Using mediums on investigations.

[Admin]

I know that many paranormal investigating groups use mediums and place different levels of importance on their role in investigations.

From a scientific point of view however, do they have any role to play at all?

Their ability is unproven and it seems to me that using one form of unproven phenomenon to investigate another has no scientific merit at all.

Yet, groups use them. What use are they on serious investigations, and should serious investigators use them?

If so, why?

[Mongrel]

I think no, mediums can and should be tested independently. I'd guess that they're used a lot because they're so intertwined and (from my limited experience) paranormal investigators start with the proposition that supernatural entites exist and work to proving that. Mediums can contact these entities, therefore they're another investigative tool.

Any good scientific investigation seeks to eliminate as many unknown elements during a test, not add more.

[median]

I'd guess that they're used a lot because they're so intertwined and (from my limited experience) paranormal investigators start with the proposition that supernatural entites exist and work to proving that. Mediums can contact these entities, therefore they're another investigative tool.


Agreed, the problem it seems is that one mentions 'paranormal investigation' it almost presumes a 'paranormal' conclusion. To establish the criteria of a measuring instrument, one needs to ask
'What does it measure?' and 'Is the measurement constant for all occasions'.

Actually thinking about, the inclusion of a medium invites a paranormal interpretation. It would be interesting to see how many investigations in which a medium has been involved, turn out a verdict of 'no psychic vibrations'? ???

[Jocky]

What on earth is the point of researching one unproven phenomenon with another one? None. Any conclusions one might form are hopelessly tainted.

I have fought this fight over on PA. Investigating with mediums is pointless unless their abilities are quantifiable. Given that this is not the case and does not ever look likely to be, their investigative value is presently nil.

This is not to say that subjective observation could not form a legitimate part of paranormal research. However, doing this on the basis that one person's perception is valued differently from another's on the basis of a self-claimed and unproven ability makes absolutely no sense - even if you do believe in ghosts.

:ghost:

[Admin]

I agree that their usage on investigations cannot be justified from a scientific point of view.

Even so, many groups use them. Apart from using them because that's how Most Haunted do it, is there any reasonable (non-scientific) justification for using them?

Is there anything that they add to the process of investigation, for example?

Just looking at both sides.

[Dr B]

There is no use in employing mediums on investigations - unless of course that investigation is directed towards mediums themselves. Linking ghosts to mediums is adding two bad apples together...and this time it dont make cider... :D

However, i have used self-claimed pyschics and mediums in a number of ways while i was studying the psychological impact of context on their performance. This I have done in haunted locations.

Example - often psychics will pick the darkest coldest rooms, with the most visually suggestible areas as the important 'hot spots' of activity. Some try to be too clever and pick the lightest rooms (thus trying to fight their natural biases) as they think the experimenter is expecting certain forms of decisions in certain areas (a situational demand). You can see examples of this on Britains psychic challenge where many of the psychics fought against their natural biases (and thus performed worse than chance and the baseline group....)

Another Example - Some i have used in conjunction with questionnaires and floor plans for them to tick off where they felt weird....then i have measured these areas (and baseline areas) for things like magnetism, drafts, etc. On a minority of cases there have been interesting associations to magnetic areas and reports from psychics. However, almost without exception the psychic has also been (i) an epiletic, (ii) a mirgraine sufferer, (iii) has reduced normal vision, etc.....

Others I have taken to complete baseline locations..... :D

Not all psychics are lying (they can be legitimately reporting physical sensations etc), but no psychic i have ever met is actually psychic..... O0

[Admin]

Example - often psychics will pick the darkest coldest rooms, with the most visually suggestible areas as the important 'hot spots' of activity.

Intersting.

Of course there are many reasons why some locations could be perceived as more 'haunted' than others. The suggestibility of the age, appearance, colour, decor, etc. of one room may be more in line with the expectation many people have of what something haunted is meant to look like compared to another room.

If psychics are ruled by their right temporal lobe rather than their left one, they may simply be naturally attracted to the more suggestible features of locations. If they're doing it subconsciously of course.

I guess this aspect of psychics with their feeling 'energies' etc. could also influence others to become a little more suggestible too. I guess they can liven things up quite a bit for the not so serious investigators.

If I was going to investigate somewhere I wouldn't consider using a psychic for the reasons given above. I'd be looking for answers, not entertainment.

[DaveWood]

Are Mediums* Valid Investigation Tools?
*Or would the plural be media?

The simple answer is that they are no less or more valid than any other tool. Environmental meters, photo/video equipment, human experiencers. EVP, ITC, Ganzfeld. None of them are flawless or proven methods for 'paranormal observation'.

If you believe none of the above methods are proven or disproven then you can use them all. At PSI we are using all of them over a period time to observe trends and then draw conclusions.


The Other Argument

Having said that, I do not support the use of mediums on investigations. And here's for why..

If one is making a geniune attempt at recording human experiencers during investigations, for the purposes of:
- Observing percieved paranormal phenomena
- Tracking paranormal belief
- Observing the role of context

Then you must attempt to rule out all other factors that could interfere with these, for example:
- Prior knowledge of the location and alleged hauntings
- Undue influences by other participants

This latter one is quite important to me. It is quite clear that any participant will be strongly influenced by the actions of a medium. This is the key reason for me.
The influences can be varied. Of course people could feel they are percieving the same as the medium. In cases also beleive that if there is a medium present they will percieve less experiences themselves.


Why Do Groups Use Mediums?

There are various reason I've come across. I should state in advance that none of this is to say anything negatively about the mediums themselves:
- Interest/Entertainment - For many 'investigators' the presence of a medium can break the undoubted tedium of experiencing. For many they form part of that 'experience'.
- Prestige. For some having a bona fide medium on board is a feather in their cap.
- Protection. I come across a lot of people who say they would never attend an investigation without a medium because otherwise they would not be adequately protected

[Mojo]

Having said that, I do not support the use of mediums on investigations. And here's for why..

If one is making a geniune attempt at recording human experiencers during investigations, for the purposes of:
- Observing percieved paranormal phenomena
- Tracking paranormal belief
- Observing the role of context

Then you must attempt to rule out all other factors that could interfere with these, for example:
- Prior knowledge of the location and alleged hauntings
- Undue influences by other participants

This latter one is quite important to me. It is quite clear that any participant will be strongly influenced by the actions of a medium. This is the key reason for me.
The influences can be varied. Of course people could feel they are percieving the same as the medium. In cases also beleive that if there is a medium present they will percieve less experiences themselves.

Surely the real problem involved is in having someone there who has a vested interest (whether for financial reasons or for reasons of their own personal prestige) in claiming that the paranormal exists,and also claims means of detection of the paranormal to which the rest of the group have no access?


For some having a bona fide medium on board is a feather in their cap.

Well, if you can find one...

[Admin]

I would say that mediums are less useful as a tool simply because anything they come up with cannot be independently scrutinised.

Although capturing a 'ghost' on video will always be doubted, at least the camera and resulting footage can be independently tested.

It's interesting though about using mediums in the context of studying the psychology of the experience. I have assumed that when doing an investigation that we'd be 'solving the mystery'. I guess that an experient who's heavily influenced by a medium can be assumed to be a highly suggestible individual and this would have to be taken into account. Of course, I doubt that many mediums would see that as their role.

[DaveWood]

Surely the real problem involved is in having someone there who has a vested interest (whether for financial reasons or for reasons of their own personal prestige) in claiming that the paranormal exists,and also claims means of detection of the paranormal to which the rest of the group have no access?

Not really to my view.

Whilst I see what you mean, you could argue that experiencers have a vested interest in experiencing - for example for acceptance by their peers.

Mediums who make money or are so vague that their findings can be interpreted any way is one thing. But those who will will 'spill' everything that comes into their head with the knowledge that it may not all be correct (and is willing to have it all in print) clearly has less vested interest than most.

[DaveWood]

I would say that mediums are less useful as a tool simply because anything they come up with cannot be independently scrutinised.

Again, must disagree.

When an experiencer experiences it cannot be objectively scrutinised. One can either conclude that it was paranormal or misattribution. There is no independent objectivity in most cases.

The same goes for use of any sort of equipment.

If you wanted to properly study mediums so long as they had no prior knowledge you could rate each and every statement for accuracy and probably assess the liklihood of the proportion of 'correct' information being the result of chance.

Seems even more solid to me.

The one fly in the ointment is that most people report that there is just no evidence for psychic abilities.

This points to a ruling out of such a paranormal 'method' but saying the tool itself is inherently flawed is inappropriate to my mind.

[DaveWood]

I guess that an experient who's heavily influenced by a medium can be assumed to be a highly suggestible individual and this would have to be taken into account.

I don't think you need to be highly suggestable to be influenced in such a way. I'm not sure how comparable it is, but DrB posted some very interesting findings on the ASSAP forum about how subtely and effectively the average mind can be influenced.



Of course, I doubt that many mediums would see that as their role.

Quite so. Although the mediums we work with would certainly not attend investigations because of their own self-stated views that whatever they say or do will skew results.

[Dr B]

Are Mediums* Valid Investigation Tools?
*Or would the plural be media?

The simple answer is that they are no less or more valid than any other tool. Environmental meters, photo/video equipment, human experiencers. EVP, ITC, Ganzfeld. None of them are flawless or proven methods for 'paranormal observation'.

If you believe none of the above methods are proven or disproven then you can use them all. At PSI we are using all of them over a period time to observe trends and then draw conclusions.


Dave - not sure this is strictly true. Equipment measures known variables in a given and explicit manner. Of course it can be misused and misinterpreted - but the nice thing about equipment (I am talking about scientific instruments here) is that you know the explicit parameters of the device and the type, form, content of the information it is capable of giving. If I use an EEG that has a particular sample rate and signals can only be amplified by a certain degree, then I understand what it can and cannot do. This is simply not the case with self-claimed psychics and mediums. Firstly, there is no evidence that such an ability exists, and secondly, if it does, we have no idea how it operates, or that it is indeed under conscious control etc. There are far too many assumptions underlying the use of mediums in this way for me. O0

I do not think there is any merit in using mediums to aid in 'ghost hunting' (for want of a better term) as it adds more noise and nonsense. An experiment is supposed to take an ambiguous situation and make it less ambiguous than it was before - using mediums does not do this.

I do believe that mediumship should be studied in its own right however, and that this too can happen in the field (i.e., a haunted location). But any such study is one directed at claimed abilities and not the reputed haunting.

[Dr B]

Again, must disagree.

The same goes for use of any sort of equipment.

Not necessarily true - because i can give you 1000 MADS sensors and they will all measure the same thing, blind to each other, and do so repeatedly, for as long as you want. Mediums are not even consistent within themselves.


If you wanted to properly study mediums so long as they had no prior knowledge you could rate each and every statement for accuracy and probably assess the liklihood of the proportion of 'correct' information being the result of chance.

I certainly agree that lack of prior knolwedge is a must - but it is not an absolute ruling out accuracy (i.e., cold reading of locations and people). It is also difficult to assess true probabilities with certain forms of information that are not expressed in mathematical form (i.e., testimonies).

You can use mediums without using the content of their ramblings....You can simply give them structured questionnaires or floor plans and try to get the data in a more usable format. This can be interesting (dont forget your control group however!!!! ;D). However, my research suggests what we are studying is natural human biases to situational demands and contextual influences....fascinating stuff....just not paranormal O0

All fascinating stuff. Dave - I know you are doing some excellent stuff in this area, any updates on what you are finding on the role of context?

J

[DaveWood]

Dave - not sure this is strictly true. Equipment measures known variables in a given and explicit manner. Of course it can be misused and misinterpreted - but the nice thing about equipment (I am talking about scientific instruments here) is that you know the explicit parameters of the device and the type, form, content of the information it is capable of giving. If I use an EEG that has a particular sample rate and signals can only be amplified by a certain degree, then I understand what it can and cannot do. This is simply not the case with self-claimed psychics and mediums. Firstly, there is no evidence that such an ability exists, and secondly, if it does, we have no idea how it operates, or that it is indeed under conscious control etc. There are far too many assumptions underlying the use of mediums in this way for me. O0


With the specific example you use, yes you're right. But there are very few such examples and none available to unfunded investigators. How much would EEGs cost btw?



I do not think there is any merit in using mediums to aid in 'ghost hunting' (for want of a better term) as it adds more noise and nonsense. An experiment is supposed to take an ambiguous situation and make it less ambiguous than it was before - using mediums does not do this.

Yes. You're right.

But then again the type of investigating I'm advocating and conducting is not, at this stage, purely experimental and concerned with simplification of ambiguous situations.

At the moment we're wanting to use all the possible tools and assess them over time to then rule them out later with authority.

[DaveWood]

because i can give you 1000 MADS sensors

Yes please! You've missed my birthday but I'll take a late present ;)



I certainly agree that lack of prior knolwedge is a must - but it is not an absolute ruling out accuracy (i.e., cold reading of locations and people). It is also difficult to assess true probabilities with certain forms of information that are not expressed in mathematical form (i.e., testimonies).

Yeah lots of other things need to be taken into account, for example common knowledge and any cues in the location.

Statistically it's not going to be a science, but it does provide cues for future research.



You can use mediums without using the content of their ramblings....You can simply give them structured questionnaires or floor plans and try to get the data in a more usable format. This can be interesting (dont forget your control group however!!!! ;D). However, my research suggests what we are studying is natural human biases to situational demands and contextual influences....fascinating stuff....just not paranormal O0

Sounds like food for thought for future research to me!

[DaveWood]

All fascinating stuff. Dave - I know you are doing some excellent stuff in this area, any updates on what you are finding on the role of context?


Yes funny you should mention. Oddly just as I was reading your posts for the first time I had been working on some context stuff and analysing medium accounts. Not everyday tasks for me either - spooky, eh? Or do I just do these things and think of UKS ;)

I've just analysed contexting questionnaires versus paranormal experiencer reporting across three investigations done at the same location over 2006.

Unfortunately the location person didn't feel able to provide a ranking based on eyewitness accounts but I was able to compare the other two.

Ranking of areas based on percieved phenomena per minute:
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4

Ranking of areas based on contexting questionnaires:
Area 1
Area 3
Area 2
Area 4

And in both cases the differences between areas 2 and 3 weren't particularly significant, either.

We've probably studied this properly about 6 times by now and there have been mixed results but I think they're point towards your hypothesis.

I'm deliberately not keeping too much track of the results at the moment because I'll have to stop them and write an article at some point (after an arbitrary number like 10) but don't want to have a view as to which way the evidence is pointing when I do stop, for obvious reasons.

All looking very interesting tho!

[median]

But then again the type of investigating I'm advocating and conducting is not, at this stage, purely experimental and concerned with simplification of ambiguous situations.

At the moment we're wanting to use all the possible tools and assess them over time to then rule them out later with authority.

So, for the record just what is the purpose of your investigative interest?

I take it that from the term 'tool' you would possibly merit a medium as a measuring device? So looking at properties such as 'reliability' how would you 'rate' a medium?
If, for example, I took my ruler and compared them to any other in the country I could be sure that a mm would equal to any other mm. :o

Of course, you could go for some sort of test-retest protocol with an 'established' medium but in effect you would have to produce a sort of calibration certificate or general performance parameters ;)

I think I may have crossed over the skeptic/cynic border ???

;D

[DaveWood]

So, for the record just what is the purpose of your investigative interest?

I take it that from the term 'tool' you would possibly merit a medium as a measuring device? So looking at properties such as 'reliability' how would you 'rate' a medium?
If, for example, I took my ruler and compared them to any other in the country I could be sure that a mm would equal to any other mm. :o

Of course, you could go for some sort of test-retest protocol with an 'established' medium but in effect you would have to produce a sort of calibration certificate or general performance parameters ;)

I think I may have crossed over the skeptic/cynic border ???

;D


The term is used advisedly.

No tool for measuring the paranormal is valid or reliable. Presenting two options:
1. Don't bother
2. At least try and then assess

I completely respect the former option, although preferably where they also conduct helpful research.

But if you want to actually investigate the paranormal you either go for #2 or just say 'sod it, lets just do what we like'. The latter would be a waste of my time I feel.

[median]

No tool for measuring the paranormal is valid or reliable

Why? Surely you have taken numerous anecdotal accounts and are examining physical parameters that are thus associated with. Cold spots, 'orbs' etc?

[Mongrel]

So, for the record just what is the purpose of your investigative interest?

I take it that from the term 'tool' you would possibly merit a medium as a measuring device? So looking at properties such as 'reliability' how would you 'rate' a medium?
If, for example, I took my ruler and compared them to any other in the country I could be sure that a mm would equal to any other mm. :o

Of course, you could go for some sort of test-retest protocol with an 'established' medium but in effect you would have to produce a sort of calibration certificate or general performance parameters ;)

I think I may have crossed over the skeptic/cynic border ???

;D

I'd say borderline :p

If I buy a cheap plastic ruler I know it's going to be good enough to measure 30cm with maybe +/- 0.5mm error. If on the other hand I buy a ruler that's meant to be used for professional design work I trust that the tolerances on it will be much smaller. I presume there's some pretty accurate laser gadgets that will be accurate to less than 1mm over a Kilometre, with a presumably high price tag.

I suppose it's a combination of "How accurate do you need the tool to be?" in any given situation "What are my expectations of how accurate it should be", somewhere between the two should lie the answer. Unfortunately without a benchmark for the accuracy of mediums it's impossible to say whether they're a useful 'tool' or not, it's like trying to measure how far it is to work with a 50p ruler

[median]

. Unfortunately without a benchmark for the accuracy of mediums it's impossible to say whether they're a useful 'tool' or not, it's like trying to measure how far it is to work with a 50p ruler


Knicker elastic would probably just as good ;D ;D


No tool for measuring the paranormal is valid or reliable.

Alert! Alert! Does this smack of wooism, Dave?

Hmm, only joking ;D ;D what I meant to ask is that could you clarify this statement? :)

[DaveWood]

I suppose it's a combination of "How accurate do you need the tool to be?" in any given situation "What are my expectations of how accurate it should be", somewhere between the two should lie the answer. Unfortunately without a benchmark for the accuracy of mediums it's impossible to say whether they're a useful 'tool' or not, it's like trying to measure how far it is to work with a 50p ruler


There is a key difference between internal accuracy and reliability for purpose.

A thermometer measures temperature. No doubt about that. But that's all it does do. It's reliable and accurate but we cannot say if it is relevant.

[DaveWood]

Why? Surely you have taken numerous anecdotal accounts and are examining physical parameters that are thus associated with. Cold spots, 'orbs' etc?


Under what I would uselessly term 'directional' investigations. If someone reports cold spots and you go in with a thermometer that's one thing.

In 'public cases' I'm as much trying to get to the bottom of investigating the paranormal as I am trying to get to the bottom of an individual case.

[DaveWood]

Alert! Alert! Does this smack of wooism, Dave?

Hmm, only joking ;D ;D what I meant to ask is that could you clarify this statement? :)


No woo's here ;)

The paranormal at present is not measurable accurately, if at all. Therefore no tool can be a valid or reliable. This includes gadgetary, mediums and individual experiencers.

[median]

The paranormal at present is not measurable accurately, if at all.

So, just to clarify things, does the 'paranormal', in your view, present a special case or could it be accomodated by present explanations incorporating both physical and psychological phenomena?

[DaveWood]

So, just to clarify things, does the 'paranormal', in your view, present a special case or could it be accomodated by present explanations incorporating both physical and psychological phenomena?


Interesting question. I'm just completing a longitudinal report which I'm hoping to get permission to post on our website - I'll let you know if this happens.

It has considered 173 separate experiencer reports which breaks down roughly into:
- 167 probably explicable reports
- 6 currently less explicable reports

I wouldn't even go so far as to say these 6 were unexplainable. And even if I were to say that I would say 'unexplainable at the present time'. The rational tendency would be to say that what has occurred is not explainable with the current level of information, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the events were 'paranormal'.

So in answer to your question - on investigations at least - a minimum of 99% of experiencer reports can be accomodated by current explanations.

[Mongrel]

There is a key difference between internal accuracy and reliability for purpose.

A thermometer measures temperature. No doubt about that. But that's all it does do. It's reliable and accurate but we cannot say if it is relevant.


Whilst, in your example, it may not be relevant if you are going to be taking the temperature you'd probably want a thermometer that's accurate and reports quickly, barring other circumstances an IR thermometer would be vastly preferable to the Min\Max one you borrowed from your greenhouse. Since you say "No tool for measuring the paranormal is valid or reliable." then the accuracy and quantity of any data you get from purely scientific methods becomes that much more important until you can (hypothetically) infer enough to build reliable 'paranormal detection devices'.

[Dr B]

Dave - interesting stuff matey keep up the good work O0

One thing i noticed from the above discussions though is that there is a difference between the reliability and validity of a piece of equipment and the validity and reliability of the interpretation of the data it provides. I think this difference is at the root of some of the above debates. ;)

[Dr B]

With the specific example you use, yes you're right. But there are very few such examples and none available to unfunded investigators. How much would EEGs cost btw?


Actually dave my points are valid for any scientific instrument. Even a GaussMaster has parameters (though i doubt many know what they truly are). They can measure physical factors within certain parameters. These are most certainly avaliable to non-funded researchers. The same would hold for photo-based contextual experiments (as a tool) and to some degree questionnaires (as a tool). Obviously the level of reliability varies - but we can even estimate that with some statististics (i.e., Cronbach's alpha, etc) - so you can get an idea of how confident you can be that your tool is measuring what it is supposed to and to what degree. However, that means nothing regards whether your interpretation is reliably associated with the facts :D ;D

[DaveWood]

Actually dave my points are valid for any scientific instrument. Even a GaussMaster has parameters (though i doubt many know what they truly are). They can measure physical factors within certain parameters. These are most certainly avaliable to non-funded researchers. The same would hold for photo-based contextual experiments (as a tool) and to some degree questionnaires (as a tool). Obviously the level of reliability varies - but we can even estimate that with some statististics (i.e., Cronbach's alpha, etc) - so you can get an idea of how confident you can be that your tool is measuring what it is supposed to and to what degree. However, that means nothing regards whether your interpretation is reliably associated with the facts :D ;D


There's a fine line. Most of this refers to experimentation and monitoring with hypotheses that the normal can explain the paranormal, surely?

This above is a given, I was more thinking about methods to record/monitor percieved paranormal phenomena..

[DaveWood]

Whilst, in your example, it may not be relevant if you are going to be taking the temperature you'd probably want a thermometer that's accurate and reports quickly, barring other circumstances an IR thermometer would be vastly preferable to the Min\Max one you borrowed from your greenhouse. Since you say "No tool for measuring the paranormal is valid or reliable." then the accuracy and quantity of any data you get from purely scientific methods becomes that much more important until you can (hypothetically) infer enough to build reliable 'paranormal detection devices'.


Shhh! Don't start talking about IR thermometers with DrB around ;)

But no, IR thermometers cannot replace ambient thermometers. They have a separate purpose and in that respect are reliable. But if you start measuring ambient cold/hot spots with an IR thermometer you're asking for a wagging finger ;)

[Mongrel]

Shhh! Don't start talking about IR thermometers with DrB around ;)

But no, IR thermometers cannot replace ambient thermometers. They have a separate purpose and in that respect are reliable. But if you start measuring ambient cold/hot spots with an IR thermometer you're asking for a wagging finger ;)


I stand corrected, thank you :)

I'll happily exchange it "IR Thermometer" for "digital thermometer\probe" then if that's OK

[DaveWood]

I stand corrected, thank you :)

I'll happily exchange it "IR Thermometer" for "digital thermometer\probe" then if that's OK


I'm into data loggers myself, these days.

[Dr B]

I'm into data loggers myself, these days.


That will be an instrument then is it dave? ;D ;D ;D ;D Only kidding.....how can we get a datalogger to interface to a medium???? No violent or rude suggestions please..... O0 O0

[DaveWood]

That will be an instrument then is it dave? ;D ;D ;D ;D Only kidding.....how can we get a datalogger to interface to a medium???? No violent or rude suggestions please..... O0 O0


Oi! Nothing wrong with my data loggers :) They're things of beauty.

[Nicky]

I admire Dave's data loggers every night .... 4" of pure investigative pleasure ....

[Mongrel]

I admire Dave's data loggers every night .... 4" of pure investigative pleasure ....

:o :o
So it's not the size that matters then? ::)

[Cuddles]

There's a fine line. Most of this refers to experimentation and monitoring with hypotheses that the normal can explain the paranormal, surely?

This above is a given, I was more thinking about methods to record/monitor percieved paranormal phenomena..


This doesn't necessarily assume the normal can explain the paranormal, just that it can observe the paranormal. If we assume that the human eye can see a ghost it stands to reason that a video camera can as well. The camera does nothing to explain what it is, but it can at least provide evidence that something is there, and this evidence can be checked independently of any preconceptions. A medium efectively does the exact opposite by providing an explanation without giving any independently verifiable evidence that anything happened in the first place. This means that a medium canot be considered in the same way as physical investigative tools.

[DaveWood]

If we assume that the human eye can see a ghost it stands to reason that a video camera can as well.

I'm afraid that that's a big assumption to make. And considering how frequent 'ghost sightings' are and none have been caught on film, one would have to think wheher it is a valid tool.

[Mongrel]

Out of interest, what could the human eye see that a video camera can't? With the right equipment it can see above and below the range of human sight, even my phones' camera can see into the IR.

[DaveWood]

Out of interest, what could the human eye see that a video camera can't? With the right equipment it can see above and below the range of human sight, even my phones' camera can see into the IR.



I think it's not always what the eye sees, but what the brain sees...

...will leave this particular area for DrB..

[Cuddles]

I'm afraid that that's a big assumption to make. And considering how frequent 'ghost sightings' are and none have been caught on film, one would have to think wheher it is a valid tool.

Assuming ghosts exist there are two possibilites. First, that they are physical occurences, whatever the cause, and give off/reflect light that is detected by the eye. In the case a camera will also pick it up. The other possibility is that they are percieved by a direct effect on the brain, causing a person to "see" something without any other device being able to detect it. In this case it is pointless to try to dectect anything since even a brain scan will only show that activity is there, it will not say whether it is caused internally or externally and so we can't say if a ghost really is there or if a person is hallucinating. This is also exactly what will be observed if ghosts do not exist. There is now a choice between two possibilities, both giving identical observations, one which postulates a group of invisible, undetectable phenomena as cause and one which says people sometimes see something that isn't really there. Occam's Razor does the rest.

[Dr B]

Cuddles & Dave

Quite right! I have always wondered why ghost hunters take night-vision to locations when they are in search of hallucination (for example) ;D ;D :D

As far as i am aware, night vision is not a good way of measuring the brain or assessing perception. :D

[Richard King]

Quote from: Cuddles on August 11, 2006, 10:08:55 AM
“If we assume that the human eye can see a ghost it stands to reason that a video camera can as well.”

Response from Dave Wood:
”I'm afraid that that's a big assumption to make. And considering how frequent 'ghost sightings' are and none have been caught on film, one would have to think whether it is a valid tool.”

From a personal perspective, including personal experience (quite apart from the experience of others) Dave is correct, Cuddles’ assumption is a large one; there is more too it than that, though likely to be beyond the acceptance capability of many (most?) contributors to this Forum.

I have been in situations where I know what is physical sight and what is not but in others where I have not been certain where the physical sight ended and the other sight began, or vice versa for that matter.

As for the general point of the topic, someone who can sense at a higher level as well as being experienced in both conducting experiments and writing reports is in a far better position to identify some related potential experimental anomalies, rule out variables that would not necessarily occur to others.

I do not regard myself as a medium, though I do have “extended senses” for want of a better way of putting it, though they tend towards part time as I have a physical life to get on with as well.

Professionally, I gained a higher national Diploma in Production Engineering while at North East Essex Technical College (as it was then) in the 1960s, followed by a First Degree in Engineering and a Masters Degree in Non-Metallic Materials, both from Brunel University; I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I am also a Member of the Scientific and Medical Network.

It is interesting to observe and read about events, developments, views, comments, in these areas from an engineer’s point of view, rather than just a scientist’s, wryly amusing at times, heightened by the extra perspective I have. Unfortunately, most seems to tend towards dead end and backwards rather than any progress. It also, often, seems to be riven with inconsistencies and dualities, double standards, and lack of rigour, especially on a philosophical basis. Hence the PSI Journal seeming a somewhat positive anomaly in this field - see Note below.

I am hoping to pursue research of my own, once I am past a long standing “situation”. Hopefully, my forthcoming book will do just that; it ought to do so going by the views of others, from prominent business people in the South of England to experienced people in the genre, field. Should that be the case, I have identified people with whom I would like to work, while being aware of others that I would not consider involving.


Extra Note:
I investigated this Web Site and Forum after reading an article by Dave Woods in the current Issue of PSI Journal in which he referred to the U.K. Skeptics Web Site. I almost did not become involved as I found many of the Forum Posts of a different standard to Dave’s article, as well as that of PSI writings generally. I was contributing to the MHRA Licences Topic but that seems to have disappeared for some reason.

[Richard King]

In response to a comment by Dr B, Dave Woods wrote:
"There's a fine line. Most of this refers to experimentation and monitoring with hypotheses that the normal can explain the paranormal, surely?"

That is a very salient point. Even more important is the question of which is actually normal and which is paranormal.

From a full perspective point of view, or, at least, a fuller one, there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural; it is all perfectly normal and completely natural, though that is difficult to understand without appropriate knowledge and experience, particularly the latter, probably; it certainly helps a great deal.

[Dr B]

From a personal perspective, including personal experience (quite apart from the experience of others) Dave is correct, Cuddles’ assumption is a large one; there is more too it than that, though likely to be beyond the acceptance capability of many (most?) contributors to this Forum.

Could you elaborate what you mean here - it sounds interesting.



I have been in situations where I know what is physical sight and what is not but in others where I have not been certain where the physical sight ended and the other sight began, or vice versa for that matter.

I am not sure i know what you mean, but again, could you elaborate it sounds interesting. What is 'the other' in terms of sight. Are you talking about vision, perception, or something else?


As for the general point of the topic, someone who can sense at a higher level as well as being experienced in both conducting experiments and writing reports is in a far better position to identify some related potential experimental anomalies, rule out variables that would not necessarily occur to others.

Not sure I agree at all. However, what do you mean by 'sense at a higher level' - all serious studies into psychic abilities show that actually sensation is matched to baseline controls - the bias is in the interpretations (a response bias to the same generic stimulus). There is no evidence I am aware of that shows some people have 'higher' senses than others. I could be misunderstanding the point here but thats my take on it...let me know if I have misunderstood O0


I do not regard myself as a medium, though I do have “extended senses” for want of a better way of putting it, though they tend towards part time as I have a physical life to get on with as well.

Data based on serious investigations suggests otherwise, but what do you mean by 'extended senses'.


It is interesting to observe and read about events, developments, views, comments, in these areas from an engineer’s point of view, rather than just a scientist’s, wryly amusing at times, heightened by the extra perspective I have.

What extra perspective do you have? As a side-line some of us are both engineers and scientists O0 I have always seen engineering as a form of applied science so there is great overlap - though many aspects of engineering are more 'deductive' in nature (due to the heavy reliance on mathematics / geometry etc). However, reading between the lines are you hinting at some extra perspective on top of this? :-\


Unfortunately, most seems to tend towards dead end and backwards rather than any progress. It also, often, seems to be riven with inconsistencies and dualities, double standards, and lack of rigour, especially on a philosophical basis. Hence the PSI Journal seeming a somewhat positive anomaly in this field - see Note below.

I agree that a great deal of amateur research is characterised by no progress at all. Why do you think that is? However, here at UKS for example, there are constant progressions.


I am hoping to pursue research of my own, once I am past a long standing “situation”. Hopefully, my forthcoming book will do just that; it ought to do so going by the views of others, from prominent business people in the South of England to experienced people in the genre, field. Should that be the case, I have identified people with whom I would like to work, while being aware of others that I would not consider involving.

Maybe they would not consider you either.....but so what? I am not sure I get your point here - do elaborate. Anyway good luck with the book. Do you really want to work with experienced people - or just those that agree with your current position? Is that the criteria for inclusion / exclusion? Just curious O0



I investigated this Web Site and Forum after reading an article by Dave Woods in the current Issue of PSI Journal in which he referred to the U.K. Skeptics Web Site. I almost did not become involved as I found many of the Forum Posts of a different standard to Dave’s article, as well as that of PSI writings generally. I was contributing to the MHRA Licences Topic but that seems to have disappeared for some reason.


Dave and Nicky do excellent work and many other organisations would do well to look at their example - I admire them greatly and have said so on another forum that has currently been discontinued. However, the scientific advice here is much more comprehensive than available in SPI as I am sure Dave and Nicky would agree. Again we need not to fall into the trap of placing a personal weighting on only the 'evidence' we want to hear. Just a thought O0 I would be interested in what you mean by 'standard' over and above personal bias.

I think we are all working towards a common goal - but science can be the only way to achieve it.

[Dr B]

From a full perspective point of view, or, at least, a fuller one, there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural; it is all perfectly normal and completely natural, though that is difficult to understand without appropriate knowledge and experience, particularly the latter, probably; it certainly helps a great deal.


I agree - knowledge and experience is indeed crucial - knolwedge and experience of science being the most crucial.

[median]

Dr B wrote
What extra perspective do you have? As a side-line some of us are both engineers and scientists I have always seen engineering as a form of applied science so there is great overlap - though many aspects of engineering are more 'deductive' in nature (due to the heavy reliance on mathematics / geometry etc). However, reading between the lines are you hinting at some extra perspective on top of this?


I am also interested in this 'extra perspective'. Perhaps you would like to quantify this? Call me cynical but this sort of comment always seems to provide an entree to the main course of 'science cannot ever explain the parnormal etc' ???

[Cuddles]

Quote from: Cuddles on August 11, 2006, 10:08:55 AM
“If we assume that the human eye can see a ghost it stands to reason that a video camera can as well.”

Response from Dave Wood:
”I'm afraid that that's a big assumption to make. And considering how frequent 'ghost sightings' are and none have been caught on film, one would have to think whether it is a valid tool.”

From a personal perspective, including personal experience (quite apart from the experience of others) Dave is correct, Cuddles’ assumption is a large one; there is more too it than that, though likely to be beyond the acceptance capability of many (most?) contributors to this Forum.

I have been in situations where I know what is physical sight and what is not but in others where I have not been certain where the physical sight ended and the other sight began, or vice versa for that matter.

Did you not read my response to this then? Here it is again :

Assuming ghosts exist there are two possibilites. First, that they are physical occurences, whatever the cause, and give off/reflect light that is detected by the eye. In the case a camera will also pick it up. The other possibility is that they are percieved by a direct effect on the brain, causing a person to "see" something without any other device being able to detect it. In this case it is pointless to try to dectect anything since even a brain scan will only show that activity is there, it will not say whether it is caused internally or externally and so we can't say if a ghost really is there or if a person is hallucinating. This is also exactly what will be observed if ghosts do not exist. There is now a choice between two possibilities, both giving identical observations, one which postulates a group of invisible, undetectable phenomena as cause and one which says people sometimes see something that isn't really there. Occam's Razor does the rest.

I am not the one making the assumption. The brain can experience things in two ways, either by being stimulated by an external source, or generating it internally. If it is generated internally then no instruments will detect anything because there is nothing there. If it is caused by something external then there is something there to measure. The assumption that you and Dave are making is that the something is capable of stimulation only the human brain and not anything else. This is completely contrary to all knowledge. In fact, we can make instruments that are not only much better than us and detecting things, but also ones that detect things we can't even tell are there. It seems a very odd assumption to be making.

In fact I have made one assumption. I have assumed that both of you are talking about the human brain, rather than the eye. Since the eye and a camera both detect only photons, it is trivially obvious that that if one can see something, the other can as well (although a camera can often see more since they usually detect some IR as well).

If we assume that there really is something there, we have two choices. Either it influences the brain via one of the four known forces, or there is some kind of new force that has never been detected. In the first case, we have instruments that can detect these far better than humans will ever be able to, so if one of these is the mechanism I am correct that we can detect it. If there is a new force we have to ask the question, what is so special about the particles in the human brain that they are affected by it, but no other particles are? The answer is of course, nothing. If a force can affect protns and electrons in the brain, it can affect them outside the brain, therefore we can detect it. This means, it you insist that we cannot detect these things, the only possibility left is that they are generated internally. This is an interesting phenomenon in itself, but is nothing to do with ghosts or the paranormal.

I would also add that there are many intelligent people here, so veiled insults about things being "beyond our capabilities" will not be taken too kindly.

[Richard King]

Response to Dr B:
I wrote a response to your questions, rather quickly so not up to the standard I like to achieve, but it came out at two and a half thousand words, so, I am not sure whether to post it here or E-mail it to you.

Median wrote:
“I am also interested in this 'extra perspective'. Perhaps you would like to quantify this? Call me cynical but this sort of comment always seems to provide an entree to the main course of 'science cannot ever explain the paranormal etc'”

The “extra perspective” I quantified in the lengthy response to Dr B which I have not put on here yet due to its length; see above.

No, it is not “an entree to the main course of 'science cannot ever explain the paranormal etc'”, I am sure that science can, it is just a matter of when and science making the transition in “level” for want of a better way of putting it in a similar way to pre- and post- Faraday, Clark-Maxwell, pre- and post- nuclear physics, etc.

Earlier this year, I attended a presentation by Rupert Sheldrake at the University of Surrey. Rupert made comments about the paranormal and supernatural that confirmed he had come to the same conclusion I already had, a few years ago in my case; I am not sure when Rupert did. There is no such thing as the paranormal, or the supernatural; as such they do not exist. It is all perfectly normal and completely natural.

[Jocky]

I attended a presentation by Rupert Sheldrake at the University of Surrey. Rupert made comments about the paranormal and supernatural that confirmed he had come to the same conclusion I already had, a few years ago in my case ... There is no such thing as the paranormal, or the supernatural; as such they do not exist. It is all perfectly normal and completely natural

Hmmm ... You may find that some people here have certain reservations about Sheldrake's work. IIUC, there is no falsifiable way of testing the notion of 'morphic fields', and therefore neither they (nor the 'morphic resonance' by which they are supposed to be transmitted) could be described as part of the "natural" world.

[median]

The “extra perspective” I quantified in the lengthy response to Dr B which I have not put on here yet due to its length; see above.


??? So Richard we are still in the dark on this one?

[Dr B]

Rich

Saying that you have answered our questions without providing the answers of those questions is problematic for the debate to say the least.

[Richard King]

Median
"So Richard we are still in the dark on this one?"

No, wrote most of it over the last couple of days; been very busy elsewhere as well; some thoughts follow below.

[Richard King]

Dr B
"Saying that you have answered our questions without providing the answers of those questions is problematic for the debate to say the least."

As I said in an earlier post, the response to your questions turned out rather long.

also, I was not happy with its order in relation to your questions. At present I am sorting ut for an early morning start for the Road to Reality Conference tomorrow. I will see what I can do with that on Sunday or Monday.

[Richard King]

Cuddles
There are so many points that I could comment on the response would be overlong and, in any case, I have a manuscript to finish revising; so, only a few.
Quote:
“Assuming ghosts exist there are two possibilities.”, etc.

If that is your opinion, then that’s fine by me. I am aware of more than the two possibilities as well as more than interaction with the eye and brain but, I suspect, elaborating too much on that would not take us very far.

The reference to hallucinations:
Physical medicine is over 99% objective and culturally independent; mental medicine is well over 80% subjective and culturally dependent. Hallucinations, along with other aspects of “mental health” often come down to opinion. As I have read, been advised, the approach is for the person carrying out the diagnosis to take their reality as the one to judge against and assess the other person’s view of reality on that basis.

“Occam’s Razor does the rest”
Dear old Occam’s Razor; roughly as many varieties and brand names as the physical razor. I am a little surprised that someone has not come up with double, triple, quadruple, etc., bladed versions of Occam, yet, or maybe they have. If Occam could have seen the centuries ahead, maybe he would have grown a beard; perhaps he did.

Science is supposed to be objective; a decision on simplicity is subjective. That is quite apart from whether the simple option is the correct one.

Ref: “What is Occam’s Razor?”, Phil Gibbs and Sugihara Hiroshi (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html)

Stephen Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time:
"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."
“… and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.”
There are very many people who observe what many others do not, so they, we, have no reason to cut some of the features out of a theory that others would cut out.
There is also at least one important, questionable description, assumption, but that takes us deeper and into very different territory.

Following the story, on that Web Page, about Ernst Mach:
As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes:
"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."
Simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do. Successful theorists often speak of symmetry and beauty as well as simplicity. In 1939 Paul Dirac wrote,
"The research worker, in his effort to express the fundamental laws of Nature in mathematical form should strive mainly for mathematical beauty. It often happens that the requirements of simplicity and beauty are the same, but where they clash the latter must take precedence."
… and so speaks a fellow engineer rather than a scientist. Not that scientists cannot, or do not, take a similar approach but there is more to engineering that the mechanistic view, espoused by Richard Dawkins, for example.

A scientist of a similar turn of mind was Sir James Jeans, 11th Astronomer Royal:
"The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
Quoted from Wikipedia.
It looks beautiful and more like a great thought to me; has done for some time, makes more sense.
However, each to his/her own.
“The assumption that you and Dave are making is that the something is capable of stimulation only the human brain and not anything else.”
Not at all, certainly not me; I am aware of a great deal of interaction at a number of levels; not particularly to do with the subject in that started these discussion but generally. Depending on what is happening there is, or can be, more involved than photons, cameras, brains, etc. I am well aware of that. The difficulty, challenge, is turning it into, relating it to, conventional science, or an extended, adapted, evolved version of science at its present level. If the appropriate instrumentation is not available then there will be no detection. From what I have found on the internet, there are ways and there are instruments but that branch, area, of science is in its infancy.

“This is completely contrary to all knowledge.”
I am not blessed with all knowledge, mine is limited, so I cannot confirm that.

“I have assumed that both of you are talking about the human brain, rather than the eye.”
On the basis of knowledge and experience my “take” on the matter is wider than that, much wider. There is more interaction than that on more levels but I am not sure that you would accept that, in which case there is little to pursue.

“Since the eye and a camera both detect only photons, it is trivially obvious that that if one can see something, the other can as well (although a camera can often see more since they usually detect some IR as well).”
Camera film is affected by types of radiation; I am not aware that the human eye can detect those types radiation.
It was once thought trivially obvious that the heavens revolved around the earth. In those days, on an Occam’s Razor basis, they did, or at least on the basis of one way of applying the principle.

“In the first case, we have instruments that can detect these far better than humans will ever be able to … ”
I am not into predictions with that certainty.

“This means, it you insist that we cannot detect these things, the only possibility left is that they are generated internally.”
I make no such insistence, partly the reverse, it is a developing field. Inability to detect is not proof on non-existence. Besides, ways of detecting at that level have been developed, it appears; I have only read a little of the research, so far.

“This is an interesting phenomenon in itself, but is nothing to do with ghosts or the paranormal.”
That is proven?
Anyway, what people perceive as “ghosts” can be due to more than one cause and there is no such thing as the paranormal.

“I would also add that there are many intelligent people here, so veiled insults about things being "beyond our capabilities" will not be taken too kindly.”
There were no insults, veiled or otherwise, there is enough of that floating around the Internet.
For example the spoof Web Site on Victor Zammit (http://www.victorzammit.com/), Victor Dammit (http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/).
Then there is the misuse of the language of ducks (I am aware of the claimed Dutch language, as I remember, roots) and an alternative use of a word defined by http://www.thefreedictionary.com as “To seek the affection of with intent to romance”, though I do not think it is intended romantically.
However, as far as what I write is concerned, I cannot legislate for anyone reading intentions that are not there.
I know next to nothing about the capabilities of the “people here” so it would be illogical to make a judgment anyway, evening assuming I was into the judgment game, which I am not.
I searched the earlier file on my computer for "beyond our capabilities" but it matched nothing.
We all have greater or lesser capabilities; humanity is not uniform.
On 18th November I am attending the “Road to Reality” Conference in London. Apart from Sir Roger Penrose’s presentation I am looking forward to Professor Bernard Carr’s contribution.
I had a fairly long evening conversation with Bernard and others, at the Scientific and Medical Network Mystics and Scientists Conference earlier this year. We discussed a great deal and I did not specifically ask Bernard about his abilities, or insights, on physical science matters as a result of those, but I have yet to meet a fellow member of the Network who has had the amount of experiences I have; not a boast, just what is. On the other, hand Bernard and people like him, are well beyond me in mathematics and cosmology. I think we would both expect to have a broad appreciation of each others thinking in relation to our background and experiences. I have the beginnings of thoughts on how those greater and lesser capabilities, ours and those of others, could be combined to good effect.
Similarly, Dr Peter Fenwick, a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who I have known for several years, and have provided written accounts of my experiences in a field he is researching.
Iy is a matter of working together and combining knowledge, abilities, expertise, etc., for mutual understanding and mutual gain.

I am interested in positives, not negatives.

[Richard King]

Quote from: Jockey
“Hmmm ... You may find that some people here have certain reservations about Sheldrake's work. IIUC, there is no falsifiable way of testing the notion of 'morphic fields', and therefore neither they (nor the 'morphic resonance' by which they are supposed to be transmitted) could be described as part of the "natural" world.”

Reservations about Sheldrake’s work or what he is working on?
When attacks on his work include seeking possible patterns in the random numbers he used there seems to be an air of desperation, clutching at straws.
Having sat through a comprehensive presentation and read some of his work, though, so far only had time to look through his recent book, I would have trouble finding any significant fault.

However, reservations are valuable, especially if, when, they result in constructive comments and suggestions.

IIUC?

How do you know there is no falsifiable way of testing the notion of “morphic fields”?

Morphic fields are what I and others who can sense them would call “higher energy” or “subtle energy” fields, with some scientists such as Professor William Tiller using the latter term.

They are not falsifiable in the sense of them existing in a particular place at a particular time, or not, as they are all pervading, as are the energies of the electromagnetic spectrum.

However, falsifiable experiments can be set up with accepted fields, particularly when they relate to an observable phenomenon. The same could be done with higher energy fields, as there are also relationships.

The current problem is that, with instruments able to sense them, after a fashion, there is a reliance on people sensitive to such fields. Enhancement of present instrumentation or development of new instrumentation would remove the subjectivity, at least as far as the detection is concerned.

However, there are other matters which are accepted but are not susceptible to the laboratory scientific method often invoked; I am not aware that anyone ahs gone through that process to very the “theory of evolution”, which, on a strict basis should still be a hypothesis, cosmological matters, to the scientific method itself, though that would result a circular argument. When it comes to fundamental, thinking I tend towards the philosophical, including the philosophy of science and try to aim for the level of critical thinking about critical thinking.

“Natural” has several definitions; seven in my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, with a couple of them subdivided.

I think “natural”, like “simple” and several other words, definitions, thoughts, notions, have considerable subjectivity attached. Little, if anything, is as fixed and rigorous as supposed.

Higher energy fields are not man-made, certainly not in the accepted sense, so they are natural from that point of view.

An advantage of having experiential insight is that it at least gives a start as far as thinking and experimentation are concerned. For example, there is no subjective difference in strength of one particular form of such energy whether transmitted through air, paper, glass, wood or a metal plate; it is not noticeably attenuated by anything material, no tin thicknesses tried so far.

Like Rupert, I regard none of what is involved with his work and others in the field as a threat to physics or science generally, quite the opposite, a great deal to learn; though, as with other fields of endeavour, in science history, we have been there before; the non-geocentricity of the universe, non-acceptance of electromagnetic fields, plate tectonics, etc., (e.g. http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/telepathy_Nield.html, which is mainly about the British Association debacle involving Rupert and others, and the strange reporting involved).

Having just read, only rather quickly, so far, the contributions to the 50th Anniversary Edition of New Scientist (18th November 2006) by Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku, et al, I noticed some familiar descriptions of certain phenomena and ideas, in particular the String Theory view of energies that compose the physical reality and dark matter. I was fascinated to learn from Michio Kaku’s article that dark stars, black holes, were proposed by John Mitchell in 1783, only to have the notion ridiculed; plus his thoughts and comments on “untestable” theories.

[median]

So Richard, is this extra perspective linked with the notion of morphic fields, then?


However, falsifiable experiments can be set up with accepted fields, particularly when they relate to an observable phenomenon. The same could be done with higher energy fields, as there are also relationships.

The current problem is that, with instruments able to sense them, after a fashion, there is a reliance on people sensitive to such fields. Enhancement of present instrumentation or development of new instrumentation would remove the subjectivity, at least as far as the detection is concerned

If, as you say at this present time, technology falls short of corroborating such perspectives, how then is the best way to proceed. How can this higher perspective be demonstrated as a reliable tool?

[Dr B]

Dr B
"Saying that you have answered our questions without providing the answers of those questions is problematic for the debate to say the least."

As I said in an earlier post, the response to your questions turned out rather long.

also, I was not happy with its order in relation to your questions. At present I am sorting ut for an early morning start for the Road to Reality Conference tomorrow. I will see what I can do with that on Sunday or Monday.


No - the response was absent. I will read you other comments in depth and give you my thoughts but one initial thing struck me. They are long because they are largely irrelevant to the issue and question.

The work of both Sheldrake and Fenwick has been challenged and undermined by many others on grounds of underlying logic, mischaracterisation, poor methodology and failures to independently replicate. If you would like to discuss these issus - lets do so in another thread where you could explain why you find their work so convincing

[Richard King]

Quote from Median:
“So Richard, is this extra perspective linked with the notion of morphic fields, then?”

As far as I am aware it was Rupert Sheldrake who coined the term “morphic fields”. That is what I, along with tens to hundreds of millions of other people can sense to the extent of it being second nature to a very large proportion of us. However, I think most would characterise those fields as etheric and associated energies as higher energies, or subtle energies, as William Tiller and others researching them do. “Morphic” is more of a term associated with Rupert. I do not know why he did not keep with what was there as far as terminology goes; maybe I will get around to asking him sometime.
“If, as you say at this present time, technology falls short of corroborating such perspectives, how then is the best way to proceed. How can this higher perspective be demonstrated as a reliable tool?”

Technology does not exactly fall short, or not entirely. It is usual for science and the technology to be stretched in new fields of endeavour, much the same with thinking being stretched as pointed out in an earlier post with reference to the article by Ted Nield, republished with permission on Rupert Sheldrake’s Web Site, as well as part of the article by Michio Kaku in the 18th November edition of New Scientist.

The higher perspective is only higher in the sense of 50-50 vision, or somewhat less, in relation to severe visual impairment or lack of vision is in the physical sight sense. It is useful in the sense that it can be used as a guide, for advice, etc., on how to bring it into the more widely accepted regions of knowledge. The challenge is to enhance instrumentation that has been used so far, as well as developing new, better instrumentation, to reduce the subjectivity and increase the objectivity.

As is clear from Michio Kaku’s New Scientist (18th November) article, as well as from elsewhere, there are branches of “conventional” science where the boundaries are being stretched that is lacking in instrumentation to “prove” matters to a high degree.

My personal preference, view, on the best way to proceed is gradually, rather than jumping in with both feet, especially into what is an unknown or little known, area, at least from a “mainstream science” standpoint.

Provisionally, accept what is claimed and collaborate with people in an initial assessment. Review what has been learned and try to remove a variable, or variables, for the next step; ideally taking out variables one at a time, of course, while bearing in mind they may only be perceived variables. Gradually move towards a greater understanding, whichever way that may develop.

Clearly, that could be time consuming and expensive. If it cannot be done, then the matter should be left alone, or only very provisional conclusions arrived at with an acknowledgement of shortcomings. As far as the field of potential investigation and experimentation under discussion is concerned, the involvement of someone well aware of, or with experience of, the phenomena is an advantage, especially if that person is aware of the standard, usual, scientific method, even more so if they are aware of the shortcomings and limitations, thereof. Similarly, someone of a sceptical persuasion being involved is useful, in terms of sceptical in the English language, dictionary sense (doubting) rather than the refined mid-Atlantic, “yah boo sucks” tendency (denying, usually unpleasantly, in “ad hominem” mode), which is hardly conducive to scientific or any other investigation.

For example, in the case of Natasha Demkina, the ideal would have been to start with an assessment and experiments “in situ” in her home town, then discuss, take out a suspected variable, etc.

Hauling a teenager out of her own Country, for the first time, I believe, to the strange environs of New York, an experiment reputedly designed by a reporter (and later “taken apart” by a Nobel Laureate, Profess of statistics and others), plus television cameras, claiming a definitive result on a difference to requirements of one seven, etc. might be useful fro s television company and other media sales but is hardly science, let alone cutting edge science.

As I recall, Richard Wiseman said the television input was required to cover costs. If you cannot afford to conduct good science (setting aside the limitations of science, for the moment) then perhaps it should not be done at all. Such an approach damages the whole scientific process.

Admittedly, in the case of someone like Natasha, I start with an advantage. A few years ago I felt that someone’s base chakra area was almost “on fire”; he subsequently told me that he had suffered from some severe gastric problem, had his pelvic area crushed in an accident and a large metal plate inserted. Similarly, an anomaly with the energies, aura, relating to an elderly woman’s arm regulated in her saying there was nothing wrong with it when I asked her afterwards; her daughter returned to see me twenty minutes later, with her mother “in tow” to say, “You were right. She broke that arm X months ago” – her words were something like that; details in my computer diary somewhere but I do not remember the year; about 2000 to 2002, I think.

With someone like Natasha, I would have tried to find people, each of whom had a similar medical condition and an equal number of people who were healthy, in that sense. However, I would have considered the preferable, to me, approach of going even more basic, at first; diseased plants, bacteria cultures, etc., ideally with no visible sign of any disease, or taking out the sight element. However, that would not have made for very exciting television, not so exciting, anyway.

[Richard King]

Quotes from Dr B:
“No - the response was absent. “

Self evidently it was absent because of the length, which is why I thought of just E-mailing rather than posting it on the Forum, a point I made in a post on 15th November.

“They are long because they are largely irrelevant to the issue and question.”

I endeavour to be thorough; relevance is a point of view, particularly to a given issue, the direction you are seeing it from and the knowledge and experience you can bring to bear.

I have a flexible hour or two during tomorrow morning; I will give that particular run of questions one more shot, trying to be succinct, and see where it takes us.

“The work of both Sheldrake and Fenwick has been challenged and undermined by many others on grounds of underlying logic, mischaracterisation, poor methodology and failures to independently replicate. If you would like to discuss these issus - lets do so in another thread where you could explain why you find their work so convincing”

None of which is surprising as they are working in areas which, currently, invite attack from certain other parts of the community; there are echoes throughout history.

I have known Peter for about a decade and contributed some of my experiences to his work, many of those I had with my mother in 2004. though I have attended presentations of his work, and read articles, I have not had time to read much in the way of his research papers, as yet; similarly with Rupert Sheldrake. I find their work an honest and commendable attempt to explore a difficult area, in circumstances that are made more difficult by others. Moreover, as presented, it appears systematic and logical.

How much their work has been undermined depends on one’s point of view. As I already wrote, some, at least, of the criticism seems to be in the “clutching at straws” area.

In principal I have no problems with discussing their research, or anything else, though to do such things properly is time consuming. There are also questions of relevance, apparently, and discussing matters with others who are anonymous, rather than out in the open as Peter, Rupert and myself are; the latter point would not be so greatly relevant but for the time commitment involved in a full discussion; with people of known knowledge, experience and qualifications it could be valuable and rewarding.

Also, my overriding commitment is the book and numerous matters surrounding it. I need to progress past a situation before I can pursue what I wish to in this field and the book is central to that.

[Richard King]

Correction of an obvious error in my 10.20 a.m. post.

“50-50 vision” should, of course, have been 20-20 vision.

I had a long, tiring, though fascinating, day at the “Roads to Reality” Conference, at University College, London, yesterday and was, obviously, still a little weary when I was writing this morning.

[median]

The higher perspective is only higher in the sense of 50-50 vision, or somewhat less, in relation to severe visual impairment or lack of vision is in the physical sight sense. It is useful in the sense that it can be used as a guide, for advice, etc., on how to bring it into the more widely accepted regions of knowledge. The challenge is to enhance instrumentation that has been used so far, as well as developing new, better instrumentation, to reduce the subjectivity and increase the objectivity.

As is clear from Michio Kaku’s New Scientist (18th November) article, as well as from elsewhere, there are branches of “conventional” science where the boundaries are being stretched that is lacking in instrumentation to “prove” matters to a high degree.

My personal preference, view, on the best way to proceed is gradually, rather than jumping in with both feet, especially into what is an unknown or little known, area, at least from a “mainstream science” standpoint.



No, I think the best way to proceed is to 'jump in' so to speak.

I am all for stretching the boundaries but let us be specific.

What precise abilities are being claimed here (as you previously possessed by 0.01% of the population)

[Jocky]

Hi Richard,


IIUC?

An abbreviation for 'If I Understand Correctly'. Sorry, didn't mean to be obscure.


How do you know there is no falsifiable way of testing the notion of “morphic fields”? ... They are not falsifiable in the sense of them existing in a particular place at a particular time, or not, as they are all pervading, as are the energies of the electromagnetic spectrum

But EMF can be detected ... and the underlying theories can be falisfiably tested. Why is this not possible with morphic fields?


falsifiable experiments ... could be done with higher energy fields ... The current problem is that, with instruments able to sense them, after a fashion, there is a reliance on people sensitive to such fields.

If people are sensitive to these fields, there must be some physiological mechanism whereby their brains/bodies are picking them up. If the human body has such a mechanism, then it should be possible for a device to do so as well, probably to a higher standard of accuracy and reliability. The problem is that things which people claim to 'sense' but which cannot be detected at all are rather difficult to distinguish from figments of the imagination


I am not aware that anyone has gone through that process to very the “theory of evolution”, which, on a strict basis should still be a hypothesis

I do not see the relevance of this to Dr Sheldrake's work, which as far as I am aware is not related to evolution.

[edited to supply clarification: I am aware of Dr Sheldrake's notion that morphic resonance acts as an evolutionary mechanism, it is not this to which I allude. I mean to say that the level of proof which is apparent from the physical evidence for evolution does not provide any evidence which is of relevance to morphic fields, and the status of evolutionary theory is not relevant to judging the value or otherwise of the concept of morphic fields.]


I ... try to aim for the level of critical thinking about critical thinking.

Which leads you to conclude what, exactly? [the answer to this question and consequent discussion probably belongs in a different place BTW - you might like to open a thread in the Skepticism section of this forum]


I think “natural”, like “simple” and several other words, definitions, thoughts, notions, have considerable subjectivity attached. Little, if anything, is as fixed and rigorous as supposed.

I accept the definition of the word 'natural' is postentially open to confusion. feel free to post a definition which elucidates the intended meaning of your post more clearly - I am a tragic pedant by nature and enjoy such precision!


Higher energy fields are not man-made, certainly not in the accepted sense, so they are natural from that point of view.

They are only 'natural' (in any possible sense) if they actually exist .. and they only exist if they can be detected.


in science history, we have been there before; the non-geocentricity of the universe, non-acceptance of electromagnetic fields, plate tectonics, etc ... I was fascinated to learn from Michio Kaku’s article that dark stars, black holes, were proposed by John Mitchell in 1783, only to have the notion ridiculed; plus his thoughts and comments on “untestable” theories.

The process of subjecting claims to rigorous scrutiny is an important part of the scientific method. All new claims, whether they turn out to be right or wrong, can reasonably expect to be subjected to peer review in this way. This is not relevant to the validity or otherwise of Dr Sheldrake's findings, which should be judged on their own merits.

[Dr B]

I endeavour to be thorough; relevance is a point of view, particularly to a given issue, the direction you are seeing it from and the knowledge and experience you can bring to bear.

Relevance is not a subjective value at all - your comments largely had nothing to do with the question.



None of which is surprising as they are working in areas which, currently, invite attack from certain other parts of the community; there are echoes throughout history.

Here is a fundamental mistake - and an all too common one. You assume a challenge or a debate is an attack - it is not! Fenwick and Sheldrake have never been attacked. However, their arguments have been shown to be highly likely false. This is what science does and you should welcome it. Could you show me when, where, and by whom, any attack occurred? Is it not the job of science to challenge all knowledge?

Do not try to shift the debate to a mischaracterisation of science - it wont work here. O0 There have been no attacks and trying to make these researchers look as if they have been ill-treated by science is an irrelevance and a nonsense.


I find their work an honest and commendable attempt to explore a difficult area, in circumstances that are made more difficult by others. Moreover, as presented, it appears systematic and logical.

Could you give some examples? I find them fundamentally flawed. On what grounds are they logical? They have to assume paranormality in the first place in order to work - thats a fallacy for a start off.....



How much their work has been undermined depends on one’s point of view. As I already wrote, some, at least, of the criticism seems to be in the “clutching at straws” area.

No - it does not depend on ones point of view. Poor logic, non-replicable effects, poor methodology, non-testable ideas - these are all objective observations. Only if you reject science / logic and start using other systems would it appear subjective.

Who is clutching at straws? Is there a debate you have in mind?

[Richard King]

Quotes from: Median
“No, I think the best way to proceed is to 'jump in' so to speak.”

That is a matter of personal preference; mine is to learn gradually; I find it leads to better understanding, at least for me. For example I would read up on the work of others first, e.g., James L. Oscham, Konstantin Korotkov, William Tiller, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Robert Jahn, Peter Fenwick, et al, though it is the first four or five that are most relevant to the matters I would particularly like to investigate; higher level fields and energies; though current thoughts would bring in String Theory as well. My overriding interest is in finding ways of what I know and understand in the physical sense, to my related level in the non-physical sense and vice versa. Not being a beginner in either sense, on either side, is a distinct advantage and I would like to make the most of it.

”I am all for stretching the boundaries but let us be specific.”

I think people in the field are fairly specific about what they are investigating. My specific interest is as above.

”What precise abilities are being claimed here (as you previously possessed by 0.01% of the population)”

What I was referring to was the ability to perceive at a higher level; broadly equivalent to the physical senses, in many ways, with some interesting differences; no restriction on line of sight, for example; plus the ability to manipulate, channel, redirect, etc., higher level energies.

If you are with others without those abilities (more accurately those who have not developed them, yet) I suppose it could be considered as a claim; with others of like ability it would be a statement. With us it is second nature and we will be consciously, intentionally, using some of them tomorrow evening and Wednesday evening, for example.

Where the 0.01%, to which you referred, comes from I am not sure. As yet, with limited Internet search time, I have not found a survey on the numbers of people who have those abilities. In view of the membership of relevant organisations, in this Country alone, the number of people with that level of perception has to be in the tens of thousands and that would be nowhere near all of them. On that basis the 0.01% figure is too low by at least one order of magnitude, more likely two orders.

[Richard King]

Hi Jockey,

You ask sensible questions in a reasonable way. I would like to answer, and will, but am finding this time consuming and need to return to my book. For that reason I am reluctant to become involved in any more threads, as you suggested.

If you will bear with me I will answer here, as soon as I can, or by some other means if necessary. There is an E-mail address on my profile

[Richard King]

Quotes from: Dr B

“Relevance is not a subjective value at all - your comments largely had nothing to do with the question.”

By definitions, relevance relates to pertinence, which relates to quality, etc.; all a matter of judgement.


“Here is a fundamental mistake - and an all too common one. You assume a challenge or a debate is an attack - it is not! Fenwick and Sheldrake have never been attacked. However, their arguments have been shown to be highly likely false. This is what science does and you should welcome it. Could you show me when, where, and by whom, any attack occurred? Is it not the job of science to challenge all knowledge?”

Incorrect; I made no such assumption.
I am not sure that Peter and Rupert would feel they have not been attacked; I was discussing the debacle at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, involving Peter and Rupert, with Rupert last Saturday; during a break in the “Roads to Reality Conference”. To a large extent it came down to an atrocious standard of science reporting.

There have been challenges, debates and attacks on several people working in areas considered by others to be “beyond the pale”; hence the inclusion of people like Rupert Sheldrake in the BBC’s “Heretics” programmes of a few years ago, along with Eric Laithwaite, Robert Jahn, et al.

I said “ … they are working in areas which, currently, invite attack from certain other parts of the community …”. That is true; there is challenge, debate and attack. I did not assume any one was equivalent to any of the others; though the tones used, at times, tend to indicate a blurring or flow from one to the other by the participants. The “attack” approach is also evident from a few minutes searching on the Internet. The “Victor Dammit” spoof Web Site, for example, looks rather more like an attack, to me, than a challenge, or a debate. The pejorative language often used is more attack than challenge, or debate; it certainly does not strike me, or many others, as the language of thoughtful, logical, calm debate. Such words do not appear in my Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology.

In my view it is “the job of science” to investigate what we perceive of the environment, the world, in which we find ourselves in order to assist with a greater understanding of that, to acquire knowledge and understanding, not to define what can or cannot be; such definitions lie in the realms of infinite knowledge anyway. If you want to go with the “challenging knowledge” notion, then some of us are challenging present “knowledge” concerning the areas with which we are acquainted are investigating.

Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means. (Wikipedia)
verifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation (Free Online Dictionary)
Science The ordered arrangement of ascertained knowledge, including the methods by which such knowledge is extended and the criteria by which truth is tested. (Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology)
Science Five definitions in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, similarly quoted from the Oxford English Dictionary on Wikipedia

Not exactly “take your pick” but somewhat less restrictive than, maybe, some would think. There is at least an element of “in the eye of the beholder”, at least if we keep to the English language; though that goes for very many more words and definitions as well.


“Do not try to shift the debate to a mischaracterisation of science - it wont work here. There have been no attacks and trying to make these researchers look as if they have been ill-treated by science is an irrelevance and a nonsense.”

I am not mischaracterising science; there are others who do a far better job than I at that.

I learned my science fundamentals about fifty years ago and went to a respectable University. I had to drop out of a PhD at the University of Surrey through a sudden career change; it was connected with research and development in which I was engaged in the aerospace industry (advanced structures, materials, statistics and design related to aircraft and satellite structures) and I had done about three quarters of the work, according to one of my supervisors. I have also lectured at a Military College, a Higher Education College and a University, as well as publishing research papers and technical articles, writing reports, manufacturing standards, etc. I have been “science minded” for as long as I can remember and, during my early years, I thought science had the answers to everything but went past that stage by my late ‘teens, due to straightforward logic and reasoning, as well as fifteen years before even a glimmer of encounters with other matters. My philosophical thinking and excursions, including the philosophy of science, go back just as far. So, I am not about to take any lessons on the basics of science or the basics of scientific method from anyone and not much on the philosophy of science, logic and related reasoning processes; refinements in specific areas from qualified or respected people is another matter; which is why I went to the “Roads to Reality” Conference last Saturday, as well as attending other events.

I did not say they had been ill treated by science. Science, as such, as an entity, is not capable of that, though the same is not true of some of its practitioners.


“Could you give some examples? I find them fundamentally flawed. On what grounds are they logical? They have to assume paranormality in the first place in order to work - thats a fallacy for a start off.....”

“… paranormality … thats a fallacy for a start off … ”
A statement for which, there is, of course, scientific proof, any proof? Quite apart from what is normal, natural etc., and the definitions thereof. Many eminent and respected people at the Conference were of a contrary view to yourself and put very cogent reasons for their approach.

Some “nuggets” included:
A mathematical proof from Professor Roger Penrose that consciousness cannot be replicated by machine, including the brain considered as a machine.
A link between the physical world and consciousness via quantum physics, by Professor Basil Hiley, who worked with David Bohm for many years; part of that was via the Schrödinger and Hamilton-Jacobi (conservation of energy) equations.
A different line of thought and reasoning involving cosmology, quantum physics and other dimensions from Professor Bernard Carr.


“No - it does not depend on ones point of view. Poor logic, non-replicable effects, poor methodology, non-testable ideas - these are all objective observations. Only if you reject science / logic and start using other systems would it appear subjective.”

Points of view have no effect?!
“Poor” is a judgement, an opinion.
Objective observations?
objective - emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation (Free Online Dictionary)
observation – (1) the act or faculty of observing (Free Online Dictionary)
observation – (2) the act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments (Free Online Dictionary)
Observation and observations are observer dependent, by definition, so an objective observation, whether related to the written or spoken word, an experiment, etc., requires an objective observer and observers are not necessarily or reliably objective.

In simplistic cases, such as school level experiments, the problem is, usually, negligible; in the areas we are discussing it is a very different matter. That is precisely why I am interested in being involved in some research which would begin with observers, participants, of the suitably sensitive variety, to establish, tentatively, what I and others experience, gain a better understanding and endeavours to progress to instruments to rule out subjectivity and enhance objectivity as far as possible; in other words to move from the first and more fallible method/definition of observation to the second and less fallible method/definition of observation.

I reject neither science nor logic but recognise the limitations of both, as well as those using them, including myself.

Science, in principle, is free of subjectivity but practical use and practitioners place limitations on the ideal.

“Who is clutching at straws? Is there a debate you have in mind?”

What I had in mind was the Professor who suggested that there might be patterns in random numbers that Rupert Sheldrake had used for some of his experiments. If that was the only fault he could suggest might be there, then he appeared to be in a “clutching at straws” mode if that was all he could find wrong.


The other questions

I re-wrote my responses to your earlier questions, as promised, as well as leaving out illustrative material which I considered an aid to understanding, though your “fallacy” assertion renders some responses as being questionably worthwhile, so I was intending to delete them. I may publish that, among other matters, on one of my Web Sites, when I have the time. It has certainly been useful from the point of view of many matters I wish to write about on those Sites, quite apart from future debates and future books.

For the moment I have to get back to the book. I shall be seeing my proof reader/editor tomorrow night and need to have something ready for her; we shall also be indulging in some “fallacies” and again on Wednesday, though Sylvie will not be at that Group.

[Jocky]

Richard,



You ask sensible questions in a reasonable way. I would like to answer, and will, but am finding this time consuming ... If you will bear with me I will answer here, as soon as I can

I know time sometimes presses and I'm happy to be patient. I look forward to continuing a discussion with you as time permits.

If you do not have time to address all the points mentioned, could I emphasise just one from my earlier post. This is the item about which I am most curious:


If people are sensitive to these fields, there must be some physiological mechanism whereby their brains/bodies are picking them up. If the human body has such a mechanism, then it should be possible for a device to do so as well, probably to a higher standard of accuracy and reliability. The problem is that things which people claim to 'sense' but which cannot be detected at all are rather difficult to distinguish from figments of the imagination.

I think I am right in saying that you alluded to this same 'sensitivity' when you said to median:


What I was referring to was the ability to perceive at a higher level; broadly equivalent to the physical senses, in many ways, with some interesting differences ... I suppose it could be considered as a claim; with others of like ability it would be a statement. With us it is second nature and we will be consciously, intentionally, using some of them tomorrow evening and Wednesday evening, for example.

I share median's curiosity to hear more about exactly what such perception can intentionally be used to achieve. Perhaps the discussion would be elucidated if you could tell us what you are planning to do with these 'abilities' on the specific dates you mention? I think this information would also serve to address my question.

[Richard King]

Quote from: Jockey
“I share median's curiosity to hear more about exactly what such perception can intentionally be used to achieve. Perhaps the discussion would be elucidated if you could tell us what you are planning to do with these 'abilities' on the specific dates you mention? I think this information would also serve to address my question.”

What I am planning to do, wish to do, once I am past my present “situation” is to organise some experiments with people who are naturally sensitive enough and others who can be guided. The principle is to carry out a series of experiments whereby people would use the higher level sensing to detect whether something was or was not; I am “hedging” simply because I do not want to give away too much so that someone else goes off and does the experimentation before I can get round to it. The results, on a statistical basis would provide an indication the progress, if any we were making.

The challenge, then, is to develop instrumentation to take the human factor out of the experiment, at least from the point of view of sensing. That could involve enhancing instrumentation that has already been developed, or starting from scratch. Either way, using instrumentation and removing the human factor is absolutely crucial.

The advantage I have over many people is that I since I have a “foot in both worlds”, so to speak, I am better able to relate one to the other and, to some extent, what to look for. So, from an instrumentation point of view, I would be seeking a means not just to detect such energy fields but changes in frequency and amplitude, though fluctuations could make them more easily detectable anyway; as a fluctuating electromagnetic field produces a current in a conductor, for example. Also, informal, subjective, experiments, quite apart from experience, indicate that such fields are not attenuated, or are minimally attenuated by physical world matter; though much the same goes for neutrinos, which are part of accepted science. I know such energy fields vary in frequency and amplitude, to some extent why and that frequencies, at least, are characteristic to certain “phenomena”; hedging again for the same reason as before. There is also a certain matter of polarity, which, if it is correct, the numbers involved tie up with a particular strand of String Theory (no pun intended).

From the “proof” point of view, reducing the subjectivity by the use of instrumentation is crucial. Statistics, using human intermediaries, can go a long way to establishing, or at least indicating, but I see that as only an early stage of the journey. I am very far from a beginner in experimental method, reasoning and logic, so I can make a good start. However, constructive criticism and suggestions for refinement would always be welcome.

Unfortunately, the book has to come out first and at least a few months elapse, while other matters sort out. Though, the furore over certain events a few years ago when I had several years of effort wrecked by a local authority (I have “not been able to move” in Hampshire since, as part of the cover-up, after I was “ripped off”, other than through my local Chamber of Commerce, until I met my current business advisor) could propel a series of events rather rapidly; we shall have to wait and see.

Since everyone has the abilities I mentioned, though, usually, latent, they can experiment themselves if they so wish. Of course, that is subjective but it is a start. It is somewhat akin to a person being born blind, where the majority are much the same, and belatedly gaining a little visual ability.

As for “ … what such perception can intentionally be used to achieve … ”; the answer is many things; anomalies in organisms, i.e. unhealthy or diseased parts, to begin with, which is why such matters need to be raised to instrumentation level and the subjectivity removed.

[Dr B]

Quotes from: Dr B
By definitions, relevance relates to pertinence, which relates to quality, etc.; all a matter of judgement.

Waffle and wrong. I am talking about objective observations - thats how things are as opposed to how you want them to be. These are revealled by the application of science, logic and reason. They are not revealled by long lists of personal anecdotes. O0 If you are struggling with the notion of objectivity at this stage - you might want to give your ideas more thought.




“Here is a fundamental mistake - and an all too common one. You assume a challenge or a debate is an attack - it is not! Fenwick and Sheldrake have never been attacked. However, their arguments have been shown to be highly likely false. This is what science does and you should welcome it. Could you show me when, where, and by whom, any attack occurred? Is it not the job of science to challenge all knowledge?”

Incorrect; I made no such assumption.
I am not sure that Peter and Rupert would feel they have not been attacked; I was discussing the debacle at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, involving Peter and Rupert, with Rupert last Saturday; during a break in the “Roads to Reality Conference”. To a large extent it came down to an atrocious standard of science reporting.

No - I was discussing challenges in debates and arguments and you rephrased this as an 'attack'. You do make this mistake and it is there to see above (go back and look). You were the first to use it. It is not an attack. The fact that some may think themselves under attack does not mean they are - you cannot recruit their subjective impressions as an objective account of the state of affairs. I refute your claim than these researchers have been attacked. They are being challenged because their evidence is insufficient to support their claims - this is the process of legitimate science.


There have been challenges, debates and attacks on several people working in areas considered by others to be “beyond the pale”; hence the inclusion of people like Rupert Sheldrake in the BBC’s “Heretics” programmes of a few years ago, along with Eric Laithwaite, Robert Jahn, et al.

There are people who consistently produce bad science yes, i would agree with that. O0



I said “ … they are working in areas which, currently, invite attack from certain other parts of the community …”. That is true; there is challenge, debate and attack. I did not assume any one was equivalent to any of the others; though the tones used, at times, tend to indicate a blurring or flow from one to the other by the participants.

So now you are saying you said it was an attack....hhmmmm......I still dont buy it. It was a challenge fair and square. There are some big problems and questions with the work of these researchers - and they dont answer them without assuming a whole hodge-podge of untested and untestable ideas. Not good science. This is why they are not part of the mainstream. it has nothing to do with what they are interested in - it is their logic, reason, method, and science that worries people - and rightly so.



In my view it is “the job of science” to investigate what we perceive of the environment, the world, in which we find ourselves in order to assist with a greater understanding of that, to acquire knowledge and understanding, not to define what can or cannot be; such definitions lie in the realms of infinite knowledge anyway. If you want to go with the “challenging knowledge” notion, then some of us are challenging present “knowledge” concerning the areas with which we are acquainted are investigating.

I find this verbose and waffly. Science does not define what can and cannot be per-se, it seeks to reveal truth objectively. Now that truth, once revealled may make certain things so or not so - but then science itself is always testing the very knowledge it produces. I do not recognise your notion of science. Your approach is not challenging knowledge at all - as you seem to be rejecting logic itself and the scientific method.


Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means. (Wikipedia) verifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation (Free Online Dictionary) Science The ordered arrangement of ascertained knowledge, including the methods by which such knowledge is extended and the criteria by which truth is tested. (

None of this is relevant to the debate as we would both agree on this. How does this support your argument more than mine? In fact it undermines your position because you are not adhereing to it.



I am not mischaracterising science; there are others who do a far better job than I at that.


Yes you are - though it may not be intentional. O0 Again - no one has been attacked. Debate and argument (in the scientific sense of the word) is central to knowledge. You dont seem to like the fact that some people have questioned your friends. ???



I learned my science fundamentals about fifty years ago and went to a respectable University. I had to drop out of a PhD at the University of Surrey through a sudden career change; it was connected with research and development in which I was engaged in the aerospace industry (advanced structures, materials, statistics and design related to aircraft and satellite structures) and I had done about three quarters of the work, according to one of my supervisors. I have also lectured at a Military College, a Higher Education College and a University, as well as publishing research papers and technical articles, writing reports, manufacturing standards, etc. I have been “science minded” for as long as I can remember and, during my early years, I thought science had the answers to everything but went past that stage by my late ‘teens, due to straightforward logic and reasoning, as well as fifteen years before even a glimmer of encounters with other matters. My philosophical thinking and excursions, including the philosophy of science, go back just as far. So, I am not about to take any lessons on the basics of science or the basics of scientific method from anyone and not much on the philosophy of science, logic and related reasoning processes; refinements in specific areas from qualified or respected people is another matter; which is why I went to the “Roads to Reality” Conference last Saturday, as well as attending other events.

Richard - this is all very nice but also totally irrelevant to the debate we are fostering here. Your posts would be far more interesting, and others far more likely to join in, if you try to keep on topic and be as concise as possible.



“… paranormality … thats a fallacy for a start off … ”
A statement for which, there is, of course, scientific proof, any proof? Quite apart from what is normal, natural etc., and the definitions thereof. Many eminent and respected people at the Conference were of a contrary view to yourself and put very cogent reasons for their approach.

That does not make them right - I have read their work and i cant find these cogent reasons you speak of. Please give us some examples to ponder. The majority is against them - but thats immaterial, the facts, reason and logic is against them as well. Of course we need to keep testing and pushing the boundaries - but i bet the breakthroughs do not come via these people or their methodology.



Some “nuggets” included:
A mathematical proof from Professor Roger Penrose that consciousness cannot be replicated by machine, including the brain considered as a machine.


Firstly, Penrose is not a psychologist and if he were - he would know that psychologists have known this for 60years. So, nothing new there. But this could simply mean that computers are too limited, not that consciousness cannot be modeled (this is not my view - just playing devils advocate here). More importantly, no one considers the brain as a machine and this is another of your misconceptions of science. AI researchers know they are working on approximations and simulations. I cannot think of a modern AI / connectionists / computational scientist that would make the claim that they are building literal brains. This is at the heart of your fallacy here (and Penrose - if he made that mistake). Indeed, most modern brain scientists think that computers are only good for modelling basic functions well (see the critiques by Jerry Fodor)



A link between the physical world and consciousness via quantum physics, by Professor Basil Hiley,

Not an area I am familiar with - but the physicists I know are failry sure that nothing at the quantum level has implications for consciousness and no one has shown this to be the case. So my hunch is this talk was theoretical in nature and not supported by empirical evidence (data). However, do send or post references because i cannot comment on a talk I did not see.



A different line of thought and reasoning involving cosmology, quantum physics and other dimensions from Professor Bernard Carr.

Same as above - lots of holes and largely theoretical.



Points of view have no effect?!
“Poor” is a judgement, an opinion.
Objective observations?
objective - emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation (Free Online Dictionary)
observation – (1) the act or faculty of observing (Free Online Dictionary)
observation – (2) the act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments (Free Online Dictionary)
Observation and observations are observer dependent, by definition, so an objective observation, whether related to the written or spoken word, an experiment, etc., requires an objective observer and observers are not necessarily or reliably objective.

No Richard - you misunderstand. The rules of the game of science are not up for as wide an interpretation as you and your friends seem to think. Remember to reject logic and reason is to reject knowledge and understadning itself.



I reject neither science nor logic but recognise the limitations of both, as well as those using them, including myself.


Limitations do not make things wrong - they make them limited. Also you fall into the trap of assuming the limitations have consequences for your ideas - I dont think so. You are no where near the fringes of science in terms of its potential and attainable scope. Could you tell me what the limitations of logic are and why they concern you?



Science, in principle, is free of subjectivity but practical use and practitioners place limitations on the ideal.

True - so you acknowledge that this is true for Sheldrake / Fenwick as well then? The point is - do these limitations have implications for the object being studied and the answer is no.



What I had in mind was the Professor who suggested that there might be patterns in random numbers that Rupert Sheldrake had used for some of his experiments. If that was the only fault he could suggest might be there, then he appeared to be in a “clutching at straws” mode if that was all he could find wrong.

Sounds like a legitimate questions and challenge to me - nothing like an attack.

[chillzero]

Use of the 'quote' function REALLY REALLY helps.
;)

[Dr B]

Chilly

damm right there my friend......when the logic is sooooo pithy its the only way....

[Dr B]

Richard

You can see - at the end of my lengthy post above that your so-called 'nuggets' appear to be high in artificial preservatives. ;D

I remain unimpressed by them - but if you could provide more information on the talks and reasons / arguments I am sure we would all like to hear them. O0

[Jocky]

I am planning ... to organise some experiments with people who are naturally sensitive enough and others who can be guided ... whereby people would use the higher level sensing to detect whether something was or was not;

I think there must be a word missing here - was or was not what?


The challenge, then, is to develop instrumentation to take the human factor out of the experiment, at least from the point of view of sensing ... reducing the subjectivity by the use of instrumentation is crucial

Indeed, using some kind of instrumentation is essential for producing reproducible results. This would seem to be the only way of quantifying subjective reports from human participants. Of course, the instrumentation is a means to an end, not an end in itself - it must be clear what is being measured, and why. Are you able to answer these points?


I know such energy fields vary in frequency and amplitude, to some extent why and that frequencies, at least, are characteristic to certain “phenomena”; hedging again for the same reason as before

If you are presently unable to measure them objectively, how do you know this? I appreciate that you intend to publish your work and you want to keep your powder dry, but this seems to be a pretty fundamental question.


As for “ … what such perception can intentionally be used to achieve … ”; the answer is many things; anomalies in organisms, i.e. unhealthy or diseased parts, to begin with, which is why such matters need to be raised to instrumentation level and the subjectivity removed.

Thank you, this gives me a clearer idea what you claim can be achieved. IIUC (please correct me if I do not), you believe that "higher level sensing" can detect disease in living organisms. I note you also assert that the fields which permit this sense are "minimally attenuated by physical world matter".

I therefore infer that the obvious way to test this proposition is to take subjects (human or animal) with known diseases and see if a "naturally sensitive" person can identify them. Since the fields are not attenuated by physical matter the subject and the sensitive could be in different rooms, making it easy to blind the experiment. Would such a protocol represent a reasonable way of providing evidence for the existence of "higher level sensing"?

[Cuddles]

Cuddles
There are so many points that I could comment on the response would be overlong and, in any case, I have a manuscript to finish revising; so, only a few.
Quote:
“Assuming ghosts exist there are two possibilities.”, etc.

If that is your opinion, then that’s fine by me. I am aware of more than the two possibilities as well as more than interaction with the eye and brain but, I suspect, elaborating too much on that would not take us very far.

Would you like to make the rest of us aware of these possibilities? Either something is generated inside the brain or is caused by something outside the brain. As an analogy, either my pen is inside a box or outside a box, there is no other possibility.

[snip irrelevant rambling about Occam's razor]


“This is completely contrary to all knowledge.”
I am not blessed with all knowledge, mine is limited, so I cannot confirm that.

Do you know of any confirmed example where something has been shown to affect only the human brain and nothing else? If not then you can confirm it to the best of your knowledge at least.


“I have assumed that both of you are talking about the human brain, rather than the eye.”
On the basis of knowledge and experience my “take” on the matter is wider than that, much wider. There is more interaction than that on more levels but I am not sure that you would accept that, in which case there is little to pursue.

I have no idea what you are talking about. We were talking about detecting photons. Either you must be refering to to the detector, the eye, or the brain that interprets the signals and which could potentially mix them up. Are you claiming there is an entirely new part of a human that also play a part in generating visual experiences?


“Since the eye and a camera both detect only photons, it is trivially obvious that that if one can see something, the other can as well (although a camera can often see more since they usually detect some IR as well).”
Camera film is affected by types of radiation; I am not aware that the human eye can detect those types radiation.
It was once thought trivially obvious that the heavens revolved around the earth. In those days, on an Occam’s Razor basis, they did, or at least on the basis of one way of applying the principle.

No, it was never trivial that the Sun went round the Earth. Trivial is a mathematical word meaning that the answer is apparent without requiring a proof. In this case if A detects visible photons and B detects visible photons, then if A can detect something, B can as well. No proof is required since it is equivalent to the statements A=C, B=C, therefore A=B. Of course, I did also mention that cameras can actually detect more than the human eye so this is not quite true, but in fact this is an argument against you, since this would mean that cameras detect things which we can't, rather than the other way around.


“In the first case, we have instruments that can detect these far better than humans will ever be able to … ”
I am not into predictions with that certainty.

We can detect single photons in almost any wavelength from 1km to 1pm. The human eye can detect photons in a tiny bandwidth from about 300nm to 800nm. Therefore we can detect more with instrument than without. This is not a predicion, it is a simple fact.


“This means, it you insist that we cannot detect these things, the only possibility left is that they are generated internally.”
I make no such insistence, partly the reverse, it is a developing field. Inability to detect is not proof on non-existence. Besides, ways of detecting at that level have been developed, it appears; I have only read a little of the research, so far.

Ways of detecting what? I would be very interested to know of any research showing an entirely new way for humans to detect things. Do you have any links?


“This is an interesting phenomenon in itself, but is nothing to do with ghosts or the paranormal.”
That is proven?
Anyway, what people perceive as “ghosts” can be due to more than one cause and there is no such thing as the paranormal.

Why would it need proving? The brain can generate things by itself. This is known, and is definately not paranormal. If something other than the brain caused images, this could be paranormal, but of course that would not be internal.


“I would also add that there are many intelligent people here, so veiled insults about things being "beyond our capabilities" will not be taken too kindly.”
There were no insults, veiled or otherwise, there is enough of that floating around the Internet.

However, as far as what I write is concerned, I cannot legislate for anyone reading intentions that are not there.
I know next to nothing about the capabilities of the “people here” so it would be illogical to make a judgment anyway, evening assuming I was into the judgment game, which I am not.
I searched the earlier file on my computer for "beyond our capabilities" but it matched nothing.

[snip]
So you didn't read this bit then?

though likely to be beyond the acceptance capability of many (most?) contributors to this Forum.

[Dr B]

I am no expert on the ideas Richard is trying to commincate here but it seems like we are on familiar ground.

At the heart of it - it seems something very, very, very small (i.e., quantum / string theory - both of which have been mentioned above) is being used to explain effects of a magnitude thousands (if not more so) of times larger.

I was once told that if the world represents the smallest thing we can measure today, then string theory is operating at a level about the size or a single grain of sand. This puts things into perspective i think. The big problem for these ideas is how something so small can have effects (i.e., on consciousness) on observable things like perception and consciousness.

Also how these small effects can have effects over and above all the ofther larger effects from noisy, leaky neurons, neural systems, etc that can be explained at the ionic and molecular level. Coupled to the fact that string theory is all theoretical anyway, I think it is, at the very least premature to start hiding the paranormal world in nano-quantum-string-nonsense.

There are many scientists now arguing whether we need to know about that level at all to understand the brain. There seem to be a lot of so called experts like Penrose, Sheldrake, Greenfield etc, coming out with 'theories' of the brain when none of them actually are working on consciousness or information processing or have any experience of cognitive psychology / neuroscience beyond basic biology. Note these people write books on the subject and not really experimental papers in the field. There are many working in my field whom are becoming increasingly pissed off with others for doing this sort of thing as it instills the very confusion Richard seems to be showing here.

Just my thoughts...

[median]

Consciousness certainly has become one of the most popular 'big questions' in recent years.

I'd rather have a sea slug or elecrtocute a few rats anyday. ;D

[Dr B]

A few years ago no one dare utter te name of consciousness in the lab. Not because we did not think it was real, or worthy of study, but we did not know how to define it and set about studying it. No one agreed - it was a conceptual nightmare. Then, as debates went one, technology improved and research methods become more refined, acceptable workable definitions emerged and valid paradigms were explored. Replicable effects soon followed and now consciousness is a hot topic.

My own research uses the term "visual awareness" as i am primarily interested in conscious visual perception and awareness and the link between selective attention and awareness. I know this may seem insufficient to some - by my work exists within that framework.