^The Philosophical Zombie argument, which you've described, bluecliff, is an old philosophical classic. There's a difference between "can't know" and "don't know". There are many theories as to consciousness, but how to find out which is right and wrong is pretty difficult. Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology seems to be the best way forward, because it covers all the bases we have available at this point in time, the multiple drafts theory is in my mind the best explanation to date about consciousness, but there's no "hard evidence" to point in any direction.

The "proof" we have that there IS a consciousness is based on our personal introspective; I know I have a consciousness, because I'm thinking right now; this explanation, however, is unverifiable, as far as I know, and is not really enough to make a claim one way or the other. If I were a philosophical zombie - a being that does exactly what a "real" person would do, but with no "inner life" - I would still act as if I HAD an inner life and thoughts and so on.

It may very well be that there actually is no consciousness as a thing in itself, but only an emergent behavior caused by our brain's different parts, and that we are all philosophical zombies without knowing it.

The point I'm trying to make, is that subjective evidence is not good evidence. Your mind can be tricked very easily, which is why the scientific method involves multiple tests and controlled environments. Uri Geller may SEEM like he can bend spoons with his mind, so the subjective evidence is that he can; in a controlled environment, however, he is a fraud as all "magicians" who claim they aren't making illusions.

Great bit, but it's a dupe, sorry.

http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-exposes-Uri-Geller-and-Peter-Popoff

LOL at "well-respected parapsychologist", that phrase is an oxymoron and especially ironic considering the two professors you're talking about. Tart got a Pigasus Award in 1981 for being such a tool, and Targ was one of the ones who thought Uri Geller was an actual psychic before Randi debunked him. Targ was so far gone as to publish a book (Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Abilities) saying as much with his Scientologist buddy Harold Puthoff.

Speaking of parapsychology, Susan Blackmore has a PhD in parapsychology and she has a few things to say about her experiences here and here. I particularly like this quote: "The way I really think is more like this: 'I am a scientist. I think the way to the truth is by investigation. I suspect that telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and life after death do not exist because I have been looking in vain for them for 25 years. I have been wrong lots of times before and am not afraid of it.'"

http://skepdic.com/parapsy.html
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/parapsychology.html

As to the Ganzfeld experiments, causation can't be established to any psychic phenomena. As Dgandhi said, yes, there is a statistically significant effect, but that effect is linked instead to severe experimental and analytical flaws, of which there are dozens if not hundreds, including amongst them interference in the procedure of the experiment by the researchers, outright cheating on the part of the researchers, allowing subjects to receive aural clues (as Dgandhi said above), and even basic failure to perform proper randomization.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychicpowers/ganzfeld.htm

Then again, Mink, I couldn't care less about debunking every single experiment "proving" psychic phenomena, especially if the only thing you have to offer is mindless throw-away comments without any actual effort on your part, when you don't even read the report I cited that did, in fact, offer debunking and criticism galore. It's boring, it's already been done, and, most importantly, the onus is not on me to prove anything.

I am going to finish up by quoting Dghandi, because what he wrote so eloquently bears repeating:
"The question is have these organizations produced extraordinary evidence through replicable experiments to back up their extraordinary claims, and the answer is still no."

There's also a clip of CA walking down the side of a many-storied building. He claims no special powers, unlike the fraud uri geller.

Also, that isn't the real Criss.

James Alcock relates this incident which occurred at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller: A professor from the State University of New York at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said "Yes indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery." The professor shouted back: "That's not what I mean. You're a fraud because you're pretending to do these things through trickery, but you're actually using psychic powers and misleading us by not admitting it."

who cares about Uri Geller?

At the end of the piece, the narrator quotes Judge Alex Kozinski of the Federal 9th Circuit Appellate Court. I've included the extended version of that quote here. His opinions on the "right of publicity" are best summed up in his White v. Samsung Electronics Dissent. The entire opinion is worth reading, but the critical summary is found in the first section which reads:

"Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. Clint Eastwood doesn't want tabloids to write about him. Rudolf Valentino's heirs want to control his film biography. The Girl Scouts don't want their image soiled by association with certain activities. George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it "Star Wars." Pepsico doesn't want singers to use the word "Pepsi" in their songs. Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year's Eve. Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of.

Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Private land, for instance, is far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains.

So too it is with intellectual property. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.

The panel's opinion is a classic case of overprotection. Concerned about what it sees as a wrong done to Vanna White, the panel majority erects a property right of remarkable and dangerous breadth: Under the majority's opinion, it's now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity's name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity's image in the public's mind. This Orwellian notion withdraws far more from the public domain than prudence and common sense allow. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It's bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look."

-- Judge Alex Kozinski

Lord. It is somewhat difficult to watch when the harsh light of reason exposes charlatans whether they are faith healers, Uri Geller, or the Loose Change boys.

Again, I support continuing investigation into this event. But the Loose Changers are not investigating. They have come to a conclusion and have not adequately supported that conclusion. And anyone who disagrees with them is a liar, sinner, or a CIA agent.

I also doubt that they have ever experienced the fun and the joy of the FOIA maze.

Thanks for the input, Baqueta. I also always thought it was "sings the streets a serenade," but when searching for the complete lyric listing I've found that "streetsuss" appears the only form ever used. After a little more searching, I feel certain that you've pegged it; "street-suss" seems a fairly common term.

From http://www.uri-geller.com/rage.htm :

Robert McNeil finds some aggressive street-suss being directed at the Festival luvvies. ...
"Meanwhile, the bar-room hangouts of the Edinburgh habitues resound to the sound of bitchily dismissive critiques of a 'scuzzy' circus which markets itself with an aggressive sense of street-suss, and which wins popular support by the barrel-load, but scores 'nil points' in Edinburgh's teaming enclaves of fey, androgynous arty-farty folk."

Main Entry: suss
Pronunciation: 's&s
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: by shortening & alteration from suspect
1 chiefly British : FIGURE OUT -- usually used with out
2 chiefly British : to inspect or investigate so as to gain more knowledge -- usually used with out

He's better than Uri Geller and the other con men who tell people that they're really doing magic.

For a full treatment of the Tonight Show segment with Uri Geller go here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Psychic-Uri-Gellar-gets-pwned-on-The-Tonight-Show

After the popularity of James Rnadi exposing James Hydrick (http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-exposes-James-Hydrick-telekinesis--2), I thought people might be interested in this. Although it's not as confrontational as the one with James Hydrick, with no direct communicational between Randi and the two protagonists, but you do get to know James Randi more and the kind of person he is.

James Randi has now raised his awards to one million dollars and has taken a more offensive approach as well as more rules on his screening process. He plans to publicly challenge several proclaimed psychics this April to come forth and prove themselves, including Uri Geller, James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward. For those interested.

http://skepdic.com/randi.html
http://www.randi.org

Here's James Randi talking about Uri Geller and Pophoff the faith healer. Not as good as this one as they weren't shown face to face in both cases, but you have a better understanding of Randi. You do get to see Uri Geller weasel his way out of being caught on The Tonight Show, but with no Randi present.

http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-exposes-Uri-Geller-and-Popoff-Faith-Healer



Anyways, James Randi has now raised his awards to one million dollars and has taken a more offensive approach as well as more rules on his screening process. He plans to publicly challenge several proclaimed psychics this April to come forth and prove themselves, including Uri Geller.