Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!unc-c!dya
From: dya@unc-c.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re:  Schauble's Re:  My thoughts on NOVA's ESP
Message-ID: <1224@unc-c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 19:42:28 EST
Article-I.D.: unc-c.1224
Posted: Fri Feb  3 19:42:28 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 07:46:00 EST
Lines: 51

References: sri-arpa.16250



     One possible explaination for non-manipulative ESP/PSI (i.e. receive
only, clairvoyance, etc) might be behavioural. Is it possible when someone
knows "what someone else is doing" that one is behaving in an attenuated
fashion as the other person did ?

     B.F. Skinner states that pheonomena such as "search and recall" behaviour
really represent behaving in the original "storage" way, albeit attenuated.
For example, when you remember how Dr. J made that great basketball shot,
what you are really doing is behaving in ways which result in recreating
as many of the contingencies of reinforcement as originally.

     Certain contingencies of reinfocement are unavialable to direct analysis
( for example, tactile information of every point on the body ) because
neurology is simply too inferior provide awareness of each and every
contingency of reinforcement. Nevertheless, perhaps the observation of
other persons (and noting their contingencies of reinforcement, such as
what they are doing at given times of the day, etc.) causes either 1)) a
flaw in the human behavioural O.S. such that one begins responding to
the contingencies of reinforcement in the other person. Thus, certain
people who might have behaved in ways which strengthen their ability
to temporarily suspend their behavioural O.S. and extrapolate based upon
someone elses' might be able to predict (with a greater than "random"
chance ) what they are doing, where they went, etc.  2) The flaw is probably
how one can explain experiences such as deja vu. Perhaps the evolution
process has not perfected the human behavioural O.S..

     I have yet to see a controlled PSI/ESP experiment where clairvoyance
was involved, and the "predictor" and "object" didn't know each other
fairly well. Also, has anyone checked to see if the "hit" rate increases
as a function of how long the predictor and object have contact with
each other ?

     I used to hang around this psychic old lady (worth about $7 million)
while in high school just to see if there was any justification to the
matter. The fact that all these psychics really know each other well
(very well !) really makes me believe that their effacy in prediction or
whatever has a purely behavioural basis.

     Radical behaviourism doesn't violate any natural laws, either.




David "Not a radical behaviourist, but open minded to anything reasonable"
  Anthony

   ( akgua!mcnc!urp,unc-c!dya  )