder were manifestations of demons, and demonstrated
    their existence.)
    
    If a bogus theory enables us to come up with some replicatable
    operations, _then_ it can be used as a jumping-off point.  But only
    then.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re .4:
    I've only read this far out of the 52 replies so far but i couldn't
    wait to reply....
    Is someone still believing in the myth that "only 10% of the brain
    is utilized"? (from the quote "what is that other 90% designed to
    handle")     If we only used 10% of the brain then it would be 10%
    of its size. this 10% utilization figure comes from a misunderstanding
    of the unctioning of the brain. only 10% has been identified as
    performing some particular function. That does not mean that 90%
    is either useless or doing bizarre, unmeasurable things.
    The brain is not a computer with a set of discrete "boards" doing
    discrete things. The brain is more holistic than that. I don't want
    to get into a long lecture on neuro-physiology but let me state
    that NO-ONE who knows anything about the brain accepts that 90%
    of the brain is not used for "normal" functioning.
    
    re edp:
    
    there have been experiments that show that neurons do fire in response
    to electrical fields and not just to a synaptic input. The brain
    of some animal was implanted with two electrodes: A and B. the brain
    was trained to fire at B when a pulse when applied to A. then, a
    cube of brain material surrounding B was electrically, and physically
    isolated from the rest of the brain(but was not removed from the
    brain; physical barriers were inserted. A pulse was then applied
    to A and the response was still received at B.
    
    sm

    Re .53:
    
    > There have been experiments that show that neurons do fire in
    > response to electrical fields and not just to a synaptic input. 
    
    In .15, I said neurons can be triggered electromagnetically.  Of
    course, the input is still from other neurons.
    
    Please try to include response numbers to make backtracking easier.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re 54:
    
    I think I wrote .53 before I got to .15. When I see something I
    have to reply to, sometimes I can't bear slogging through the rest
    of the 50 replies to see if someone has said the same as what I'm
    about to say. I think one of your earlier replies (~.3) said something
    about neurons only firing to a direct (physical, chemical, charge)
    stimulus. I didn't get the impression you were also including fields
    as a stimulus.
    Anyway, after I had written the reply and continued reading the
    replies, I was a little embarrassed upon reaching .15 
    consider .53 just an expansion of your statement in .15
    
    As for backtracking, well I usually do try to include the # I'm
    replying to, you just caught the one where I forgot the exact #
    so replied to an idea.
    
    "be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth [keyboard?]"  ;-)
    
    sm