Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) The issue of the mind just somehow "knowing something" has been raised under many contexts in this forum. In the religious discussions, it often results in heated debates as some maintain that the mind can sometimes see things that the senses simply cannot verify and others (like me) who insist that a lot of that is just imagination and nothing more. Before going on here, I want to say that I do believe the mind can arrive at knowledge without necessarily requring first hand (i.e. through the physical senses) experience. We can theorize, extrapolate, create, imagine, design, engineer, and do many great things. But at the same time, the imaginative parts of the brain at times, tend to create what I call "false knowledge". No where is this more preveland than watching some gamblers in action: ... At the bingo parlor, the old ladies bring all sorts of stuffed animals, charms, voodoo dolls, bells, and scream chants in between the number calls. ... At the roulette table, some guy is closely keeping an eye on the sign above that has the list of the numbers that have already come up, trying to figure out what will come next. ... At the slots, a young lady is warming up her machine that is about to pay up ... ... At the craps table, the shooter is blowing on his dice, and whenever a 5-3 comes up, he bets a ton of money on the snake eyes. Some of them will spend a long time explaining you their strategy for winning. They have it all figured out ... they KNOW something the rest don't know. What do you tell them? I rarely have the heart to tell them how misguided they are if they believe ringing a bell after a bingo call or looking at the sign above the roulette table is going to help them make any changes in their future. But at the same time, is it correct to just let things be and let them get happy with their own superstitions? And yah, a lot of them do somehow find comfort in their superstitions which makes the whole thing even more absurd. Any thoughts? Do you have any such superstitions? It doesn't have to be just while gambling ... Edited March 24, 2006 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 By the way, I am not necessarily wanting to focus on premonitions. We had this discussion in another thread where some maintained they have had premonitions of certain events ... a black cat walking by and a family member dying, seeing a dream that came true the next day, etc. Here, I my focus is more on "standardized" systems of thought that have no basis other than in a person's head (even though the person may think very differently). I am talking more specifically about "gambling strategies" that are not mathematically sound, supserstitious actions such as not leaving the house if you only sneezed once, and not changing your shirt between certain soccer games, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 having lived in las vegas for 10 months now, i'll share the ultimate secrat how to win in black jack... you have to rub the waitress's breasts before touching the cards... believe me, it works... since i've started this "ritual", i've never lost at the table... so, my conclusion, rub more, play more, win more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) Sip, we have to go by evidence. I don't believe in the gambling strategies you are mentioning either, but if there is as statistically signficant evidence then we will learn that maybe some old lady has found a way to attract luck, so to speak. Meanwile we may or maynot be able to undrstand how that particular trick works in detail, but if it works then it works. p.s. by statistically significant evidence I mean a pattern that repeats with no more than accepted 5-10% of margin of error. So that means if the lady tried her trick 100 times, she should have won at least 90 times. Edited March 24, 2006 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Sip, we have to go by evidence. I don't believe in the gambling strategies you are mentioning either, but if there is as statistically signficant evidence then we will learn that maybe some old lady has found a way to attract luck, so to speak. Meanwile we may or maynot be able to undrstand how that particular trick works in detail, but if it works then it works. p.s. by statistically significant evidence I mean a pattern that repeats with no more than accepted 5-10% of margin of error. So that means if the lady tried her trick 100 times, she should have won at least 90 times. Very interesting that we agree here ... but not certain other topics. What changed here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Very interesting that we agree here ... but not certain other topics. What changed here? Because Yervant told you guys to look for positive points and not negative ones in every post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 having lived in las vegas for 10 months now, i'll share the ultimate secrat how to win in black jack... you have to rub the waitress's breasts before touching the cards... believe me, it works... since i've started this "ritual", i've never lost at the table... so, my conclusion, rub more, play more, win more... How much did you tip the waitress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, there is definitely a statistical significance to my gambling when those waitresses are around. My losses almost double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zartonk Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 (edited) is it correct to just let things be and let them get happy with their own superstitions? To be quite honest, I think not, because much too many of the times this comforting superstition surpasses it's limits and becomes an unhealthy factor in all others spheres of the individual's life and apprehension. When you function with confidence in these "intuitive certainties" in one area of your judgment, then it begins to be tolearated in the more crucial perceptions and is bound to become consequential. Being easy on superstition can mean helping someone's disillusionment. Yet again, you've gotta see where they are coming -or thinking- from, and how superstitious the are... Edited March 24, 2006 by Zartonk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yervant1 Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, there is definitely a statistical significance to my gambling when those waitresses are around. My losses almost double. Because you're not looking at your cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I know this guy who cusess at slot (poker) machines and wins most of the times, according to him it works becouse he scares the machine. I'm a good craps player but I have this superstition, when my wife is away from me I win, as soon as she shows up and takes some chips from me I start to loose, (baraqyate tanuma) now when ever I go to vegas I wait until she is asleep and snick out the room and play the game in peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Very interesting that we agree here ... but not certain other topics. What changed here? Don't know. The topic changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 No I mean why is it that here, we agree to rely on observable evidence to decide whether the old woman's system of thought with respect to ringing a bell or shaking a doll to influence gambling outcomes is valid? If the woman claims we just don't have the ability to comprehend her amazing insights into gamling, is it safe to call her kookoo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 No I mean why is it that here, we want to rely on observable evidence to decide wheather the old woman's system of thought with respect to ringing a bell or shaking a doll to influence gambling outcomes is valid? If the woman claims we just don't have the ability to comprehend her amazing insights into gamling, is it safe to call her kookoo? Sip, you know that I would not agree to call the woman a kookoo either way, right? At any rate, if the woman wins all the time it doesn't matter if she or us or anyone can understand how it happens. She is onto something that can be observed to be working. So, the main thing is, if it happens repeatedly then it is correct. I am not saying anything new really, that's how we learn by experiencing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Sip, you know that I would not agree to call the woman a kookoo either way, right? But do you think she is kookoo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 At any rate, if the woman wins all the time it doesn't matter if she or us or anyone can understand how it happens. She is onto something that can be observed to be working. So, the main thing is, if it happens repeatedly then it is correct. I am not saying anything new really, that's how we learn by experiencing things. Do you really thing shaking a doll can impact her winnings? If so, then I WILL call you kookoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 But do you think she is kookoo? Nope, I would think she is an old superstitious lady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Nope, I would think she is an old superstitious lady You are trying so hard to circumvent the question! Do you think she is wrong in her thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Do you really thing shaking a doll can impact her winnings? If so, then I WILL call you kookoo. Sip, you don't know the secret of spiritual rituals. It is not the mechanical shaking itself, but the thought and faith behind it that could possibly have any role. Now, I don't believe shaking dolls would do anything. However, if I observed that it helps win then I would suspect that mind and faith was entirely responsible for that. And very likely the lady would also think that it was the doll. Mind is very tricky, I tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 You are trying so hard to circumvent the question! Do you think she is wrong in her thinking? I believe my last post answers your question, which is no, she doesn't know exactly what is going on (of course, if it ever happens). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Mind is very tricky, I tell you. Exactly. And yes, I also agree with you that supersitious behavior of that lady is WRONG (even though you didn't say it, you did imply it finally). It's almost like trying to pull teeth to get you to make a firm statement sometimes Not everything is fuzzy ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Exactly. And yes, I also agree with you that supersitious behavior of that lady is WRONG (even though you didn't say it, you did imply it finally). It's almost like trying to pull teeth to get you to make a firm statement sometimes Not everything is fuzzy ya know. Sip, you thend to misunderstand me quite ofthen. You see, my way of thinking is different than yours. In your thinking everything is yes or no. In my thinking there is a wide range of answers between a flat yes and a flat no. Not everything but most things are complicated. In the above example, as well as in most cases, people can be right and wrong at the same time. So, the old lady in question is right by observing that she keeps winning if she shakes the doll, but is wrong concluding that she has got a magic doll. But you think that I am creating fuzziness so I can get away if I am wrong or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, I think the difference is that I am very disciplined in my thinking. I present the set of assumptions which may or may not be wrong. Then based on those assumptions I make certain statements. When I say something like the woman's use of dolls to influence statistical outcome of gambling is stupid, there is no maybe or ifs or but's about it. That is a YES/NO statement. IF we use statistical methods to evaluate the effectiveness of a technique, then the woman's method is wrong. There is also maybe a chance that the molecules in your body will line up such that you can walk through a wall. But instead of saying (oh yes maybe sometime I don't know complex stuff), I say NO, you can't walk through walls. Of course there are yes/no and clear cut answers! Not everything is like that and you don't have to insist to complicate everything. But in order to do so, one needs to be disciplined in his or her thinking and realize what is an assumption, what is a conclusion, and which conclusion is based on which assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, I think the difference is that I am very disciplined in my thinking. I present the set of assumptions which may or may not be wrong. Then based on those assumptions I make certain statements. When I say something like the woman's use of dolls to influence statistical outcome of gambling is stupid, there is no maybe or ifs or but's about it. That is a YES/NO statement. IF we use statistical methods to evaluate the effectiveness of a technique, then the woman's method is wrong. There is also maybe a chance that the molecules in your body will line up such that you can walk through a wall. But instead of saying (oh yes maybe sometime I don't know complex stuff), I say NO, you can't walk through walls. Of course there are yes/no and clear cut answers! Not everything is like that and you don't have to insist to complicate everything. But in order to do so, one needs to be disciplined in his or her thinking and realize what is an assumption, what is a conclusion, and which conclusion is based on which assumption. Sip, we are saying the same thing, but you are assuming that no old lady with a doll will ever be able to influence the statistical outcome, while I am saying that I don't know, I haven't known of such an old lady, but I don't know with a 100% certainty that it is an impossible thing. It probably is not possible though. Other than that, anyone who has studied statistics will agree on the statistics part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 What is so stupid about this whole thing is that it took us 10 posts to finally acknowledge we both agree the old superstitious lady is probably wrong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.