Header 1

Our future, our universe, and other weighty topics


Saturday, November 18, 2023

Spookiest Years, Part 6: 1854 - 1855

In previous posts in this intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series on this blog (herehereherehere and here), I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1853. Let me pick up the thread and discuss some spooky events reported in 1854 and 1855. 

In 1854 William Lloyd Garrison (publisher of the leading anti-slavery newspaper The Liberator) remarked on the spiritual manifestations so widely reported during the previous few years:

"When we first heard of the ' Rochester knockings,' we supposed (not personally knowing the persons implicated) that there might be some collusion in that particular case, or, if not, that the phenomena would, ere long, elicit a satisfactory solution, independent of all spiritual agency. As the manifestations have spread from house to house, from city to city, from one part of the country to the other, across the Atlantic into Europe, till now the civilized world is compelled to acknowledge their reality, however diverse in accounting for them ; as these manifestations continue to increase in variety and power, so that all suspicion of trick or imposture becomes simply absurd and preposterous ; and as every attempt to find a solution for them in some physical theory relating to electricity, the odic force, clairvoyance, and the like, has thus far proved abortive, — it becomes every intelligent mind to enter into an investigation of them with candor and fairness, as opportunity may offer, and to bear such testimony in regard to them as the facts may warrant ; no matter what ridicule it may excite on the part of the uninformed or sceptical.

As for ourselves, most assuredly we have been in no haste to jump to a conclusion in regard to phenomena so universally diffused, and of so extraordinary a character. For the last three years, we have kept pace with nearly all that has been published on the subject; and we have witnessed, at various times, many surprising 'manifestations;' and our conviction is, that they cannot be accounted for on any other theory than that of spiritual agency."

As reported here, Baron de Guldenstubbe claimed that on the night of March 16, 1854 he witnessed a column of bluish vapor gradually change to become the form of a man. We are told that this happened after the apparition was viewed for a while:

"By slow degrees the outlines lost their distinctness ; and, as the figure faded, the blue column gradually reformed itself, inclosing it as before. This time, however, it was much more luminous...Very gradually the light faded, seeming to flicker up at intervals, like a lamp dying out. From the time the figure appeared until it began to fade mingling with the column, there elapsed about ten minutes : so that the witness of this remarkable apparition had the amplest opportunity fully to examine it."


The Baron also claimed that upon reporting this apparition to a resident of the house, that person said that the place the Baron slept that night had been unoccupied for two years, and that the Baron's report of the features of the apparition exactly matched the appearance of the last person who had slept in the room before himself.  The Baron also claimed that two other people had seen the same apparition previously. 

An account by John James Bird of Great Malvern (dated February 11, 1856) describes inexplicable events witnessed by Bird in 1855.  The account appeared in the March 2, 1856 Spiritual Herald. We read the following:

"One of the ladies brought a guitar, and placed it under the table ; as the table was large, it was easily seen; presently the strings were faintly agitated, the sounds became gradually louder, and a tune was fairly played out by invisible means. I observed the instrument to move twice, but I am sure no one touched it. After this the heavy table at which we were sitting gradually rose from the floor, our hands resting upon it; it rose at least six inches, and remained in a state of suspension some time, then tipped backwards and forwards ; this was succeeded by a vibration in the table, that was communicated to our bodies and the chairs upon which we were sitting, as if some powerful fluid were escaping. The sensation, as of the grasp of a hand, was felt on the knee of two of the party successively, followed by very loud raps from the table. A little before twelve o'clock we removed to a room upstairs, and took our seats at a large square table.; here we had loud raps on the table, and from some parts of the room. The lady, to whom I have before alluded, was sitting next to me, and we were both of us, with the chairs on which we were sitting, forced violently from the table, nearly to the end of the room, and then drawn round. I tried to resist this, but without success; the table followed us, leaving the rest of the circle behind it. Our host, who is a learned and most accomplished gentleman, watched the phenomena with a jealous eye, and he has since tested Mr. Home, and is satisfied that there could have been no trickery; he leaves it for science to explain. I am convinced there could have been no collusion or delusion."

In the May 4, 1856 edition of The Spiritual Herald, we have an account by S. W. Brittan of a prediction made near the end of 1855 (Brittan's name is misspelled as Britton):

"On the evening of December 23, 1855, while the writer was engaged, in conversation with several friends who had assembled in the room of S. B. Brittan, at the Tremont House in this city, Mrs. Harriet Porter being also present, was employed at the time in making magnetic passes over one of the editor's daughters, with a view to remove a neuralgic pain in the head. The writer was sitting near the parties. observing the movements of Mrs. P., when the latter suddenly turned round and said with a peculiar emphasis, ' You have asked for a test; I will now give you one: THE STEAMSHIP PACIFIC WILL BE WRECKED AND ALL ON BOARD WILL PERISH. Put that in your pocket and keep it for a test.'  The Spirit purported to be my son Edward, and on my enquiring for further particulars, he added, 'I will tell you nothing more now; there will be an excitement on the subject, and you will come to see me again. There will also be a report that she is safe, but it will prove to be false.' There were present on the occasion, Mrs. S. B. Brittan, Emma Frances Jay, E. Virginia Brittan, Mrs. Wells, Mr. and Miss Vail, the medium and myself, any of whom will verify the truth of the foregoing statement. I have still in my possession the original memorandum, on the back of which is the following indorsement, made at the time the communication was received-' Spiritual prediction given through Mrs. Harriet Porter, December 28, 1855.' Soon after the announcement respecting the loss of the Pacific was made, I communicated the same to the editor of the Telegraph and to Mr. Charles Partridge. Subsequently, and before any apprehension of the loss of the Pacific had been awakened, I mentioned the subject to many others, and exhibited the memorandum to some twenty persons, including several who had little or no confidence in the claims of spiritualism. The names of the persons here referred to can be given if necessary."

At the modern site here, we read what happened to the steamship Pacific within the next month:

"On 23 January 1856, Pacific departed Liverpool for her usual destination of New York, carrying 45 passengers - a typically small number for a winter voyage - and 141 crew. For this voyage, she had both a new captain and first mate, neither of whom had much transatlantic experience, and also a new chief engineer, who was unfamiliar with Pacific's engines. After the ship failed to arrive at New York, other ships were sent to conduct a search, but no trace of the vessel was found. The cause of Pacific's demise is still unknown."

In Brittan's account, he says he contacted the medium Mrs. Harriet Porter after the Pacific was reported missing, and asked for details on what happened. He was told that the ship had struck an iceberg.  We read this on page 115 of the May 4, 1856 Spiritual Herald:

"Not many days had elapsed, when the writer of this again found himself at Mrs. Porter's table: the company on this occasion consisted of twelve persons. We had been seated but a short time, when the medium was entranced by a Spirit who said his name was --Faulkner, that he was purser on board the Pacific, had a brother in New York, who was a silversmith, etc. In reply to questions, propounded by the writer and others, the following additional particulars were elicited: When six days out, the Pacific struck an iceberg, at 11 o'clock on the evening of Jan. 29th, and very soon went down, stern foremost. As the vessel sunk, three persons escaped from the wreck and found a temporary resting place on the ice, but they were subsequently frozen to death. It was further alleged that there were forty-eight passengers on board - forty males and eight females; that, at the time of the catastrophe, the ship was in lat. 40 degrees north; that the Captain was at fault in taking the course he did, his object being to make a quicker trip than the Persia, which was then on her first voyage."

The notion of so large a ship being lost in such a way may have seemed far-fetched at such a time, but in 1912 a very large ship was lost in such a way, when the Titanic sunk from striking an iceberg. The latitude of 40 degrees north is just where we would expect a 19th century steamship from Liverpool to be if it was traveling to New York City and was about six days out on its journey. The page here lists 45 passengers, close to the 48 stated above. 

According to this web page, in 1861 a bottle was discovered "washed ashore on the Hebrides island of Uist" (an island near Scotland) with a message telling what happened to the ship:

"On board the Pacific from Liverpool to N.Y. - Ship going down. Confusion on board - icebergs around us on every side. I know I cannot escape. I write the cause of our loss that friends may not live in suspense. The finder will please get it published. W.M. GRAHAM." 

According to another source, it was confirmed that W. M. Graham was aboard the ship. So it seems that the Pacific was sunk after striking an iceberg, just as the medium had said years before anyone knew how the Pacific was lost. This blog post is to the best of my knowledge the first time anyone has ever noted the remarkable match between the report inside the found bottle and the years-earlier seance claim (reported above) saying that the Pacific disappeared because it struck an iceberg (an idea unknown to authorities at the time the claim was made).  Around 1856 it was very rare for ships crossing the Atlantic to be sunk by hitting icebergs. Around that time ships crossing the Atlantic did not travel very fast, and a helmsman seeing an iceberg would tend to have had lots of time to evade the iceberg by steering away from it. When the Titanic sunk in 1912 after hitting an iceberg, it was traveling much faster than ships of the nineteenth century. 

In the January 13, 1885 edition of The Spiritual Telegraph, we read G.T. Moulton making these claims:

"After sitting five or six minutes in silence, with our hands lying on the top of the table, it began to tip and rock to and fro very rapidly, and stamp its legs on the floor as if trying to break itself to pieces. We asked the Spirits if they could raise the table clear from the floor with our hands lying on the top. Immediately it rose in the air about two feet, with all our hands lying on on its top ; and this was repeated at our request five times, and all done within fifteen or twenty minutes—thus completely upsetting Professor Faraday’s theory of mechanical pressure. Two of the circle then sat down on the top of the table and were immediately thrown off by my hands being placed on its top....After the two were thrown off the table, we formed a circle all around it by taking hold of hands and not touching or being within two feet of it, and then asked the Spirits to move it if they could without any person touching it. Soon the table began to move, and tip, and jerk, and for ten minutes we had questions answered by the tipping of the table without any human being touching it. It would move or tip any way at the request of any one in the circle."

In the April 14, 1855 edition of The Spiritual Telegraph, we read of a death threat received by those reporting manifestations like those above. In general those making the reports discussed in this "Spookiest Years" series were often subjected to extremely horrible psychological abuse, libel and vilification by the media, clergy and scientists of their time, and in general such people tended to conduct themselves in a very respectable way, particularly given such abuse that might have broken many people.  

In the July 28, 1855 edition of The Spiritual Telegraph   we read this:

"—Mr. P. Demarest, of this city, has just related to us the following occurrences, which he witnessed some time ago at a circle at the house of a gentleman at Green Point....They were requested to sit hack from the table so that they could not- touch it, when the table, a heavy one, surmounted by a marble top, rose bodily into the air, from a foot to two feet above the floor, and swayed about with various undulatory motions.... These movements of the table, which were continued, with variations, for some two or three hours, were accompanied with every variety of concussive sounds, which it was utterly out of the power of any one present to produce ; and when a question was asked, the sound given in answer to it seemed to correspond to its nature and subject. "

In the October 6, 1855 edition of The Spiritual Telegraph we read a letter from a G. W. Gage published in a Cincinnati newspaper. He says this, referring to a levitating fourteen-year-old:

"I have spoken to the people several times, and attended their circles as often. They have writing, speaking, healing, prescribing and other kinds of mediums. The night circles are for physical demonstrations, and are somewhat remarkable. The violin and tambourine are carried about the room with great rapidity, and played ; a bell is also carried about and rung in fine time with other instruments. At these meetings I have also felt the spirit-hand. What is most remarkable here is, the medium, a miss of about fourteen years of age, is taken up in her chair and carried rapidly around the room as high as the heads of the audience, and without the aid of human touch or contact. Prescriptions have been written out by spirits, which have cured the sick and afflicted by scores. The blind have been made to see, the young and old have been aided by this invisible and to many non-existent agency. And still the good work goes on."

We read the following about physicist and optics expert David Brewster in an 1855 event in an 1869 book, a passage discussing a meeting with the medium Daniel Dunglas Home:

"The late Sir David Brewster was almost as unfortunate as Faraday in his relations to this perplexing subject. In the early part of 1855, on the invitation of Mr. William Cox, of Jermyn Street, London, Brewster was at a seance, where Mr. Home was the medium. The late Lord Brougham, the late Mrs. Trollope, her son Mr. Thomas Trollope, and Mr. Benjamin Coleman, were also present. Seated in a private room, in the open light of day, the party saw among other extraordinary things, a heavy table rise from the floor...In a letter to Mr. Coleman (Oct. 9, 1855), Brewster writes, 'It is true that, at Mr. Cox s house, Mr. Home, Mr. Cox, Lord Brougham, and myself sat down to a small table, Mr. Home having previously requested us to examine if there was any machinery about his person ; an examination, however, which we declined to make. When all our hands were upon the table, noises were heard, rappings in abundance; and finally, when we rose up, the table actually rose, as appeared to me, from the ground. This result I do not attempt to explain.' "

In a public statement dated September 29, 1855, published as a letter to the Morning Advertiser,  the scientist Brewster lied by claiming this: "But though I could not account for all these effects, I never thought of ascribing them to spirits stalking beneath the drapery of the table ; and I saw enough to satisfy myself that they could all be produced by human hands and feet, and to prove to others that some of them, at least, had such an origin."  No such thing was seen, as can be proven by Brewster's letter to Coleman quoted above.  The same thing is proven by a letter Brewster privately wrote in June 1855 describing the encounter.  In that later Brewster stated this, which includes a reference to the mysterious "spirit hands" so often seen around this time:

"Last of all I went with Lord Brougham to a seance of the new spirit-rapper, Mr. Home, a lad of twenty. ... We four sat down at a moderately-sized table, the structure of which we were invited to examine. In a short time the table shuddered, and a tremulous motion ran up all our arms ; at our bidding these motions ceased and returned. The most unaccountable rappings were produced in various parts of the table, and the table actually rose from the ground when no hand was upon it. A larger table was produced, and exhibited similar movements...A small hand-bell was then laid down with its mouth on the carpet, and after lying for some time it actually rang when nothing could have touched it. The bell was then placed on the other side, still upon the carpet, and it came over to me and placed itself in my hand. It did the same to Lord Brougham. These were the principal experiments; we could give no explanation of them, and could not conjecture how they could be produced by any kind of mechanism. Hands are sometimes seen and felt, the hand often grasps another, and melts away, as it were, under the grasp. The object of asking Lord Brougham and me seems to have been to get our favourable opinion of the exhibition, but though neither of us can explain what we saw, we do not believe that it was the work of idle spirits." 

After Brewster's lying letter to the editor claiming he saw nothing paranormal, another person present at the event (William Cox) promptly wrote to the same editor, addressing Brewster, expressing "much surprise" at his statements, and saying, " I have a distinct recollection of the astonishment which both Lord Brougham and yourself expressed, and your remarkable and emphatic exclamation to me : — ' Sir, this upsets the philosophy of fifty years.' " 

A day earlier one of the other witnesses of the event (Mr. Coleman) also gave an account of the meeting sharply contradicting Brewster's insinuations about it. Coleman wrote that this exchange occurred between him and Brewster:

"I was as much astonished at what I saw, felt, and heard in the presence of Mr. Home, as any man ; and when I found that Sir David Brewster had been a witness of similar phenomena at the house of my friend, I called upon Sir David, accompanied by my neighbour, and in the course of conversation, Sir David said, that what he and Lord Brougham saw ' was marvellous — quite unaccountable.'

" I then asked him, ' Do you, Sir David, think these things were produced by trick ?' "

" ' No, certainly not,' was his reply."

" ' Is it delusion, think you ?'

" ' No, that is out of the question '

"'Then what is it?'

" To which he replied, ' I don't know ; but spirit is the last thing I will give in to.'

" I added, ' I can well understand the difficulty which a man like you would have in pronouncing an opinion on a subject which, if it be what it appears, would upset in a moment the philosophy of your life.'

" Sir David then told me what he and Lord Brougham had witnessed. ' The table — a large dinner-table, I believe — moved about in the most extraordinary manner ; and among other things, a large accordion was conveyed by an invisible agency to my hand, and then to Lord Brougham's, in which, held by his Lordship's right hand, apart from any person, it played an air throughout.' "

A thorough discussion of the Brewster scandal (including the quotes above) is contained in an appendix of Home's biography, an appendix which can be read here. An equally thorough discussion is found on pages 139-142 of the book Nineteenth Century Miracles by Emma Hardinge Britten, which can be read here. The evidence here is clear, with three witnesses (and Brewster himself in private letters) giving testimony showing that the distinguished scientist Sir David Brewster lied when he wrote to a newspaper vaguely insinuating he could explain what he saw when meeting Daniel Dunglas Home, and vaguely insinuating that some trickery was involved.  The reality of the paranormal phenomena involving Home would later be confirmed by a scientist greater than Brewster, the scientist Sir William Crookes (discoverer of the element thallium) who thoroughly tested Home, and reported the same type of inexplicable phenomena described above, finding no evidence of any trickery. 

No one should be the least bit surprised to read the case above of a scientist lying about the paranormal, as lying and misspeaking on this topic routinely occur from professors. In his book The Enchanted Boundary, Walter Franklin Prince documented very many cases of professors speaking or writing dishonestly on this topic. In the 93 years since 1930 the kind of dishonesty and intransigent denialism documented by Prince in his 1930 book has continued full blast from professors, who tend to make generalizations about evidence of the paranormal indicating a great lack of scholarly diligence, and tend to sound exactly like people who failed to do their homework and people who developed unshakable convictions on such topics which they regarded as a substitute for seriously examining the relevant evidence. 

There is an expression that history is written by the winners. We see that very dramatically in the case of the rare mentions today of the inexplicable manifestations reported around this time.  The lies regarding such manifestations occurred mainly from those trying to heap scorn on those who reported the inexplicable effects rather than from such witnesses. History's winners ending up in professor positions after 1850 have given us a bogus history of these events, in which the gaslighting liars are depicted as the good guys, and the good honest witnesses are depicted as crazy or cheats. 

In 1855 Canadian author Susanna Moodie described a meeting she had with the medium Kate Fox, who Moodie describes as having the most beautiful eyes she ever saw:

"Miss F. [Kate Fox] told me to write a list of names of dead and living friends, but neither to read to her, nor to allow her to see them. I did this upon one side of a quire of paper, the whole thickness between her and me, writing with her back to me. She told me to run my pen along the list, and as a test the spirits would rap five times for every dead, and three times for every living, friend. I inwardly smiled at this. Yet strange to say, they never once missed."

Moodie reports a name being spelled out by raps, apparently under the common system of this time by which the alphabet would be recited, and a letter would be written down whenever a mysterious rap occurred after a letter was named.  The name spelled out (Anna Laura Harral) was someone whose name was unknown to Kate Fox, but who Moodie had made a compact with, under which either of the two people surviving death would try to communicate evidence of survival to the surviving person.  Moodie reports a wide variety of inexplicable sound phenomena occurring around Kate Fox (as did quite a few distinguished authors), including sounds (combined with vibrations) coming from the dirt or rocks Moodie stood on. Moodie reports a piano playing by itself, soon after Kate Fox suggested that it would. 

Moodie reports asking that the birth year and death year engraved under a ring Mr. Moodie was wearing be identified by the mysterious raps. The correct years were given, she says, as was her father's name and the date of his birth and death, and the place and cause of her father's death. Like countless other witnesses, she reports such questions were correctly answered, even though posed only mentally rather than orally. Could it all have been some super-elaborate fraud by some mastermind of a trickster? On the page here, former congressman Robert Dale Owen says that he had known Kate Fox for years, and that she was "one of the most simple-minded" persons he had ever met, and that she was "as incapable of framing, or carrying on, any deliberate scheme of imposition as a ten year-old child is of administering a government."

Below is an image of an 1854 newspaper account describing how 13,000 people petitioned the US Senate to investigate paranormal phenomena. 

spiritual manifestations

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

The Errors of Assembly Theory

University press offices these days are notorious for their shameless hype, exaggerations and misstatements in announcing new research. A recent example of their work is a press release entitled "Assembly theory unifies physics and biology to explain evolution and complexity," one grandly announcing that "an international team of researchers has developed a new theoretical framework that bridges physics and biology to provide a unified approach for understanding how complexity and evolution emerge in nature." We read in the press release that "this new work on ‘Assembly Theory’, published today (Wednesday October 4) in Nature, represents a major advance in our fundamental comprehension of biological evolution and how it is governed by the physical laws of the universe." We hear a lead author Sara Walker crowing that "with this theory, we can start to close the gap between reductionist physics and Darwinian evolution – it's a major step toward a fundamental theory unifying inert and living matter." The claim of a "new theoretical framework" is incorrect, as the underlying "assembly theory" of Walker and Cronin was introduced three years ago, as proven by the paper here (from November 2020). 

Co-author Leroy Cronin has recently written an article claiming that this "assembly theory" is some grand insight that may "help explain life." A November 1 article by him is entitled "A new theory of matter may help explain life."  Again, the theory that is at least three years old is referred to incorrectly as something "new." 

Below are some of the mistakes I can find in the writings of Cronin and Walker on this topic:

Error #1: Claiming something's assembly history is one of its properties

Very quickly in Cronin's IAI article  we hear something that sounds very wrong: the claim that the "the assembly history of material objects, how they came to have the complexity they do, is an essential property of all matter." A property of a material thing is a single attribute that can be numerically measured, and expressed as a single number. Properties of material things include height, depth, width, volume,  weight, and mass.  The assembly history of some complex object is not one of its properties. 

Error #2: Abusing the word "selection," apparently using it to refer to any addition of a new part when something useful or organized assembles. 

In a paper with the grand title " Assembly Theory Explains and Quantifies the Emergence of Selection and Evolution," Walker, Cronin and other authors use the word "selection" 82 times. You may be very  confused, because it is clear that the word "selection" is being used in a way unlike the dictionary definition (which means a choice made by a conscious agent), and also unlike when biologists use the not-literally-correct term "natural selection," not referring to a choice made by a conscious agent. What's going on is that Cronin and his co-authors seem to be most confusingly using the word "selection" to mean any kind of addition of a new part to anything useful or organized. That isn't one of the dictionary definitions of selection, and the word should not be used in so confusing and misleading a way. Walker, Cronin and the others authors simply start using the word "selection" in this novel way, without ever defining what they mean by "selection," and without ever announcing that they will be using the word "selection" in a new way. 

We can understand why chemists such as Cronin would want to start abusing the word "selection" in such a way. A great longstanding problem is that Darwinian theory is worthless in explaining the origin of life. Darwinian appeals to a so-called "natural selection" which requires life for it to happen, so it can't explain the origin of life. One sneaky and misleading way to try to get that around that is to stretch the word "selection" so that it applies to any kind of combination or joining or assembly.  Then you can kind of cover-up the total absence of natural selection before the origin of life by trying to say that there was some selection, using your strange new definition of selection. But we should not abuse language in that way.  There are already perfectly good words in the English language to refer to things getting more complicated when parts join together or bind. Such words include the words "accumulation," "concatenation," "bonding," and "binding," as well as the phrases "component addition" or "part addition."  

Error #3: Selling as something scientific the imprecise, unscientific idea of "the minimal number of steps necessary to produce the object." 

Walker and Cronin's "assembly theory" includes something they call the assembly index, which they define as "the minimal number of steps necessary to produce the object (its size)."  This is very strange language. Since when is an object its size?  Maybe this is just very clumsy wording in which "its size" refers to "the minimal number of steps." 

There's nothing particularly scientific about a concept of a minimal number of steps needed to produce an object.  That's because the term "step" is a vague, imprecise term. Here is an example showing what I mean. For a woman to produce a newly born child could be considered a single step. Or, if we consider the creation of each of the child's organs, we could think of constructing a new child as requiring about twenty steps. Or if we consider each new cell needed to make the new child, then we might consider the creation of a new child as involving many, many billions of steps. Or if we consider each new chemical reaction or each new molecule needed to make the new child, then we might think it requires trillions of steps.  Similarly, if we consider how the United States separated from the British empire, we can consider that as one step (the American Revolutionary war), or as about twenty steps (each battle in the war and each major event like the signing of the Declaration of Independence), or we can consider it as occurring by  many thousands of events (each important pen stroke or firing of a bullet being considered a separate step). 

"Steps" is a vague, imprecise word, so there's nothing scientific in the concept of "the minimal number of steps needed to produce an object."  It seems futile to try and unravel exactly what Cronin and Walker are talking about in their paper here, because it all hinges on frequent repetitions of the word "step," and the paper is never clear about what it means by a step. I looked through all 33 uses of the word "step" in that paper, and found that the paper never defines what it means by a step. It's the same thing in Walker and Cronin's paper "Quantifying the pathways to life using assembly spaces." That one has 17 uses of the word "step" without ever defining what it means by "step." 

In another paper Walker and Cronin say, "The assembly index of an object is the length of the shortest pathway to construct the object starting from its basic building blocks." That's also unprecise language, because "basic building blocks" is not a precise concept in talking about the origin of things such as life, and "shortest pathway" is also imprecise. What should we consider as building blocks of one-celled life? Is it the organelles that make up the cell? Is it protein complexes used to make up such organelles? Is it the proteins themselves? Is it the amino acids that make up the proteins? Or is it atoms that make up such amino acids? For any very complex object, there is a "combinatorial explosion" involving possible assembly pathways, meaning that the number of potential pathways to create that object is almost infinite, and we can neither innumerate all those pathways nor calculate which one is shortest. Under the assumption that the addition of each nucleotide base pair is a step, you could calculate the shortest pathway to get a DNA molecule. But the number of pathways by which a cell could be constructed from scratch is almost infinite, meaning the idea of trying to calculate a shortest pathway becomes for all practical purposes impossible once you get up to the complexity of a self-reproducing cell. 

Error #4: The incorrect idea that duplicating any previously reached object or sequence requires only one step.

In the paper here, Walker and Cronin state this:

"The ordering is important since we start from the atoms, and add bonds, in sequence. Once we have generated a given motif on the path, this motif remains available for reuse."

Later they make this strange claim: "The process of constructing new objects retains the memory of the past formation of objects." What this amounts to is the extremely erroneous principle that in calculating the steps needed to make something, you can count a duplication of any previously reached object or sequence as requiring only one step. 

In Figure 1 of the paper above, we have a little diagram giving a rather trivial example of how Walker and Cronin calculate the number of steps needed to make something, using this erroneous idea. They consider a sequence of blue squares and white squares which is the equivalent of BWBWBWBWBWBWB, where B is a blue square and W is a white square. Walker and Cronin calculate that constructing this sequence requires only four steps:

Step 1: BW

Step 2: BWBW

Step 3: BWBWBWBW

Step 4:  BWBWBWBWBWBWBWBW

Even though this is an extremely simple example, Walker and Cronin have got things very wrong. The string BWBWBWBW BWBWBWBW should not be considered as something requiring only four steps. Instead, it requires 16 steps. Each addition of a new character requires a separate step. 

It is true that if you are writing with a word processor, you can sometimes save yourself some time by copying a block of text. But when we are considering something such as the origin of life, such a power is irrelevant. Before the invention of computers, there did not exist any "copy and paste" feature. I may also note that even when people write original emails, original articles and original books, they almost never use copy and paste. For example, when I type the common word "where," I do not search for the word "where" in my previous written text, copy that word, and then paste it, using only 3 steps. Instead, I use five steps, typing five different characters.  

It would be a grave mistake to consider the difficulty of getting a multicellular organism, and to think that each cell can be duplicated in a single step. A cell is a fine-tuned arrangement of billions of atoms, and the reproduction of a cell requires billions of tiny chemical steps. Similarly, if you are considering the difficulty of building a brick house, it would be stupid to say that once you have taken hundreds of brick-laying steps to build a brick wall, that the brick wall can then be duplicated in a single step. The construction of each brick wall requires the individual placement of hundreds of bricks. Each one of those brick placements is its own separate step. 

In the paper here Walker and Cronin calculate that constructing the word "ABRACADABRA" requires only 9 steps:

Step 1: A

Step 2: B

Step 3: AB

Step 4: ABR

Step 5: ABRA

Step 6: ABRAC

Step 7: ABRACA

Step 8: ABRACAD

Step 9: ABRACADABRA

This is not correct. Constructing the word ABRACADABRA requires 11 steps, the length of the sequence. The fact that ABRA already existed in Step 5 at the beginning does not entitle you to think that the same sequence can be added at the end as a single step. 

I suspect that there is a strategic rationale in Error #4.  The authors are probably hoping later to introduce some calculation under which the origin of life will be calculated as being very much easier, under some calculation method assuming that anything that already has been constructed can be added in a single step.  But such an assumption is incorrect. 

We can get an idea of how badly things go wrong under Error #4 if you try to calculate how many steps are needed to make a square brick house in which each side is 7 meters.   The correct calculation would go like this:

Number of bricks in a row of 7 meters: About 30

Number of brick rows needed to make a one-story wall: About 30

Number of bricks needed for a 7-meter-long wall: about 900

Number of bricks need for a house in which each side is 7 meters: about 3600

Number of steps needed to make a brick house in which each side is 7 meters: more than 3600

But under the faulty method of Walker and Cronin, and their incorrect idea that anything already built can be duplicated with a single step, you would drastically under-estimate the number of steps needed to build such a house, doing some calculation like this (in which each B stands for a brick):

Step 1: B

Step 2: BB

Step 3: BBBB

Step 4: BBBBBBBB

Step 5: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Step 6: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Step 7: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

            BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Step 8: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

            BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

            BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

            BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

You can see where this ends up, with the calculation telling us that the four brick walls can be constructed in only maybe twenty steps, rather than the actual number of steps needed, about 3600. Error #4 therefore can lead to vast underestimations of the difficulty of constructing things, which is just the kind of thing origin-of-life researchers like to get, allowing them to make groundless "it's not so hard" claims about an accidental origin of life. 

In the paper here Walker and Cronin use their faulty methodology (include Error #4) to get some ridiculously wrong calculations, such as one seemingly calculating that E. coli can be produced in only about 32 steps (Figure 4).  This is nonsense. Besides thousands of different protein types, each its own distinct complex invention requiring very many well-arranged parts, E. coli has more than 4 million base pairs in its genome, with very little sequence duplication.  It would require millions of steps to produce E. coli from scratch. Walker and Cronin have got their wrong-as-wrong-can-be number by using the goofy methodology described in the ludicrous-looking byzantine flowcharts of Supplemental Figure 2, Supplemental Figure 3 and Supplemental Figure 4 of the paper's supplemental information, a methodology including many arbitrary and seemingly senseless or unjustifiable steps such as "Remove sets of duplicates where all substructures share one or more bonds."  Study those three figures and you'll get a depiction of about as unnatural and unjustifiable a calculation method as you could hope to find in a scientific paper.  What we have here is what goes on so often in scientific papers: the embarrassing "dirty linen" is buried in the supplemental information document that almost no one reads, as if the authors wanted to hide such things.  Having worked as a software developer for decades, I know bad spaghetti code "Rube Goldberg" calculation algorithms when I see them, and such scrambled logic is what is I see in the three flowcharts mentioned above. 

Part of the shenanigans here seems to have involved analyzing mere "E. coli lysates," which seem to be mere fragments or remnants or products of E. coli. But Figure 4 of the paper here by Walker and Cronin simply lists these "E. coli lysates" as "E. coli," helping to give readers the crazy idea that E. coli can be produced in 32 steps.

This seems to have been the trail of error:

(1) An unjustifiable algorithm containing quite a few weird arbitrary steps and a silly "complex things can be duplicated in only one step" idea was created. 

(2) Such an algorithm was applied to "E. coli lysates" which are apparently mere fragments or remnants or products of the complex microbe E. coli. (The bottom of page 23 of the Supplemental Information document describes some complex process by which E. coli was destructively manipulated with centrifuges and bead heating to produce such lysates.) 

(3) A misguided calculation was then made that such  "E. coli lysates" can be produced in only 32 steps.

(4) A chart was produced in a little-read scientific paper (Figure 4 of the paper here), labeling the mere "E. coli lysates" as simply E. coli, thereby suggesting to the very small number of readers who studied the chart that  E. coli (something which would require millions of steps to make from scratch) can be produced in only about 32 steps. 

(5) Quanta magazine then produced an article  with an easier-to-read chart, based on the paper's chart, giving its very many readers the false-as-false-can-be idea that the E. coli microbe can be produced from scratch in only about 32 steps, an idea as false as the claim that you can walk from Moscow to Shanghai by taking only 32 steps.  Very many readers were thereby grossly misinformed about the important matter of the complexity of the simplest types of living thing, and led to think the vastly erroneous idea that living microbes are easy to construct from scratch. 

For an antidote to such baloney, one giving a little glimpse of the enormous functional complexity of E. coli, take a peek at this extremely complicated diagram labeled "The extreme complexity of the E. coli transcriptional regulatory network." 

Error #5: The incorrect idea that the complexity of something very complex can be accurately quantified by calculating a number of steps to make that thing.

We cannot reasonably calculate the difficulty of assembling something complex by calculating some mere number of assembly steps.  One reason is that the difficulty of correctly accomplishing some step can vary by many orders of magnitude, with some later step being a thousand or a millions times harder than an early step. Once you get into constructing large three-dimensional objects, a new part can be placed in any of innumerable different places. The greater the number of parts in the thing, the greater the difficulty in correctly placing a new part.  If my new book manuscript has only the word  "now," there are only four different places I can put a new letter. But once my book manuscript gets to be 100,000 characters, then there are 100,000 different places I can add a new letter. Similarly, if I am building some hand-sized gizmo, there are only a few places I can drive a nail. But if I am hammering a nail in a house, there are 10,000 places I can hammer that nail, and perhaps in only 1 in a thousand of those places will it make any sense to hammer that nail.  My point is that the complexity of something increases exponentially as it grows, and the difficulty of getting each new step right changes very dramatically; so you can't calculate the complexity or difficulty of constructing something by just tallying up a number of steps taken in construction. 

Here's an example of why the number of steps needed to make something is a very poor measure of the difficulty of making something. Below are how many steps are needed to make two sequences:

101101101011010101000110001101011101011000:  about 42 steps

To be or not to be -- that is the question :  about 42 steps

Both of these require about 42 steps to make. But the first sequence is radically easier to make than the first. The first sequence can easily be made by some random mindless process, for example a sequence of days where each 1 is a day with rain, and each 0 is a day without rain (or an ink splash in which each 1 is an area hundredth with a little bit of the ink splash, and each  0 is an area hundredth without any bit of the ink splash).  But the second sequence is so hard to make by any random process that it requires an intelligent agent to make it.  We shed no real light on the difficulties here by saying both sequences require 42 steps. 

The only reason I can think of why someone would want to try to quantify the complexity of something by using a "number of construction steps" method (one including Error #4) is that the person might be trying to pick a method that would make feats that are vastly difficult (with prohibitive odds against them) look like they are relatively easy. That has been a long-standing tendency of chemists dealing with the origin-of-life: a tendency to use various tricks and sleazy strategies to make the accidental origin of life look trillions of times easier than it would have been. Rather than shedding light on the origin of life, such tricks merely mislead. 

origin-of-life researchers

Postscript
: The recent paper "Design Patterns of Biological Cells" is a paper clarifying how cells and molecular machines implement a wide variety of design patterns, some very complex. Although the authors draw no implications from their analysis, a straightforward implication analysis leads one to think their results are more nails in the coffin of attempts to mechanistically explain cells.  In Figure 4 of the paper we have an extremely complex diagram showing the metabolism of E. coli, one that helps to show how nonsensical are any insinuations that it could be assembled through a small number of steps. 

A March 2024 paper is entitled "Assembly Theory is a weak version of algorithmic complexity based on LZ compression that does not explain or quantify selection or evolution." The blog post here by a PhD is entitled "The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory." 

Friday, November 10, 2023

Where His "Techno-Optimist Manifesto" Goes Wrong

High-tech legend Marc Andreessen has recently published an article entitled "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto," which can be read here. Let's look at some of the more erring parts of this manifesto, one that is characterized by bombast and hubris. 

Very strangely the manifesto starts out with a quote by someone saying that "man has not the faintest idea of who he is or what he is doing." Besides being untrue, this claim clashes very much with the triumphalist claims in the manifesto, which have a "we are gods in the making" ring to it. The first section is entitled "Lies" and lists some things we are supposedly being told, without giving any specific quotes, things that sound pessimistic or anti-technology. The next section is entitled "Truth," and ends with the claim "It is time to be Techno-Optimists." The statements in this section aren't very noteworthy.

The next section is entitled "Technology." We hear a quote of someone saying, "Lack of growth is a kill-all." That isn't true. Once humans reach adulthood, they do not physically grow, and manage to do fine with no further growth. Most people don't grow much mentally after the age of 25, but the lack of intellectual growth does not kill them. And a nation can do fine with a stable population, without growing. We are told that "the total human population may already be shrinking." It's actually growing at a rate of about 1% per year.  We have the bungling statement, "We believe this is why our descendants will live in the stars."  You cannot live inside a star, and nothing preceding the statement has justified a claim of the feasibility of interstellar colonization. 

We then have the statement, "Give us a real world problem, and we can invent technology that will solve it." That's a silly thing to say.  There are  real world problems that humans hate and fight other humans, and that many humans are too greedy and selfish and biased. There is no technology that will solve such problems. 

In a section called "Markets" we have this silly statement: "We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits." No, markets don't stop people from starting religions, and there's nothing wrong with starting a religion as long as you teach something reasonable and moral.  We have this equally silly statement: "We believe markets, to quote Nicholas Stern, are how we take care of people we don’t know."  We then have this equally senseless statement: "We believe in Milton Friedman’s observation that human wants and needs are infinite." No, actually, they are finite. 

After a rather bombastic section entitled "The Techno-Capital Machine," we have a section entitled "Intelligence," which quickly states, "Intelligence makes everything better." That isn't always true. It took intelligence to build A-bombs and H-bombs, but the world was made much worse after they were introduced, with half of the world's population fearing a nuclear holocaust. We then have some lines singing the praise of so-called Artificial Intelligence. "Artificial Intelligence" is just a misleading term for computer programming and data processing.  We have this silly claim: "Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder." 

Then there is a section called "Energy" which begins with the very ignorant statement that "Energy is life." No, energy is not life. Life is an information-rich physical state of very high hierarchical organization, and energy such as sunlight is neither information-rich nor organized.  We have this bizarre recommendation: "We should raise everyone to the energy consumption level we have, then increase our energy 1,000x, then raise everyone else’s energy 1,000x as well." The life of people would not be improved if they started using a thousand times more energy.  We are told, "We have the silver bullet for virtually unlimited zero-emissions energy today – nuclear fission." I guess the techno-optimist author forgot about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the latter two being the most horrible environmental disasters caused by malfunctions at nuclear fission plants.  

A section called "Abundance" starts out with the loopy statement, "We believe we should place intelligence and energy in a positive feedback loop, and drive them both to infinity." Humans actually know of no way of substantially increasing intelligence to achieve a mind smarter than any man who has lived. Faster and more powerful computers do not have intelligence. Humans have no credible theory of how intelligence arises.  We do not have any credible theory by which the human mind arises from the human brain. As shown in the many posts of my blog here, scientists are unable to give any credible neural explanations for such basic mental phenomena  as memory formation, instant memory recall, life-long preservation of memories, imagination, self-hood, or abstract thinking. There is no hope that we will be be able to greatly increase human intelligence by genetic engineering or by giving people bigger brains.  Lacking any understanding of a neural basis for intelligence, it will be impossible to build machines smarter than humans by leveraging some neuroscience discoveries.  Just as goofy is the writer's claim that "the ultimate result will be that all physical goods become as cheap as pencils." 

What follows is a shallow "pie in the sky" vision of material abundance that seems to be based on a hollow "all you need is more and more stuff" outlook. Ignoring how unneeded material consumption worsens global warming, Andreessen seems to think that some glorious climax of humanity will be reached if the world is loaded up with 50 billion people who all have lots and lots of material possessions. It's a fundamentally misguided philosophy. After their basic material needs are met, humans do not need more and more material possessions. The things that mostly drive human happiness are immaterial things such as self-fulfillment, love, personal relationships, friendships, good family relations, esthetic appreciation, personal growth, intellectual and spiritual enrichment and mental outlook. A man with access to good public transportation does not need a car, and will not be made much happier once he gets two cars and a garage to park them in.  

Here are some examples of how technology has failed to make man happier. When I was a boy my family had bookcases filled with books, and people would take out many books from libraries. I could find out what was happening in the world and my city very well by reading the morning newspaper and my weekly copy of Time magazine and Life magazine. Now people tend not to have bookshelves, and tend not to get magazine deliveries. We get our information by the Internet. Has this made us any happier? I doubt it. Turning the pages of a book was just as convenient a way of reading as swiping your fingers across a screen.  And today we can play games with Playstations and X-boxes. But when I was a kid it seemed I had just as much fun playing board games with my siblings. Nowadays, I can shop using Amazon.com, and I haven't been to a mall in a long time. But it seemed like just as much fun (or even more fun) to shop in a big shopping mall. People used to ride bicycles to get around in Beijing. Now a large fraction ride cars, but in 2018 the air in Beijing was terrible because of all the pollution from cars. 

So much of what technology has given us consists of things we don't need. You don't need for your friends to know within 5 minutes your thoughts about some thing a politician or celebrity said 10 minutes ago.  Nor does the average person even really need some site on which to post his photos. People were able to share photos before the Internet by putting physical photos in photo albums, and showing the albums to visitors to their residence. It used to be people would watch movies on huge screens. Now people mainly watch movies on hand-sized smartphones, with sound not-as-good as what you had in movie theaters. I remember listening to operas using stereo headphones, getting the tenor singing in my left ear, and the soprano in my right ear. Audio-wise it was an experience better than the average smartphone user gets. In many cases such as these technology has mainly made things different rather than very obviously better.

Technology has given us a hundred forms of glitzy distraction, and thousands of entertainment options, but maybe that makes it less likely you'll spend an afternoon absorbed in deep thoughts while reading a long book of intellectual depth. Nowadays someone may say, "I don't need to invite people for dinner, because I already keep up with them by getting their posts in my Facebook feed." Maybe you would be a little happier if you instead had dinner with such people, and were able to laugh with them face-to-face. Decades ago, people would write their friends and family members long handwritten letters.  A person could save those letters, and have wonderful easy-to-access snapshots of what someone was thinking years ago.  Now, you might instant message someone, writing "How r yu?" But it might be too hard for you to retrieve what the person thought years ago, as that might involve too much finger-swiping through spam in your text messages. People used to have old photos in photo albums that might last a lifetime. Now accessing your old photos may depend on whether you remember some user id and password and URL of some system where you posted the photos, and whether some web site is still operational and allowing free access.  We may ask: have such technology changes made us any happier? 

There is no evidence that people in the US are happier than they were fifty years ago. As for Andreessen's enthusiasm about going out and conquering space, that won't make mankind any happier.  You won't get happier or wiser people by putting people on the moon or Mars, to live underground.  The suicide rate in the US has risen by more than 30% since the year 2000, despite all of the marvelous increases in technology during that period. 

Andreessen seems to pay no attention to the extremely large potential for technology to have disastrous effects on human happiness.  One example is how automobile use and jet travel and heavy computer use have worsened global warming. It has been estimated that computer use and electronic gadget use accounts for 4% of global warming, with another 4% caused by air travel. Another example is the risk of nuclear war. Another example is the risk of runaway AI. Another example is the very substantial possibility that gene splicing may lead to some pandemic far worse than COVID-19. It is claimed by one US intelligence agency with medium confidence that COVID-19 itself arose because of bungled technological fiddling. 

Some of the vast increase in material abundance Andreessen forecasts would need to come from asteroid mining, but asteroid mining would be a risk to mankind as great as nuclear warfare, because ships with the power to move around asteroids would have the power to launch them towards Earth as super-weapons.  A relatively small asteroid manipulated to hit Earth would have such kinetic energy that it would be more destructive than a hydrogen bomb. Once you have spaceships going to asteroids, the task of re-routing the path of an asteroid so that it hits Earth is a technological feat much simpler than creating a hydrogen bomb. 

While Andreessen gives away animosity towards religion (with the comment quoted above), what he is actually preaching seems almost like a kind of religion in itself. As I have argued at length elsewhere, religions have extremely diverse forms, and do not always involve a belief in a deity. A good definition of a religion (one I previously used) was this: "A set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and life, or a recommended way of living, typically stemming from the teachings of an authority, along with norms, ethics, rituals, roles or social organizations that may arise from such beliefs." Centered around a recommended way of living in which consumption and material possession acquisition seem to be the chief virtues, Andreessen's techno-materialism seems rather like a kind of religion in which people such as him, Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil are the high priests, asking us to believe in some looming transformative Singularity that serves like the Second Coming.  It is interesting that Andreessen ends his piece with a list of what he calls "Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism," a list that includes Friedrich Nietzsche (who was also a favorite of some well-known bad guys). I fail to recognize any morally-noteworthy figure on this list of so-called "saints." 

That wealth worship thing was tried before...

Another essay by Andreessen has the laughable title "Why AI Will Save the World." With the "save the world" theme, we have another sign a kind of stealth religion is being peddled. The essay starts out with the misstatement below: "First, a short description of what AI is: The application of mathematics and software code to teach computers how to understand, synthesize, and generate knowledge in ways similar to how people do it." That's dead wrong, because computers don't have the slightest understanding of anything. Understanding is what goes on in human minds, not in computers. You can program a computer to respond differently to different stimuli, but that does not involve any understanding. For example:

if (string == "cat")
   puts("You chose a cat!");
else if  (string == "dog")
   puts("You chose a dog!");

There is not the slightest bit of understanding going on when a computer processes the code above. Similarly, your gas stove will respond in a different way when you turn a burner knob some particular way, but your stove has not the slightest understanding of anything. 

You may chuckle when you read the essay make claims like this one: "Every child will have an AI tutor that is infinitely patient, infinitely compassionate, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely helpful." How could humans who have such gigantic shortfalls in their knowledge ever build something "infinitely knowledgeable"?  The mystery of how a speck-sized zygote is able to progress to become the vast state of hierarchical organization that is the human body is a mystery 100 miles over the heads of our scientists, who try to cover up their ignorance on this with lies such as the lie that your DNA is a blueprint for building humans.  We don't even understand the origin of any adult human body or any adult mind, so the idea of us building some machines "infinitely knowledgeable" is nonsensical. 

Monday, November 6, 2023

Spookiest Years, Part 5: The Year 1853

In previous posts in the intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series on this blog (here, here, here and here), I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1852. Let me pick up the thread and report some spooky events reported in 1853. 

In 1853 we saw the publication of "A discussion of the facts and philosophy of ancient and modern spiritualism" by S. B. Brittan and B. W. RichmondSamuel Byron Brittan MD was much later the writer of a work I called a classic of parapsychology,  the work Man and His Relations, which I review here.  The book is a back-and-forth dialog between Richmond and Brittan, with Richmond often making skeptical speculations trying to minimize spiritual manifestations like the ones mentioned in the quote below, speculations that Brittan tries to rebut. The book shows a very healthy tendency of thinkers such as Brittan to study and respond at great length to objections by skeptics. 

On page 14 of the book we have some remarkable testimony by nine named witnesses, four of them medical doctors. In the middle of their testimony, quoted by Brittan, they state the following:

"Persons at the circle have been unexpectedly turned round with the chairs in which they were sitting, and moved to and -from the table ; chairs and sofas have suddenly started, from their positions against the wall, and moved forward to the center of the room, when they were required in the formation of the circle ; the persons in the circle have each successively lifted his own side of the table, and the invisible power has raised the opposite side correspondingly ; occasionally the spirits have raised the table entirely, and sustained in air, at a distance of from one to three feet from the floor, so that all could satisfy themselves that no person in the flesh was touching it ; lights of various colors have been produced in dark rooms ; the table has often been rocked with great violence, and suddenly — and unexpectedly to the whole company — it has been instantly arrested and held firm and immovable, with the upper surface inclined to an angle of some forty-five degrees, when the lamp, pencils and other objects on the table, would slide or roll to the very edge, and there remain fixed as if riveted to the table ; a man has been suspended in, and conveyed through, the air, in all a distance of fifty feet or more. The communications have been given in various ways, but chiefly in writings and by the rappings, after the ordinary alphabetical mode."

Page 16 of the book lists the following people as asserting the claim above: R. T. Hallock, M. D. , A. G. Hull, M. D.,  John F. Gray, M.D., L. T. Warner, M.D., W. J. Baner,  Samuel T. Fowler, Almira L. Fowler, and Mr. and Mrs. Charles Partridge. 

In the book here (pages 101 to 102)  we have an account claiming a miraculous healing. We are told that a medium identified only as Mrs. French was strangely compelled to go to a place where a blind boy was found, and strangely found her self unable to leave. We are told that after some vaguely described manipulations there soon occurred a healing of the boy's blindness.  

An 1853 book quotes an account submitted to a Philadelphia newspaper:

"Visiting at the house of a friend when a medium was present, I heard, for the second time, the 'rappings ;'  but, such is the uncertainty in locating sound, and the many ways of producing it, that these were, to me, not convincing proofs of either spiritual or electrical agency. I was induced to form one of a circle; and the table we surrounded soon began to oscillate rapidly. My right arm was seized with a convulsive tremor, and though then in a ‘positive condition,' it refused obedience to my will. I looked upon it with the same surprise that I would have regarded the arm of another, subject to the same wild and wondrous spell. A pencil and paper were lying on the table. The pencil came into my hand; my fingers were clenched on it! An unseen iron-grasp compressed the tendons of my arm—my hand was flung violently forward on the paper, and I wrote meaning sentences, without any intention, or knowing what they were to be. Such messages were thus addressed to me, and through others in the circle, so unexpected, and bearing strong interior evidence in structure of thought and language of having come from the loved and gone from whom they purported to come, that I yielded to the gush of bewildering emotion, as I would have done had I found myself suddenly in the society of all most dear to me."

In the April 2, 1853 edition of The Spiritual Telegraph, we have an account claiming spiritual manifestations at the house of Mrs. Brown at #78 West 26th Street, occurring a week previously. The listed witnesses were J. F. Gray, George Willets, E. F. Capron, Mrs. Brown and the medium Catherine Fox (the same as Kate Fox, one of the famed Fox sisters).  We read of mysterious events in a well-lit room. We are told that first the handle of a bell mysterious disappeared, and was just as mysteriously restored. We are told that a pocket knife, a set of keys and a quarter coin were placed under a table, and that all disappeared. We are told that a search could not produce them, but that the keys and knife suddenly reappeared as if thrown. 

The same edition gives this account of clairvoyance from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"A Mr. Jackson, of Ohio City, came into our office yesterday with his little daughter, a fine, rosy girl about seven years of age. It surprised us to learn that so young a person should be a clairvoyant. Mr. Jackson states that she has possessed such powers of vision for about seven weeks—that she received intimations one evening from the Spirit-world that she would be magnetized [hypnotized] and receive the the gift next day. Such accordingly was the case. She also became a medium, produced the rappings, and has frequent intercourse with the spirits of the departed inhabiting other spheres. In the experiments performed in our office, the most doubting skeptic admitted that there was no collusion, and that her mortal vision was completely obstructed.  A kid glove, filled with cotton, was placed upon each eye, a bandage applied over them , and securely tied around her head, A Spanish quarter of a dollar was then thrown upon the table and she was requested to tell the date. She took it up, and instantly rend—'1700.'  A bank bill was next presented, and she  read it off promptly, ' That's one dollar. State Bank of Ohio.'  On one bill a steam ­ boat and sail vessel were engraved in the vignette so minutely as to be just discernible by the naked eye. She described them exactly. In fact, anything that was placed before her was read or described just as correctly as if she were examining it with the natural eye. She has the power of putting herself into the clairvoyant state, as also of throwing it off."

Similar powers were previously demonstrated innumerable times in public exhibitions by the clairvoyant Alexis Didier

In the July 2, 1853 Spiritual Telegraph we have evidence of the utter obstinance of mainstream scientific authorities in encountering paranormal phenomena. We read a long newspaper account of a public investigation of the phenomenon called table tipping or table turning, conducted before a large audience at a public hall in Liverpool, England, one called the Atheneum. On a stage before many public spectators, various tests were done. Some of them clearly produced inexplicable phenomena. We read this: 

"The experiments commenced at eight o’clock. The first table which moved was a round one, about three feet in diameter, standing upon three legs, without castors, and having a leather top. At this table four ladies took their places, and in five minutes it began to turn rapidly, the ladies running round with it. After several stoppages, for which the experimenters could not account, the table moved round so rapidly that several of the ladies appeared to be getting giddy, until two of them became so much alarmed that they discontinued the experiment. These ladies had simply placed their hands upon the table, without touching those of each other....After each successful experiment, a member of the committee, or the chairman, inquired of each of the operators whether he or she had abstained from muscular action upon the table, and in every instance a decided assurance was given in the affirmative.”

We hear mention of a Dr. Braid giving a nonsensical claim that such effects were produced by unconscious muscle actionA table of the described size with no castors (no wheels) could not be spun rapidly by four people merely touching it, no matter how much they pressed it. In the same edition we read this:

"The great table-moving question, which has excited such an extraordinary degree of interest in this city [Paris] as to be the universal topic of conversation for a period much longer than the nine days’ life generally enjoyed by a wonder, has at length forced itself on the attention of the Academy of Sciences. Among the vast mass of letters and reports detailing experiments, which have been sent to the Academy, the presiding authorities selected one by M. Scguin, a distinguished savant, to be read at its last public sitting. The statements made in this document were of the most extraordinary kind, one of them being, that a table when acted on was made to move to the notes of a piano."

In the July 9, 1853 Spiritual Telegraph we have a report from the Paris correspondent of the New York Times:

"It seems to me that I have said enough about table turning in France, and that l am becoming repetitious, if not tedious. I must say, however, that such is the fever, that there is hardly a house in Paris that the phenomenon has not invaded.  Experiments are daily made at the Observatory, at the Hotel Dion, at the Institute, at the Eeole Poly technique...The American savans [experts] have kept aloof, and, in the space of two years— three years, perhaps—no explanation has been offered of a fact which has stared then in the face the whole time...All the professors, the instructors, those who study far those who have not the time to study for themselves, have kept clear of a matter which they did not discover, and which they consequently can not recognise. ...The Feuilleton of Jules Jan in this morning, treats of nothing but table turning ; and that of Auguste Lireux, in the Constitutionnel, contains an account of a series of extremely successful experiments, in which he, Emile Angier, Baroche, Ferrien, of the Academy of Sciences, and others, all skeptics when they began, wore convicted believers when they finished." 

In the August 6, 1853 Spiritual Telegraph we have a comment on the attempt of Michael Faraday to explain the table turning phenomena as mere unconscious action by the muscles: "As for the Professor’s conclusion which resolves the wonders of table-moving to mere muscular and quasi voluntary action, we are willing to leave it in the hands of the thousands who have repeatedly seen heavy tables, and other articles of furniture, move with great freedom and power when no living being or other visible agency was in contact with them, and who have witnessed many other phenomena to which his tests fail to apply." In the same edition a J. C. Hall gives this testimony:

"I refer to instances of table moving, in my presence, without any hands touching them. Chairs have been upset in the room, and made to revolve faster than the persons present could possibly move. I have seen with my own eyes a common wooden table, while standing on the floor, made to tremble and quiver every fiber of the wood, as if it was live flesh—effects which all the men in the world could not produce, and the aid of all the sciences could not effect. I have also seen the same table move in different directions around the room with no one near it, and on stepping back, as if to leave the room, the table followed with no one near it, until it struck the door-casing, and, turning upside down, and from that lip edgewise, seemed not to be contented till it had chased me completely out of the room, coming quite through the door into an adjoining hall."

The legend that Michael Faraday explained the phenomenon of table turning is one of the most groundless legends of the many groundless legends told by science professors.  It is an example of what goes on very often when skeptics try to explain things: what we may call "weakest examples" explanation. It works like this: you claim that you can explain some baffling phenomenon beyond your explanation, by the method of ignoring all of the stronger examples of the phenomenon, and offering something that might explain only the weakest examples. So, for example, a skeptic might try to explain UFO sightings by saying they are caused by misidentifications of the planet Venus. Such an explanation only handles the weakest examples of UFO sightings, not the strongest examples in which people reported seeing something very large in the sky or something moving incredibly fast. 

Faraday's explanation was a similar example of "weakest examples" explanation. His "ideomotor effect" explanation of unconscious muscle action could only explain the weakest examples of the table turning phenomenon, cases in which lots of people put their hands on a table, and the table slightly moved. His explanation completely failed to explain all of the stronger examples of the phenomenon, which included:

(1) Very many reports of tables levitating in the air when no person touched the table.
(2) Very many reports of tables standing on two legs, with the other end rising high in the air, or a table standing up on only single leg. 
(3) Very many reports of tables violently moving about suddenly, often when no one was touching the table. 
(4) Very many reports of tables spinning around rapidly, with or without someone touching the table. 

Whenever any mainstream source attempts to repeat the groundless legend that Michael Faraday explained table turning, the source will inevitably describe table turning by only citing the weakest examples of its occurrence, never the stronger examples, even though thousands of witnesses (many very reliable professionals) in many different countries reported the stronger varieties of the phenomena.  As an 1855 book states, "Next comes the theory of Professor Faraday of world-renowned fame, that the moving of the table is by the unconscious force of the medium, when there are thousands of witnesses to the fact of the movement of tables, where neither a medium nor any other person was near them !"

This phenomenon of table turning was also scientifically investigated at length by Count Agenor de Gasparin, who published in 1857 a two-volume scientific book describing countless paranormal effects (such as table levitation and mysterious rappings) observed under controlled conditions. Gasparin's research is well-summarized in Chapter VI of the book Mysterious Psychic Forces by the astronomer Camille Flammarion.  For example, Gasparin described this happening on September 20, 1853:

“Some one proposed the experiment which consists in causing a table to rotate and give raps while it has on it a man weighing say a hundred and ninety pounds. We accordingly placed such a man on the table, and the twelve experimenters, in chain, applied their fingers to it. The success was complete: the table turned, and rapped several strokes. Then it rose up entirely off the floor in such a way as to upset the person who was upon it.”

Such a result is inexplicable through any result of subconscious muscle movement. Gasparin reported the following occurring on October 7, 1853:

“Let us turn again to the finest of all demonstrations, that of levitation without contact. We began by performing it three times. Then, since it was thought by some that the inspection of the witnesses could be carried on in a surer way in the case of a small table than in that of a large one, and with five operators more certainly than with ten, we had a plain deal centre-table brought which the chain, reduced by half, sufficed to put in rotation. Then the hands were lifted, and, contact with the table being entirely broken, it rose seven times into the air at our command.”

The original text of this report (in French) is contained here. I used Google Translate to verify that the translation above is accurate. 

Here is what Gasparin reported occurring on November 9, 1853:

"Our first care was to renew the experiment of the levitation of an inert weight. It was agreed among us this time that we would always start from the state of absolute immobility in the object: we wanted to produce movement, not to continue it.

The centre of the table, then, having been fixed with nice precision, a first tub of sand, weighing 46 pounds, was placed upon it. The legs easily rose from the floor when they got the order.

[Pg 241]A second tub, weighing 42 pounds, was next placed in the middle of the other. They were both lifted—less easily, but very neatly and clearly.

Then a third tub, smaller, and weighing 28⅗ pounds, was placed on top of the two others. The levitations took place.

We had still further got ready enormous stones weighing altogether 48½ pounds. They were placed on the third tub. After rather long hesitation, the table lifted several times in succession each of its three legs. It lifted them with a force, a decision, an élan, which surprised us. But its strength, already put to so many proofs, could not resist this last one. Bending under the powerful swaying motion imparted by the total mass of 165 pounds, it suddenly broke down, and its massive centre-post was split from top to bottom—to the great peril of the operators on the side of whom the entire load rolled off."

The original text of this report (in French) is contained here. I used Google Translate to verify that the translation above is accurate. 

Since the reports above were of levitations of a table without contact by humans, they obviously cannot be explained through Faraday's “ideomotor effect” of subconscious muscle movement. Shockingly, the phenomenon of table turning had stood up well to rigorous scientific experiments, with the investigators finding it to be a mysterious paranormal reality rather than something they could debunk.

In his 1859 book Mystic Hours, or Spiritual Experiences, George A. Redman describes having some astounding experiences at a time that seemed to be 1853 (since he says they occurred at about the time of Faraday's hypothesis appeared, which was in 1853).  He reports this example of the table phenomenon (using the term pirouetting to refer to spinning around in a circle):

"Simultaneously with the sound of his skillfully wielded bow, the table commenced pirouetting like some votary of Terpsichore. It would balance itself, first on one of its legs, then on one of its leaves, then wheel round again, till it ultimately reached the parlor door, against which it then began thumping as if to say, 'Let me out.' "

This is a reference to a table standing up on only one of its legs. Redman elsewhere says that around the same time he saw "the table slowly tipped to an angle of 45 degrees."  On another page he says a table mysteriously rose so that the "table was next lifted to a level with our heads." On another page he says, "Soon after taking my seat in our friend's comfortable parlor, the old table, as if conscious of our needs, came sliding into the room, no one touching it, and all present, nothing loath, assembled round it." On another page we read this: "Mrs. Green being lifted by the spirits from the floor, and placed on the bed-piece of the table,  it started down stairs, not stopping till it regained the lower hall, when Mrs. G-. stepped off, to the no small amusement of those who had thus had an opportunity of testing the reliability of Professor Faraday's expositions." On another page Redman reports a table levitating into the air and then mysteriously shattering into pieces. On another page Redman says, ""The table rose and came down on the floor with a tremendous thump; it danced to and fro without human contact, at each of its movements making the
very house shake."

Redman also reports being mysteriously levitated with two other people:

"I was raised in a half stupified state from the chair, conveyed to the ceiling of the room, which was some ten feet from the floor, and I floated alone in the air for a few moments. I was then joined by Mrs. Shepherd, and soon after by her daughter. Here were three of us, all suspended in the atmosphere, in no contact with any material object, but upheld by an unseen power, and wafted by it over the heads of some dozen individuals all wide awake, and in the perfect possession of their reasoning faculties."

In an 1853 work John Edmonds (a judge of the New York State Supreme Court) listed some of the paranormal manifestations he had seen that involved tables:

"Thus, I have known a pine table with four legs lifted bodily up from the floor, in the center of a circle of six or eight persons, turned upside down and laid upon its top at our feet, then lifted up over our heads, and put leaning against the back of the sofa on which we sat. I have known that same table to be tilted up on two legs, its top at an angle with the floor of forty-five degrees, when it neither fell over of itself, nor could any person present put it back on its four legs. I have seen a mahogany table, having only a center leg, and with a lamp burning upon it, lifted from the floor at least a foot, in spite of the efforts of those present, and shaken backward and forward as one would shake a goblet in his hand, and the lamp retain its place, though its glass pendants rang again. 1 have seen the same table tipped up with the lamp upon it, so far that the lamp must have fallen off unless retained there by something else than its own gravity, yet it fell not, moved not."

On another page of his 1853 work, Edmonds quotes a letter from N. P. Tallamadge who discussed seeing something else involving a table, something that could never be explained by any theory of unconscious "ideomotor force" as advanced by Faraday:

"The table moved occasionally, perhaps a foot, first one way and then the other. After the communication closed, we all moved back from the table, from two to four feet — so that no one touched it. Suddenly it moved from the position it occupied some three or four feet — rested a few moments — and then moved back again to its original position. Then it again moved as far the other way, and returned to the place it started from. One side of it was then raised, and stood for a few moments at an angle of about thirty-five degrees, and then again rested on the floor as usual.

The table was a large, heavy, round one, at which ten or a dozen persons might be seated at dinner. During all these movements no person touched it, nor was any one near it. After seeing it raised in the manner above mentioned, I had the curiosity to test its weight by raising it myself. I accordingly took my seat by it — placed my hands under the leaf, and exerted as much force as I was capable of in that sitting posture, and could not raise it a particle from the floor. I then stood up, in the best possible position to exert the greatest force — took hold of the leaf, and still could not raise it with all the strength I could apply. I then requested the three ladies to take hold around the table, and try altogether to lift it. We lifted upon it until the leaf and top began to crack, and did not raise it a particle. We then desisted, fearing we should break it. I then said, 'Will the spirits permit me to raise the table?' I took hold alone, and raised it without difficulty !"

On the same page and the next page of his 1853 work, Tallamadge  describes sitting on a table while the entire table (with him sitting on it) levitated six inches above the floor. 

The 1853 book "Sights and sounds: the mystery of the day: comprising an entire history of the American 'spirit' manifestations" by lawyer Henry Spicer is a long and balanced look at the reports of inexplicable phenomena between 1848 and 1853. Constantly addressing an imagined skeptical reader, the book "bends over backwards" to consider every possible natural explanation for the reported phenomena, finding none of them satisfactory.  The author sounds like someone who would have been much happier dismissing all the reports as fraud, but who finds himself unable to do that. Near the end of the book (page 461-462) he states that the extraordinary character of the manifestations have been proven, that all attempts to explain them have failed, and that what remains is an important mystery that is unsolved. 

scientist stubbornness
Most professors fail to seriously study the paranormal