Psychic Abilities?

[Ganchrow]

I just noticed a thread over at Casinomeister that talked about using some manner of psychic something or another to assist in gambling.

So I'm curious. How do people here feel about this?

[gynecologist]

Well I always thought when you use psychic abilities for
financial purposes or intentions the abilities become obsolete.

[isetcap]

I'm a big fan of psychic abilities. They make for great fiction.

[paul2650]

I'm somewhat of a believer in "para-psychology". A little bit, anyway.

Studies have shown that there are people who have a sense of extra sensory perception which is developed to a greater degree than others, so I wouldn't completely discount the idea of using psychic abilities to forsee the outcome of sporting events.

Just because it's something that most of us (and the scientific community) doesn't fully understand - or understand at all - that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Like any other ability, though, it must be kept in mind that

1- Some of us will have it and some of us won't, and
2- For those of us who do have it, it's something that has to be worked on and practiced and developed, and
3- #2 is kinda hard, because we may have it and not know that we do, and it's hard to know what to do to develop it if we do have it.

[Mudcat]

I just noticed a thread over at Casinomeister that talked about using some manner of psychic something or another to assist in gambling.

So I'm curious. How do people here feel about this?

I feel it is pure unadulterated hokum.

It does not surprise me that some people would want so badly to believe it were possible, they would make the leap to actually believing it. Wishful thinking run amok is all around us all the time.

But my thinking is science based and my answer remains: hokum. (And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you, ganchrow, who at one time had the Amazing Randi as your avatar, agree with me).

[BuddyBear]

no such thing...stick with science

[Ganchrow]

IBut my thinking is science based and my answer remains: hokum. (And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you, ganchrow, who at one time had the Amazing Randi as your avatar, agree with me).

What are you, psychic?

[Ganchrow]

Studies have shown that there are people who have a sense of extra sensory perception which is developed to a greater degree than others,

I'd love to see such a study in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.

Only problem is that when you get right down it, no such studies seem to really exist.

[JoshW]

I believe in it, just like I believe in ghosts and cold fusion.

[Dead Money]

You mean you guys don't call Dionne Warwick, Miss Cleo, and the Psychic Friends Network before you make your bets???

Oh.

[Dark Horse]

'Psychic', at least by my definition, isn't so much knowing the outcome of a game beforehand. It is the ability to influence a game through mental power. Home field advantage is an example of 'psychic' influence exercised by the home crowd. For one person to have such influence he would have to possess a very powerful and focused mind. Most people do not, and therefore they don't believe that it is possible. (This opens the door to the familiar dynamic of the many laughing at the few, in order to justify their ignorance.) So is it possible? Absolutely. Is it common? Absolutely not. In any case, this belongs to the realm of the unseen, which takes many years to explore and understand, or two seconds to shrug off.

[Ganchrow]

'Psychic', at least by my definition, isn't so much knowing the outcome of a game beforehand. It is the ability to influence a game through mental power. Home field advantage is an example of 'psychic' influence exercised by the home crowd.

I think there's a decidedly more mundane explanation for home field advantage.

For one person to have such influence he would have to possess a very powerful and focused mind. Most people do not, and therefore they don't believe that it is possible. (This opens the door to the familiar dynamic of the many laughing at the few, in order to justify their ignorance.)

When belief is based solely on faith without regard to the complete lack of scientific evidence supporting that belief, I'd argue it is the believers who are victim to either self-delusion or intellectual dishonesty.

Sure I might be wrong. But I might also be wrong about the invisible dragons under my bed. (I claim that they don't exist, but my cat seems to think that they do.)

[Dark Horse]

It will be hard to find tangible proof for psychic phenomena, for the simple reason that it will, by definition, have to be invisible. Most people have a hard enough time with visible evidence (see my sig). Just ask Galileo.

The question what is true and what is belief is an interesting one. As long as I'm not expected to answer it.

[Stumpage]

Anybody who believes in psychic ability is a few cards short of a full deck...

...Incidentally, the 2006 RedSox will go 99-63 and win their 2nd World Series in 3 years. In early February, the Indianapolis Colts will claim the SuperBowl Title, and the 2007 Ottawa Senators will win their first Stanley Cup in nearly a century.

Sincerely, Stumpage Psychic Services

[Dark Horse]

It always amazes me how people put a limit on human capacity, based on their own personal limitation.

Example. If I'd take my laptop, helicopter, and deep sea watch back a few centuries, I'd be considered a sorcerer. Except by Leonardo da Vinci perhaps.

The point?

Essentially, I'd have to agree with my medieval accusers, because I wouldn't have the first clue as to how to put those devices together from scratch. And neither, I'd be willing to bet, would most of you.

It took a few exceptional minds to advance science. Tesla, Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc. Humanity as a whole benefits. But humanity doesn't truly understand the technology it uses. If these things weren't part of daily life, and we had only heard about the possibilities, would we still believe them?

Or would we talk about them in the same way that we now talk about psychic potential? Remember, it was a few advanced minds that broke through the veil to advance science. Humanity as a whole is still on the other side of that veil.

We use 'miracles' every day. Why wouldn't there be more?

By the way, unless you've never read anybody's mind, you're in danger of having 'psychic' potential...

[Ganchrow]

It took a few exceptional minds to advance science. Tesla, Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc. Humanity as a whole benefits. But humanity doesn't truly understand the technology it uses. If these things weren't part of daily life, and we had only heard about the possibilities, would we still believe them?

As scientists all these people had one partiuclar attribute in common: they all made testable hypotheses which were then subjected to the rigors of the peer review process.

[Dark Horse]

Nevertheless, the inspiration that initiated the discovery process, culminating (?) in peer review, was individual and hidden.

Isn't it interesting that Einstein, and not he alone, is known to have come to the right conclusion in spite of mathematical errors?
Doesn't that suggest that he started out with the final insight, acquired through inspiration, and then, in an effort to prove it to his peers, had to go through a process that, at least to him, wasn't very necessary at all?

[Dark Horse]

To complete that thought. In the metaphysical realm the burden of proof lies with the indvidual. The approval of others is no requirement. (Perception through the five senses is, by definition, fragmented. Intuitive perception is not.)

Naturally, some charlatans will exploit this loop hole, but that doesn't mean that all who specialize in the unseen are so inclined.

According to certain sages, psychic powers are a sidetrack and are better left alone.

"There is no spoon."

[Ganchrow]

Nevertheless, the inspiration that initiated the discovery process, culminating (?) in peer review, was individual and hidden.

So I'm not sure I'm following your logic ... you're equating scientists' self-revelatory moments with blind faith?

Isn't it interesting that Einstein, and not he alone, is known to have come to the right conclusion in spite of mathematical errors?

That's what the scientific method is all about. You postulate an hypothesis, test its implications, and then refine the original idea. The proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only when they mesh with the observations in the empirical world. Then and only then does hypothesis become theory. The problem with the "study" of parapsychology and other pseudosciences, on the other hand, is that there are no testable implications and hence no way for it to make the leap from fanciful conjecture to scientific theory.

Doesn't that suggest that he started out with the final insight, acquired through inspiration, and then, in an effort to prove it to his peers, had to go through a process that, at least to him, wasn't very necessary at all?

Except that that's untrue. As Einstein himself put it (paraphrasing Newton), "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, as phenomenal a breakthrough as it certainly was, was still a very incomplete picture of the physical world. If science had merely rested on it laurels, not continually subjecting Relativity (or, to pick another example, Newton's Principia before it) to the gauntlet of peer review, we would never have encountered some of the more incredible breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, string theory, and cosmology of the latter half of the twentieth century and beyond.

[Ganchrow]

To complete that thought. In the metaphysical realm the burden of proof lies with the indvidual. The approval of others is no requirement. (Perception through the five senses is, by definition, fragmented. Intuitive perception is not.)

As autonomous beings we have the "luxury" of being able to believe whatever hokum is thrown our way. But alas, belief without evidence does not for science make.

Naturally, some charlatans will exploit this loop hole, but that doesn't mean that all who specialize in the unseen are so inclined.

I'd agree with you there. I'd expect that a number of your "Unseen Specialists" are only deluding themselves.

"There is no spoon."

Isn't that a line from a movie where Keanu Reeves is supposed to be some sort of a genius?

[slacker00]

I'll take Dark Horse's side in this.

I'll content there are things yet to be fully understood, despite the enourmous breakthroughs science has provided to this point.

Even so, I'll need a precise definition of "psychic abilities" to be able to put forth a meaningful argument. If we are talking about the psychic friends network or illusionism or whatever, there isn't much to discuss. But, if we are talking about certain intuitions and hunches that people sometimes have, yet cannot explain, then it's tougher to "explain away". Just because science cannot explain much about my human spirit or essence, doesn't mean that such a "me" doesn't exist.

Realistically, though, I don't know if there's enough power in any supposed psychic abilities to be of any value in sports betting. In poker, it might be a different story. Some of those guys just seem spooky in how they can seem to know what cards the other guy has. Are they mind reading? Probably not, it's just tons of experience, as well as "hunches" which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.