/sci/ - Science & Math

he's a crank. and does the usual crankish things to avoid or discredit scrutiny or justify himself.

>>4507309
Im watching a video
He just said that, me watching the video of him, is me projecting him from within my brain. As opposed to my brain perceiving the video. This shall be interesting..

Because he's an idiot.

He's the "Dog Telepathy" guy, isn't he?

>>4507423
yes.

So what's this guy selling?
Books?

>>4507427
he's selling his butt hurt ego

Apparently they have done 1000's of studies proving that when someone is staring at the back of your head, you can sense it.

So many people agree that this happens, thus there is no way it could be coincidence.

>>4507451
There is absolutely no way I am accepting that without seeing at least one of the aforementioned 1000+ studies

>>4507451
Bullshit. This does not work in a blind test. You can't tell whether someone is looking at you from behind if you can't see them at all.

>>4507451
>So many people agree that this happens, thus there is no way it could be coincidence.
Confirmation bias.

>>4507457
>>4507456
here
http://youtu.be/JnA8GUtXpXY?t=6m29s

I expect mind blown images in 2 minutes time.

>>4507465
>google tech talk
why google why?

>>4507465
>hundreds of thousands of trials

what a fuck head

>>4507465
>security guards and martial artists are trained to not stare at peoples backs because they will sense it

lol is this for real?

>>4507465
>martial art blablah
Watched a bit much DBZ, have we?

>>4507476
he also said that the SAS are trained to not stare at someones back if they are going to stab them. SAS, goberment, must be real.

>>4507465
>peer reviewed youtube

science

I like this guy. Can't say that I believe him, but I like him.

>>4507481
Common sense tells me that if that's true, it's because they should be PAYING THE FUCK ATTENTION TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS AND NOT ONLY TO THE BACK OF THE CUNT IN FRONT OF THEM, and not because the faggot will sense your eyes taking in light, and having your brain process it

>>4507465
>immediately starts with "most people believe it"
>"no reference to it in psychology textbooks" lolwut
>You've been trained to dismiss the phenomenon
LOL, what a crank.

He describes a good basic experiment, but he doesn't cite the result quantitatively, says the effect is positive "but very small", only implies that it's statistically significant rather than giving a confidence level.

The fuck. I don't believe him. Let's see the actual research papers.

>12:40
>Starts talking about the bullshit way children think vision works
>claim that the kids were right all along, and that you send out sight-rays from your eyes that hit things
>"our minds reach out beyond our brains and the sense of being stared at is one aspect of this"

>>4507510
wouldnt that explain the double slit theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ElSXo1HWS4

>>4507510
Too disgusted to actually watch the vid, but how does he explain the need for light?

>>4507516
no. It has nothing to do with whether a human is paying attention. A machine can record the data and the result is the same.

>>4507524
so when a machine records it, it is actually sending out photons or something else that collide with the electrons and that creates the interference pattern?

>>4507529
the machine that records it is actually in suppositionary state, which collapses when we look at the results

scienz is magick hurr

>>4507529
...no
That's the thing, that's why the whole thing is as weird as it is

>>4507543
how on earth do you prove that? with another machine?

>>4507548
it cannot be proven. it is all about interpretation

>>4507529
This is pretty much it, basically.

>>4507543
That's one interpretation of QM. Nothing has a definite history until you interact with it. But even one photon counts as interacting (it conveys information about what happened). Like with Schrodinger's cat - the cat is constantly interacting with the box, which you are constantly interacting with (at least via photons), etc., so it really is kinda silly to say the cat's in a superposition state. It's a thought experiment taken too far.

>>4507547
Just how exactly do you think it tells which slit the electron goes through?

>>4507550
Well that sucks. I want an answer, otherwise I'm prone to believing new age theories that humans perceiving reality, changes reality. The Secret, etc.

>>4507529
>>4507553
Oh, and I was talking about a machine trying to record which slit the electron goes through, destroying the interference pattern in the process. You have to not have anything interacting with the electron in that way as it goes through the slits to preserve the interference pattern (nothing that could tell you which slit it went through).

>>4507554
No, those talk about "mind controls reality" bullshit that not even this interpretation of QM supports. None of them say "you can wish things into happening".

All interpretations of QM have the same physical predictions. That's what makes them interpretations, not independent theories.