From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: RePost of Article R. McGrath failed to get.
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:14:09 GMT

In article <1golutINNmkf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes in part:
|> Mr. McGrath responds:
|> 
|> >> My response is direct and to the point:  What are you talking about?
|> >> I haven't seen such a post.  Sorry.
|> 
|> Very well, I will assume that you honestly missed my original posting
|> and will repost it for your benefit.  I am very much interested in
|> receiving a response, specifically, how you discount the individuals
|> I subsequently list below, as frauds or misguided scholars, and how you
|> believe the recorded cases in the references I list are invalid.

I'm not sure why you are so heated up about this.  Your insults and
arrogant attitude certainly do not motivate me to take a lot of
trouble to discuss things with you.  While I'm waiting for your
apology, I'll examine your post and see what is in it.

|> I most certainly agree.  IF you approach AI from the perspective that
|> the human brain is nothing more than a very complex computer, following
|> all the mechanical laws a computer must follow, then if this were
|> found not to be true, as I also agree with McGrath - veridical psychical 
|> phenomena would prove it to be untrue, then indeed many AI 
|> theoreticians will have to start burning stacks of well written papers
|> while hopefully, nobody is looking.  

Your hostility is even more difficult to fathom as you explicitly 
say that you agree with what I was saying all along.

|> However, I also hope Mr. McGrath is willing to see that this particular
|> view of the human mind, has been a hotly debated topic for a number
|> of centuries now 

...which I agree with but isn't what I was talking about.  I was talking
about what you said above.

|> My 
|> own disagreement with McGrath's original statements was that Mr.
|> Mcgrath made it sound as if all of AI research would crumble before the 
|> onslaught of veridical psychical phenomena, because it would disprove
|> the theory of "human mind = computer."  I will agree with him that
|> it will have a strong effect for many in the field, but it will hardly end
|> the endless approaches to Artificial Intelligence that do exist.

Once again, I will point out that I never said anything at all about
AI.  I referred to two specific, related theoretical areas: the
basic theory of computable functions and digital encryption.  I
NEVER said, and had NO INTENTION of saying, anything about everything 
that has to do with computers.  Here you are refuting something I never
argued in the first place.

|> Mr. McGrath also writes:
|> 
|> >> Which, of course, is no coincidence--most belief in ESP is a form
|> >> of secular religion, with "scientific" trappings used to help shore
|> >> up age-old mystic concepts.
|> 
|> I also whole heartedly agree with him here.  

...and you agree yet again.  Why are you so gosh darned hostile to
me?

|> However, I also hope McGrath allows such
|> research to occur in the name of science .. for those who want to do
|> so, and believe me, there have been many, among which some of the
|> highest of scientific caliber.  
Have I EVER said otherwise?  You insult me by even suggesting I might
hold such a view.

|> Very well, Mr. McGrath, I accept your challenge.  I just hope it will
|> not fall on deaf and unscientific ears.  
...and then you go off into the HISTORY of the SPR.  This is not
unknown to me.  It is also not especially useful data.

|> "Phantasms and Human Personality"  contain scores
|> of rigorously documented case histories of veridical psychical phenomenon,
|> and the "Census" was an analysis of some seven thousand replies which
|> had been received to a questionnaire which the Society had sent out.
Case studies are very poor evidence of anything.  These two collections 
strongly establish general beliefs in "psychical phenomena" and may give
clues as the kinds of personal experiences that are commonly labeled
"psychic experiences".  They do little to explain such experiences.

When you add in the fact that these cases are old, so that nothing
can be learned about them wxcept what is written, and you have
what amounts to nothing more than a collection of stories that
can't be checked.  It is not wise to place much reliance on such
evidence.

|> paranormal evidence in his book "Science and Psychical Phenomena", and
|> probably another classic in the field of Psychical Research is Tyrell's
|> other book "Apparitions" which contains numerous well documented cases
|> related to apparitions and telepathy.  
See previous comment.

|> There is the extensive study of the trance mediumship of Mrs.
|> Leonore Piper, of Boston, Mass.  She was discovered by Prof.  William
|> James in 1885, and was studied intensively by American and British
|> psychical researchers, among them Dr. James Hyslop, Dr. Richard Hodgson,
|> Sir Oliver Lodge and F.W.H. Myers.  No imputation of fraud was ever
|> brought against her - and for William James, she revealed incontrovertible
|> evidence of telepathy.  An excellent source book for this research is:
|> "William James on Psychical Research", compiled and edited by Gardner 
|> Murphy Ph.D and Robert O. Ballou.  
See Ruth Brandon, "The Spiritualists" for a criticism of this
case.  There is no way to actually examine the events that happened,
we can only examine what is recorded about them.  What I conclude
is that James was completely convinced by Piper.  He may well have
been mistaken, but how could we possibly know?

|> Of more recent evidence which is been brought forth by the SPR, has
|> been the life work of Ian Stevenson who has collected thousands of cases
|> around the world of children who claim to have remember previous lives,
|> and has published many of these cases in several volumes each titled
|> "Cases of the Reincarnational Type" I, II, III etc.  Also, his book 
|> "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" is also an excellently well
|> documented source of at least telepathy (note he does not claim to have
|> discovered reincarnation).
Stevenson's methodology is badly flawed in his reincarnation studies.
I don't know anything about his "telepathy" stories, but see above
comments.

|> Above all, you will find thousands of cases documented in the
|> "Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research" which to this day
|> is still published.
See above comments about case studies.

|> However, there have of course been a large amount 
|> of other sources too - the work of Carl Jung for example, some paranormal 
|> phenomena he cites in his semi-autobiographical book "Memory, Dreams 
|> and Reflections".  
I don't know exactly what you are referring to here.  But Jung was a
mystic, and his theories are highly questionable.  Basically, I don't
accept most of what Jung says, on any topic.

|> The famous Rhine experiments.  
Which ones?  Huge chunks of Rhine's stuff has been discarded because
of methodological errors.  Which studies do you believe should still
be considered valid?

|> J.W. Dunne's
|> publications of "An Experiment With Time", "The Serial Universe", and
|> "The New Immortality".    
Never heard of this stuff.

|> William McDougall's work with Trance
|> Personalities especially the case of Helene Smith.  
Haven't heard of this case study, but it is yet another HISTORICAL
claim.  There is, I assume, nothing available except what people have
written about the case.  I also would note that I'm not a big
proponent of psychological theories of "personality", which I
consider the next thing to mysticism.

|> And of course, the
|> testimony of millions of common every day people, who are also convinced
|> of the validity of their own person paranormal experiences, regardless of
|> what skeptics, like yourself, tell them otherwise.
Now on this last point you have actually hit the crux of the matter.

Yes, lots of people have experiences that they label "psychic".
These experiences exist, are real and valid, and deserve scientific
examination.

The commonly experience "psychic phenomena" are real psychological
events.  The fact that people interpret these phenomena as
indicating "psychic powers" is also real.  This does not make this
interpretation correct, no matter how many people endorse these
folk theories.

Noone likes to be told that their firmly held beliefs might be
incorrect.  Nevertheless, everyone is mistaken about many things.
Part of growing up is learning to deal with this fact.

As a general methodological note, I should say that, like most
academically trained psychologists, I consider personal testimony
and case histories to be (scientifically) nearly useless.  You
have pointed me at a gigantic pile of "evidence" that I consider to 
be pretty much non-evidence.  I do not criticize you for this, but
you are going to find it difficult to convince me by such evidence.

While we are in the mood for exchanging "proofs", I'll ask you to
consider Alcock's Science and Supernature", Hansel's "The
Search for Psychic Powers", Hyman's "The Elusive Quarry", and
Blackmore's "Beyond the Body".  "I submit to you Mr. Ameta, that 
you will be hard put to find names of higher profession reputation 
than those names I have listed above, and who took upon themselves 
seriously the study of psychical phenomena of which there is nothing 
remotely "fakey" about them."

"I am very much interested in receiving a response, specifically, 
how you discount the individuals I list above, as frauds or misguided 
scholars..."

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal