owl

I mentioned Penrose's theory/model of QM *in an individual brain* as a new model of the brain as a quantum computer, not as proof of consciousness acting at a distance. His model would be a game changer in consciousness studies. The argument against him was that the quantum computer model requires very low temperature, so his model was dismissed. Then others claimed, not so; It works in a "wet, warm environment" too. Is that criticism legitimately silenced or not. No comments here from any QM experts, and I am certainly not one. Then we have Bohm's work which does extend to the "field" beyond the individual brain, as per my mention of: Then the 'physics department' here plays the "unfalsifiable" card. Of course he left it in the theoretical stages, but he was very well credentialed quantum physicist, so his is a good foundation to work from as applied to the subject here. I will repeat one more time: The ten out of ten hits did in fact reject the null hypothesis as stated. * Btw, these were not some standard geometric figures being 'sent', in which, if there are five of them, each trial has a 20% chance of a hit. Out of all possible images in a magazine, what are the chances of getting a hit on "horse" or "sailboat?" It was quite a different animal than the statistics of the former 'chances of a hit.' "What if"... later experiments with dozens or hundreds of people without telepathic ability show no hits or only hits expected by chance? That does not debunk the validity of the experiment I cited. Ten out of ten is very consistent. I explained the controls already. My parents were not tricksters or cheaters. I already explained how it was impossible for them to "trick" me. You have ignored that too. This was a private, family investigation of telepathy with no deception involved. We did not need "Psi Cops" present to insure that there was no deception. You are welcome to cling to your opinion that my family are liars, cheaters, tricksters, fakers, frauds... pick your own derision. I'm done explaining it to you. That really is tricky. They are tricksters, which makes them fraudulent liars (or your choice from above), but you are not "attacking them." Again, I explained how they could not have tricked me (and why they would not have, with honest intent to investigate telepathy) yet you persist. Right; Psi fraud is the same as fairy tales for kid's delight (until age 4 or 5 when "the truth comes out.") Kinda like studies of consciousness acting at a distance (in general) are "like" stories of alien abduction and all sorts of other crap you see as similar. Ref; (me): Glad you enjoyed it. The implied opinion of the 'physics department' here has consistently been that physics is the only science that matters, i.e., that social science is not real science, though not explicitly stated as such. But swansont, in this thread dismissed David Bohms work on QM as applied to consciousness studies as unfalsifiable (or to that effect) because of his intended application of theory to an "implicate order" of "hidden variables." Of course, the goal of that field of *scientific* study is to reveal those possible variables. Theoretical speculation is a legitimate part of science, even if that is news to swansont.

Ringer, I showed how you misrepresented me, point by point, in post 136. None of your extensive arm waving has addressed those points. First, you flatter yourself assuming the power to make me angry. I've explained repeatedly the difference as I see it between field studies of consciousness (including phenomena of shamanic healing and verified telepathic accounts, agreed upon by more than one party... unlike "abduction" accounts, etc.) and the tons of unverified crap you mention. I will not keep repeating, just because you can not hear it. I never said physics shouldn't be used to investigate it. This alone shows how you distort what I say. I have repeatedly acknowledged that QM is a legitimate focus in the investigation of consciousness, both within the brain, as per Penrose's studies, the primary criticism of which has apparently been debunked... as I have detailed... and beyond the brain, as per Bohm's theory of the non-locality of consciousness in the context of an omnipresent "implicate order" involving "hidden variables." "Technically?" I will repeat, If the null hypothesis is "Psi phenomena do not exist," and someone unmistakeably demonstrates 10 hits out of 10 trials in a telepathy experiment (which my father did), then the null hypothesis is wrong and must be discarded. Your calling it a "trick" after my detailed account just demonstrates that you will not believe any evidence for psi. ... blah, blah, blah... No self respecting scientist would appeal to popularity as a factor in support of an argument. The history of science is full of unpopular theories which turned out to be true. Nuff said on that. You say: On the statistics issue, you really need to study what Cap 'n R said on it and how I replied. On 3/9 he wrote (my bold): I agreed with the above entirely and related our Mom and Pop (and me) telepathy experiment (not a trick) as "the most convincing evidence (I) can present." The "difficulty of evaluating psychic phenomena statistically" does not invalidate the phenomena. It just makes it an extremely challenging field. And we have no instruments which can detect consciousness or its content "at a distance" so all evidence there lies in verification of the claims. Finally, you say: You seem to have a very narrow idea of what a well controlled experiment is. I already explained the controls in detail, and we were not comparing one group with another. I also told you that this experiment had no audience for whom to perform a "trick." It should go without saying that my parents were honest people, not tricksters trying to fool me, the implication of which is quite offensive to me and my family. This is an afterthought for those who may be following this thread... not directed to Ringer, (except for a demand for an apology below) as I care not in the least about his very biased opinion and grasping at straws to discredit the whole field and specifically the last experiment discussed. About the opinion that my parents "tricked" me: This should have been obvious from my details about the experimental controls. I was the "sender" behind my closed bedroom door. I was the one who verified Dad's accuracy in describing the ten images "sent" after it was over. Also, I had 'dog-eared' the pages containing the image sent in each of the ten cases. There was, therefore, no way I could have been "tricked" by some ill-conceived and sinister conspiracy to deceive me on their part. In fact such an accusation requires an apology for his character assassination of my parents' integrity. I will not hold my breath, given the nasty nature of his attacks against me and my parents. (Not worthy of a serious science forum.)

In keeping with the thread title, "what we know about time" is not limited to graphs and models. What I know about time is not your "horizontal model" of "now." In the English language, "now" means "the present," and space (specifically its linear component, distance) does not make "the present" different in each and every "place" in space. It only means that information about "the present" now happening elsewhere will take time to reach us.

I understand the light cone model. It is only a model. Probably works very well as a conceptual framework for relativity theory and its very successful math. "My now" is not "the apex of a light cone extending downward into the two bottom quadrants of a distance time graph." That is your relativity model of "my now" which is only a metaphorical and conceptual model. When you get into the "slopes of the light cone" your are really taking the model too seriously. The sun is never "outside my observable universe." It simply takes 8 min. for its sunlight to reach me and be observed. Then you say it: "...(it) will not enter it until the light cone passes through the distance of 93000000 miles which is in about 8 min." Repeat: The cone is only a metaphorical model. Its distance is 93 million miles. That's 8+ light minutes away. It is shining all the time. I see it as it was 8 min. ago. It's not that complicated. You say: "I don't know what being outside the observable universe means to you, but that sun will never have any effect on us in any way." "That sun?" It is never outside the observable universe. It just takes 8 min to see what IS GOING ON there. I got a chuckle out of your, "Oh, and don't let DrR catch you voicing your 'universal now' philosophy, or he'll be all over you again." Thanks for the warning. It really scares me. He never did respond to the "global now" reference gave him ( cosmology beyond the local scope of relativity.) Maybe I'll look it up and re-post later. Its very simple. "It is now" here on earth and there on the sun, and however far away. The distance requires a delay in all cases between "what is happening" out there and when we see it. Not an infinite number "nows" for all possible loci in the universe... just travel time for info to reach across space.

You ignore everything I said about anthropology as better equipped than physics to investigate this realm of experience. We can "sift the wheat from the chaff" through very good investigation of these claims (or reputations) *in the field*... not just in the laboratory. But, of course, anthropology is only a "social science," not a real science like physics. (Good grief! the elitism of physics is astounding!) Yes, you can "really throw out a null hypothesis." That is why they are stated as specifically as possible before the experiment. The most general null hypothesis in this discussion is something like, "Psi phenomena do not exist." One example of its existence, like my family's private experiment, "throws out" the above null hypothesis. The only question left is one of credentials and sanctions and "peer review" and getting the experiment published in a respected scientific journal... and, of course, the all important, becoming popular, like here on this forum. One reason might be that he has just exposed a major flaw in how statistics is done, which challenges all statistical analysis, including (but somehow, especialy) psi related statistics, even the ones with extremely high probability (very low "p.") Who cares what it sounds like to you. You think psi phenomena are impossible, like "The Amazing Randi." You are clearly biased against all possible testimony and experimental evidence, and apparently dedicating to eradicating all those liers and superstitious idiots and who believe or have experienced it. It was not "my own definition of non-local." You hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest. David Bohm's theory is non-local in the same way I use the term as applied to consciousness. Both Penrose and Bohm have a focus into the same investigation, the subject of this thread. The fact that you don't get it does not supprise me. Didn't I cover this already? See..., it was not a trick. It was in fact a very well controlled experiment (not observed or sanctioned by the scientific community.) But I am repeating. You clearly think I am a liar. That is not an argument in favor of your extreme prejudice. Still hoping you give up the harassment and go away.

I'm very glad to hear that you are done with it, because you have misrepresented me on all counts. You "believe" that your "analogies" with a bunch of crackpot crap were "suitable." Again, "guilt by association" is no argument, and there is a large body of scientific *investigation*(results still being debated) of consciousness acting at a distance by well credentialed scientists (besides the crackpots and fakers.) Not so for your crazy examples. I acknowledged Cap 'n R's statistical argument and asked what it would take to throw out the null hypothesis in cases of psi experiments with extremely good probabilities like a "p" of .001 or .007. (Assuming you have read that exchange.) I was using "non-local" in the sense of consciousness itself being a non-local phenomenon, not in the very limited sense used in physics, as swansont argued. In this sense, consciousness acting at a distance is non-local whether or not it is instantaneous or limited to lightspeed. This is a peripheral issue compared to the more general investigation. I know the essence (not the math) of David Bohm's argument from QM, and his "hidden variables" or "implicate order" theory has not been debunked. Neither has Roger Penrose's theory of QM in a "wet warm environment" like the brain. (I know this is a 'within the brain' argument, not about transpersonal telepathic communication.) I "added" another story in reply to the Cap 'n's comment about the rarity of finding a really good, well demonstrated instance of psi. It was a well controlled experiment on telepathy done in our home as a private investigation with no audience present... not "trick I believed." And it scored 10 "hits" out of 10 trials... if you count the wrong brand of soap, both starting with an "F" as a hit, which I do. Again, I have no expectation that you "believe" the above. I just told it as it happened, and the record is still extant (somewhere)... not dependent on my memory of the experiment.

I didn't say the flair happening now "manifests itself to us... now." But by common sense, we know that when we do see it that it happened 8 minutes ago. We now see the sun as it was 8minutes ago. That does not deny that now IS now here and on the sun. It will take 8 minutes for us to see what is happening now on the sun. That does not conflict with relativity or common sense. It need not be "either, or."

Say a specific solar flare *is happening now* on the sun. We will not see it for over eight minutes. The sun IS NOT as we now see it. It IS erupting with the flair, which we do not NOW see. Common sense.

Just read the thread. If I may join in (one of my favorite subjects), I promise not to go philosophical about what time is. When we see the sun, we see it as it *was* over eight minutes ago... as it was in the past. But that doesn't mean that the sun *is* in the past, even though we can not observe it as it is now. Now *is* now, here and there... and, by extension, everywhere, even though the speed of light requires time to convey images, making them images of how things looked (past) as they were(past) when light left them. It seems so obvious, I often wonder why there is so much confusion about time. I agree with zapatos in this thread.

I read the link, and yes, I agree that fakery is rampant in the psi field. I also agree with the gist of what you said above, and that it is a very difficult field to study for all the reasons you gave. As to your last paragraph, the only psychic I knew who fit that description for sure was my father, and his example is not going to change the world of psi investigation. I will, however, go out on a limb and describe a well controlled telepathy experiment (to which I referred above in reply to Ringer) which we did at home when I was about 12 yrs old. First, there was no "audience" to impress for this experiment. My father would sit in the living room in front of a table with an alphabet board (mentioned in last post) in front of him. He would sit still for a half hour or so starting with a neck and shoulder massage by my mother for deep relaxation. I would sit in my bedroom by the closed door with a pile of magazines which Dad had never seen (borrowed from a neighbor) at my feet. At Mother's signal, (a "go" knock on the door), I would pick up a mag and flip through until I found an interesting image, then knock back with my "ready" signal. She would go back to Dad and and say, "ready." He would sit until he "picked up an image" and then spell it out on the board as Mom recorded each letter of what he 'saw.' We did ten trials, and he got nine of them unquestionably correct. I count the tenth as a "hit" too though, and I will explain why. I was "sending" an advertised image of a "Fab" soapbox. (Ok, not that "interesting" an image, but anyway...) He got a soapbox all right but he 'saw' it as a "Felsnaptha" box. His debriefing report afterwards was that he had seen a soapbox with a label starting with "F", asked himself consciously what soap started with "F" and immediately spelled out the above, a soap used in his childhood home. This experiment was a case where there was no question about his accuracy or any need for statistical analysis. All images were common objects like a horse, a sailboat, a diamond ring, etc. You can see why telepathy is a reality for me, as it remained much later in life between my son and myself, as related in this thread. There have been other such episodes in my life as well, but the above should suffice for my testimony.

Before I get to 'new business' ... a piece of unanswered trivia from Ringer's challenge (which I forgot to address): (This is a small case of "NIGYSOB" from an old book by Eric Bern, "The Games People Play"; one game being, "Now I've got you, S.O.B!") I said in post 127: He "wrote" using a small first grade teaching aid, an alphabet board, on the table in front of him, pointing to the letters while he was in deep trance, which was easier in his altered state than actually "writing." My mother "wrote" down the letters he indicated, transcribing what he spelled out that he was "seeing"... the images being 'sent' from another room. You also requested that I, "Please actually address the points instead of just saying you don't like the comparison." I intentionally refuse the request for the reason already mentioned... the so called 'guilt by association' bogus argument comparing crazy crap to legitimate* study of consciousness acting at a distance. (*Whether or not, in your personal opinion, such studies are "legitimate," which, on my scale of caring, rates exactly zero.) Back after I study the "Project Alpha" link.

Well, if you throw out all experimental evidence based on "statistical significance" (the usual protocol) as a debunked concept, as the Cap 'n has argued,... And you throw out all anecdotal accounts as "worthless," as if sorting out the 'wheat from the chaff' is impossible... assuming that even very good anthropological studies are not 'real science' (mere social science, not physics, the only real science)... Then demand "proof" without using either of those tools of science... Not much of a "fair fight" with both hands tied behind my back (i.e., the collective 'back' of psi investigation.) Ringer, Most of what I just said to swansont also applies as a reply to you... to avoid a bunch of repetition. I repeat, "yours is not a serious argument." As to your dismissal of all anecdotes as worthless, I repeat, just for you: "Scientific investigation (even anthropology, a 'second class' social "science") must be open to *all* evidence and must sort out the wheat from the chaff." As to my memory of the event with my son... You keep hammering on the fallibility of memory, to which I have already agreed as a psychological principle in general. Yet I insist that I have always had an excellent memory and do have a very clear memory of the very simple sequence of events in question... and a journal record of the event soon after it happened, which is the same account as I have shared here in all relevant details. Then you hammer on against the "worth" of my being at his hospital bedside... quite a peripheral issue. I mentioned it in reply to your general assertion that anecdotes are worthless, as if what actually happens to real people doesn't matter if science can not prove it in a lab experiment. To recap: My "feeling" was a painful burning in my stomach while deep in a wilderness, totally out of communication-as-we-know-it. My "mental picture" accompanying this sensation was of him in severe distress. That combination brought me home, where I found out that he was hospitalized. I went immediately to his bedside, which he very much appreciated. I would not have been home for another few days without the "prompt" by no known means of communication. Therein lies the "worth."

As a materialistic scientist who considers psi to be basically b.s., I must presume, you are the one running "into the condition of needing to be able to objectively measure a phenomenon in order to consider it scientific." I agree that this topic is not easily accessible presently to the methods of objective measurements with devised instruments. It is not a "new interaction." The history of human life is full of telepathic and distant healing and "seeing" episodes... all "merely anecdotal." Science as we know it is in denial of all this "information"... some valid... a lot bogus sham and superstition. Anthropology is better at getting valid info on such "gifts" than extremely "rigorous" lab science... subjecting subjects to an unfamiliar environment. Regarding: 'If you're positing an existing interaction (i.e. Electromagnetic), it's a different uphill climb."... Your "i.e. Electromagnetic" assumes that mode of (known) transmission and denies the possibility of any unknown-as-yet "implicate order" or "hidden variables" like "god forbid!" omnipresent cosmic consciousness. (No I am not "religious!") The fact that present day science can not detect telepathic communication with instruments is not a good reason to dismiss it. Very "materialistic." I have agreed several times that anecdotes are not experimental evidence. Yet I have insisted that they can not be ignored just fort that reason. Some are b.s. and some are not. Scientific investigation (even anthropology, a 'second class' social "science") must be open to *all* evidence and must sort out the wheat from the chaff. What? Very off the wall!... makes no sense to me... And, NO, I am not saying that... whatever it was. I came directly home and told my wife what I felt and "saw" and she told me that he was in the hospital, and we went there immediately. No, I didn't "see" which hospital he was in. This is all your fabrication out of total disbelief. Btw, I do not expect you to "believe." I tell the truth of it anyway, and it was all very intense and "unforgettable," subjectively speaking. If you want to equate telepathic experiences to "alien abduction" 'experiences' to make an argument for the similarity and how crazy both accounts are... Well, you disappoint me... and it is a false/flawed form of argument by association. Nice touch with the crazy, gullible patient using leeches on doctor's orders. But seriously... and yours is not a serious argument... Read my post to swansont on nonlocality... no need to repeat. So now you are an expert on how psychic gifts are all about whether suckers believe it or not. Not so, and I say this from direct experience, as related above (over and over.) There was a natural symbiosis between my parents in this realm. She led him in and out of the "trance" (altered state of consciousness) and recorded what he wrote while in trance. She was also the "go between" in telepathic experiments from one room of the house to another... as one would "send images" (from a stack of magazines) and he would write down what he "saw"... one page/image at a time... like "go" and "stop" and "next magazine; next randomly (more or less) selected image. The above will become 'chum' for a feeding frenzy for you "sharks" at this point, but if it becomes personally abusive (again)... I'm outta here... or I will just ignore personal abuse and converse with any real "scientists" out there. . See my opening to swansont above. See my replies to the Cap 'n's statistical blog above. So now, even a "p"= .001 or .007 is not "significant." Now there is no such thing as a significant positive result in experiments on psi, so I've abandoned that approach.

Yes it does. Maybe the human mind/consciousness is simply very much more sensitive than any invented measuring devise to "hidden variables" like an "implicate order" or even, in the extreme realm of speculation... to an "omnipresent consciousness." As I've said I claim no expertise in quantum physics, but I am interested in variations of it pertaining to consciousness studies such as in the works of David Bohm. A few quotes from Wiki on Bohm's theory of non-locality... (my bold): Finally, re-quoting from an earlier link here on 'action at a distance' studies:

That would be from a 'popularity contest' perspective on what this science forum is about... all those demerits and all. I thought my ontology threads conveyed what I intended to communicate in all cases. I was not and am not concerned with how popular my threads were. Still open to being "corrected" on the changing distance to the sun with the changing frame of reference from which it is observed and measured. I can not imagine being less interested in what you are "really interested in discussing..." or why you posted here anyway... besides the usual personal attack angle... historically speaking. I'm not familiar with your term, "chain-posting," but I'm sure it must be a very bad thing, in your judgment. I'm glad to hear that this section is one of the "two most active parts of this forum..." I was unaware of such statistics, because I don't care. This subject may be both boring and futile, depending on one's interest. I had supposed that lack of interest would screen out those not interested in the subject, like yourself. Apparently I was "wrong" again. Edit; a small confession: I said, "Still open to being 'corrected' on the changing distance to the sun with the changing frame of reference from which it is observed and measured." Let's call it very dry and cutting sarcasm rather than a lie. The distance to the sun does not change with how it is observed, and only just a little ("trivially") depending on Earth's position in its elliptical orbit... to remain totally honest... just an aside. Another aside, a small tip on grammar; re: "I myself..." is not plural, as suggested in "I... are not interested...," and the plural of phenomenon is phenomena, not phenomenas. No personal offense intended.

I listen and still sometimes disagree with people who tell me I am wrong. You once showed how I was wrong in how I saw gravity working in a specific cosmology. I saw the error of my thinking and gave it up. (Thanks again.) If you have any answers to my list of unresolved questions above, I am open to listen. I don't understand your question. When I was a long way away from my son or when my father and aunt were far away from each other, as in the two anecdotes shared in this thread, I see the distance between us (and them) as the definition of a nonlocal phenomenon, i.e., consciousness acting at a distance. Maybe we are using the term in different ways. Please explain.

Regarding my last question above, I must go with a "yes." Or does throwing the thread into the speculative/pseudoscience basement make sure that it goes practically unnoticed, based on the false judgment that consciousness studies are not real science, i.e., not "mainstream" enough for this forum?

A few unresolved questions: Given the Cap 'n's link to an article on a "comparison of frequentist and bayesian approaches to statistical inference" and his blog on how statistical significance is misinterpreted by "frequentist" statisticians, ... what would it take to get statistically meaningful positive results (rejecting the null hypothesis) in lab experiments on consciousness acting at a distance? (Case in point: the 16 rigorously controlled double blind experiments cited above in which "p" was less than .001 for one group of experiments, less than .003 in another group, and less than .073 in a third group... the latter being marginal?) Next, do any scientists here recognize the problem inherent in studying environmentally dependent phenomena in a strictly controlled lab situation? Do all here reject anthropology as a legitimate way of studying "shamanic" consciousness centered healing and telepathic phenomena? Next, do all agree that thousands of anecdotes testifying to psi phenomena are "worthless" to the general body of scientific knowledge on the subject? Next, does anyone here understand the difference between investigating the proposition that a significant percentage of the population has psi "gifts" vs the question, "does anyone have a psi gift?"... in which one confirmed case would negate the null hypothesis that there is no such thing? Next, how about the argument against Roger Penrose that such quantum effects in the brain (in consciousness) as he is studying can only happen in an extremely cold environment? Do they happen in "warm, wet" environments or not. If they do, the major criticism against him is debunked. Finally, are these all questions that this forum prefers to ignore because the answers might lend credibility to consciousness as, at least in some cases, a non-local phenomenon?

How does a quantum theory of brain/consciousness function deny evolution by natural selection? And what of the criticism against him that the quantum effect requires a very cold environment? I dunno, but now it looks like that requirement is not true, i.e., that it could happen in a "wet, warm" brain.

If clocks had never been invented, even if no intelligent life had ever evolved, everything in the natural cosmos, on all scales, would still be moving. "It takes time" for that to happen, to move from point A to point B. There is your time; any/all event duration. It's not all about who sees what from where (different frames of reference) with clocks ticking at different rates because of relativity effects. Sure, they speed up or slow down relative to each other, but what is time but the longer or shorter period between 'ticks'... or movement from here to there in a cosmos with or without clocks?

How do you know that he is "deliberately misrepresenting," and to what do you attribute his motives for such intentional distortion of your assumed established truth of physics and biology?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ This subject in particular and this thread in general belongs in the Philosophy section, as does mine on "Consciousness,..." which is a legitimate field of scientific study, not pseudo-science as the prevailing physics bias here among moderators would have it. Btw, The main argument against Penrose' quantum model of brain/consciousness function was based on the (maybe?) outdated assumption that a very cold environment is required for such quantum effects as Penrose advocates. Now 'they say' that such are observed in a "wet, warm" environment, like the brain. (See my similar thread for ref. and links.)

I agree. "Infinite space" is one of my favorite concepts to contemplate. And I've 'thrown in my two cents' on the topic in other threads too. No matter what theoretical "form" one proposes for "the universe," the question/challenge always remains, what lies beyond the defining 'boundary' of any form? Whether there is more "stuff" (matter/energy) or just more space, the concept of an "end" is absurd. Same applies to the 'surface of earth' model of space-as-endless: more space within and beyond the 'surface of the sphere.' Space is volume, not a "surface" anyway. Edit; ps: I liked Jiggerj's cartoon in post 685. "Oh, crap!" ('space closed beyond this point')

Getting back to a comment I made back in post 62: "But entangled particles and entangled minds are a good subject of investigation for similarities." So I took look at Wiki's intros to Roger Penrose's two books on the quantum model of consciousness (my italics): Wiki on quantum consciousness: Wiki on the "microtubule hypothesis": Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have constructed the Orch-OR theory in which human consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules. ... But... a big "but" (wiki, cont'd); So 'the game is afoot.' I'm nowhere close to understanding the arguments for and against a quantum theory of "entangled minds," but I'm glad science is investigating consciousness on this level.

Science is no longer open to the available evidence when repeatability is elevated to the "final word" about what we know and how we know it... epistemology. I think its true that psi performance is much less "repeatable" in formal lab situations with strict controls than in the natural environment of meaningful real life situations in which the phenomena usually happen... more "spontaneously." Those accurately anticipated phone calls were "repeated" many times, but "The Amazing Randi" wasn't there to document it. Too bad! If he had been living with us waiting for the next episode, it would not have happened anyway, for the reason I have already explained about the hostile environment created by "Psi Cops," quite a militant debunking environment. Is that the fault of those with legitimate 'psi' related "gifts" or is the "fault" in the assumptions about what constitutes "the scientific method" under strict laboratory controls, which can and do run over the subject being studied like a bulldozer hell bent on debunking... whatever? (Not a 'real' question.)