Seeing blindfolded

Why did god design eyes then?

Bats have relatively good vision and echolocation.


(Though I will say - I'll need to look through this thread more carefully to get a solid opinion on this claim, but the idea that somebody could've lost their abilities for just a few months because a skeptic was mean to them raises, if not a red flag, then at least an eyebrow.)

but the idea that somebody could've lost their abilities for just a few months because a skeptic was mean to them raises, if not a red flag, then at least an eyebrow.

That's a pretty normal and expected thing. I've written about my experience with how much your mentality and emotions affect your ability to do these things pretty extensively on here in various places. It's pretty much the bane of my existence at the moment.

Bats have relatively good vision and echolocation.


(Though I will say - I'll need to look through this thread more carefully to get a solid opinion on this claim, but the idea that somebody could've lost their abilities for just a few months because a skeptic was mean to them raises, if not a red flag, then at least an eyebrow.)

Yes. For carrying ot functions in low light conditions “blind sight” would be an advantage. Have subjects been tested with the masks on and the lights off?

That's a pretty normal and expected thing. I've written about my experience with how much your mentality and emotions affect your ability to do these things pretty extensively on here in various places. It's pretty much the bane of my existence at the moment.

The problem for you is, whether it is the case or not, Will is right: it is a red flag , because it is indistinguishable from special pleading.

As Donald Hoffman pointed out in his recent interview with Alex, ‘psi’ is hamstrung by the lack of a mechanism/mathematical model. Once in place it might be easier to demonstrate a skeptic’s negative impact on outcomes.

That's a pretty normal and expected thing. I've written about my experience with how much your mentality and emotions affect your ability to do these things pretty extensively on here in various places. It's pretty much the bane of my existence at the moment.

My swordsmanship was insulted by a snobby kendo instructor the other day. My ability to fence remains intact.


If I were more emotional about the snob's comments, it could have affected my performance on that night, and unpleasantries from my undergraduate experience put me off from trying to do anything with my training in film production until graduate school. I don't reject that emotions and mentality affect ability at all. But that one could outright lose an ability is something else.

The problem for you is, whether it is the case or not, Will is right: it is a red flag , because it is indistinguishable from special pleading.

As Donald Hoffman pointed out in his recent interview with Alex, ‘psi’ is hamstrung by the lack of a mechanism/mathematical model. Once in place it might be easier to demonstrate a skeptic’s negative impact on outcomes.

My swordsmanship was insulted by a snobby kendo instructor the other day. My ability to fence remains intact.


If I were more emotional about the snob's comments, it could have affected my performance on that night, and unpleasantries from my undergraduate experience put me off from trying to do anything with my training in film production until graduate school. I don't reject that emotions and mentality affect ability at all. But that one could outright lose an ability is something else.

Though I have more recent specific examples to give and such, I'm just going to post these links of other places I've talked about some of this first so I'm not repeating myself too much and because it's late and I'm tired:

Energy Explanation
Psychological Difficulties of psi techniques
Reply to diverdown about how I got into magic

If you want more than this, that's fine, I'll do what I can.

Do you at least understand why I asked that specific question though?

This was a serious take?

There's literally zero reason why a rifle barrel appendage couldn't evolve and that ammo and gunpowder couldn't be synthesized metabolically. Unless you're going to argue that guns aren't real. So why didn't they evolve when we know how incredibly effective they are at hunting?

Uh, evolution merely filters out the stuff that doesn't work via natural selection. It has no willful mechanism to pick and choose the most optimal traits for x, y and z furthermore you are asking for dozens of simultaneously adapted traits to be selected for which cooperate together which is increasingly unlikely. Did you mean something else?

This was a serious take?

Uh, evolution merely filters out the stuff that doesn't work via natural selection. It has no willful mechanism to pick and choose the most optimal traits for x, y and z furthermore you are asking for dozens of simultaneously adapted traits to be selected for which cooperate together which is increasingly unlikely. Did you mean something else?

There's no reason it couldn't happen via filtering. Ironically the simultaneous evolution of dozens of adaptive traits is what some people say already happens which throws doubt on the pure filter model of evolution for them. Though there's no reason random selection couldn't select for increasing control or direction over what's selected for, as control is more adaptable than randomness.

Psiclops has posted another video to the thread on Skeptiko:

InfoVision - TV Show in Romania with Mark Komissarov




In this programme on Romanian television, the host interviews (in English) Mark Komissarov and his student Professor Mihaela Istrati, about a method of seeing whilst blindfolded as-yet undiscussed in this thread, and which Mark developed and teaches, called "InfoVision". Professor Istrati demonstrates, using a Mindfold mask which has three photon detectors on each side of the mask, that she can identify the colour of coloured pieces of paper held at a distance from her, identify the colour of coloured cups and pick up with her hands the coloured cups as instructed, as well as, ultimately, to read words written on pieces of paper held a distance from her. During all of this time, the photon detectors in the mask read zero - indicating that no light whatsoever was getting into the mask she was wearing: her eyes were in total darkness.


In this respect, Chris, you might find the video interesting. It covers the independent scientific research conducted on this phenomenon by two scientists, Dr Enrico Pierangeli, who was interviewed on the programme itself via a video link, and, Dr Elio Conte, a video clip of whose research was played, though, unfortunately, in another language (Italian, I guess) without English subtitles.

Apparently, a paper was soon to be forthcoming (the video was posted on 2 April 2016) by one of them (Dr Conte, I seem to remember). I have not yet tried to track down that paper though.

Sorry, I'm very late coming to this discussion, not read every post yet. I'm just responding to this post as a came to it.

I watched the video, but was unconvinced by the technical aspects. For example,
"During all of this time, the photon detectors in the mask read zero - indicating that no light whatsoever was getting into the mask she was wearing: her eyes were in total darkness."

First, all we can say is that not enough light was reaching the sensitive region of the detectors in order to give a reading. That is not at all the same as 'no light whatsoever'.

Second, there were adequate areas uncovered by the detectors, where for example fine pinholes might exist. The human eye in darkness adapts to become more sensitive to light, this takes effect gradually over seconds to minutes. Thus a casual inspection of the mask might not reveal any such light leaks. It might also be that such holes could be in the centre of the vision for one person, but another person with different facial features and size might have such holes off-centre and unnoticeable. Or the mask might have multiple layers and perhaps under a specific tension, these align so that holes in each layer line up. Again, a casual inspection by another person might not reveal this.

At any rate I didn't find the methodology particularly robust.

[Laird]

First, all we can say is that not enough light was reaching the sensitive region of the detectors in order to give a reading. That is not at all the same as 'no light whatsoever'.

Fair enough. We don't know how the detectors were configured.

Second, there were adequate areas uncovered by the detectors, where for example fine pinholes might exist.

I suspect that this is in a sense simply a reiteration of your first point in that an adequately calibrated photon detector would pick up light from such a pinhole.

At any rate I didn't find the methodology particularly robust.

OK, but it would nevertheless be a pretty impressive feat for the professor to pull off just using pinholes, wouldn't it?