RE: Message From Sue Blackmore on her Hair

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2000 - 12:33:47 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Our human selves"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA02617 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:35:45 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B94@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Message From Sue Blackmore on her Hair
    Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:33:47 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

            <Considering my interest in Jung, I hould be more familiar with
    parapsychology than I am. I have a couple of Sheldrake's books, where there
    are some apparent resonances with Jung's notions. I notice that Blackmore's
    name comes up in one of the appendices from Sheldrake's _A New Science of
    Life_. Did she do a lot of work trying to unravel the popular ideas of
    morphic resonannce and formative causation?>

            I don't know myself. The work I cited of Blackmore's concentrated
    on the theory of probability misjudgement, that people come to believe in
    the paranormal because we're not very good at judging the chances of things
    like dreaming about a person and then bumping into them the next day.

            As far as I know there isn't a huge amount of empirical evidence to
    fully substantiate this idea -at least in terms of differences between
    believers and non-believers. There is evidence though of things like the
    mis-understanding, and thus representation, of risk amongst journalists, and
    this has been extrapolated to apply to the general population through
    cultivation theory.

            <In Jungian circles I have run across the story of the supposed
    hundredth monkey phenomenon. I heard vague articulations of this here and
    there, but only recently became aware on the debunking of this monkey
    business:

    > http://www.csicop.org/si/9605/monkey.html
    >
    > http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC09/Myers.htm
    >
    > http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html
    >
    > http://nhne.com/articles/sahundrethmonkey.html
    >
    > I'd like to familiarize myself with the story and its debunking to store
    > away in my arsenal for later use, but like anything else, it's easier said
    > than done.>
    >
            As far as I know, this was started by Colin Thubron wasn't it? From
    these links you've probably got more on it than I know already.

            Vincent

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 12:37:11 GMT