Deep Dish Dials For Telephone Telepathy

[D!ck Ramsey]

You make some very good points Super_geek..and in fact those are all the reasons why I do enjoy and respect science. It forces us to be accountable for our conclusions, moreso than any other world view.

I'm all for scientific study/advancement, but to WORSHIP it as a fundamental and all-encompassing truth seems misplaced, especially when my personal experiences do not fit into its (current) mold.

Going back to the court example, its the best system we have for determining innocence, but this is not to say that its perfect either. Jurors and judges have personal bias all the time which affect their decisions. Evidence is compiled and presented by people with yet another set of bias. Probability can be influenced either way in certain fringe cases. We do our best to stay fair and objective, but as humans with strong opinions and prejudices, this isn't always possible.

We also see this in science on the subatomic level where our perceptions influence behavior. It's shaky ground for a field whose very foundation rests on calculated and reproducible results.

So far not one of you has really dealt with the issue of objectivity/perception/sentience, these key tenets of science are just accepted at face value and swept under the rug.

Science may be an amazing field, but it still has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[Bonhomme]

come on, dont play dumb with me. So go on and answer the question:

Do you agree that the simplest between two fitting theories is more likely? yes or no?

No, I don't. Nor do I say it's necessarily the less likely. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't, depending on the nature of the question and the evidence presented ... which takes us right back into semantics and philosophy, so we keep going 'round in circles. I do definitely think people are more likely to be bamboozled by an incorrect theory if it is the simplest theory ... by a long, long shot.

I ask you this question: If thought has its origin in the matter that's present in our brains, why would not that energy emanate in the matter around it? Can you prove such transmission of thought is impossible? of course you can't.

Also, answer me a few more questions about matters that I think are quite important, but lie outside the realm of what orthodox "science" (as you "skeptics" describe it) can test:

Do you think people get certain "vibes" from others?

Can you measure love using instruments and objective testing methods?

Of course not. Because you can't do you say love does not exist?

Since matter and energy is supposedly conserved, what is the physical difference between a person just before and just after the moment of their death, and just how do you describe that moment in "scientific" terms, seeing as how people have been revived from what one might call clinical death (i.e., no vital signs)?

Tell me how your idea of "science" answers these questions...

*****

Deep Dish, what you say makes sense, but if I'm reading you correctly, you draw too many conclusions from it. I never said telepathy has been proven to exist. What I did say is that it's not been disproven, and the fact that it could be an artifact of chance does not prove it is.

Nighthawk said he simply could not see telepathy as an explanation as the phenomena we're discussion because it's not been proven to his satisfaction. OK, fine. But if I read him correctly, he didn't say he could rule out the possibility if its existence, either. I have no argument with that logic.

As I stated earlier, telepathy is devastated by internal inconsistencies. All the times you called someone and they weren't thinking about you; the times they called you but you weren't thinking of them; the times you thought about them but they never called you; better yet, the times someone told you they were thinking about you and you were surprised. Unsurprisingly, these inconsistencies were ignored. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which, as evidenced by this very thread, supporters forget the “extraordinary” part. Ergo, my explanation of non-telepathy was discounted as only “one possibility” whereas “more plausible” are thought waves. It comes as no shock that both Bonhomme and D!ck Ramsey believe they have “superpowers” (which they “wish” they “didn’t have”). With no credible evidence of telepathy, of course the discussion turns into philosophy.

Quite the contrary, Deep Dish. It's the very consistency of these occurrences and the absence of "near misses" and other occurrences one would expect if these were merely random occurrences that supports the theory that they are not random occurrences.

I've called many people -- a countless number -- who have also called me at some time or another, but there were only two of all those hundreds or thousands of people with whom I've experienced the simultaneous phone call phenomenon, and -- here's the kicker -- I've experienced the phenomenon more than once with both of those people. And there were no near-misses, such as them calling and the phone ringing just before I was going to pick up the phone to call them, which in itself would be strange enough to notice. All were "right on the money." Doesn't look very random to me.

And again, D!ck said those "death dreams" were 100% accurate, with not one "false alarm." That's about as far from random as you can get, unless he's out-and-out lying. I know I'm not lying about the phone calls and the forebodings. And again, I have absolutely no control over them. They are not willed, and could not be summoned at any experimenter's beck and call.

Again, I don't believe anything. And referring to such uncontrollable phenomena as "super-powers" is merely pejorative language that belies self-doubt, just as that "_____ has been owned" crowing. Nobody shouts that we tend to have warmer weather in July than February in Michigan from the roof tops. The ones who are unsure of themselves always crow the loudest and resort to pejorative language to try to psyche people into accepting a weaker argument.

If someone conducted the experiment I proposed in the earlier thread, and the person who was not made aware of their friend/family member/lover's thoughts and/or proximity did not report a concurrent increase in thoughts about that person, I'd be inclined to think such thoughts are random occurrences, in the absence of better evidence to the contrary, and would think it most likely I'd simply "hit the simultaneous phone call lottery about a half a dozen times," so to speak.

But nobody's done a satisfactory experiment, so I'm going on my evidence, which I think suggests, but does not prove the existence of some sort of thought transmission.

This has long since devolved into the realm of "is not / is too / is not / is too," and I'm quite tired of restating the same points again and again and again, and it's long since past time to call in the dead horse removal crew. I just have better things to do argue in circles when we have different paradigms.

Go ahead and have the last word, so-called "skeptics." But I know your pejorative language and "____ has ____ owned" statements just belie your self-doubt ...

 

[Deep Dish]

dogma
something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

Well, then, my dogma ran over your karma.

Science is provisional, Occam's Razor is provisional, and I carefully worded my essay enough to say “provisional.” Science is guided by consensus and despite any conflicts the majority consensus of the scientific community is what we must—here we go again—provisionally go by. In science, disagreement is free but counter-arguments must be convincing. The “paradigm shift” in “dogma” claimed by pseudoscientists, including all those spiritual mediums, is merely their whining for losing (time after time never ending). I agree with Kuhn but paradigm shifts only when paradigms shift.

D!ck Ramsey:
If we subscribe to this theory and can safely assume that there is no conscious link between mind and matter, then how would you explain the effects of perception on the whole particle/wave conundrum?

I anticipate you are quite cognizant of the relationship between wave-particle duality and wave function collapses.

The most oft abused interpretation of QM, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is also the mostly widely supported among physicists. One major tenet of this interpretation involves the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. This wavefunction is a mathematical description of a quantum system that describes all the possible states that system can be in. It is essentially a collection of probabilities that can be used, for example, to determine the probability that a particle will be found in a certain position. Before the measurement is made QM tells us that the particle is in all possible positions, what is called a superposition of states. When the particle is observed its position is then known with greater accuracy and the wavefunction is said to “collapse” into a definite state, the reality that we observe. Mystics view the wavefunction as a vibration of a universal aether that pervades the cosmos, as real as a sound or water wave. In their view the collapse occurs due to our thoughts or even the thoughts of an omnipresent cosmic consciousness of which we are all apart. In The Conscious Universe Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau unite the concept of the wavefunction and existence. “One could then conclude that Being, in its physical analogue at least, had been ‘revealed’ in the wavefunction...” (Kafatos and Nadeau 1990,124) It is this wavefunction collapse brought about by a human mediated act of measurement or observation that has caused the confusion between quantum theory and consciousness. Since human consciousness ultimately makes the observation it must be intimately connected to the wavefunction and its collapse. This argument dissolves into sophistry, however, by the fact that the quantum wavefunction is not a physical tangible object that can be manipulated by a human mind. The Copenhagen Interpretation makes it clear that it is just a mathematical tool, an abstraction that does whatever the equations tell it to do. Physicist Henry Pierce Stapp of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory echoed fellow physicists with this quote: “In the Copenhagen interpretation the notion of an absolute wavefunction representing the world itself is unequivocally rejected... The probabilities involved are the probabilities of specified responses in the measuring devices under specified conditions.”

—excerpt from “Quantum Confusion: Does Modern Physics Support the Psychics?” by Robert Novella (1997)

Stenger opines:

The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about consciousness. It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon. Nowhere does quantum mechanics imply that real matter or signals travel faster than light. In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics (Eberhard and Ross 1989)...

Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts. However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations. The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.

—excerpt from “Quantum Physics Quackery” by Victor Stenger (1997)

When David Albert was misled into being interviewed for the shïtty film What The Bleep Do We Know, he spent four hours belaboring over why quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness. The moon is there even if no one is looking.

Your quote regarding sentience was in a thread reviewing Daniel Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained, a book I have been meaning to read. Suffice to say, philosophical ruminations of sentience are beyond my league, but Dennett notably authored the term greedy reductionism. Science is hierarchical and domain-specific; you cannot leap too far in explanations of causation. Don’t ask your local physicist why your tooth aches. Scientists need to look for explanations on the neurological level and above. Since I am not a scientist, I delegate my opinions to the experts. The smart thing to do.

[Paranormal challenges work] off the assumption that everyone has a price...which is not always the case Mr. Dish. Just because that clown would juggle for a million bucks, doesn't mean that everyone is a performing monkey with a price tag stamped on their forehead.

“I don’t need the money” “It’s not enough money” “There is no money” “They’d never give me the money” “Mo money mo problems” “The challenge is a hoax” “I don’t need to prove anything to anyone” “Eastern people don’t think in the same way as Westerners” “No self-respecting person would ever take a ‘challenge’” “James Randi is a magician” “Skeptic give off negative energy” “Scientists would deny the results”

Excuses abound.

The history of paranormal challenges is credited as the brainchild of Harry Houdini, tradition which James Randi bravely keeps shining. For all the remote viewers, dowsers, psychics, spiritual mediums, astral projectors, homeopaths, breatharians, people who levitate, and the people who claim to have telepathic powers... all have failed when the possibility of cheating was removed. Over 80 years and not one single genuinely gifted person in the whole world has come forth and simply demonstrated their skillz. No interpretations necessary, results are self-evident.

There is nothing in the world I would love more than to be proven wrong. It would be the most exciting time to be alive. The eyes would be opened to majestic wonders, scientific books would be rewritten from scratch, there would be so much to learn. This sentiment has also been expressed by Randi and Carl Sagan, and the skeptical community at large. Despite all the claims of stubborn dogma, we want to be proven wrong... evidence and experience just tells us we probably won’t.

Money causes more problems than it solves and the charity argument is a cop-out. I've worked for two different charities and I can tell you that the money has a bad habit of ending up in the wrong hands.

Although the grand majority of charities may use the grand majority of their funds on administrative overhead, there are numerous charities which do wonderful jobs. The American Red Cross uses 92% of its funds on its charitable purpose, the Mayo Clinic does 78%, Save The Children does 90%, CARE does 92%. One prize, one $1 million from James Randi, one charity to give (or more if you want), but spiritual mediums and pseudoscientists cannot find one good charity on the map. Don’t like charities, then be your own charity. Anyone can find 1,000 people who could really benefit from $1,000.00. I do it every day and I’ve given away millions. Speaking of which, I hit my 10,000 character limit...

 

[Deep Dish]

Bonhomme:
I never said telepathy has been proven to exist. What I did say is that it's not been disproven...

Your reasoning is flawed. It is a false burden of proof and “You can’t prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can’t prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again,” to quote Penn Jillette.

It’s the very consistency of these occurrences and the absence of "near misses" and other occurrences one would expect if these were merely random occurrences that supports the theory that they are not random occurrences.

You missed the point entirely and I suspect intentionally. Regardless, you demonstrate how intelligence is compartmentalized, how people can be smart and rational in many aspects of life except when it comes to certain cherished misbeliefs.

 

[Super_geek]

I'm all for scientific study/advancement, but to WORSHIP it as a fundamental and all-encompassing truth seems misplaced, especially when my personal experiences do not fit into its (current) mold.

Could you define what you mean by worship as a fundamental and all-encompassing truth? Reading your posts, it seems as if you are saying that we are worshipping science if we agree with selecting the hypothesis with the maximum likelihood and that we are incorrect for doing this. Could you clear this up please?

Going back to the court example, its the best system we have for determining innocence, but this is not to say that its perfect either. Jurors and judges have personal bias all the time which affect their decisions. Evidence is compiled and presented by people with yet another set of bias. Probability can be influenced either way in certain fringe cases. We do our best to stay fair and objective, but as humans with strong opinions and prejudices, this isn't always possible.

The justice system itself isnt very scientific. Its actually an unfair and un-objective way to prove one's guilt or innocence. Usually, how expensive of a lawyer you have determines more about what your verdict will be than what the evidence actually says.

But the situation the courtroom puts us in from a scientific point of view is a great demonstration of how science's conclusions are justified. We have to make a decision on innocence or guilt, and we want the decision to be the right one. The evidence usually wont give us 100% of the information we seek, but we choose the maximum likelihood hypothesis, which will result in the lowest probability possible of making the wrong decision given all information available about the defendant. Unfortunetly, actual courtroom cases dont work this way; the verdict isnt the maximum likelihood, but just a consequence of how persuasive the lawyers were. The court system isnt scientific in how it gets to its conclusions, but this is beyond the scope of this whole science discussion.

Science selects the hypothesis with the maximum likelihood given the evidence. This is a justified mechanical procedure. It just happens, that often, the evidence at hand doesnt provide us with 100% information, and the probability of the maximum likelihood is given the evidence is < 1.

 

[Super_geek]

No, I don't. Nor do I say it's necessarily the less likely. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't, depending on the nature of the question and the evidence presented

God_of_Getting_layed actually has the right idea. If a theory is put under mathematical analysis where it is mathematically modeled, it is very clear exactly how "complex" the hypothesis or model is. The number of parameters required to model the hypothesis is a measure of its complexity.

And it is true that statistically, the simpler hypothesis is more likely than the more complex one. Occam's razor is applied between to competing hypothesis; when both hypothesis explain the data "equally well". The more complex hypothesis has a lower likelihood of being the true one, becuase it has more parameters, and the probability that we would find the required parameters to be at their required values for the more complex one to fit has a lower probability since the parameters that fit the data for the complex hypothesis are part of a smaller fraction of the hypothesis' parameter space (it has a larger parameter space). If youd like, I can explain the mathematics on how and why this is, and PROVE IT that the simplest hypothesis actually is more likely to be true.

 

[Bonhomme]

The points of your line of argument, as it appears from reading what you've
written, Deep Dish, is that telepathic phenomena cannot be considered scientific phenomena until they have been proven to exist in an experimental setting.

If that's indeed the case, there's no point in arguing. All the evidence for and against the existence of such phenomena is based upon personal observations... at least to this point.

You dismiss all such observations as inevitable chance occurrences that are bound to come up amongst a countless number of similar events. D!ck and I have experienced such events with too much frequency and morphological consistency to think they are random occurrences. You appear to be, above all, offended that we think of these in terms of possibly being "scientific" phenomena that our scientific methods have yet to prove. OK, I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to. Or vice-versa.

An analogy I could think of is digital recording. When CD recordings first came out, many people thought they had "perfect" sound. But many others, myself included, could hear deficiencies in even the best 44.1 kHz sampling rate digital recordings in that they sounded too "perfect."

The "specs" were perfect, based on the audible range of human hearing, so many "scientific" people said they had to be "perfect." But many people could clearly tell there was an absence of any "foggy" sounds. Such "haze" was all "cleaned up." My visual analogy to that is the difference between flat, semi-gloss, and gloss paint. One cannot see the surface detail that makes flat paint duller than gloss paint, but ones eyes can certainly detect it.

OK, so you haven't experienced any patterns of unexplained phenomena such as D!ck and I have. I think some (perhaps only a small percentage of) people are "tuned in" to this sort of thing, whereas others are not, and that many factors influence whether or not such "signals" "get through." This is absolutely consistent with my observations, in that I've only experienced such phenomena with a very few people. And again, have experienced those phenomena multiple times with them.

In observing these phenomena I've noted a some patterns:

1) They are never deliberate or "willed" in any way.

2) They tend to occur only at times of relative mental "quietness" (which they might disturb, granted). Often at night. Never when I'm "juggling a million things" or my "thoughts are racing a mile a minute," or in any times of intense mental exertion.

3) As I've mentioned before, if someone else is involved, they tend to involve certain people repeatedly.

Based on these observations, it's only natural that I've wanted to figure out a possible model for this. The best analogy I could think of is some sort of wave transmission analogous to radio transmission. This makes sense in relation to the morphological observations noted above in that:

1) A "receiver" that is "tuned in" would have to be present (congruent with #3).

2) Too much "noise" would obscure the "signal" (congruent with #1 and #2).
Force of will itself could create too much "noise" for the "signal" to get through. So much for the experiments that have been conducted, which all have required these phenomena to be "called up" by force of will.

Furthermore, if such "transmissions" indeed occur, they could travel with the speed of light (or, as D!ck suggests, possibly even faster, if there's something going on beyond anything we currently understand), which would make them essentially instantaneous.

All my observations are consistent with the model. What remains to be done is a proper experiment to test the model, which I have already proposed, and will describe again in my next post...

OK, I've observed certain phenomena, noticed certain characteristics of said phenomena, have come up with a hypothetical model regarding their nature, and have proposed an experiment to test this model. Is this not what science is all about?

 

[Bonhomme]

My proposed experiment to test the existence of telepathic phenomena would involve two subjects who think they have experienced such phenomena, but are living far away from each other, and have not been in touch in years. Call them "A" and "B". It would be best that B not know where A lives or know where he or she is during the proximity testing.

Have A take a journal of thoughts, with particular attention to who and what past experiences they are thinking about over a specified period. It is important that no hint is given to A as to why. At some point involve B by discussing matters pertaining to A with B and/or bringing B into very close to the physical location of A (as one might expect an inverse-square relationship of such phenomena with distance), all without either party being informed of the nature of the experiment. See if thoughts about B begin to proliferate in A's journal when B is devoting more mental energy and/or is in closer physical proximity to A. See how the variance, if any, relates to B's mental activity pertaining to A vs. how it relates to proximity (preferably without B knowing they are near A, otherwise isolating the effect of proximity would not be possible). Time of day could also be a factor, as the nature of people's mental activity varies with time of day.

If A starts to note a proliferation of thoughts pertaining to B when B devotes a higher concentration of mental energy to A by discussing things they’ve done, what’s up with them, etc. that would clearly suggest some telepathic connection between the people. Likewise, if B is simply brought into close physical proximity to A without even knowing it or having any reason to think of A, and A all of a sudden reports thoughts of B, that would suggest mere proximity would be all that is necessary.

The sudden proliferation of such thoughts wouldn't necessarily prove anything, but would certainly suggest that some sort of thought transmission was going on between A and B, as would the absence of any thoughts of B on the part of A suggest that no such transmission was going on.

It is not a perfect experiment, and would be very difficult to control properly, but it is at least consistent with the nature of such phenomena as I have observed them, than the sort of circus sideshow nonsense that has been passed of as “telepathy experiments” to date.

 

[Deep Dish]

There is a fantastic article on quackwatch.org called “Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science”, to which:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

The seventh sign is too obvious, but I want to turn our attention towards the third.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science. Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

I conducted some more research and the “best” scientific evidence seems to come from EEG/fMRI experiments with participants isolated in different rooms. An example:

In one study, [Leanna Standish] recruited 30 pairs of volunteers who knew each other and in some cases were related. The pairs spent 10 minutes meditating together and were then sent to separate rooms 30 feet apart. The “sending” partner watched checkerboard patterns flicker on and off on a video monitor, while the “receiving” partner watched a static pattern. Both of the partners were hooked up to electroencephalograms (EEGs) to measure their brain activity.

When the pattern flickered, it triggered increased brain activity in the “sender.” “What we were trying to see was if the increased brain activity in the sender would correspond with increased activity in the receiver,” says Standish.

Yet, success was found in only five out of 60 receivers. Standish remarked “If it happens even once, it’s kind of amazing.” I cannot speak on behalf of scientists but I suspect five out of 60 is what they would call statistically insignificant, i.e. coincidence. Further, to “make sure the connections that did happen were not just coincidence” Standish succeeded when she made herself the “receiver” but notably she failed when she was the “sender.” Damn those internal inconsistencies! She then brought in “traditional Hawaiian healers” and apparently had almost 100% success rates. I’m no expert but it would seem the underlying motif is a sophisticated pscyhology experiment; i.e. success corresponds with expectations; i.e. self-delusion viz a viz the placebo effect. The fact is the scientific community remains unmoved in its denuniciation of telepathy as having no credible affirmative evidence. Why:

The “brainwaves” are minute changes in electric and magnetic fields that occur when large populations of aligned cortical neurons fire synchronously. These changes in the electromagnetic field are so minute, that they can only be picked up by metal antennae (electrodes) pressed right against the scalp. Even then, the scalp must be thorougly scrubbed at the point of contact, because even something as trivial as a thin layer of dead skin cells disrupts the signal. The currents picked up by such electrodes are almost imperceptible and quite noisy; such signals must pass through banks of sophisticated filters and amplifiers before they can be read out as the “brainwaves” of EEG or EMG.

Such “waves”, once again, only reflect synchronous firing of large groups of aligned neurons. Therefore, the brainwaves capture only a meagre fraction of total brain activity. Moreover, strength of electric signals dissipates as square of distance -- which means that if they are nearly imperceptible just millimeters away, they are altogether gone a few feet away. The strength of magnetic signals dissipates as cube of distance, which makes them even weaker. Moreover, such signals are directional, meaning that they appear differently depending on which direction you measure them in relatively to the skull. This means that if telepathy was driven by brainwaves, someone turning their head slightly would tremendously alter the brainwaves received. Furthermore, neuronal electromagnetic signals are masked by other electrochemical signals generated by the body’s physiology and flowing electrolytes such as blood. Things like heartbeat and muscle movements produce a far more powerful signal than even concentrated neuron firing, and such signals are among the ones that must be filtered out from EEGs and EMGs.

Further confounds come from the natural electromagnetic noise that permeates the environment (the static you hear on your radio when it's not tuned to a station); this noise is a great whopping deal louder than any brainwave even in close proximity to the skull. For that reason, EEG/EMG labs usually are encased in a shielding metal cage; obviously such cages are not present in everyday situations. Another annying (sic) and ever-present source of noise is the 60 Hz oscillation introduced by unshielded wiring and power supplies.

Moreover, if brainwaves could indeed be picked up at a distance (which is not true), then the output of one person could not be distinguished from other people's brainwaves. The brainwaves do not occur on some frequency band that varies across people; rather, the frequency band is pretty much the same for everyone, and is quite wide. Brainwaves have components with periods anywhere from 1 minute to 1 millisecond. (source)

That was not from an academic source, I apologize, but from everything I can tell the science holds up. If anyone knows of a better source, feel free.

To further demonstrate how telepathy only shows up after CIA torture:

“Ranking of stimuli that evoked memories in significant others after exposure to circumcerebral magnetic fields: correlations with ambient geomagnetic activity”:

While the female of the pair was exposed to six different patterns of complex magnetic fields designed to affect states of consciousness, the male wrote his reminiscences about shared experiences evoked by a postcard randomly selected from a collection of five. Increased global geomagnetic activity (k values between 0 and 5) at the time of the experiments was significantly and moderately correlated with the more accurate ranking of the stimulus cards. These results were similar to those of a previous study. We suggest that alleged paranormal phenomena involve processes that might be produced by experimentally altering the electroencephalographic correlates of consciousness with circumcerebral applications of counterclockwise weak magnetic fields. However, these processes may be enhanced if global geomagnetic activity is increasing during the periods of exposure.

Pseudoscience: when you look like a duck, talk like a duck, but are actually a donkey.

One would think that after more than 150 years of scientific testing of psychics, there would be at least one who could demonstrate a single psychic ability under test conditions. Parapsychologist Dean Radin claims the evidence for psychic phenomena is so strong that only bias and prejudice keep skeptics from accepting the reality of ESP or PK. Why doesn’t he claim the million dollar prize, then? According to Radin:

for the types of psi effects observed in the laboratory, even a million dollar prize wouldn’t cover the costs of conducting the required experiment. Assuming we’d need to show odds against chance of say 100 million to 1 to win a million dollar prize, when you calculate how many repeated trials, selected participants, multiple experimenters, and skeptical observers are necessary to achieve this outcome, the combined costs turn out to be more than the prize. So, from a purely pragmatic perspective, the various prizes offered so far aren’t sufficiently enticing.

The fact is that most parapsychologists have given up trying to find a single person with a single paranormal ability. They study groups of people and collect gobs of data, hoping to find a statistic not likely due to chance, which they then declare to be evidence of psi because it is their hypothesis that if the statistic is not likely due to chance then it is reasonable to conclude that it is due to psi. In other words, they’ve gone from being duped by con artists to duping themselves. (source)

 

[Deep Dish]

Bonhomme:
Force of will itself could create too much “noise” for the “signal” to get through. So much for the experiments that have been conducted, which all have required these phenomena to be "called up" by force of will.

The aforementioned equations of 1) inverse of the square of the distance, and 2) inverse cube of the distance, which govern brainwaves and electromagnetic fields, this ad hoc hypothesis of yours is silly and can be dismissed out of hand. Brain waves are too weak rather than too strong and your ad hoc hypothesis is simply without merit. The good news is this would pave the way for telepathy to be scientifically tested, since force of will would equate with stronger signals, but ironically spells the deathbed of telepathy.

OK, so you haven’t experienced any patterns of unexplained phenomena such as D!ck and I have.

There is actually one experience I had in high school which remains rather mysterious to me. In my senior year, my alarm clock broke the weekend before classes returned from winter break. With this new clock, not a single time did the clock sound off during the entire semester. That is because every single morning I woke up at exactly 5:59am on the dot (the clock was set for 6:00am). During the weekends when the alarm was not set, I would sleep in. Once I graduated I started working at night, ending the need to set the alarm, and then during the summer that clock broke. Before and after that weird clock, the pattern has never occurred.

Surely, the pattern was definitely not coincidence, not with 100% reliability within a margin less than 60 seconds over a five month period. The brain undoubtedly is an incredibly fascinating and versatile organ, but I figure my experience is explained by the same mechanism behind sleep walking and alcohol-induced blackouts. I have been known to sleep walk, I am prone to hypnogenic and hypnopomic hallucinations, and during those five months I did in fact face the clock. All I can guess is my eyes were open while I slept and some part of my brain was paying attention.

 

[Bonhomme]

Deep Dish wrote:

Such “waves”, once again, only reflect synchronous firing of large groups of aligned neurons. Therefore, the brainwaves capture only a meagre fraction of total brain activity. Moreover, strength of electric signals dissipates as square of distance -- which means that if they are nearly imperceptible just millimeters away, they are altogether gone a few feet away. The strength of magnetic signals dissipates as cube of distance, which makes them even weaker. Moreover, such signals are directional, meaning that they appear differently depending on which direction you measure them in relatively to the skull. This means that if telepathy was driven by brainwaves, someone turning their head slightly would tremendously alter the brainwaves received. Furthermore, neuronal electromagnetic signals are masked by other electrochemical signals generated by the body’s physiology and flowing electrolytes such as blood. Things like heartbeat and muscle movements produce a far more powerful signal than even concentrated neuron firing, and such signals are among the ones that must be filtered out from EEGs and EMGs.

my emphasis

No, it means that if telepathy were only driven by electric and/or magentic signals the above would be true. I question the assumption that such "brainwaves" only consist of electric and/or magnetic signals.

Not to imply that telepathy is driven by light, but one can see a small light bulb shining from miles away. There are many other forces and effects in nature, I think including many the nature of which we don't yet know. And the distance over which these various forces and effects can travel varies greatly.

Some people who have written about various paranormal phenomena do claim to observe an inverse square relation between intensity and proximity of some of the phenomena. I am far from convinced these sources are very credible, which is why I have not mentioned them earlier on. I now bring them up with that big caveat.

Again, you're making many assumptions about what the nature of telepathic signals would have to be.

The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

Another incorrect inference. The researchers might have insufficient understanding of the characteristics to have a good idea as to how to boost it.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster.

Why even bring up this absurdity, except as a rhetorical ploy to lump all people who are not orthodox "skeptics" (as defined below) into one great big loony bin?

For the record, I'm in agreement with the orthodox "skeptics" regarding many controversial matters. I don't think there's anything special about the Bermuda Triangle, I think most UFOs are really common flying objects and/or atmospheric effects, etc. The Bermuda Triangle is an area of such heavy shipping and air traffic, and such volatile weather that a large number of disappearances of aircraft and ships of mysterious nature are likely to occur.

Again, anecdotal evidence and/or lack of knowledge of a mechanism does not invalidate the existence of a phenomenon. Think of the Doppler shift, as observed thousands of years ago. I would expect that people were well aware of the pitch shift of the sound of quickly moving objects as they moved away, but damned if they could explain or make sense of it until very recently, historically speaking. All the evidence for such a pitch shift was anecdotal.

The Leanna Standish study appears to support my "receiver" hypothesis stated above: that some people are "tuned in," whereas others are not, but one would have to see how well the EEGs fit to have a sense of whether or not the results are likely to be merely coincidental.

But again, it deals with trivial mental processes, that are nowhere near the intensity of D!ck's "death dreams," etc. Based on my experiences, I would not expect such a study to produce any meaningful results. It's just a better designed variation on the Zener card reading theme.

A better study along the lines of the Standish experiment would done with the following conditions:

1) Only have subjects who claim to have frequently experienced telepathic phenomena (to increase the likelihood of "tuned in" subjects if telepathy exists).

2) Do a reasonably good job of ensuring a relatively "quiet" base mental state of the "receivers" (including making sure they are not in particularly stressful life situations).

3) Have the "senders" experience some more intense (within ethical bounds) emotional stimuli. Perhaps have them watch very intense films, or such.

That still might not be sufficient to produce the desired effects, but would be much better than the trivial checkerboard pattern stimuli.

I know my hypothesis about some people being "tuned in" and others not appears very convenient. But it is consistent with my observations. All one has to do is observe most any human endeavors to see that people have all sorts of physical and mental capabilities that vary greatly from individual to individual. In light of this, I would not expect it to be otherwise.

One real problem is that a very few people seem to be truly open-minded about the existence or non-existence of telepathy. Few people are neither "skeptics" nor "true believers". By orthodox "skeptics," I mean those who categorically dismiss the possible existence of any phenomena that are neither explainable by modern science nor observed on such a widespread scale as to be for all intents and purposes indisputable.

 

[Bonhomme]

Further, to “make sure the connections that did happen were not just coincidence” Standish succeeded when she made herself the “receiver” but notably she failed when she was the “sender.” Damn those internal inconsistencies! She then brought in “traditional Hawaiian healers” and apparently had almost 100% success rates.

Far from being "internal inconsistencies," these results are absolutely consistent my "receiver" hypothesis... and furthermore suggest there may be something to those "traditional Hawaiian healers."

Try sending the strongest radio signal to a rock, and is it likely to play the broadcast? Of course not. In this case, the experimental results, which -- if the experiment were done without any "fudging" -- show that only the "receiver" needs to be "tuned in," and indeed, must be "tuned in."

Upon further reflection, if the Standish experiment was "on the level," it appears that at last we have experimental confirmation of the existence of telepathy, which makes it by definition a scientific phenomenon.

Pretty cool, eh, Deep Dish?

 

[Deep Dish]

Leanna Standish is a researcher at University Health Clinic, Specialty Care & Research Center, in Seattle, Washington. Check out the website www.universityhealthclinic.com. The clinic's phone number is (206) 525-8012 and general e-mail address is info@universityhealthclinic.com.

Since this seems such a heartfelt issue for you, I want to put into action an idea I thought of last year. In all seriousness, I have my own Deep Dish Paranormal Challenge offering $5,000.00 of my own money to anyone who refers someone to the JREF $1 Million Paranormal Challenge and actually wins the $1 million prize.

Standish does not call her discovered effect telepathy but “distant neural signaling”, but regardless. Undoubtedly, she qualifies for the JREF challenge. It's telepathy, she has academic credentials, academic endorsements, and has a media presence. If you can pursuade her to apply for the JREF challenge and subsequently she successfully wins the $1 million prize, I will award you $5,000.00. If upon the news of a winner, I will personally contact the JREF offices to verify there was a winner.

This offer is not limited to referring Standish but any proclaimed scientist, anyone, granted that they win the James Randi prize. One other alleged scientist is Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona. The phone number to his Human Energy Systems Lab is (520) 318-0286 and Scwartz’s email is gschwartz@u.arizona.edu.

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=32
http://www.randi.org/research/Challenge_Application.pdf

That is the link to the JREF challenge application, deflecting the excuse some may use that they couldn't find it on the website.

 

[Bonhomme]

I appreciate the info, Deep Dish. When I get a chance I'll see if I can get a hold of Ms. Standish, and see if she wishes to apply.

If she does apply it will be interesting to see if the Paranormal Challenge folks who stand to lose $1M reject the results because not everyone was an effective "receiver," even though such results are consistent with the hypothesis that only some people are "tuned in."

 

[jonwon]

The final Theory.

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF

Science has been proven to be 'wrong' as 'time' progresses, what was once scientific 'fact' has become 'scientific fiction'.

That is the one TRUE fact about 'science', having unquestionable faith in 'science' is akin to having unquestionable faith in the lock ness monster, granted sometimes we get it right and you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs but what is deemed as scientific truth today is not what it will be in the 'future'.

Time and evolution of theory and concepts create the 'truth' which still in terms of science can shift with the ages.

Has for the theory of the potential for telepathy, science in this day and age cant dis-approve of it, this is like quoting the bible as prove it does not exist.

Has for the theory of existence, the fact it is conceived ready to be put under the magnifying glass of perception requires it to be explored not dismissed through ignorance bred through fanatical 'faith' i.e. science as the be all and end all, when it is clear science through its own delivery needs to recognize its subject to evolution and change, a science mind is open to the 'possibility' even in debunking any claims, eventually new evidence may come to light in future generations that could turn the conclusion around to the other party, this cant be denied especially considering 'science once told us the world was flat'!

If science is anything to go by, we can see measuring anything to the light of science ‘fact’ has been simply ‘fact’ of our ‘current understanding’ only!

I get the impression most scientist are drunk in there own ego.


The problem with science:
Science is almost fanatical faith in what 'theory' has been dreamt up as the truth, a good example is the 'big bang' theory, this can not be re-created in a lab environment but still 'science' convention deems this to be the 'truth' of creation, granted there exist the possibility of approaching this with the idea of developing that theory but the problem with science i, imo it tends to get swallowed up in its own importance, current convention ideas are dismissed or treated with half arse* attempts to debunk the idea.

Science 'faith' imo causes more harm then good in alot of cases, one example: the concept of statistical data, one advert i watched last night: stated 3/4 of women prefer this new aging cream conducted through a survey, convention scientific practices, when the truth the 3/4 of the women surveyed where most probably screened through a biased agenda, or the women count was simply so small and only fitting to allow the 'claim' of statistical analysis. (this can be applied to alot of forms of screening and subjecting things to analysis, the reason there are no cures for certain deseases is due to science not going down the correct path to find the solution).

Don’t get me wrong science has brought us a long long way but imo we are still infants playing with a toy we still don’t fully understand, that’s why I for one like to keep an open mind and not take anything has ‘truth’ unless it goes through my own senses of BS, but even then I feel I am reflective enough to consider that even my BS detector is capable of changing in light of new evidence.

Stuff like this is entertaining, granted we can try to gain the facts on it, but things of this nature, maybe the only 'truth' is that our current understanding is not capable of fully understanding the concept and any attempt to do so will simply hit a brick wall, much like asking a fly to build a rocket to the moon.

http://www.reformation.org/flat-earth-exposed.html

Are people just repeating past mistakes?^^

 

[Super_geek]

Bonhomme, D1ck Ramsey, do you fellows care to reply to my last post? Do you care to have me mathematically prove the Occam's razor concept (I can, I'm a Mathematician by the way).

And science is not faith, the proposed hypotheses are the hypotheses with the highest probability of being true given the evidence (the hypothesis that has the highest posterior probability, if you will). This is not faith, but a concept strongly grounded in probability theory and inductive logic.

The conclusions are fully justified, and are not claims of absolute truth. There is no claim that the hypothesis with the maximum likelihood is the absolute true one (this is why theres the possibility the proposed hypothesis will change as new data arrives); to claim such a thing would be to claim to get more information than the evidence actually provides. The same math used to deduce the best hypothesis is the same math used to deduce the total quantity of information the data actually provides (information is measured in bits). So if the posterior probability of the maximum likelihood hypothesis is not 1, then the data does NOT provide us with the total number of bits we seek. So then theres no way science could be claiming its proposed hypothesis as absolute truth, which we know science does not do. This is a big misconception in how science actually works. I wish this would get cleared up so the anti-science people would disappear.

The only thing being claimed about the proposed hypothesis is that it is most likely to be true given the data, sometimes this likelihood is incredibly high, for example a .9999999 probability. Many theorems about this have been proven with what are called mathematical proofs, Id be more than happy to explain them if any one would like.

Science is justified, and it's logic is grounded on a mathematical foundation. Id be more that happy to prove the 'science skeptics' wrong using mathematical arguments if anyone would like me to

 

[Nighthawk]

And science is not faith..

I've learned you explain this to 'science-sceptics' a million times, but they don't want to hear it. Some people are logical and others just believe whatever makes them feel better.

 

[Deep Dish]

Jonwon mentioned thefinaltheory.com and here are the highlights:

Q: But don’t we know all about the gravity of Black Holes and how even light can’t escape?
A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight. Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out, smashed light bulb.

Non sequitur.

Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity endlessly without draining a power source?
A: It can’t... fridge magnets are impossible according to today’s science.

Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without its molecules giving way, collapsing the table?
A: Science has no viable explanation for this today.

All easily explainable by any good high school physics teacher. What exactly are McCutcheon’s credentials? From which university does he hold a PhD? Oh, “Mark McCutcheon holds a combined Electrical Engineering / Physics degree including advanced elective courses in Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and Nuclear Physics, and has worked with various research and development teams in the telecommunications industry and in several university physics research labs.” An AA degree from an unspecified junior college is without consideration.

Bonhomme:
I appreciate the info, Deep Dish. When I get a chance I'll see if I can get a hold of Ms. Standish, and see if she wishes to apply. If she does apply it will be interesting to see if the Paranormal Challenge folks who stand to lose $1M reject the results because not everyone was an effective "receiver," even though such results are consistent with the hypothesis that only some people are "tuned in."

The beauty of the challenge is results are self-evident. What constitutes success is agreed upon in advance. Standish’s best bet seems to be with her Hawaiian healers and with their almost perfect success rates, surely she cannot excuse herself out of failure (or not applying). Standish, however, will somehow squirm her way out of getting tested. My only curiousity is what excuses will she muster? But as I said, I like being proven wrong.

 

[Super_geek]

I've learned you explain this to 'science-sceptics' a million times, but they don't want to hear it. Some people are logical and others just believe whatever makes them feel better.

I agree with you 100% my friend.

I am still waiting for D!ck Ramsey and Bonhomme to respond to my posts; Im waiting for them to tell me to prove what I have been writing about. Im ready and capable to do so.

My guess is that one reason they have withdrawn from responding to me and this discussion is becuase they know they cannot beat my arguments, which are mathematically backed.

Science is NOT faith, Science is applied inductive logic! It is our truth finding algorithm.

 

[Super_geek]

The problem with science:
Science is almost fanatical faith in what 'theory' has been dreamt up as the truth.

Science is applied inductive logic. Inductive logic is essentially mathematical logic; hardly fanatical faith. :crackup:

Science 'faith' imo causes more harm then good in alot of cases, one example: the concept of statistical data, one advert i watched last night: stated 3/4 of women prefer this new aging cream conducted through a survey, convention scientific practices, when the truth the 3/4 of the women surveyed where most probably screened through a biased agenda, or the women count was simply so small and only fitting to allow the 'claim' of statistical analysis. (this can be applied to alot of forms of screening and subjecting things to analysis, the reason there are no cures for certain deseases is due to science not going down the correct path to find the solution).

This argument makes 0 sense. You are using an advertisement you saw on TV as evidence that statistical analysis practices are flawed and are the reason science finds no cures for diseases. What you actually saw was not science, it wasn't even real statistics, but lies used to scam women into buying their product.

What you saw on TV was obviously no legitimate statistical analysis, and cannot be used as an example of how scientists work. If a survey only used 4 women, then the data doesnt provide us with much information about the true proportion of women that prefered the product. With a sample of only 4 women, the probability of the true proportion =75% is very low. Such a survey is useless, especially if the goal of the survey was to prove the true percentage of women that prefer the cream.

Now if on the other hand, they selectively ommited data by screening, then it's not even a legit survey, and is even worse than an uninformative survey of only 4 samples.

Either way, real statistical analysis are not conducted in this manner. In a legit survey, a large sample is used, and it's not screened or biased. Your argument here does not carry over to how real science actually works.

It is evident your judgement is poor given the logic you use based on this argument you provide. I dont think you are fit to be involved in this discussion about the credibility of science itself.