Skip to main content

Psychic powers

Incidentally, talking of psychic powers, not everyone who shows an amazing ability is necessarily deliberately deceiving others (though most are).

Funnily enough I discovered this myself, doing a silly card trick with two friends. My first friend and I set up a "mind-reading" situation where he would ask the colour of the next card and I would guess. The clue was he'd say "right" or "ok" depending on whether it was black or red. We appeared to start doing it just mucking around, when we had in fact carefully rehearsed. We made sure we included a few mistakes to add credibility. We were curious to see how long it would take before our other friends rumbled us.

One other friend was amazed, so we tested her. And she found she could do it too. She got more and more excited as she got card after card right - apparently using her own "psychic powers". She was subliminally reading the same clues, of course. Her disappointment on discovering how she was really doing it was, of course, huge. I felt quite guilty.
Labels:

Comments

Martin Cooke said…
Maybe we'd expect there to be genuine psychics, picking up such subliminal information (both physiological and parapsychological) from the background, if property dualism was true. Such people wouldn't be able to get lottery numbers (and the like) that way, but if many of us were just a bit like that it might explain why so many of us are prone to star psychics (who are pretty obvious really). If we're not just matter arranged like computers, and if we're not incarnate souls, then property dualism is indicated. And if property dualism is true then we ought to expect a low-level psychic background (which we may have evolved to block out, much as computers block out viruses). (At the very least, if the folk metaphysics is that we're neither robots nor spirits, that could explain why people are so prone.)
February 2, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Cuttlefish said…
Ack...

enigman, leave the explanations until after the phenomenon has been demonstrated to exist in the first place. It has not. Roughly a century of experimental research in parapsychology and spiritualism, and it is so far a history of charlatans, frauds, victims and the self-deluded.

Stephen, I have seen the same in my students--some phenomenon seems extraordinary (and is, in truth, pretty damned cool), but has a mundane explanation... and they are disappointed. Why? Why not rejoice in the discovery that you are able to detect the fact that you have been fooling yourself?
February 3, 2008 at 4:47 AM
Podblack said…
As my friend DC says, if you want to know more, the area of Anomalistic Psychology is what you want to check out. Goldsmiths is a useful resource to check out too: www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru/
February 3, 2008 at 4:55 AM
Martin Cooke said…
It's only natural to be disappointed, that one was fooling oneself; but what were they thinking? That they could do magic? That God so loved them that He made them good at guessing games? No, and I bet they would have been much less credulous about conjuring tricks, and Santa Claus. Can't you hear that crying out for an explanation?

I'm pretty sure that the nonexistence of psychic abilities should be a prety good argument against property dualism (although the folkiness of the latter might explain the common credence in the former), but that nonexistence is hardly established by testing star psychics and finding out that they are in show business, or even by testing such sad people as want to be laboratory rats.

Maybe your guess is better than mine, cuttlefish, but guesswork isn't fieldwork; and postulation (of explanations) precedes predictions (and verifications), even in science.
February 3, 2008 at 5:42 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more