Can E.S.P be scientifically proven? Join the challenge and find out!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Intuitive
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Challenge
Click For Summary
A forum discussion proposes a challenge to test Extra Sensory Perception (E.S.P) by having participants guess items chosen by a designated person, with the aim of validating E.S.P claims through measurable results. The challenge involves selecting three items placed in neutral-colored boxes to minimize bias and coincidence, allowing for one guess per participant. Previous attempts at similar challenges yielded no successful guesses, raising skepticism about the validity of E.S.P. The conversation also references the Randi Challenge, highlighting the lack of successful applicants and the complexities involved in defining success in E.S.P testing. Overall, the forum aims to explore the potential of E.S.P while addressing the scientific scrutiny surrounding it.
  • #31
Zoobie said:
Ivan I'm pretty sure the point these doctors are making is non-paranormal:
And if there were no scientific explanation as of yet would you think that Randi should pay him the million dollars?
I think that we discussed this before. What exactly constitutes paranormal? Perhaps it means "something that can not be explained by science". But what if you believe that everything is explainable by science as I assume Randi believes? Then do you merely need to state that it is possible for something to be explained scientifically and hence it is not paranormal even if you don't have an explanation ready at that moment? If this man with his ability to perceive emotions were to succeed in passing Randi's test (assuming that there is not yet an explanation for his abilities) could Randi or one of his associates have some idea of an explanation and request that tests be run? Perhaps they figure out what the scientific explanation is. Is the man with blindsight now no longer elegible for the money?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
TheStatutoryApe said:
And if there were no scientific explanation as of yet would you think that Randi should pay him the million dollars?
I think that we discussed this before. What exactly constitutes paranormal? Perhaps it means "something that can not be explained by science". But what if you believe that everything is explainable by science as I assume Randi believes? Then do you merely need to state that it is possible for something to be explained scientifically and hence it is not paranormal even if you don't have an explanation ready at that moment? If this man with his ability to perceive emotions were to succeed in passing Randi's test (assuming that there is not yet an explanation for his abilities) could Randi or one of his associates have some idea of an explanation and request that tests be run? Perhaps they figure out what the scientific explanation is. Is the man with blindsight now no longer elegible for the money?
The notarized rule to be eligible to win the million dollars is that the candidate must demonstrate his/her powers according to a mutually accepted protocol.
The candidate must specifically describe the ability. If it is accepted as eligible for the challenge, the candidate and the JREF must accept a mutually written protocol, where it will be described what will be tested and how and the percentage of hits in a series of trials that are considered a success.
If you propose to demonstrate any ability for which there is a scientific explanation, no test will be realized, but if you are allowed to be tested, there is a tacit acceptation that the ability is paranormal and there is no way the JREF can evade the payment in case of success.
 
  • #33
The BBC article Ivan brought up makes no reference to the paranormal. This is another variation of brain lesions that cause a disconnect between conscious and unconscious perception. This is one example, blindsight is another. Still another is Anton's syndrome, where a subject will be actually blind but claim to be sighted, even confabulating to make up for the deficit.

If the blind guy had an impenetrable blindfold on but could still sense emotions with a statistically significant accuracy, *that's* paranormal and then Randi would owe him a million big ones. As long as visible spectrum photons are able to physically reach his visual organ, it ain't paranormal and doesn't qualify, so it's a strawman argument.

People have weird or unexpected abilities, but they can be explained as variations or extensions of the normal spectrum. A much better example would be the guy who could state with devastating accuracy what piece of classical music was imprinted on a standard unmarked, unlabelled LP record by just inspecting the surface with the naked eye. That person (I forget the name, I believe he was a PhD doctor) was completely forthright in stating that his ability was not paranormal, he merely had a finely developed visual acuity and was able to read the pattern of the grooves on the record and picture the music. Now, that's impressive, but not supernatural.
 
  • #34
Curious3141 said:
...
People have weird or unexpected abilities, but they can be explained as variations or extensions of the normal spectrum. A much better example would be the guy who could state with devastating accuracy what piece of classical music was imprinted on a standard unmarked, unlabelled LP record by just inspecting the surface with the naked eye. That person (I forget the name, I believe he was a PhD doctor) was completely forthright in stating that his ability was not paranormal, he merely had a finely developed visual acuity and was able to read the pattern of the grooves on the record and picture the music. Now, that's impressive, but not supernatural.
Actually he is an M.D. called Arthur B. Lintgen. See the story here.
 
  • #35
TheStatutoryApe said:
And if there were no scientific explanation as of yet would you think that Randi should pay him the million dollars?
I think that we discussed this before. What exactly constitutes paranormal? Perhaps it means "something that can not be explained by science". But what if you believe that everything is explainable by science as I assume Randi believes? Then do you merely need to state that it is possible for something to be explained scientifically and hence it is not paranormal even if you don't have an explanation ready at that moment? If this man with his ability to perceive emotions were to succeed in passing Randi's test (assuming that there is not yet an explanation for his abilities) could Randi or one of his associates have some idea of an explanation and request that tests be run? Perhaps they figure out what the scientific explanation is. Is the man with blindsight now no longer elegible for the money?

The point is not whether or not magic is involved. In fact that is Randi's little word game. By definition, all real things are governed by scientific [natural] laws whether we know them or not. The question is, do mechanisms exist that we don't know about or understand that might be seen as magic? If there is, then Randi owes someone a million bucks. I think this case qualifies. If, on the other hand, the only qualified winner would have to prove the existence of magic, then obviously it's a cheap con game on Randi's part. In that case the challenge should be to prove the impossible.

Keep in mind that Magicians like Randi are masters of misdirection.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Here are the definitions of paranormal:
Quick definitions (paranormal)

adjective: not in accordance with scientific laws (Example: "What seemed to be paranormal manifestations")
adjective: seemingly outside normal sensory channels
http://www.onelook.com/?w=paranormal&ls=a

So, magic, or not recognized, which does he mean? Does any new scientific discovery that we don't understand qualify? That would be "not in accordance with scientific laws". Does entanglement count? How about Dark Energy? how about the Big Bang; something from nothing?
 
Last edited:
  • #36
In fact, I'll go one step further. I offer the Big Bang as proof of a supernatural event. Can Randi prove me wrong? Does Randi owe me one-million dollars?
 
  • #37
Ivan Seeking said:
In fact, I'll go one step further. I offer the Big Bang as proof of a supernatural event. Can Randi prove me wrong? Does Randi owe me one million dollars?
i think he's looking more for a demonstration.

Now if you can demonstrate a full blown big bang that results in a new universe. Wowzers that'd be something. Hell you'd probably get $1million in grants if you could demonstrate it. Not to mention nobel prize(those come with a $ award part to i think)
 
  • #38
Is it Randi's position that the Big Bang didn't happen? In principle I can demonstrate the evidence for it in any Astrophysics lab. Also, the qualifier "I think what he means", is my point exactly.

All of you Randi fans can tell him that I either want my one-million dollars, or an explanation for the Big Bang.

The Big Bang clearly violates the laws of physics as we understand them.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
Is it Randi's position that the Big Bang didn't happen? In principle I can demostrate the evidence for it in any Astrophysics lab. Also, "I think what he means" is my point exactly.
ya and id expect a skeptic like Randi would be educated enough to see that the big bang is the most rational position.

and again. you can demonstrate the evidence. Anyone educated enough can demonstrate that. So what makes that supernatural?

Now something that can't be done by scientists. Though I am not sure if they'd ever want to, might have a lot of bad consequences. is actually recreate the actual big bang. Now that i would say would be supernatural because its far outside what current scientists even dream of doing.

But good luck demonstrationg a full blown big bang :smile:
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
All of you Randi fans can tell him that I either want my one-million dollars, or an explanation for the Big Bang.
mind expanding on that a little?

are you under the bad impression that the cosmological argument is correcT?
 
  • #42
To understand the Big Bang is to have a unified theory of physics. They are one in the same. We don't have one. There are even those who think we never can.

It might even be argued that by defintion, the BB was a supernatural event.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
So, magic, or not recognized, which does he mean? Does any new scientific discovery that we don't understand qualify? That would be "not in accordance with scientific laws". Does entanglement count? How about Dark Energy? how about the Big Bang; something from nothing?
Ivan, you're misinterpreting what counts as a violation and what doesn't.

Current scientific understanding has a regime of relevance. There are things that it can explain/predict (how long it takes a tennis ball to fall through 10 feet), and there are things that it can't (what "caused" the big bang; the value of the Earth's magnetic field; if all the zeros of the Riemann zeta function fall on the same line). Demonstrating something that is in violation of scientific laws, requires the something to belong in the regime of applicability. It has to be something that current science says will turn out a certain way, but in fact, doesn't.

Now, there's a subtlety involved here, arising from the realization that due to quantum mechanics, even outrageous outcomes have tiny probability amplitudes. I think any demonstration showing a success rate that is several standard deviations different from the calculated probability counts as a violation of scientific laws.

PS : What physics is violated by the BB ?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Yes, the use of the word "violation" was a bad choice. I would have been back sooner to correct that but got busy.

What was meant was that we don't have the physics needed to account for the phenomenon. And note also that giving something a name is not an explanation. Also, it may well be that the physics that we know cannot account for any pre-BB conditions, which may or may not have been. There could be "other physics" that no longer apply to our universe, by some accounts.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Ivan Seeking said:
Yes, the use of the word "violation" was a bad choice. I would have been back sooner to correct that but got busy.

What was meant was that we don't have the physics needed to account for the phenomenon.
perhaps no equations or math. But the evidence points towards there being a big bang.
 
  • #46
Of course it does, but we can't explain it all using known physics. This is all part of the search for a unified theory. The physics that we understand no longer works when we get back to within a the first moments of the BB. And if there was anything before that, we don't understand what it was.

As for violations, anything that we don't understand may appear to be a violation of some physical law or principle, but we assume that ultimately everything real is governed by laws that can be described. So again, is Randi simply demanding the impossible, or is he genuinely interested in potentially new frontiers of science?
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Here is another one. If we should prove that humans communicate through pheromones, can I apply for the million retroactively, offering pheromones as proof of ESP, retroactively that is, or does it no longer apply?
 
  • #48
Of course it does, but we can't explain it all using known physics.
thats the essence of every theory. the big bang simply is the best fit for the data we have. when we get more data we punch it in. if it doesn't work we revise.

Here is another one. If we should prove that humans communicate through pheromones, can I apply for the million retroactively, offering pheromones as proof of ESP, retroactively that is, or does it no longer apply?
again I am pretty sure he's looking for something that hasnt been explained by science.
 
  • #49
Why not test man v machine? Put a random 6 digit number in the black bag and have a guessing contest between humans and computers? Give each participant 100 guesses and see who 'wins' [closest to the hole]. Rinse, repeat and do a chi squared analysis. Assuming computers have no 'psychic' abilities, should there not be a statistically significant result?
 
  • #50
Chronos said:
Why not test man v machine? Put a random 6 digit number in the black bag and have a guessing contest between humans and computers? Give each participant 100 guesses and see who 'wins' [closest to the hole]. Rinse, repeat and do a chi squared analysis. Assuming computers have no 'psychic' abilities, should there not be a statistically significant result?
Why the computer ? Why not just compare the human success rate against the theoretical probabilities ? The probability of correctly guessing n digits in each guess is 10^{-n}.
 
  • #51
Gokul43201 said:
Why the computer ? Why not just compare the human success rate against the theoretical probabilities ? The probability of correctly guessing n digits in each guess is 10^{-n}.
ya i don't like that. LEts use a # that is in Base 1,000 and not tell them the # is in base 1,000. if they are truly psychic this would make no difference. As a real psychic would be like. oh very nice. Base 1,000. the # is...
 
  • #52
munky99999 said:
ya i don't like that. LEts use a # that is in Base 1,000 and not tell them the # is in base 1,000. if they are truly psychic this would make no difference. As a real psychic would be like. oh very nice. Base 1,000. the # is...
:smile: Ingenious !
 
  • #53
What is supernatural? It cannot be proven. By the time it is proven, it is not so supernatural anymore. There is no such thing as supernatural. The universe and all that happens and lay within, is natural... yet considered supernatural before it is understood by mankind. Silly humans... :) When it isn't proven, it isn't accepted. By the time it is accepted by all, it is already proven.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Moral Observation Sentences: Can Ethics be Modeled on Science?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
BRS: PKI Cryptosystems for SA/Ms: A Tutorial
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K