Subject: Telekenesis or Bullshit?

From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002 11:09 PM

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html

...Among other studies, this site claims it has found
that machines which produce random results when
unattended, produce somewhat more ordered results
when interacting with a human. The effect is small,
but according to researchers, the cumulative results
are greater than those that can be attribute to change
alone.

--
%

There is no nu-monet there is only Zuul.

In a year holding a three, or seven,
or five, or nine, or maybe not,
Two things, might be people, or armies,
or buildings,
Or anything really, blades of grass,
or stoats, or crapulous charlatans
spouting mimsy,
Might do something nebulous.
Insert made-up-bit here.

--Generic Nostradamus Quatrain from
"The Guardian"

$ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------
$ $ $ $ $ ------------S H O W-------------
$ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------
$ $ $ $ $ ------------Y O U R-------------
$ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------
$ $ $ $ $ -------P A T R I O T I S M------
$ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------
$ $ $ $ $ -------------B U Y--------------
$ $ $ $ $ $ --------------------------------
-------------------S U B G E N I U S--------
--------------------------------------------
-----------------------T O D A Y !----------
--------------------------------------------
http://www.subgenius.com/scatalog.html --

%
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Telekenesis or Bullshit?
From: modemac@modemac.com (Modemac)

Telekenesis or bullshit? Answer: bullshit. Human beings (or at least
sentient beings) tend to avoid being truly "random," and even develop
their own patterns based on habit and instinct. For instance, when
asked to choose a number between 1 and 5, more people would tend to
pick "3" than the standard 20% a truly "random" selection would pick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Telekenesis or Bullshit?
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Now waitasec. That was *not* what they studied.

They took computer randomizers that performed well
when not around people, then put people *near* them.
They didn't randomnize as well:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html

The change was not a great one, but there *was* a
change. *However*, there was *no* *direct* machine-
human interface.

However, this *still* does not *prove* anything
more than the person's proximity capacitance could
screw up the randomizers. To explain: a simple
electronic device can detect a person by their
inherent capacitance *without touching them*. I
have seen this demonstrated in simple toys.

But since there is a wide variation in capacitance
between people (and skin resistance, 40k ohm is
about normal, but I've seen it as high as 200k ohm(*)),
*it would appear* that some people cause *more*
"effect" (whatever was caused by their capacitance)
than others.

(*) skin resistance can make some interesting effects,
too. (N.B. electrical and heat resistance are *not*
the same thing, so being "thin skinned" to heat or
cold means little, electrically.)

In other words, something *did* happen. They may
have just misinterpreted *what*.

%
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Alliekatt" <alleykatzen@hotmail.com>

>
> However, this *still* does not *prove* anything
> more than the person's proximity capacitance could
> screw up the randomizers. To explain: a simple
> electronic device can detect a person by their
> inherent capacitance *without touching them*. I
> have seen this demonstrated in simple toys.

Yeah, but you shoulda seen how the statistics peaked for those random number
generators on September 11. And what clinches it, is the peak started about
30 minutes before the actual events. If human emotions can affect machine
function, I can believe it; my cool logical netadmin programmer husband is
able to walk into the room when my computer's on the blink, and suddenly it
works just fine, even before he touches the keyboard.

Or when the refrigerator breaks. Or when the door lock isn't turning.
Etcetera. I'll try to work it and coax it and fidget and twiddle until I
give up and kick the fucker. Then he comes over and it works for him smooth
as silk.

I always wanted to know how that happened. I always thought it was a worn
out cosmic joke. Somehow, in the back of my mind, I thought I could hear
the refrigerator laughing.

alliekatt
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Telekenesis or Bullshit?
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

Well, again there might not be anything "paranormal"
about it. Let me explain:

Human musculature is based on opposing pairs of muscles.
To achieve movement, or perform an action, one pair of
muscles is tensed as the other relaxes. *Ideally* the
muscle that relaxes should relax to a set point *ideal*
to balance the smooth contraction of the tension group.

However, in practice, the relaxing muscle doesn't relax
enough, so *in addition* to moving whatever load, you
*also* have to use your strength to overcome your own
not-relaxed-enough muscle resistance.

But by using a relaxation technique, called "ki" or
"chi" by martial artists, one can consciously make
their relaxing group relax more--instantly improving
the efficiency of the tension group--and thus apparently
*increasing* their strength and power. It also improves
the "smoothness" of the motion and its accuracy.

But what about emotions? Many emotions interfere with
this smooth functioning, (along with having many other
physiological effects. So if you are "feeling", it may
not be as easy to "do." The same applies to "thinking",
as opposed to "doing." (I have seen an engineer so
wrapped up in trying to intellectually analyze a martial
arts movement that his actions were stiffly robotic.
Funny. He never did learn how just to "do".)

And while such things may be complex, they are hardly
"paranormal."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: HellPope Huey <hellpopehuey@subspamgeenyus.com>

Who wants a machine that produces random results, unless its a computer used to
post to Usenet? Oh, we're talking about Windows 2000 here, sorry.
Or maybe half the cars on the road, which would generally function more
effectively if you DID just start 'em up and send them down the road driverless.

Just because the results are GREATER doesn't mean they're BETTER. But hey,
that's what you'd expect from frigging Princeton; it takes a HARVARD man or
perhaps an MIT wag to bring it into proper focus.

It also fails to address a situation in which one human meat machine interacts
with another, which is almost ALWAYS a random mess. THOSE cumulative results are
generally quite dreadful, oh my. Unless its ME eating at the "Y."

BTW, the term telekinesis precisely refers to things akin to poltergeist
activity, in which the phenomena are generated from currently undefined or
residual energies of an unspecified nature from without. PSYCHOkinesis is the
use of MENTAL energy to effect observable change in real-time.

This is why Jean Grey of the X-Men can squeeze your bowels like an icing
applicator and make you blorp in your pants.

HellPope Huey, hellpopehuey@subgenius.com
Get on, get in, get off, get out

"Years ago, authors predicted that information
would become so plentiful
that we would no longer pay for it..
instead...we'd pay to be shielded from it "
- Paul Lehrman

"What I look forward to is
continued immaturity followed by death."
- Dave Barry

"Plain women know more about men
than beautiful women."
- Katharine

Back to document index

Original file name: Telekenesis or Bullshit? - converted on Friday, 20 September 2002, 16:05