Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!jejones
From: jejones@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Re: Mind and Brain - (nf)
Message-ID: <9800029@ea.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 04:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.9800029
Posted: Thu Aug 16 04:10:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 02:23:07 EDT
References: <1396@proper.UUCP>
Lines: 37
Nf-ID: #R:proper:-139600:ea:9800029:000:1932
Nf-From: ea!jejones    Aug 16 03:10:00 1984

#R:proper:-139600:ea:9800029:000:1932
ea!jejones    Aug 16 03:10:00 1984

/***** ea:net.philosophy / metheus!howard / 12:06 am  Aug 10, 1984 */
(2) She was also very good at identifying cards that I was looking at.  The
only time I have statistics for is the time that a skeptical friend of mine
challenged us to demonstrate.  We attempted 25 cards from a standard pack of
52 playing cards (no jokers), without replacement.  The score was:
	5 cards exactly right (suit and rank)
	5 cards rank right but suit wrong
	5 cards suit right but rank wrong
	10 cards completely wrong
(I know these numbers look made up, but the reason we stopped at 25 is that I
had been keeping a running tally and everything came out so even then.)
The statisticians among you may find it desirable to calculate the odds against
doing this well by random luck.  I remember doing so, and I think the answer
was more than 1,000,000,000 to 1, but it's been 15 years.  You may assume that
after each guess the card was exposed for all to see; at any rate some of them
were, and she was always told whether she was right or not.

-The problem is that in a large set of outcomes, any one of them looks very
-unlikely. Is this particular outcome one that lends support to the notion
-that there is such a thing as psi? I don't particularly think so, especially
-since the desired outcome is ill-defined, and the experimenters stopped when
-they got a result they liked.

So, does this make me a believer in PSI?  Well, yes and no.  For myself, I
never really saw any UTILITY in any of this.  For example, we tried once to
have her play blackjack, but the effect (if any) wasn't strong enough to
enable her to win money.  And it always felt unreliable; sometimes she had it,
sometimes she didn't, and there wasn't any way to control or enhance it.

-This is exactly what would happen if it were the case that supposed
-psi events were simply coincidence. I think you're right to live the way you
-do.
						-James Jones
/* ---------- */