Comments for Sigh Balls at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 23 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:45:54 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3790 ...yeah, same if you make it smaller by moving away from the screen. - BillyJoe Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:18:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3787 ...is clear enough. (oops) BTW: you can see where the illusion in the psychodelic image is lost by scrolling the image partially off 'screen' to certain degress. About one third loses the illusion completely. Just short of half way and the illusion is there but diminished. Basically, the more of the image, the more pronounced. Interesting (to me anyway). - Kuroyume Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:10:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3786 Psychodelic, BJ. ;) To your previous reply: Not sure of the actual term. I just mean that vision isn't a camera. It is a filtering system 'at the brain's or conscious discretion' for what is at focus. But I think that the other description given by yourself. :D - Kuroyume Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:07:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3783 Gather your energy? I got some energy in liquid form when I refueled my car, but it's not easy to press that into a ball. Hm, how about using that to hold together some saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal? But I'm not foolish enough to use my own hands to press that into a ball. Nonetheless, such a ball will easily be able to do complex tasks, such as demolishing things, and... well, demolishing things, mainly. The "Real psi ball" video will be more effective if both hands are constantly shown scrunched in a fist as if that were your default way of showing your hands--and if the hands are shown in the same closed, scrunched position scrunching air as scrunching other things. And when only one hand is shown, keep it in a fist as well, and pretend to pass its contents to the other hand while actually doing the opposite. Well, okay, I laughed at it... - DrMatt Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:49:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3781 [img]http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/purple_optical_illusions.jpg[/img] If you stare directly at one spot on the picture (or even outside the picture) there is no apparent movement. Now move your eyes around and see the effect. Moving your eyes is effectively the same as the object itself moving. There is a module within the brain that deals with movement and it tends to exaggerate movement. Again, from the point of view of evolution, there was survival value in distinguishing objects that move from objects that are stationary and hence there was survival value in exaggerating movement. (To be fair, there are alternative explanations for the effect seen here) BJ - BillyJoe Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:08:52 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3780 [quote]I get the idea that the squares A & B are exactly the same shade. To my eyes, they're not, [u]close[/u], but not the same shade. [/quote] Youi must have the brightness on your monitor turned down! They are dramatically different. [quote]what causes the two squares to be the same shade but look different? [/quote] I think fluffy has the answer. The brain does not form a picture within it that duplicates the picture on the screen. Instead different parts of the brain deal with different aspects of of that picture. One part of the brain deals with contrasts in shade. From an evolutionary point of view, there was survival value in being able to distinguish predators from background, and one way was to amplify contrasting shade. In the checkerboard example, the square labelled 'A' is darker than the surrounding squares and the brain exaggerates this difference making square 'A' look even darker than it actually is. And the square labelled 'B' is lighter than the surrounding squares and the brain exaggerates this difference making square 'B' look even lighter than it actually is. The result is that, although squares 'A' and 'B' are actually the same shade, they look totally different. BJ - BillyJoe Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:50:34 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3777 Context. Perception is all based on relatives, not absolutes. - fluffy Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:53:04 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3776 Okay, I think I'm missing the point of the picture. Exactly what am I supposed to be looking for? From the discussion, I get the idea that the squares A & B are exactly the same shade. To my eyes, they're not, close, but not the same shade. If that's the point of the pic, what causes the two squares to be the same shade but look different? Questioning minds want to know... Squid - Squid Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:35:31 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3768 [quote]BillyJoe, an even better way to show that people use discretionary vision based upon assumption in the image shown:[/quote] I'm not sure what you mean. I's an optical illusion. There are no assumptions here. (But I don't recognise the term "discretionary vision" so maybe you mean something else) BJ - BillyJoe Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:33:54 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3764 BillyJoe, an even better way to show that people use discretionary vision based upon assumption in the image shown: Take the image into Photoshop (or similar) and use the Eyedropper Tool on the "squares" marked 'A' and 'B'. Definitive. Both are RGB 120,120,120. :) Computers don't lie (because they aren't wired or programmed for it in most cases). To go astray here, people forget that computers started as computational machines (calculating artillery and bomb trajectories for the military) and then moved into more mathematical calculation regimes. They were initially picked up by business for 'accounting' and record keeping (IBM = International Business Machines) but were soon used heavily in science, especially by NASA and in universities (from which governmentally funded initiatives such as DARPA sprouted). Computers might be thought of as 'media centers' and great for emailing, chat, and porn today. But, their greatest attribute is as complex calculators which can do simulations, solve problems, and show data in ways that was never possible before. Computers can be nice toy devices. But they are powerful tools as well. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion of 'psiballs'. :) - Kuroyume Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:12:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3762 I was especially impressed by the "Rubber Ducky" psiball in the video. This must have come from the Ernie Chakra? - Demian Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:30:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3760 I have done this. I created such energy balls in my Wicca 101 class several years ago. My teacher said that she could see the ball and several classmates said they could feel it. What more proof do you want? (insert sarcastic eyeroll here) - Elexina Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:01:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3758 FLUFFY said... [quote]I asked the person who taught me about it, who said that measuring them makes them "not work."[/quote] This is known as the [i]Heisenberg CertainlyBS Principle[/i]. Moe Heisenberg, not Werner. Or maybe it's the [i]Pauli Delusion Principle[/i]. Shemp Pauli, not Wolfgang.;) - Willy K Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:06:41 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3757 [quote]believing is seeing. Or in this case, feeling.[/quote] For Believers, believing is feeling, even though you cannot even believe what you actually see. [img]http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow/checkershadow_illusion4med.jpg[/img] - BillyJoe Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:32:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3756 When I was an impressionable college student, someone taught me how to make these things, and because I felt them so clearly, I knew they must be real. I "made" them regularly for a few weeks, and thought I was doing something interesting. But I did have a bit of skepticism about it, and did ask several questions, like what else could they do other than "focus my energy," how much energy output they required, and so on. I tried measuring them with a simple voltmeter setup (one probe between my hands where I thought the "psiball" was, one probe attached to my skin) and couldn't measure anything, and I asked the person who taught me about it, who said that measuring them makes them "not work." So I just filed it away as a curiosity, as a mental trick which is okay for relaxation but without any actual physical basis. Several years later I thought about them again when I saw someone else talking about how wonderful they are on some Internet forum, and I decided to actually try testing the false condition. First, I tried the "making a psiball" bit without the "focus your energy" bit, and I felt it between my hands. Next, I tried the "making a psiball bit" but didn't have my hands next to each other. I still felt the tension and "pressure," and just didn't feel the temperature increase, which was obviously due to my hands warming up the air between them. At that point I realized that this was just a simple isotonic exercise, and that visualizing something between my hands led to something like the ideomotor effect. I should have actually realized this right away, since long before I learned about psiballs, my dad taught me a simple isotonic exercise where you visualize/pretend that you're squeezing a large rock between your hands - and as part of that visualization I could "feel" the rock, in the exact same way that I could "feel" these psiballs. Sadly, I've related this story to "true believers" of psiballs and they discount it as me "not doing it right." - fluffy Sat, 07 Mar 2009 07:45:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3755 In the morning, when I prepare my breakfast, I take full advantage of my psiball powers. I make my coffee and put bread in the toaster. Then, comes the psi. I soon become impatient with the toaster, so, I hold my hand above it and concentrate. Before long, I can feel the heat of the psiball build up between my hand and the toaster. Lo and behold, before long the toast pops up! Another successful application of psiball powers! - bigjohn756 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:07:12 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3754 The greatest use of the psiball is, of course, on the dance floor. Me and my fellow grad students would "play" with our invisible balls, changing their size, and toss them back and forth to one another at the bar. - LovleAnjel Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:46:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3753 "Pattern seeking creatures". This tells the whole story of human folly in three words. PS: As Bender of Futurama once exclaimed: "These balls are making me testy!" - bosshog Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:16:35 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3752 Why is it that you can never make out facial features in any of the videos? Are they afraid that they might be recognised by someone and made a fool of in public? One guy even has a scarf over half of his face! - trawnajim Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:25:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/466-sigh-balls.html#comment-3751 I've been doing these for years. It's a great way to relax. And yes, you really do feel something. What's actually going on? I'm not sure, but I think it may be a combination of things: There's our old friend the Ideomotor Effect. There's muscle memory (stand in a doorway with your arms at your sides, push against the sides with the backs of your hands for 30 seconds, and step out; your arms naturally want to rise at your sides even when relaxed). And then, of course, there's just good old imagination. There also might be a conflict of some kind going on in the brain. Your hands are trying to hold the "ball" in place, while your arms try to squeeze or pull on it. The muscles (or two different parts of the brain) may end up fighting each other. Whatever the reason, I still find it useful now and then when I need to relax and collect my thoughts. - shanek Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:31:36 +0100