Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: ESP - (nf)
Message-ID: <5644@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Feb-84 23:27:18 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5644
Posted: Tue Feb 14 23:27:18 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 04:27:29 EST
Lines: 63

#R:mi-cec:-20000:uokvax:3800022:000:2852
uokvax!emjej    Feb 13 14:04:00 1984

>/***** uokvax:net.misc / mi-cec!dvk / 10:22 am  Feb 10, 1984 */
>I have observed "paranormal" phenomena, so you will have a hard time
>convincing me that they don't exist. 

You mean you have observed phenomena that you *interpret* as "paranormal"
(I use the quotes as you do here.)

>But:  It also is not coincidence.  Example:  I have not talked to Andrea
>in 2 months, nor have I really thought about her.  Suddenly I get the
>inspiration to call.  As I am walking to the phone, it rings.  Andrea is
>calling me.  The same thing happens with my sister (often we find ourselves
>saying "I was just going to call you").

I'll bite--how is that not coincidence? Friends and relatives are
people that one is likely to call. If they live in the same time zone,
they are likely to call at times one is likely to call them. If you had
an urge to call Francois Mitterand and he called, and you told him "I
was just going to call you," that would be rather less likely.

>I am willing to write off my telepathic/empathetic abilities to simply
>the power of observation.  However the telephone episodes are another story.
>I can attribute a "mental link" to my sister as being linked to our filial
>association.  Andrea is not related though.  Can I prove anything?  No.
>You have to take my word for it, and I think I am a bit more believable than
>Uri Geller, because 1) I am a scientist, and not a charlatan actor, and 2) I
>realize that I can't prove anything, so I don't come in with drum roll and
>fanfare.

Perhaps, but you're just as vulnerable as the rest of us (including me) to
statistical fallacies such as those the above incidents are examples of.
I will take your word for it that the above has happened to you, but I do
not consider it proof of anything (nor are fallacious interpretations any
indication of stupidity or the like--people *want* to believe in spoon-bending,
clairvoyance, and other such stuff).

>I have also tried telekinesis, and I can't do it.  Not even on a mote of
>dust, or a smoke particle.

I'm glad to see that you've tried it. Somehow, moving small objects on
level, frictionless surfaces seems like an obvious thing to try to do
to test telekinesis, rather trying to effect the outcome of supposedly
random events. Have any parapsychologists set up such an experiment?

>But I can slow my heart - that is a more believable system.

Not to mention one for which no ESPoid explanation would seem to be
necessary.

>I also can't do precognition.  (If I could, I'd go
>play the lottery a lot).  But occasionally, I am empathic and telepathic.
>No, I can't "read your mind".  It depends on who, and where, and when.  But
>it does happen.

With all due respect, and no derogatory implications, I must beg to differ
about your conclusions.

>			-Dan Klein, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh
/* ---------- */

						James Jones