BrainMan

Im not sure if this is actually related or not, but... As children, me and my brother found a group of wires strung together and decided it would be fun to see what would happen if we stuck different wires into the plug socket. Thankfully, neither of us were hurt, but in an instant of placing another wire into the socket (we already had a few in there) the light went out and what looked like a glowing ball flew across the room. The plug socket had a permanent black mark around it where it had been burnt.

Well, Im deeply sorry for "bothering" either of you. I suppose asking for some actual reasoning is a bit too much to ask. ;P

How would you go about doing that? In chaotic systems, even miniscule differences in starting conditions can lead to exponential divergance in the outcome. You would have to have the ability to control and predict each component of the system with infinite precision. As I said in another thread, infinitely precise initial conditions are a fiction, as far as we can tell- there is no such thing. If you know otherwise, I would be glad to hear how you could actually create an infinitely precise system that would allow such control. If you cannot, it is simply pointless to speak of perfect prediction.

But we cannot have all the variables, not even theoretically. You would have to make measurments with infinite precision for that, and as far as we can tell, the infinitely precise doesn't exist- it is a fiction.

Actually, that is incorrect. Although the probability of reaching 1 after a single move is 1/2, the probability of reaching 1 in three moves is 5/8 (1/2 will get there on the first move, and only 1/8 will get there on the third move). The sum you suggest looks like: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... = 1. What we actually are seeing is: 1/2 + 1/8 You are going to have to explain exactly where your terms are comming from if you use the series you suggested. That just isn't true. It isn't possible for the man to continue moving back anf forth between 0 and -1 for an infinite number of moves. The probability of this occuring approaches 0% as the number of moves approach infinity. Hence, your statement is false.

There is a drunk man standing on the number 0. The man stumbles back and forth, and he has a 50% chance of moving backward (0 to -1 ect) on each move and a 50% chance of moving forward on each move. Prove that after an infinite number of moves, the probability of the man reaching 1 is 100%.

No, the second way I stated the problem is correct.

There are shops that specialize in hot sauces and papers with extreamly high contents of capsaisin. Some of them are so high, that they will literally do serious damage to a person (even just touching it to your skin). This stuff is no joke. I suppose you could use smoe of this stuff for defense in a powder, but I wouldn't really recommend it. Here is a quick example: http://store.yahoo.com/hotsauceworld/index.html

Also, the combinations you assigned (HH, HT, TT) would not choose randomly between three people even if they did come up. One person would have an advantage over the others- given that it is an unfair coin.

The problem is that your solution does not necessarily work. It is always possible that the flipping will go on forever hitting on combinations that have not been assigned. So you do not garauntee being able to pick a person at random.

Each of the people must have equal odds of being selected.

Actaully, I think I stated the problem wrong. It was supposed to be: How do you choose randomly between three people using a single unfair coin? Sorry for the mistake...

This was posted by someone else on another site. It is a fin problem that I now pose to you. You have to choose randomly (with a 50-50 chance) between two people using three unfair coins. How do you do it? The coins can be unfair in any specific specified way (they just cannot be 50-50 for heads and tails). And, for a nice start (and easier problem), how would you do it with three fair coins?

I dont see how this is relavant. If one of these blindsight patients close thier eyes, they will not have the ability that they normally do to detect objects visually. Unconscious visual processing would, by deinition, not be "extra-sensory" because it is what we all normally do and is a normal part of vision. What does thier claim of not being conscious of it have to do with anything?

The problem is that nothing can ever be disproven entirely. The question is: "what is reasonable to believe?" I can make up a million stories of tiny pink unicorns living in my nostrils or magic people controlling my thoughts. But I shouldn't accept this as a reasonable possibility. For something to be reasonable, it needs to explain (ie organize) experience. In addition, to be science at all it needs to be able to make some kind of testable prediction. I am of the opinion that predictive ability is what it means for something to exist. If you can't show predictive ability of what you claim, then you might as well be talking about the magical pink unicorns controlling your thoughts. Even if commonsense explinations organize your own experiences, prediction is what allows objectivity and correction.

Nah, there are the freaks in the philosophy departments for that. Scientists are skeptics my friend. Skeptics...

After having taken plenty of courses from respected psychologists at university level, I can say that it is mostly BS what THEY teach too. Bit I gues that's beside the point...

To be quite honest, I'm not sure what Productlog is. How does it relate ot Log or nl? And how did you arrive at this answer? Suppose that a = 1/2. What would Productlog[a^a+1Log(a)] give as a result?

Well it is ofered as a course- normally. It just isn't required. Although I sort of enjoy the idea of requiring the course (mostly due to my own involvement in the field biasing my opinion), I think folk psychology is good enough for most practical purposes in life.

I often wonder how much of what people claim to have dreamed is really just interpretation after the fact. For instance, someone might wake up in a state of slight fear. You wake up in fear with a "jolt" (like you had fallen), and the mind says "aha, I was dreaming that I fell...that explains it". After this, you simply "remember" your dream that you fell- regardless of what was actually going on while you were asleep. Now it certainly doesn't feel as if it is all just an after the fact story that put together something coherent enough to be caled a dream, but this might be what happens anyway. Welcome back James, it's good to know you are alive and well. As far as the paranormal goes, I think much of it is simply a confirmation bias. There are plenty of disconfirming instances of these supposed phenomena, but people only pay attention to those few instances when dumb luck makes things come out right. Not to mention ambiguity and seeing what you want to see...

Oops. That was: http://pub138.ezboard.com/fponderersguildfrm9.showMessageRange?topicID=734.topic&start=1&stop=20

This was posted elsewhere, and I found one response especially helpful in understanding what is going on here. I will just post the response in full (but I can't garauntee that I am able to answer questions about it should they arise: From: [link]http://pub138.ezboard.com/fponderersguildfrm9.showMessageRange?topicID=734.topic&start=1&stop=20[/link]

Probably. But substituting an SSRI for an MAOI might be a very bad idea.

Perhaps you are (or could) look at the way that psychological results have been used in advertising to get people to buy certain products...? Or in politics?

What, specifically, are you trying to get at with the term "manipulation"? Isn't all language just a form of manipulation? Language is how we reach over and grab ahold of another person's brain and say "think this way, damn it!" Aren't all pursuavive speaches a type of manipulation? How about an infant crying? People talk about telepathy and mind-control and such without even noticing that we all use telepathy and mind control everyday- we normally call it "langauge". So it is clear that manipulation is not necessarily directed at particular personality types or particular traits (aside from those traits we all share). I think the important question here is if specific traits or personality types make people more vulnerable to certain kinds manipulation. For example, we might ask if introverts are more likely to submit to authority figures' commands- even if they are immoral or harmful. Understaning what kinds of traits or personalities are more susceptible to what kinds of manipulation would basically answer the question. Wether or not people always pick up on these traits and know how to (and actually do) use them for manipulating a person is a slightly different issue. Can you be more specific as to what it is you are looking at or trying to understand (or write about, or whatever)?