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 )