Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA12130 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:19:50 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:23:50 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Shaggy Dog vs. Psychic Dog Message-ID: <3B8C6046.6662.8916CF@localhost> In-reply-to: <004d01c12ffa$60dfe560$e824f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 28 Aug 2001, at 12:48, Dace wrote:
> From: Vincent Campbell
>
> > <There was no refutation. Wiseman merely repeated the experiment,
> > got
> > > exactly the same results Sheldrake had gotten, and then tried to
> > > spin it as a refutation. According to Wiseman's own experiment,
> > > the dog, Jaytee,
> was
> > > at the window 78% of the time that its master was on her way home
> > > and
> only
> > > 4% of the remaining time.
> > >
> > > As Sheldrake says, "He makes no mention of the fact that Jaytee
> > > waits by the window far more when Pam is on her way home, nor does
> > > he refer to my own experiments. He gives the impression that my
> > > evidence is based on one experiment filmed by a TV company, rather
> > > than on more than two hundred experiments, and he implies that he
> > > has done the only rigorous
> scientific
> > > tests of this dog's abilities. I confess that I am amazed by his
> > > persistence in this deception.">
> > >
> > This is a matter of personal dispute over methodological issues
> > between Sheldrake and Wiseman (and his colleagues). The important
> > point, clearly thought reasonable by the peer reviewed journal in
> > which Wiseman's piece appeared, was that were methdological question
> > marks, and question marks over interpretation of results. I have to
> > say that the basic test "does the dog go to the window or not" is an
> > extremely superficial way to test suppsoed psychic powers. You'd
> > need to test hundreds of dogs, thousands of times to even suggest a
> > relationship when using such a simplisitc measure.
>
> I think it's significant that the dogs Sheldrake tested spent nearly
> 80% of the time at the window when their owners were coming home and
> only 4% the rest of the time. Wiseman claimed that the dogs were
> simply spending more time at the window as time went on. He was
> forced to recant on this point. In fact, the dogs didn't spend any
> significant amount of time at the window waiting for their owner, no
> matter how long the wait, until the owner was actually headed home.
> Keep in mind that this is only a start. Sheldrake has since moved on
> to parrots, and apparently the results are more striking.
>
And these people came home at random times, not only random
as to absolute hours (like not at 4:30 pm each day) but also at
random intervals (such as coming home i thirty minutes at some
times and not for two days in others, al dispersed day and night?
>
> > <Wiseman makes an equally absurd claim regarding Sheldrake's
> staring
> > > experiment, which involves a sequence of trials in which cometimes
> > > the individual is being stared at from behind while other times
> > > the subject
> is
> > > not being stared at. Wiseman claims that subjects learn to detect
> > > the pattern in the allegedly random sequence. Wiseman claims
> > > Sheldrake's sequence is not actually random, though it was arrived
> > > at by flipping a coin, and that to make it truly random you need
> > > to play with the
> numbers.
> > > He says Sheldrake is sending out this allegedly random sequence to
> school
> > > children around the world who then conduct their own staring
> experiments.
> > > In fact, he recommends that people create their own random
> > > sequence by flipping a coin, just like he did when setting up his
> > > experiment.>
> > >
> > In a recent issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, I think it was, the
> > mathematical demonstration of falsity in the supposed 'random'
> > nature of staring experiments is presented very plainly. You can
> > either accept this critique or demonstrate its inaccuracy you can't
> > just dismiss it out of hand.
>
> There's a touch of paranoia in Wiseman's critique. He's claiming that
> Sheldrake's sequence of trials-- in which some involved the subject
> being stared at while others didn't-- contains a subtle pattern.
> Sheldrake then instructs school children to replicate this pattern,
> which he claims resulted from tossing a coin. Then these children,
> who are actually following a deviously constructed "pattern," find
> that they have an ability to sense when someone is staring at them,
> thus ruining an entire generation of potential neo-Darwinists. Even
> if Wiseman is right that somehow Sheldrake's toin-cossing yielded
> nonrandom results, this doesn't change the fact that Sheldrake
> instructs people who conduct this experiment to come up with their own
> random results by tossing a coin. Thus, over time, numerous
> repetitions of this experiment should even out any randomly appearing
> patterns in the sequence.
>
I think that they are finding what is being looked for because they
are being clued in by cues, not unlike Clever Hans. You CANNOT
tell me that schoolkids are controlling for variables such as their
noticing the reactions of kids within their visual field who can see
the 'radom starer'.
>
> > >> But even if such studies suggested psychic dogs and people with
> > >> psychic eyes in the back of their heads, to leap from this to
> > saying the
> > >> cause of this is MR through MF, is a massive and invalid leap
>
> > <Sheldrake starts with the recognition that vision cannot be a kind
> > of TV
> > > screen in the back of the head, for this would imply the Cartesian
> > > error that we exist somewhere deep inside our brains. He argues
> > > argues that
> we
> > > do
> > > actually see what's around us and not merely an image of it
> reconstructed
> > > in
> > > our brains. Rather than passively taking in light, we cast a
> > > field of vision over everything we see. While I find this
> > > explanation
> problematic
> > > to
> > > say the least, he does appear to have demonstrated that people can
> > > sense when others are watching them.>
> > >
> > No he hasn't. The empirical evidence for this phenomena is, at
> > best, ambiguous not conclusive. Your levels of acceptable evidence
> > are
> far
> > too low.
>
> It looks as though he has demonstrated it. We really need to see some
> tests to know for sure.
>
Like he said. You err on the side of credence, because that's
where your heart lies, and your mind has abdicated sovereignty to
it.
>
> > <As to the "psychic pets," Sheldrake explains this according to
> > morphic
> > > fields. Like termites in a nest or birds in a flock, the cells of
> > > our bodies are regulated holistically by a field. When a woman
> > > becomes pregnant, her fetus is simply another aspect of her body
> > > regulated by
> her
> > > field. Rather than breaking, this field is merely extended when
> > > she
> gives
> > > birth. The mother and child are always connected through this
> > > shared field.
> > >
> > > But it doesn't have to involve childbirth. A collective field can
> appear
> > > among any two people or any group, no matter how large. It can
> > > also
> occur
> > > across species. Where there's "love"
> > > (or hate) there's a field embracing the individuals involved. Not
> > > being distracted by reflexive consciousness, dogs are much more
> > > aware of these fields. This is how they can sense when their
> > > beloved master is coming home.>
> > >
> > You don't really believe this do you?
>
> You don't really believe brains have calculators in them, do you? If
> birds had to compute the necessary equations needed to maintain the
> flock, their brains would blot out the sky. We can't even design a
> robot that can walk down a hallway without bumping into the walls.
> Are you claiming that brains, which evolved unconsciously, are vastly
> superior to current computing technology?
>
Actually, if you would read some books on the subject such as
WHAT COMPUTERS CAN'T DO by Hubert Dreyfus, you would
know that the sort of complex perpetual feedback continuous
reappraisal calculation that is necessary to navigate in an obstacle-
filled environment is PRECISELY the type of situation in which
wetware blows away otherwise (like in math or chess) superior
digital computational capacity.
>
> > BTW it occured to me over the
> > weekend another way in which movement in flocks of birds can be
> > quicker
> than
> > one might expect- and something that certainly wasn't known back in
> > the 1930s- the capacity of many birds to be able to detect the
> > earth's
> magnetic
> > field (which helps migratory birds for instance).
>
> Sheldrake was quoting research from the 70s.
>
> > > > 'Proteins called histones play such an important role in
> > > > regulating genes that we should think of them as a "histone
> > > > code". complementary
> to
> > > the
> > > > genetic code, says biochemist David Allis of the University of
> Virginia.
> > > > "For some time now, we have known there is more to our genetic
> > > > blueprint than DNA itself", says Allis. individual genes can be
> turned
> > > off
> > > > by adding methyl groups to DNA, a process called imprinting.
> > > > what's
> > > more,
> > > > imprinted DNA can be passed from one generation to another,
> effectively
> > > > passing down information that isn't directly encoded in our
> > > > genome.
> > >
> > <This is exactly what researchers were saying in the 80s, and
> > Sheldrake deals
> > > with this in The Presence of the Past. Yes, histones are among
> > > the "master proteins" that interact with genes, but this merely
> > > *describes* rather than explains what goes on in the cell. When
> > > proteins tell genes what to do, who's telling the proteins what to
> > > do? Why, of course, the genes are telling them. And these genes
> > > are instructed by still other proteins,
> and
> > > on and on it goes like this, round and round. For every answer we
> arrive
> > > at, another question automatically pops up. It's an endlessly
> > > recursive loop. There's no possibility that chemistry can ever
> > > explain the basis
> of
> > > form in the body. It's a joke with no punch line, a shaggy dog
> > > story.>
> > >
> > You just can't see the possiblity of these things interacting due to
> > simple chemical reactions at all can you?
>
> I don't deny the importance of chemical reactions. The body does
> function at a chemcial and mechanical level. But this tells us
> nothing about repeating, organic structures, from proteins on up. It
> doesn't tell us anything about the organism as a whole or why the damn
> thing lives.
>
You are looking for meaning in science, but science doesn't give
you a why, but a how, which is perhaps why your yearnings lead
you to embrace quasitheological pseudoexplanations. Meaning is
a human creation. HOW something is animated, that is, how
these organic metabolic processes are perduring, is to a
progressively increasing degree scientifically understandable
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 : Wed Aug 29 2001 - 09:24:28 BST