EVP - new theory

[MRT]

EVP had all but died out a couple of decades ago. Then it experienced a extraordinary revival (no doubt prompted in part by the film White Noise). Back in 1978 David Ellis published a study into EVP that concluded that it was largely due to stray radio transmissions. Since then the general view is that, in addition to radio source, the voices were arising from people hearing 'voices' in random noise.

Recently, looking at the ample evidence available on the internet and at accounts of research, I realised that these explanations were inadequate. The 'official' naturalistic explanations were too vague and could not account for specific examples, such as the undisputable voices that some people were getting. I suspect the reason was that those promoting naturalistic theories were not in touch with what was going on in the field.

So, I decided to do my own study, starting with the latest available evidence from a wide range of sources.

The results are at: http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Analysing%20audio%20EVP.html

There is also a page where you can try out for yourself experiments based on the theory: http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Analyzing%20EVP.html

Comments welcome!

[Dr B]

I am not too sure how 'new' it is. Many separate aspects you talk of are and have been known to science (as best I can tell) for some time.

I think you may have a new application of existing ideas.....just a thought. ::)

Make sure you paste links on the woo forums......and then duck for cover.....;D;D

Edit - what about red noise?????

[MRT]

I never said it was new science (though some of it is newish). Rather it is applying the science of voice recognition to EVP which, surprisingly, no one seems to have done before.

[Dr B]

I have read somethings similar - in fact the proper and full psychological discussions on pattern-matching / grouping etc do draw on about 80% of it (which is good) O0

The rest seems like basic signal analysis to me (which is also good stuff)

It is an excellent contribution - but in its proper context it is taking what we already know and applying it to a specific experience - so its not so much a new theory as such, rather a new application of known understandings (the thread title assumes its a new theory?).

However, at first glance I like it....but i need longer to digest some of the smaller points O0

[MRT]

I think you'll find it's new to EVP believers! :smiley:

Regarding posting such material on believers forums, I've found it generally gets ignored! I guess it doesn't fit into their world view.

[Tin Lizzie]

I think you'll find it's new to EVP believers! :smiley:

Regarding posting such material on believers forums, I've found it generally gets ignored!

Please do try - go to 'the psychic barber' forum and i for one will ensure your receive a fair hearing. Have to say though, ghosts aren't spirits and so it will probably be a short debate!

Personally, I am willing to 'lend you an ear' :smiley:

[Dr B]

Have to say though, ghosts aren't spirits and so it will probably be a short debate!


Both lie on a continuum of hallucinatory experience / delusional experience - but my hunch is that was not what you meant.....;D

Cue the lack of evidence.....8)

[Dr B]

I think you'll find it's new to EVP believers! :smiley:

Regarding posting such material on believers forums, I've found it generally gets ignored! I guess it doesn't fit into their world view.


I am with you on that one!

[Dr B]

I think you'll find it's new to EVP believers! :smiley:



Anything to do with a detailed investigation of the facts is new to them :cheesy:

[Tin Lizzie]

Both lie on a continuum of hallucinatory experience / delusional experience - but my hunch is that was not what you meant.....;D

Cue the lack of evidence.....8)

The best form of evidence is experience O0

[Dr B]

The best form of evidence is experience O0

Rubbish and I suspect you know that.....all human experience is hallucinatory in nature - so I have no idea how a flawed system (i.e., perception) can be used for that.

This is why we developed logic and science. Neither of which is based directly on experience.

Please read more. O0

[Dr B]

Maurice

Any chance of a more reader-friendly PDF of your webpage?

[Tin Lizzie]

Rubbish and I suspect you know that.....all human experience is hallucinatory in nature - so I have no idea how a flawed system (i.e., perception) can be used for that.

This is why we developed logic and science. Neither of which is based directly on experience.

Please read more. O0

indeed but observation and judgement based upon said logic and science must ultimately be made by us humans...essentially what you are saying is that we are by nature persistently malfunctioning machines, therfore anything we put our hands or our our minds to is utter rubbish and merely hallucinatory.
Sounds a bit like the 'zen' philosophy mentioned by Zaira.

Cheers! O0

[MRT]

Replying to Dr B's request: That would mean quite a lot of work! I'm a bit busy at the moment. It couldn't be for a while.

[MRT]

I think Dr B is talking about the fact that what we think of as reality - the picture in our heads - is a construct of our brains. Surprisingly little of that picture comes from sensory input. Even that sensory input is modified by our brains, using experience from the past. Therefore, what we each regard as 'reality' differs from person to person. In that sense it is a hallucination. We are not malfunctioning, it is just that we could not possibly use all the information our senses provide continuously, so we just get the edited highlights. If we didn't, our brains would overload and we would be incapable of doing anything. Evolution has designed us sensibly.

[Tin Lizzie]

I think i'm just going to stay on the 'woo' forum. i came here hoping to build knowledge; some people have certainly aided me in that but for the best part i've had nothing but disguised ridicule along with refusal to answer my more acute questions and arguments against the lack of 'evidence'. of course, scientists will only accept scientific evidence. what was i thinking? :cheesy:

many thanks for your interesting feedback

[MRT]

... scientists will only accept scientific evidence.

Can't argue with that! :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

Science is still a long way behind nature and the universe...no, i must not rise to this!!;D

[MRT]

I wouldn't argue with that. Scientific knowledge is always provisional. It is updated as new evidence appears. I'm sure there are many things which we are not yet aware of. However, before something enters science, the evidence must be present first.

[Tin Lizzie]

And is not an incredibly accurate message via a medium such evidence, for there are plenty of cases of this. I still believe this 'lack of evidence' will remain as such until science has advanced. For now thought, it is still not half as sophisticated as nature itself.

[John Jackson]

Science is still a long way behind nature and the universe...

Is that an exercise in stating the obvious or is there meant to be some meaning to it? :ponder:

[Araneus]

i came here hoping to build knowledge; some people have certainly aided me in that but for the best part i've had nothing but disguised ridicule along with refusal to answer my more acute questions and arguments against the lack of 'evidence'.

One doesn't generally build a lot of knowledge by continually stating that you're right until somebody proves you wrong, especially when the "disproof" you demand is not possible by definition. The only person who thinks your "arguments" are "acute" is you.

scientists will only accept scientific evidence.Funny that. "Extra! Extra! Scientists don't believe woo just because they're told to!"

[Tin Lizzie]

;D quality!

Nope, what you are doing is being made aware of a whole load of other evidence and - aside from using it to boost what appears to be a faltering ego - ignoring it. Ultimately i don't need to stoop to your level. (PS you haven't PM' d me yet regarding your insults. If you want the chance to prove what you stated, PM me)

[MRT]

And is not an incredibly accurate message via a medium such evidence ...

That depends on what 'normal' means were available for receiving such information. There are a surpringly large number of such means. They obviously varies from case to case.

[Tin Lizzie]

That depends on what 'normal' means were available for receiving such information. There are a surpringly large number of such means. They obviously varies from case to case.

I know that some can, and sometimes prefer, working 'at a distance', and some require only an internet connection. Again i am not a psychic or medium, but i think distance cases may obviously be the best ones to carry out tests on.

[MRT]

I have been given messages by mediums in the past. I'm sorry to say they were all almost entirely irrelevant or wrong. Maybe I just spoke to the wrong ones.

[Tin Lizzie]

I have also experienced some completely duff psychic readings, and then i persevered and had a very, very good reading. Managing to contact spirit myself did much to help me.

[bindeweede]

I have also experienced some completely duff psychic readings, and then i persevered and had a very, very good reading. Managing to contact spirit myself did much to help me.

So does this mean you persevered until you were told what you wanted to hear?

[Melanie]

So does this mean you persevered until you were told what you wanted to hear?

Mediumship and spiritualism would have died out long ago if there weren't at least some mediums giving remarkably accurate readings. However, you can discount any medium who appears on TV, writes a book or sells their readings for lots of money. The whole thing is perpetuated by the few who are very good at what they do - and the audience's endless hunt for that kind of medium.

But the fact remains that all they will ever do is provide evidence for belief, Not proof.

Despite the fact that the SPR has been in existence for over a century, and that the society was founded by great scientists from a variety of disciplines, there is even now nothing they can hold up to science as proof. They have plenty of evidence but that's it. And that evidence only propogates belief, not knowledge.

It's only through a thorough reading of their journals that this becomes clear.

[Tin Lizzie]

So does this mean you persevered until you were told what you wanted to hear?

I would indeed have persevered. I had no faith whatsoever in God, despite a christian upbringing. it was something else that compelled me to doubt my own doubts and find a way to make contact with the other side. this something doesn't -as Melanie's post should make clear - comply with even the most advanced scientific methods available, so not much point in expounding further.

charlatans and glory-seekers are sad cases, more so when they know fine well that they are doing nothing to help people who are going through immense pain or grief. those who seek neither publicity nor financial reward tend to be capable of the greatest accuracy, but sadly they are - obviously - the hardest to find.

[bindeweede]

I would indeed have persevered. I had no faith whatsoever in God, despite a christian upbringing. it was something else that compelled me to doubt my own doubts and find a way to make contact with the other side. this something doesn't -as Melanie's post should make clear - comply with even the most advanced scientific methods available, so not much point in expounding further.

charlatans and glory-seekers are sad cases, more so when they know fine well that they are doing nothing to help people who are going through immense pain or grief. those who seek neither publicity nor financial reward tend to be capable of the greatest accuracy, but sadly they are - obviously - the hardest to find.

Thanks. Could you explain the difference between the "duff" readings and the very good one, without revealing any personal info, obviously?

[Araneus]

I have also experienced some completely duff psychic readings, and then i persevered and had a very, very good reading.

Yes, if you roll the dice enough times you will eventually get a six. This doesn't demonstrate anything except probability working the way it should.

[Melanie]

Thanks. Could you explain the difference between the "duff" readings and the very good one, without revealing any personal info, obviously?

A medium should accept a booking from you without a name, if you want to do it that way. They should not refuse to be taped. The reading should later be transcribed, and the transcription should include Everything that’s said, including silences, anything you may have said in return, and any hints you realise you may have unwittingly given (smiles, grunts, puzzled looks).

A ‘very good’ reading would be one where there is

no fishing (the medium asks no questions)
no generalisations (general advice to move to a hot country or get out more)
accuracy (specific names of those she claims are talking to her)
no feedback (no interaction is required from you at all)Splitting the reading into separate points and marking each point allows you to work out some kind of statistical value of accuracy. (It’s about as ‘scientific’ as it’s possible to be with such a numinous phenomenon.)

In all probability, you will find that well over half of the reading is actually meaningless waffle. You will probably find that two bits of ‘evidence’ you could swear came together were actually several minutes apart. You will probably find that what you remember is not what was actually said.

A really good reading would have a high level of accuracy and would contain information which was personally meaningful to you, which did not need help from you to make it fit (she said Cathy but obviously she meant Karen),and which you judge she could not have gleaned from anywhere else.

Ideally, you should hope for at least some information that needs to be checked out with a third party and which is unknown to you personally.

Predictions may be made and should not be dismissed, but beware of organising your life to make those predictions fact.

Even then, assuming one manages to find a medium who can give such a reading, and assuming analysis shows it to be remarkably accurate, there are likely to be alternative explanations for anything you might hold up as evidence. And if by chance no-one can offer alternative explanations, what’s left may convince you that survival is real, and you'll find yourself believing.

But you’ll never convince anyone else.

[Tin Lizzie]

Yes, if you roll the dice enough times you will eventually get a six. This doesn't demonstrate anything except probability working the way it should.

likewise, just because i may keep rolling lower than a four on consecutive throws, doesn't mean that the 4, 5 and 6 don't exist

[Dr B]

But that will never happen! You are using a scenario that is false to make a claim for something else - can't you see that ::) ?

I believe its known as the fallacy of the irrelevant analogy.

Probability states, all things being equal, that all the numbers will pop up. O0