Seeing Energy

[Eileen]

Is this possible?

[Sgt Badass]

Tesla coil? Or is that the result of energy?

[Allo Allo]

We can see radiant energy

M

[Allo Allo]

I think what you SEE must be visible energy - like lightening.

M

[Sgt Badass]

I think what you SEE must be visible energy - like lightening.

M


Is that the actual energy or is it the effect of the electricity burning the air...or something. (I admit, I know nothing about this, and I've had a beer.... time for eggy bread.)

[Admin]

Energy is the capacity for doing work. It can't be seen.

[Eileen]

I found a website today called www.quantumtouch.com. They have a message board there and the people on these boards claim to be able to see and perceive energy running in someone and also to be able to perceive auras.

That is the main reason that I asked the question.

[Admin]

Some people can "see" auras etc.

Not that auras are real but some people are synaesthetes (they often 'smell' tastes and 'hear' colours etc. - emotion-colour synaesthesia probably accounting for most of the aura perception) and some people with certain forms of epilepsy also perceive colours around people.

So these people are not lying or deluded (in the derogatory sense), they just don't understand why it is they see these things. If the paranormal explanation is the only one they've come across then it will make perfect sense to them. O0

See: synaesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia).

[vbloke]

Some people can "see" auras etc.


I can smell bullshit - does that count? ;D

[kath23]

New agers etc try very hard and convince themselves that they can see auras etc.

This isn't the same as someone with synaesthesia because the new agers are purposefully trying to develop that 'skill'- or convince themselves they have it.

They will do exercises such as making people stand in front of a white or light coloured background, or placing their own hand against one. This supposedly makes the aura easier to see.

I wonder how much of this is people trying to convince themselves or others that they are 'special'.

Love
Kath

[Admin]

You’re right Kath. A lot of this is down to self-delusion by those who wish it was all true: seeing chakric energies etc. ::) Some people do see things however, although it’s nothing paranormal.

In fact, boards like that one (Quantum touch (http://quantumtouch.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/cfrm/f/2901071811)) are a great read for those who wish to learn how people delude themselves in general.

For example, there’s a great thread where someone single-blind tested himself (!) See: this thread (http://quantumtouch.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6901071811/m/1331097771) on tasting the difference between untreated wine and ‘energy-charged wine’.

Amazingly, he found what he expected to find ;)

[Allo Allo]

Energy is the capacity for doing work. It can't be seen.


So - am I right - lightening (that I see) is just electricity going someplace? It isn't actually energy? The googly bits ;D that shoot out from Tesla coils are electricity that I see? I suggested radiant energy - cause I can see light coming out of my light - but then I might be seeing light and not energy????

M

[vbloke]

Lightning is electricity in the form of an electrostatic discharge. It is exactly the same as the shock you get when you rub your feet on a carpet in shoes and then touch a radiator and get a static shock, only much much bigger.

Electricity is energy in a different form. Heat is energy too. Energy is converted from one form to another. Just saying "energy" is like just referring to "a drink" when you're in a restaurant, looking at the wine list - you have a wide selection of different forms of "drink" available.

Tesla coils shoot out lightning - electricity.

Light is another form of energy, this time in the form of photons (particles of light). These can be converted by plants into chemical energy (photosynthesis) or by solar panels into electrical energy. Anything that can be made to do "work", or converted into another form can be called energy.

You winding a handle to wind up a bucket from a well is kinetic energy. A rock balanced on the top of a hill has potential energy. Energy is useful and can be made to do things, but, unless there is design in the system, it always goes to a more disorganised form, being able to do less and less work, until it becomes virtually useless (entropy).

Auras, chakras, etc are always referred to as "energy", but as you can see, they never get any more specific than just "energy" - every form of energy known to science has a name and a form and a method of propagation. Anything that couches itself in vague terms (and those that misuse quantum - a personal bugbear of mine) is usually something to be wary of.

[Admin]

Everything has energy. Energy itself cannot be seen only the effects of energy doing work can be seen.

Even visible light, pure energy, cannot be seen unless it interacts with something (such as the retina) and changes form (by doing work).

If Qi, or other vital energy, that alt. meddlers 'work' with was real then its effects should be measurable by the work it does on physical systems. No such work/interaction is detected, so there's no reason to suppose that this vital energy is real.

[Allo Allo]

Tesla coils shoot out lightning - electricity.
Energy is useful and can be made to do things, but, unless there is design in the system, it always goes to a more disorganised form, being able to do less and less work, until it becomes virtually useless (entropy).


Autistic kids (where I once worked IN THE OFFICE! ^-^ - )were absolutely fascinated with light - tesla coil "bubbles", moving lights, rotating lights, coloured lights - they had a "light room" to "play" in - mmm - I don't know if autistic children "play" in the true sense - I'm just remembering really.

Thanks for this very helpful post.

Right now I'm going to test out my own "energy" - we have a big garden project on this weekend - I suspect by tonight my energy will be "entropic"!!!

M

[Allo Allo]

If Qi, or other vital energy, that alt. meddlers 'work' with was real then its effects should be measurable by the work it does on physical systems. No such work/interaction is detected, so there's no reason to suppose that this vital energy is real.


I remember seeing trials done in China measuring the magnetic fields of the hands of "Chi" healers - mmm - wonder if I could find that again...I just wondered in a culture where one would expect to find something - one would. I wonder why religious painters drew saints with halos - but that would be seeing light - not "energy".

M ::)

[Admin]

I remember seeing trials done in China measuring the magnetic fields of the hands of "Chi" healers

Measuring Chi?

I suspect that they were measuring something quite normal like heat and interpreting it as Chi.


I just wondered in a culture where one would expect to find something - one would.

No.

Believing in something does not make it real (!)

As above, they may think they've found what they expect to see but whether it's really there is a different matter.

[Eileen]

I think this is called observer bias or something like "reception to perception" meaning that everyone perceives from their own reality. This is all we can do.

I have had a good look around the quantumtouch website, mainly out of interest. I clicked on the left hand side under Supercharding and under the course description there are at least 4 people listed who can 'see' energy - the person who initially developed it and 3 other instructors.

I think we should all bombard the message board!!

[Admin]

"We all create our own reality" is a form of the relativist fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html).



I think we should all bombard the message board!!


I don't think it would do much good to be honest. Such people are too entertained by their beliefs to have them shot down with a dose of reality.

Simple tests can debunk some of their ideas. There was a 10 year old girl called Emily Rosa (I think) who did a test on those who practised Therapeutic Touch.

Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

These people still believe it works however. They believe in their own experience, and the fallacy of confirmation, rather than the results of proper tests.

[Eileen]

What I mean is that everyone can only perceive through their own eyes and other senses and nobody elses, so as we are all different our perceptions will all differ too.

I am more of a 'seeing' person. My husband and I went to Ikea the other day, as he wanted to get a new desk. We bought one and came home and unpacked it. He gave me the instructions and asked me to read them out. I got quite irritated as he was taking so long, so I looked at the picture and then managed to put the whole desk together in about 30 mins flat from just the picture. He had a lovely desk at the end of it, but it did nothing for his fragile male ego!!

As for the website, I did see 4 claims for being able to see the energy running through someone.

[Eileen]

Why don't you write an article about Quantumtouch?

[Allo Allo]

John - I found it - I see it was on magnetic fields

Qi – 1992 - Japan - mmm - very old!

link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1353653&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum)


I was talking about expectation - not belief actually.


M

[Allo Allo]

In a post how do you make monstrously long hyperlinks short and neat??? I would like to do "here" like others do instead of putting in a link 5 metres long!

M ???

[Mongrel]

In a post how do you make monstrously long hyperlinks short and neat??? I would like to do "here" like others do instead of putting in a link 5 metres long!

M ???


Just use the URL tags (Replace the <> brackets with &#91;]) like so...

<URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk> BBC Website </url>

[tkingdoll]

Allo Allo, I edited your post to make the link short and stop the thread from being really wide.

[Allo Allo]

to tkingdoll

I saw someone had done something sensible - Thanks! O0

M

[Admin]

John - I found it - I see it was on magnetic fields

Qi – 1992 - Japan - mmm - very old!

link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1353653&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum)


I was talking about expectation - not belief actually.


M


Ah! Now you just knooooooow I'm not going to accept that don't you? ;D

He detected what he was looking for (!) but compared to what?

It is vital when using statistics to compare them to something else, like a control group or baseline condition, otherwise the statistics are rendered meaningless.

It's no good saying, "It is generally accepted that more than 10(-6) gauss order magnetism was not detected in normal human condition" and using that as a comparison. He should have used controls is his own experiment.

He also assumes that what he did detect was bio-magnetism and that because there was no detectable current flow in the person that Qi must be responsible.

Of course the "bio-magnetism" may have had a different source altogether. A control would have shown that or ruled it out. As it is we cannot place any confidence in his findings.

[Eileen]

So, going back to the original topic of this thread - what about 'seeing' energy and Quantum Touch?

What about that article too?

[Cuddles]

The simple answer to "seeing energy" is that the retina detects photons, end of story. If energy is in a different form, or is light of the wrong wavelength, then the retina can't detect it and we can't see it. It can be possible to see the effects of other forms of energy, like lightning, but all you can see is the light given off by the energy acting on something.

[Allo Allo]

Ah! Now you just knooooooow I'm not going to accept that don't you? ;D
because there was no detectable current flow in the person that Qi must be responsible.



Yes I KNEW >:D - that's why I posted it! But I have made an observation that makes me hesitate to accept any trials/reports/papers before about 2002. In the '90's there seemed to be an "expectation" that woo things like prayer, auras, energy fields (this thread is about that), homeopathy, MKB therapies etc would/could all be proved scientifically. The findings "for" such things mostly come from tests done in that era. I agree that testing has become more scientific since then - but are skeptic "expectations" skewing results? Is scientific rigour chucking the baby out with the bathwater? Question - why are long term "outcome trials" not accepted and surely this would be better in some cases?

I think woo has been very good for science - they have had to investigate "possibilities" - one of the woo areas (mine) is the use of frequencies of light for wound healing/surgery/aging etc and mood effects on humans. There are more woo concepts that are still being investigated.

But science has been very good for woo - woo "method" is not accepted anymore by serious thinkers(like me ;D)and EBM is really the only way forward - or would that be EBW??

About this thread - humans producing "energy" that can be seen is not currently accepted by skeptics - but I see there is a lot of new (2006!) work being done in Europe on the old pseudoscience idea of bio-luminescence - frequencies of 'light' drive processes of the body which emit photons as a result. I am watching this with an open mind - no clear results - but at least it is current. (no pun intended!)

All my own opinion, naturally!


M

[Mojo]

Question - why are long term "outcome trials" not accepted and surely this would be better in some cases?

It depends on how they've been carried out. Can you give some specific examples?

[Mojo]

About this thread - humans producing "energy" that can be seen is not currently accepted by skeptics - but I see there is a lot of new (2006!) work being done in Europe on the old pseudoscience idea of bio-luminescence - frequencies of 'light' drive processes of the body which emit photons as a result.

This should be really easy to detect: just put the subject in a dark room and point a camera at them.

[Allo Allo]

The simple answer to "seeing energy" is that the retina detects photons, end of story. If energy is in a different form, or is light of the wrong wavelength, then the retina can't detect it and we can't see it. It can be possible to see the effects of other forms of energy, like lightning, but all you can see is the light given off by the energy acting on something.


If you see light around a person - head most often - you are not looking at it - you are aware of it. The minute you look, it disappears. You see without looking and look without seeing! Also this is more detectable in semi darkness when the rods are active. Rods deal with very low frequencies of light. There is no doubt some people detect this light and if it is seen in colour - the colour is of the palest form - hardly colour at all. The light detected by the rods around a person with an "aura" moves and flows, altering so quickly it creates an "impression" because it can only be seen when not looking at it - the eyes are slightly unfocused. I don't know what tests have been done as to what the eye can pick up when it is not in its normal focused mode. I would think some paranormal ghostie things might be "seen" with this same ability. The San (bushman) in Namibia "see" things which we would say are impossible. Also - I read- that a movie running in "frames" was unintelligible to them because they could only see each separate frame!

My own opinion is that we cannot simply state that people don't see "something" - because very sincere, truthful and honest people do. We might not be able to detect how or what it is they see with machines because we cannot yet build them with the same sophistication as the human eye. (or animal eye).

My opinion is that this ability had/has some survival aspect.

I do not agree with the commercialisation/new agey gobbledygook involved with "auras" - or the explanation of them.

M :)

[Mojo]

If you see light around a person - head most often - you are not looking at it - you are aware of it. The minute you look, it disappears. You see without looking and look without seeing!

This is a frequently used excuse for paranormal phenomena not showing up under controlled conditions: they only appear when you're not really looking for them. Have a look on JREF for Interesting Ian using the word "capricious" or the expression "actively evasive".


Also this is more detectable in semi darkness when the rods are active. Rods deal with very low frequencies of light. There is no doubt some people detect this light and if it is seen in colour - the colour is of the palest form - hardly colour at all. The light detected by the rods around a person with an "aura" moves and flows, altering so quickly it creates an "impression" because it can only be seen when not looking at it - the eyes are slightly unfocused.

Actually, rods detect light best in the greenish part of the spectrum. Their peak sensitivity is actually at a slightly higher frequency than that of green or red cones, but they are more sensitive to light generally than cone cells, and therefore better able to detect low levels of light. Because rods are all the same as far as their sensitivity to different frequencies of light is concerned, they do not provide any information about colour; this is why colours appear "washed out" (or even monochrome) in low light conditions. The cones are responsible for colour vision: they come in three types, each of which is at its most sensitive at a different frequency, but are only effective at higher light levels. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell) for descriptions of rod and cone cells, and what they do.

If colour is seen, it is cones, not rods, that are involved.


My own opinion is that we cannot simply state that people don't see "something" - because very sincere, truthful and honest people do. We might not be able to detect how or what it is they see with machines because we cannot yet build them with the same sophistication as the human eye. (or animal eye).

Light detectors can be made that are more sensitive than the human eye, for example image intensifiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_intensifier).

[Cuddles]

If you see light around a person - head most often - you are not looking at it - you are aware of it. The minute you look, it disappears. You see without looking and look without seeing! Also this is more detectable in semi darkness when the rods are active. Rods deal with very low frequencies of light. There is no doubt some people detect this light and if it is seen in colour - the colour is of the palest form - hardly colour at all. The light detected by the rods around a person with an "aura" moves and flows, altering so quickly it creates an "impression" because it can only be seen when not looking at it - the eyes are slightly unfocused. I don't know what tests have been done as to what the eye can pick up when it is not in its normal focused mode. I would think some paranormal ghostie things might be "seen" with this same ability.

But you are saying here that it is light they are seeing, not some other kind of energy. If this is true why would it not be seen by everyone, and by mechanical detectors? What the eye could be doing is irrelevant since it can easily be shown that this light does not exist. If you then postulate some other kind of energy you are back to an area with no evidence or theory to back it up.


The San (bushman) in Namibia "see" things which we would say are impossible. Also - I read- that a movie running in "frames" was unintelligible to them because they could only see each separate frame!

What things that we would asy are impossible? The brain's world picture is updated at a finite rate, like a very fast strobe light. Films work because the pictures are cycled much faster than the brain updates, so it appears to be smooth movement. I could easily believe that a group of people could have a mutation that affects the brain's refresh rate so that films appear to be sequential frames rather than smooth motions. However, I would definately need to see evidence of this, or anything else they can do. All the official websites on the San or Namibia say nothing at all about any unusal abilities, aside from being able to sneak up on animals to shoot them.


My own opinion is that we cannot simply state that people don't see "something" - because very sincere, truthful and honest people do. We might not be able to detect how or what it is they see with machines because we cannot yet build them with the same sophistication as the human eye. (or animal eye).

My opinion is that this ability had/has some survival aspect.

I do not agree with the commercialisation/new agey gobbledygook involved with "auras" - or the explanation of them.

M :

People are very good at seeing things that aren't there, no matter how truthful and honest they are. This is true for completely normal people with no brain problems or mental disorder. Colour synaesthsia (sp?) is when the brain interprets input from other senses as colour and is likely to be the explanation for almost all "auras". Many drug-induced hallucinations can be entirely independant from any sensory input and are generated purely internally. Just because people report seeing something doesn't mean there was anything there to see, only that they're brain told them there was. Brain's cannot be trusted, as millions of optical illusions and magicians will tell you.

Your comment about optical detectors not being as good as the human eye is simply wrong. Detectors are regularly used that can dectect single photons, as well as being able to detect a much wider range of wavelengths of light, and many other particles. The eye has more detectors in a smaller space than we can currently achieve, but this does not make it any better at detecting low light levels. The fact that much more sensitive detectors don't see auras should be pretty good evidence that there is no light involved, even if some brand new kind of energy does suddenly turn up.

[Dr B]

Michelle

No - the greatest thing science gave us was the double-blind trial - no room for nasty skeptical ideas to impact on data and no room for nonsense to do so either....

Needless to say - such tests reveal nothing to do with the paranormal O0

btw in my humble opinion woo's have never contributed anything to science and often try to derail the whole progression of it with tangential nonsense. There are so many questions that really do need answering....but they are not asking them....preconceptions steering their thought processes. Skeptics and scientists do not work in this way so you cannot tar them by the same brush O0

[Eileen]

Time to pay a visit to the Quantum Touch website me think!!

[Allo Allo]

No - the greatest thing science gave us was the double-blind trial - no room for nasty skeptical ideas to impact on data and no room for nonsense to do so either...

Mmmm :-\


Skeptics and scientists do not work in this way so you cannot tar them by the same brush O0


OK :D

M

[Allo Allo]

But you are saying here that it is light they are seeing, not some other kind of energy. If this is true why would it not be seen by everyone, and by mechanical detectors? What the eye could be doing is irrelevant since it can easily be shown See-ers report it as "light" - looks like "light" - it is NOT seen by everyone - how they "see" it might have been interesting - but obviously not.


People are very good at seeing things that aren't there, no matter how truthful and honest they are. This is true for completely normal people with no brain problems or mental disorder. Colour synaesthsia (sp?) is when the brain interprets input from other senses as colour and is likely to be the explanation for almost all "auras". Many drug-induced hallucinations can be entirely independant from any sensory input and are generated purely internally. Just because people report seeing something doesn't mean there was anything there to see, only that they're brain told them there was. Brain's cannot be trusted, as millions of optical illusions and magicians will tell you.

Possibly a "misfiring" of the brain - but it is still seen and might be a "condition" like Synesthesia but not in any way the same as. This cannot be waved away with skeptical blah - an explanation would be better - I doubt if its paranormal.


Your comment about optical detectors not being as good as the human eye is simply wrong. Detectors are regularly used that can dectect single photons, as well as being able to detect a much wider range of wavelengths of light, and many other particles. The eye has more detectors in a smaller space than we can currently achieve, but this does not make it any better at detecting low light levels. The fact that much more sensitive detectors don't see auras should be pretty good evidence that there is no light involved, even if some brand new kind of energy does suddenly turn up.


The problem with optical detectors is they don't have brains to "misfire" and they don't look with unfocused eyes!

M :)

[Allo Allo]

Re - The San

Unfortunately I will have to resort to books to look this up - Anthropology (studied in the Dark Ages) Circa 1970/1980's (Internet just emerging at that time!) Give me time - got a lot on my plate - John's "Hawkings" books not arrived yet and I live in the styx! If you can't find it on the Internet - neither will I. Did you try "Anthropological Studies 1970's" ?

M O0

[Allo Allo]

Mojo - Re paranormal phenomenon and JREF

JREF Oh no! - :eek:

Mmm - I don't know about paranormal phenomena - but see post to Cuddles...

Also - when seen the colours are hardly colours - which is what you said
yourself re rods "perceiving". I was suggesting that if this is a "condition"
- its something to do with the rods not the cones is all.

M ;)

[Eileen]

Well, I started a thread over at quantum touch if anyone wants to look in - its called Seeing Energy under the General Discussion forum.

One poster there believes that there will be machines available before too long that will be able to measure Qi and Prana etc.!!!

[vbloke]

QT looks like it should be fairly easy to test - much in the same way as Theraputic Touch was.

The TT test was designed by a 9 year old girl!

I notice that Sheldrake's Telephone Telepathy experiment was mentioned too ;D

Good luck with the QT crowd. See if you can actually pin them down to what energy actually is...

[Mojo]

Also - when seen the colours are hardly colours - which is what you said
yourself re rods "perceiving".

No, I said that rods do not provide any information about colour. Colours appear fainter under low light conditions because the cones, which provide information about colour, do not work as well in poor light as the rods do.
I was suggesting that if this is a "condition"
- its something to do with the rods not the cones is all.

What makes you think it is something to do with the rods? You claim that there is colour involved: the rods do not provide any information about colour.

And if rod cells (or even cone cells) are involved, these are cells specialised to detect photons. Why are the photons not detectable by other means? They are either there, and detectable, or not there. The emission of photons from a source is not going to be dependent on how the photons are observed.

[Mojo]

The problem with optical detectors is they don't have brains to "misfire"...

Indeed. They only detect photons that actually exist.

[Admin]

Time to pay a visit to the Quantum Touch website me think!!


Good going there Eileen. O0

That’s an interesting thread. It shows up the typical way that woos think.

There are examples of:

- The need to have an open mind™;
- The appeal to try it for yourself;
- Skeptics are scared of finding out that it is real;
- The argument to ignorance (“Just because we can't see or measure this type of energy does not mean it doesn't exist”);
- Taking Rupert Sheldrake’s telephone telepathy experiment seriously!
- Invincible ignorance (“I don't care what anybody says”);
- Science has been wrong before (“Do you know how many people are killed by prescribed drugs every year in the U.K?”);
- And, of course, the hugs and kisses signatures.

All in one short thread!

This treatment is basically ‘psionic healing’; the same as Reiki, TT, etc. It’s all about tuning into ‘energies’ and ‘vibrations’ and correcting energy imbalances or raising vibrational frequencies. This is nothing new.

It’s a placebo treatment that comes under the heading of “Mind Healing” which basically means that there is no (pretence of) physical intervention actually taking place and no (pretence of) occult power being involved (as in crystal healing, for example).

They are actually making easily testable claims such as the ability to realign spines. The proof is before/after photos. No chance that it’s the same person sitting in different postures by any chance then!!

They could apply for Randi’s $1,000,000 dollar prize if they could really demonstrate this. I suspect, however, that if the challenge is mentioned we’ll be met with the usual excuses: it’s a fake; Randi judges it; the money’s not real; etc…

I love the introduction on the website: “Whether you are a complete novice, a physician, chiropractor, acupuncturist, reflexologist, Qigong practitioner, massage therapist, or other health-care professional” [bolding added]

It kind of gives the game away if such quacks are their target audience. ;)

This 'healing system' seems to be taking the familiar route into existence that other form of alternative therapies do. See: This article (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=testing_and_alternative_medicine.php)

[Eileen]

Since I have been posting at QT, I have had two replies from Richard Gordon no less - the author of the book Quantum-Touch.

He now claims that the Therapeutic Touch trial did not debunk the fact that TT actually worked. It just demonstrated problems with people's ability to perceive energy.

He also claimed that Randi's prize is false and is out to catch people. He said that Rupert Sheldrake told him that he won Randi's prize and that he refused to pay him the money.

He gave me an e-mail address for the person who provided the photo of the child on the front page of the website. Told me I could check out the validity and perhaps even talk to the kids doctor.

Wow!! This just gets better and better.

[Admin]

I've just had another look.

Eileen, you're the wrong kind of skeptic - you don't agree with them. ;)

It's telling how it all relies on personal anecdote rather than scientific evidence. That's a hallmark of pseudoscience.

I doubt that Sheldrake has been tested by Randi - someone's telling porkies there.

BTW, the Emily Rosa paper can be found here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/documents/EmilyRosa_paper.pdf

[Allo Allo]

To Skeps all

Grrrr! Argh! Eeeeeh! :'(

I am not getting into a discussion about “energy” being there or not – or what it isn’t.

I told you the technique that people who “see” use is in dislodging some mechanism in their eyes.

The fact that some people “see” cannot be argued. The blah that they are deluding themselves cannot, to my mind, be an excuse to debunk it.

When people “see” – they “see” light (which is what THEY report) – I can’t argue with that and neither can you. It is THEIR perception – LIKE PAIN – you cannot argue if people report pain – you are not feeling it! How would you scientifically “test” pain?

I am making no judgement at all – the physical mechanism as to why people see auras has not been explained – but IN MY OPINION – it is NOT paranormal. There is a proper explanation of why it happens.

I SUGGESTED it might be an eye-brain “condition”. As there is very little “colour” perceived I SUGGESTED cone activity might be involved. I also suggested that when people have a “God Experience” – they DO – that it might be some similar physical event - some temporal lobe activity. It would be no good to blah that those people are “deluding” themselves when this is the result of a PHYSICAL cause. We can induce these experiences in various ways.

The tetchy part is that you are assuming I am suggesting “spiritual” “new age” “religious” – yet in discussing the GOD experience we are not dissecting whether there is a GOD or not!!!! I was not discussing whether the “energy” seen is real or not – only that it IS seen.

Birds might navigate by “tasting” magnetic fields – Italy (recent) – and with cryptochromes - which are also in the human eye. I don’t KNOW – I question only. There is stuff that is NOT KNOWN yet – and an imaging machine is still just a machine. Furthermore the “light” that see-ers see expands and contracts with the interaction and thoughts of the person being viewed – I wonder whether someone stuck behind a James Randi “screen”, or simply sitting in a room being photographed even with a special photon capturing camera, might have little or no “light” without some “interaction”. Skeps see this as an “excuse” – “capricious” etc.

The San were studied in the 60’s and 70’s because they were an “unspoiled” indigenous people – they could not “see” 16mm movies as I have explained – they were fabulous trackers seeing “signs” of animals that ordinary eyes didn’t detect – I didn’t do the studies and I am not spending hours of time checking this out unless it just falls on my head in the form of a book in the library! Nowadays a lot of San probably have mobile phones and watch TV.

M :eek:

[Admin]

Michelle,

You’re right that people experience seeing ‘energy’ or whatever. No-one’s doubting that the experience is real. The only thing we need to work out is what the actual cause of this experience actually is.

A paranormal explanation, by definition, is going to be the least likely one. At least we’re all agreed on that!

To me, the key question is whether people see these ‘energies’ because of an external or internal stimulus. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re leaning toward an external stimulus explanation; i.e. that the ‘energy’ is actually real, although not paranormal, and that this is what people are picking up. That is one hypothesis and it’s a reasonable one too.

It should be remembered, however, that there are also internal causes for these experiences. Certain types of epilepsy, for example, but notably the different forms of synaesthesia. Of course there’s also factors such as wishful thinking and, yes, self-delusion.

So what we have to decide is whether there is a form of energy that exists, which cannot be detected by scientific instruments (currently), but can be seen be a few people under the right circumstances. The drawback with this approach is that the ‘energy’ has to be entered into the reasoning without any evidence that it exists.

If we take the internal stimulus approach we don’t need to factor in something that has no evidence. Synaesthesia, for example, is known to exist and it explains the phenomenon adequately; although I’m sure others can give more reasons why we can apparently see auras etc.

Scientists and Skeptics do not like to introduce one unknown factor to explain another unknown factor. This, if anything, is more likely to take us further away from finding the truth than getting closer to it.

So, the external stimulus hypothesis is a reasonable one, but there’s no evidence to support it (and it could be tested for indirectly) and it requires more assumptions than the alternative.

Of course, only testing will resolve the issue, but my money would be not be on this new form of energy.

[Mojo]

The fact that some people “see” cannot be argued.

It would be nice to see some results from blinded tests. The "aura" is said to extend beyond the body. It should be possible to devise a test in which a person who claims to be able to see auras cannot see any part of a subject's body but, for example, tries to say exactly where the subject is standing, if they were behind a wall only slightly taller than themselves. See the Emily Rosa experiment, in which TT practitioners claimed to be able to detect the "energy" coming from a subject's hand.

[Allo Allo]

The fact that some people “see” cannot be argued.

It would be nice to see some results from blinded tests.


See the Emily Rosa experiment, in which TT practitioners claimed to be able to detect the "energy" coming from a subject's hand.



I have been thinking about tests - I think no one would do these - for what purpose? I don't think there could be an "application"?


Arn't there ANY OTHER tests except flipping Emily Rosa!!!! >:(

M :)

[Allo Allo]

So, the external stimulus hypothesis is a reasonable one, but there’s no evidence to support it (and it could be tested for indirectly) and it requires more assumptions than the alternative.

Of course, only testing will resolve the issue, but my money would be not be on this new form of energy.



I agree - I was implying internal stimulus. I have thought up a test - I don't know how it's possible to double blind it though - because TWO or MORE see-ers SHOULD "see" the SAME pulsing, moving, sparks, googly bits of "light" that they report swirling round an animated person. If they were all watching the same animated person - they should all report seeing the same things IF THE "LIGHT" WAS REAL. If it were only some internal visual distortion in their own brain, everyone would report seeing different things. We know in Synaesthesia, each sufferer "sees" differently - and aura see-ers might do too.

But on the other hand who cares really! ;D

M

[Mojo]

I have been thinking about tests - I think no one would do these - for what purpose? I don't think there could be an "application"?

To find out if they are really seeing something, or whether it is something happening in their head. If people decline to be tested, I think it says something about their own belief in the abilities they claim to have, besides indicating a general lack of intellectual curiosity.


Arn't there ANY OTHER tests except flipping Emily Rosa!!!!

There may be, but The Rosa test nicely illustrates a blinded test, and shows how simply and cheaply something like this can be set up.

[Mojo]

I have thought up a test - I don't know how it's possible to double blind it though - because TWO or MORE see-ers SHOULD "see" the SAME pulsing, moving, sparks, googly bits of "light" that they report swirling round an animated person. If they were all watching the same animated person - they should all report seeing the same things IF THE "LIGHT" WAS REAL. If it were only some internal visual distortion in their own brain, everyone would report seeing different things.

A possible problem with this is that different people may associate the same colours with the same emotions or behaviours. For example, if the subject appeared angry, the "see-ers" might well all associate this with the colour red, and all report an aura of this colour.

[Admin]

I have thought up a test - I don't know how it's possible to double blind it though - because TWO or MORE see-ers SHOULD "see" the SAME pulsing, moving, sparks, googly bits of "light" that they report swirling round an animated person. If they were all watching the same animated person - they should all report seeing the same things IF THE "LIGHT" WAS REAL. If it were only some internal visual distortion in their own brain, everyone would report seeing different things. We know in Synaesthesia, each sufferer "sees" differently - and aura see-ers might do too.


Well, I was thinking along the same lines. We'd have to find a test conditions under which more than one claimant could operate and test them together. If their results coincided then the stimulus would be external; if the results were random then the internal cause is more likely.


Arn't there ANY OTHER tests except flipping Emily Rosa!!!! >:(

I have another one somewhere. I think it's on my other computer though. I think it's TT again, and another failure.

Don't underestimate the Rosa study though - it's simple and elegant. O0

[Admin]

A possible problem with this is that different people may associate the same colours with the same emotions or behaviours. For example, if the subject appeared angry, the "see-ers" might well all associate this with the colour red, and all report an aura of this colour.


Agreed. They could all have a pre-conceived idea of which colour meant what. In fact it could have been taught to them.

It wouldn't be an easy test to set up.

[Mojo]

It wouldn't be an easy test to set up.

A test where they tried to detect the precise location of the subject by seeing the aura without being able to see the subject themselves would be better. Have some sort of barrier very slightly taller than the subject, with, say, three or four points at which they may be standing. The "see-er" would attempt to say where the subject was by observing their aura. Alternatively, if they claimed that different people have different and recognisable auras, they could just try to recognise who was standing behind the screen.

You would need to prevent the "see-er" being able to hear the subject, of course, and I suppose they would have to be restrained to stop them jumping up and down.

[Allo Allo]

Re the Rosa test - its not really. This energy field UNLIKE infra red which increases when the animal/human is "not well", DECREASES if the animal/ human is not particularly well. I don't know what Rosa was like - but maybe she was frail, skinny and tired! Or maybe she'd had a disagreement with her Mum - or she was frightened/nervous! (this vision 'cause I don't like her particularly - cocky little kid! >:D )

The point is - this "field/aura" (if it exists) fluctuates dramatically for reasons as posted above, and many others - so it was NOT a good test actually.

A good test would be when the participants (all of them) are not under pressure and the one being "felt" is vibrant, confident and well. The background, health details or state of mind of "you know who" have not been provided us so no one should accept this until they saw THAT evidence.

M

[Admin]

The point is - this "field/aura" (if it exists) fluctuates dramatically for reasons as posted above, and many others - so it was NOT a good test actually.


How can you state the properties of something that you don't know exists? You have no valid reason for making assumptions about something that has never been detected.

Always look out for assumptions in arguments!!!

A Golden Rule with testing is that once an experiment is decided on, we can't later change the rules or parameters of the test. If someone claims to be able to detect human energy fields under certain conditions, and the test is performed under those conditions, the 'properties' of the energy field, for example, cannot be changed later to explain away a failure.

The test was actually a good one. It dealt with the claim of Therapeutic Touch practitioners themselves. That's important - it was testing what they claimed they could do; the test was not imposed upon them.

They scored at chance levels in a test that was statistically powerful enough to show up an effect if it were real. That doesn't mean scoring 100% right - just enough for it unlikely to be due to chance.

[Mojo]

Re the Rosa test - its not really. This energy field UNLIKE infra red which increases when the animal/human is "not well", DECREASES if the animal/ human is not particularly well.

Are you suggesting that the "energy field" could have decreased to the point at which it was undetectable because Rosa was slightly ill (presumably she wasn't seriously ill because she was well enough to carry out the test)?

TT claims to heal patients by detecting and manipulating their "energy field". If it only works on people who are healthy it can't have much potential for healing!


I don't know what Rosa was like - but maybe she was frail, skinny and tired! Or maybe she'd had a disagreement with her Mum - or she was frightened/nervous! (this vision 'cause I don't like her particularly - cocky little kid! )

Odd how these sort of objections weren't raised until after the test.

[Allo Allo]

First of all - I don't KNOW anything about "energy" healing. I would assume that if you were using your hands to "read" someones physical condition, you would pick up very quickly that they were "not well" by the debilitated state of their "energy". I suppose you would then do whatever you did to "improve" it. Well, I would think that sensible.

I cannot actually comment of manipulating this "whatever/energy" because I have never learned anything like this - I especially keep away because I just think its commercial and all sort of people who know little have lept on the bandwagon and a lot of it is such galloolyflop that makes me cringe in woo shame! :-[

However - I'm a BIG user of MKB. We use all sorts of varieties in our home. KKMB (kids kiss mom better) DKMB, KKDB - thats kid kiss dad better and not dog! - mind you I have done a lot of MKDogB in the last four years of having a sick dog. All this therapy is FREE - we never trained for it and it just comes naturally - and it's big secret ingredient is LOVE!

M

[Allo Allo]

[quote]How can you state the properties of something that you don't know exists? You have no valid reason for making assumptions about something that has never been detected.

I thought that's what "you know who" was trying to test for? I'm not CHANGING the test - I'm pointing out a flaw about the supposed properties of the something that doesn't exist if what they were testing for was the something that doesn't exist!



The test was actually a good one. It dealt with the claim of Therapeutic Touch practitioners themselves.


I've never heard of Therapeutic Touch - do they still exist? (my ignorance showing?) Sigh :(- I'll check them out...

M

[Allo Allo]

It wouldn't be an easy test to set up.

A test where they tried to detect the precise location of the subject by seeing the aura without being able to see the subject themselves would be better. Have some sort of barrier very slightly taller than the subject, with, say, three or four points at which they may be standing. The "see-er" would attempt to say where the subject was by observing their aura. Alternatively, if they claimed that different people have different and recognisable auras, they could just try to recognise who was standing behind the screen.

You would need to prevent the "see-er" being able to hear the subject, of course, and I suppose they would have to be restrained to stop them jumping up and down.


I am going to post MY idea of an experiment to test whether see-ers are seeing something that can be seen by other see-ers. In order to construct a test - one has to understand WHAT a see-er will see when they see - otherwise constructing a sort of James Randi thing will fail and no one gets anywhere! I KNOW I'm going to have a skep attack supreme - which I will have nothing to do with. If it's sensible I might reply - otherwise I shall just observe and never again throw my pearls of wisdom and expertise before swine" (Quote from somewhere?- insult implied in advance!!!!) ;D

M

[Allo Allo]

To Skeps all...

Aura see-ers test.

See-ers – should be chosen because they are GENUINE see-ers and not be the “New Age”, flowing robes and poofah didilydabs types. Usually a real see-er doesn’t advertise himself.

See-ers – should not know each other or have had ANY contact with each other before this “test”.

No see-er should be paid to do this test and they should remain “nameless” with NO publicity involved – promised or given.

Venue – needs a place outside the main room where the aura see-ers can relax SEPARATELY from each other and “the madding crowd” so they can do whatever they do to their brains that allows them to see.

The person whose “aura” is to be studied should be checked out to see that they are in good physical condition, feeling healthy and well. They should relax and be put at ease by someone who has the quality of people charmer. They should not know or have had any contact with the see-ers. The people charmer has to be with them during the test so that they can have an interesting and vital conversation which will cause the so called aura to expand and release its fizzes, pops, stars, spikey bits and whatever else. Laughter releases pulses of “light”.

A room could be set up with a comfortable chatting place at one end. The lighting would need to be dim and the chatters – people charmer and chatee would need to sit in front of a lightish background – like a cream wall. This would need to be checked by a genuine see-er for “correctness” and not an ordinary non see-er.

Two screens (if there were four see-ers) or one screen if there were two see-ers would simply separate the see-ers so they could in no way communicate with each other. An invigilator would be present for each see-er. The see-ers would, with no rush, in a happy atmosphere, take their seats at their desks/tables where they would find many NUMBERED sheets of paper and a pen. With no “obvious” starter pistol they would watch the “chatters”.

Each note they made would be on a separate piece of paper starting with “number one” (the exact time noted by the invigilator). They turn it over/put it to one side when complete. Next note on number two piece of paper – time noted by the invigilator. These notes could be about either of the chatters because the people charmer would also be “doing stuff” in their aura.

After a set time – twenty minutes/half an hour, the test would finish. The notes could be checked as to time and what was jointly perceived – or not as the case might be.

The Aura has a “glow” which should be perceived as the same colour between several see-ers - just as I see “blue” and you see “blue”. We don’t have to “interpret” blue – it just IS. But while a person is vital and thinking and interacting with someone else, they are seen to shoot out streaks, zaggy bits, plops of “colour”, and other “fireworks”. Two or more see-ers should “see” these at the same time because if they don’t – it is an event happening in their OWN brain.

You can see why James Randi’s “tests” are crap – they are set up in a state of ignorance - and no self respecting see-er would get involved.

How you would double blind something like seeing an aura escapes me.

No woo attack please – I don’t see what the point of such an experiment would be because if both see-ers actually DID see the same fireworks – somebody would be yelling from the peanut gallery that it was invalid because it wasn’t doubled blinded. So nobody would get anywhere anyway.

M :wavey:

[vbloke]

I'm curious about these auras.

Could you see them if the subject was covered in a black cloth? Or on a photograph? Would a brain-dead patient on a life-support machine generate one?

If there is an energy field surrounding us that can tell others if we're ill and can be manipulated to makes us well again, then how close do you have to be to detect it? All other forces drop away rapidly the further away you get, so you'd have to get very close to detect this one, as the human body isn't capable of generating a lot of energy for long periods of time.

How do the detectors "feel" and "manipulate" this energy? How do they know they're not doing more harm than good by messing with someone's energy field?

[Eileen]

Go and read the seeing energy thread over at www.quantumtouch.com. It's under the General Forum and has lots of posts under it. Can't miss it. This should answer a lot of your questions.

[Mojo]

I SUGGESTED it might be an eye-brain “condition”. As there is very little “colour” perceived I SUGGESTED cone activity might be involved.

You did?


If you see light around a person - head most often - you are not looking at it - you are aware of it. The minute you look, it disappears. You see without looking and look without seeing! Also this is more detectable in semi darkness when the rods are active. Rods deal with very low frequencies of light. There is no doubt some people detect this light and if it is seen in colour - the colour is of the palest form - hardly colour at all. The light detected by the rods around a person with an "aura" moves and flows, altering so quickly it creates an "impression" because it can only be seen when not looking at it - the eyes are slightly unfocused. I don't know what tests have been done as to what the eye can pick up when it is not in its normal focused mode.
Also - when seen the colours are hardly colours - which is what you said
yourself re rods "perceiving". I was suggesting that if this is a "condition"
- its something to do with the rods not the cones is all.

[Mojo]

Aura see-ers test.

See-ers – should be chosen because they are GENUINE see-ers and not be the “New Age”, flowing robes and poofah didilydabs types. Usually a real see-er doesn’t advertise himself. Why not? Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

By the way, this is another very standard excuse: the reason that all the tests of paranormal abilities fail is that the people with real abilities are hiding and it's only the frauds who put themselves forward.

And on a purely practical note, if people with real abilities don't advertise the fact, how do you plan to recruit them? Have you ever read Catch-22?


See-ers – should not know each other or have had ANY contact with each other before this “test”.

No see-er should be paid to do this test and they should remain “nameless” with NO publicity involved – promised or given.

Venue – needs a place outside the main room where the aura see-ers can relax SEPARATELY from each other and “the madding crowd” so they can do whatever they do to their brains that allows them to see.

The person whose “aura” is to be studied should be checked out to see that they are in good physical condition, feeling healthy and well. They should relax and be put at ease by someone who has the quality of people charmer. They should not know or have had any contact with the see-ers. The people charmer has to be with them during the test so that they can have an interesting and vital conversation which will cause the so called aura to expand and release its fizzes, pops, stars, spikey bits and whatever else. Laughter releases pulses of “light”.

A room could be set up with a comfortable chatting place at one end. The lighting would need to be dim and the chatters – people charmer and chatee would need to sit in front of a lightish background – like a cream wall. This would need to be checked by a genuine see-er for “correctness” and not an ordinary non see-er.

Two screens (if there were four see-ers) or one screen if there were two see-ers would simply separate the see-ers so they could in no way communicate with each other. An invigilator would be present for each see-er. The see-ers would, with no rush, in a happy atmosphere, take their seats at their desks/tables where they would find many NUMBERED sheets of paper and a pen. With no “obvious” starter pistol they would watch the “chatters”.

Each note they made would be on a separate piece of paper starting with “number one” (the exact time noted by the invigilator). They turn it over/put it to one side when complete. Next note on number two piece of paper – time noted by the invigilator. These notes could be about either of the chatters because the people charmer would also be “doing stuff” in their aura.

After a set time – twenty minutes/half an hour, the test would finish. The notes could be checked as to time and what was jointly perceived – or not as the case might be.

The Aura has a “glow” which should be perceived as the same colour between several see-ers - just as I see “blue” and you see “blue”. We don’t have to “interpret” blue – it just IS. But while a person is vital and thinking and interacting with someone else, they are seen to shoot out streaks, zaggy bits, plops of “colour”, and other “fireworks”. Two or more see-ers should “see” these at the same time because if they don’t – it is an event happening in their OWN brain. The "see-ers" would be able to see when, during the course of the conversation, the subjects were becoming more or less animated, and be able to assess their moods accordingly. Any similarities in aura described could be attributed to this.


You can see why James Randi’s “tests” are crap... No, I can't. Could you explain further?
– they are set up in a state of ignorance... Since they are effectively designed by the claimant, this is quite possible.
- and no self respecting see-er would get involved. There's that excuse again.


How you would double blind something like seeing an aura escapes me.

That's your problem: you are the one who is claiming that they exist.


I don’t see what the point of such an experiment would be because if both see-ers actually DID see the same fireworks – somebody would be yelling from the peanut gallery that it was invalid because it wasn’t doubled blinded. So nobody would get anywhere anyway.

Quite. To be worth doing, a test would need to be blinded in some way. Perhaps something like the one I have suggested above.

[Allo Allo]

Go and read the seeing energy thread over at www.quantumtouch.com. It's under the General Forum and has lots of posts under it. Can't miss it. This should answer a lot of your questions.




I have

M

[vbloke]

So... auras. If people can see them, then they must be some form of light.

Since light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, and we have cameras and devices that can detect em radiation from pretty much the entire spectrum.

Now, the human eye can only really detect em radiation in the optical part of the spectrum, then that narrows our search down a bit. Auras have to be visible light.

If so, then having an ultra-sensitive camera recording at the same time as someone claims they can see an aura should produce definitive, irrefutable proof that they exist. If the camera records nothing, then that should be proof that they don't.

Of course, if the camera were to record something, skeptics would admit that there was something there that warranted further investigation. If the camera recorded nothing, the see-ers would claim that the camera can't pick up the energy or some other excuse.

[vbloke]

Go and read the seeing energy thread over at www.quantumtouch.com. It's under the General Forum and has lots of posts under it. Can't miss it. This should answer a lot of your questions.
I've just asked a few questions there.

I await their answers.

[Allo Allo]

I'm curious about these auras.

Could you see them if the subject was covered in a black cloth? Or on a photograph? Would a brain-dead patient on a life-support machine generate one?

If there is an energy field surrounding us that can tell others if we're ill and can be manipulated to makes us well again, then how close do you have to be to detect it? All other forces drop away rapidly the further away you get, so you'd have to get very close to detect this one, as the human body isn't capable of generating a lot of energy for long periods of time.

How do the detectors "feel" and "manipulate" this energy? How do they know they're not doing more harm than good by messing with someone's energy field?


Well - I don't know. There are two possibilities - that the "aura" activity seen while interacting with another human (or animal) is not an "energy" field - but something generated by the thought processes of someone doing the interacting. When nervous, fearful - or withdrawn (as in meditation) this is not seen. So if this aura was REAL then more than one person could see it. So the possibility is that this is something other than an energy field. Or it could be this energy field "at work", interacting with something.

These are simply thoughts on the topic - critical thinkers would say that thinking about something which doesn't exist is not an option.

The nub of these posts were that people "see". I don't know what effect of the physical body they "see". I suggested to check if they are actually seeing something REAL - you test more than one see-er. If it is simply the brain misfiring somehow it would be NON real. And of course that is very possible! At no point have I said auras are REAL - I have said they are SEEN.

I don't know much about an energy field (ie.something that other people are supposed to manipulate whilst doing a healing) - I would think it would be close to the body.

I have been "lurking" at the quantum touch "seeing energy" forum - I've heard it all before.

The aura activity that I have been talking about would NOT be seen in a brain dead person because there would be no interaction. Under a black cloth? I don't know. In a photograph? Well definately NOT those at New Age Trade shows that "capture the aura" - from the palm of someone's hand!!!!!! Currently, cameras that capture single photons are used in conjuction with microscopes - but IF there was such thing as a verifiable aura activity that happens DURING INTERACTION with others, I would say any camera to capture such a thing would be in the future.

So - mmm

About doing more harm than good - yes I question that myself! The "new" rage is to dose yourself with Infra Red devices - well, we emit infra red - why would you want to buy a "product" that questionably "gives" yourself something you already have?!!! |The mind boggles! :o

My test - if it were done as a serious investigation and not a "trap" - should select see-ers carefully because MOSTLY they do not go around looking for publicity or money - why would you want to test people who might be fraudulant or self deluding?


And to answer the post while I was writing this - yes - IF IT IS REAL - it MIGHT be light - if there WERE such cameras (that detect photons over a large area) - it would be perfect - but are there?

I am ALSO POINTING OUT VERY CLEARLY - I am not a "New Ager" - I believe there is no "spiritual" involved and that if any of these things are REAL they are simply mechanisms of the human body.

M

[Allo Allo]

Arrrrgghhhh! Iwent there! :scared: :eek:


Yes- good one vbloke O0


I don't know WHY I always CRINGE at postings like those? The Field and What the Bleep series are psuedoscience - I would love to believe them!

Oh boo hoo, boo hoo :'(

M

[Eileen]

Nice you could join us vbloke. Good question.

M,

I have just finished reading a book on aura and it has several layers, each layer further out from the body. The first layer is the etheric layer, then the emotional layer and then the spiritual layer. Yes, it is meant to be affected by thoughts and emotions, but just breathing deeply and thinking about expanding it can make it expand.

Seemingly, you need to be further away from the body rather than closer for detection purposes with the hands.

[Admin]

OK, I’ll deal with a few points here:




See-ers – should be chosen because they are GENUINE see-ers and not be the “New Age”, flowing robes and poofah didilydabs types. Usually a real see-er doesn’t advertise himself.

We can’t assume that there are ‘genuine seers’. There are people who claim to see auras etc. but none of them can be considered as genuine unless they have already passed a controlled test.

I’m sure that you can see the resulting excuses for failure if we selectively dismiss some applicants, can’t you?


The person whose “aura” is to be studied should be checked out to see that they are in good physical condition, feeling healthy and well

We need to test the claims of the claimants – not decide what they have to see. Most claim to be able to detect an energy field in an unwell person. So it would be better to have, say, 10 healthy people and 10 unhealthy people and see whether the ‘seers’ could tell the difference.

The bottom line though, and this is crucial for testing people, is that we test what the claimants themselves claim to be able to do and under which conditions they claim they can do it.


A room could be set up with a comfortable chatting place at one end. The lighting would need to be dim and the chatters – people charmer and chatee would need to sit in front of a lightish background – like a cream wall. This would need to be checked by a genuine see-er for “correctness” and not an ordinary non see-er.

As above. We can’t use a ‘genuine seer’ to calibrate a test as none are known to exist.


You can see why James Randi’s “tests” are crap – they are set up in a state of ignorance - and no self respecting see-er would get involved..

I think James Randi knows exactly how to conduct a test. It is the ignorance of those who don’t where the misunderstanding lies.

Basically, testing involves:


Finding out what the claimant claims they can do;
Finding out the conditions under which the claimant can perform;
Finding out the accuracy level that the claimant says they can achieve;
Designing a test that both parties (tester and claimant) agree is a fair test of their abilities;
Deciding, before the test is performed, the scoring method and analysis used;
Choosing the level of scoring at which the test will be deemed to have been passed;
Then, and only then, once everyone is agreed on everything does the test take place;
Results are scored and a pass or fail is announced;
No aspect of the test can later be reinterpreted or changed.


That’s the basic outline.

A good analogy, and it’s from James Randi (a man who does know what he’s talking about), is this:

Let’s say we have someone who claims to be a musician and we sit them at a piano and ask them to play the piece of music that’s in front of them. It turns out they can’t play it so we conclude that they are not a musician as they claim. But then, the musician simply states that she is a musician but she can’t play the piano – she’s a violin player; or she is a piano player but she can’t read sheet music.

This is why we can’t design generic tests for claimants to pass. They all have to be tailor made to test what the claimant is claiming.

[vbloke]

Nice you could join us vbloke. Good question.

Blimey. They jumped straight into defense/attack mode on me there. All for asking a few (what I thought) were perfectly reasonable questions.
I note that not one of them were answered though...

[Admin]

It's the standard routine. They can't defend their beliefs so they get 'offended' and start attacking.

All these psedoscientific ideas are nothing more than a system of excuses masquerading as something real.

They're making testable claims so why don't they approach a science department somewhere and volunteer themselves for testing?

Don't they want to know the truth?

I suspect not. ;)

[Allo Allo]

Nice you could join us vbloke. Good question.

Blimey. They jumped straight into defense/attack mode on me there. All for asking a few (what I thought) were perfectly reasonable questions.
I note that not one of them were answered though...



Sigh - I suppose I'll have to take a look... :(

M

[Allo Allo]

OK, I’ll deal with a few points here:

We can’t assume that there are ‘genuine seers’. (etc)

;D ;D true!



I think James Randi knows exactly how to conduct a test. It is the ignorance of those who don’t where the misunderstanding lies.

Yes - accepted.


Basically, testing involves:


Finding out what the claimant claims they can do;
Finding out the conditions under which the claimant can perform;
Finding out the accuracy level that the claimant says they can achieve;
Designing a test that both parties (tester and claimant) agree is a fair test of their abilities;
Deciding, before the test is performed, the scoring method and analysis used;
Choosing the level of scoring at which the test will be deemed to have been passed;
Then, and only then, once everyone is agreed on everything does the test take place;
Results are scored and a pass or fail is announced;
No aspect of the test can later be reinterpreted or changed.


Yes - very good I'd say.


from James Randi (a man who does know what he’s talking about),

Mmmm >:( could argue - but won't!

M




Edit to fix nested quotes.

[Allo Allo]

I have just finished reading a book on aura and it has several layers, each layer further out from the body. The first layer is the etheric layer, then the emotional layer and then the spiritual layer. Yes, it is meant to be affected by thoughts and emotions, but just breathing deeply and thinking about expanding it can make it expand.

Seemingly, you need to be further away from the body rather than closer for detection purposes with the hands.



Yes, I have read that too but the so called physical "energy" field is supposedly close to the body. I have a problem with all these "divisions" of what does what where and what is "emotional" "spiritual" and "etheric" - to me this is just bullshit baffling brains. WHO said that? HOW do they know? (it's probably Alice Baily again! >:()

Don't get me started! The WORST is HEAVENLY HEIRARCHIES!!! groan, (John, we haven't got enough emoticons here - we need a sick pukey face!)

M




Edit: to fix nested quotes.

[Eileen]

No. I think it was Barbara Brennan Hands of Light actually!!

I think the next thing they will come up with is that Dr Norman C Shealy who is a emminent neurosurgeon, has conducted some experiments of his own on QT. He is listed on the website.

Earlier on, I was looking through the course descriptions and noticed that there are instructor profiles listed. There is a guy called Alain Herriott who is an advanced class instructor and practitioner who can 'see energy'. I have seen some posts by him dotted around the forum and I just wondered whether he might 'drop by'. If Richard Gordon himself can then.............

I looked at the bookshop section too and there is a DVD called Seeing and Perceiving Energy and Supercharging Quantum Touch by him also.

[Allo Allo]

No. I think it was Barbara Brennan Hands of Light actually!!

I think the next thing they will come up with is that Dr Norman C Shealy who is a emminent neurosurgeon, has conducted some experiments of his own on QT. He is listed on the website.



Yes - I have read Hands of Light too - the problem I have is that ALL these ideas PROLIFERATE from certain "beginning" points. One of the "beginning" points in the West were the writings of Alice Baily and the theosophists - and they got their ideas "channelled" and from the east. For me, personally, I question it all because its such a mixture of religion and other stuff.

I would be very pleased if it was found that the human body does process light through the energy centres and that it does have an aura and that we have an "invisible" aspect - or maybe are multidimensional. I would like it if when we had a "God experience", we were actually entering into an expanded concious state in a multidimensional way. I would like that.

On my wish list is that science on investigating all these "concepts" would find they were true - with hard evidence. That Quantum Field theories for the way we are for instance would become "protoscience and then proven! Oh well - dream on!

I get distressed watching how each new "therapy" builds again on the last - and -worse- how there are some out there who "create" new therapies/gagets because they "will make money".

I am a hypocrite - I am severely out of place in a woo healing forum - and I am also out of place here. I am looking for answers - you don't find answers unless you are prepared to undergo pain!

Shealy and Myss worked for some time together. She was a psychic - and they published a book - can't remember the name.

M :)

[Cuddles]

As I understand it, auras are generated by humans and are independent of the environment, including lighting conditions. Presumably this means they are visible in complete darkness. A test is then incredibly easy, all you need is a darkened room and the claimant to say if there is someone else present or not. Obviously there would need to be conditions to eliminate non-visual clues, but I'm sure these could be worked out fairly easily. I feel all the tests to see if people detect the same thing or not are irrelevant until it can be shown that these people see something that is not just produced internally by their brain.

[Allo Allo]

As I understand it, auras are generated by humans and are independent of the environment, including lighting conditions. Presumably this means they are visible in complete darkness. A test is then incredibly easy, all you need is a darkened room and the claimant to say if there is someone else present or not. Obviously there would need to be conditions to eliminate non-visual clues, but I'm sure these could be worked out fairly easily. I feel all the tests to see if people detect the same thing or not are irrelevant until it can be shown that these people see something that is not just produced internally by their brain.


Mmm - very good point!

M

[Allo Allo]

As I understand it, auras are generated by humans and are independent of the environment, including lighting conditions. Presumably this means they are visible in complete darkness. A test is then incredibly easy, all you need is a darkened room and the claimant to say if there is someone else present or not. Obviously there would need to be conditions to eliminate non-visual clues, but I'm sure these could be worked out fairly easily. I feel all the tests to see if people detect the same thing or not are irrelevant until it can be shown that these people see something that is not just produced internally by their brain.


Mmm - very good point!


No - not as good as I first thought. I don't think see-ers report auras are lumanescent ...

M

[Sgt Badass]

No - not as good as I first thought. I don't think see-ers report auras are lumanescent ...

Is this a real conversation going on here or have I stumbled upon a new 'Little Britain' sketch?

[Cuddles]

As I understand it, auras are generated by humans and are independent of the environment, including lighting conditions. Presumably this means they are visible in complete darkness. A test is then incredibly easy, all you need is a darkened room and the claimant to say if there is someone else present or not. Obviously there would need to be conditions to eliminate non-visual clues, but I'm sure these could be worked out fairly easily. I feel all the tests to see if people detect the same thing or not are irrelevant until it can be shown that these people see something that is not just produced internally by their brain.


Mmm - very good point!


No - not as good as I first thought. I don't think see-ers report auras are lumanescent ...

M


That's easy then. If they are something generated by the person being viewed they should be able to see them in the dark, if they are some kind of reflection or something dependent on external light they must be detectable by any light detector. If neither of these are true they must be generated internally by the viewer with no connection to another person.

[Dr B]

I propose its all bollocks....does anyone here second the motion? Raise your virtual hands while I count (dont want to be accused of not being a democracy) ;D

my hand is here :wavey:

[Admin]

I propose its all bollocks....does anyone here second the motion?


Absolutely. Here's mine --> :wavey:

I think the chances of this 'healing system' being anything other than a delusion based on the placebo effect are about the same as the chance of a fox being caught by a pack of one-legged hunting tortoises.

Like I said earlier, it's just psionic healing under a new guise.

[Sgt Badass]

I third that. :wavey:

[Mojo]

:wavey:

[Cuddles]

I think the chances of this 'healing system' being anything other than a delusion based on the placebo effect are about the same as the chance of a fox being caught by a pack of one-legged hunting tortoises.

But we're not allowed dogs anymore so tortoises seemed the obvious choice.

I'll put two hands up :tongue2:

[Physiotherapist]

Rather than just dismissing things out of hands in your usual manner, why don't you try it and see? Don't just make sweeping generalisations and assumptions.

[Admin]

Rather than just dismissing things out of hands in your usual manner, why don't you try it and see? Don't just make sweeping generalisations and assumptions.


You mean..... Why don't we 'try it for ourselves'? ::)

Read the thread and you'll realise that this hasn't been simply dismissed. It's just 'psionic healing' with a new name.

What we actually need is some good evidence to convince us to take it seriously. Physiotherapist - perhaps you can supply some?

[Dr B]

Rather than just dismissing things out of hands in your usual manner, why don't you try it and see? Don't just make sweeping generalisations and assumptions.




Your assumption we have not considered the evidence and discussed it (please read the thread) is a sweeping statement on your part (and one betrayed by the evidence). However, dont let that get in the way of a good, yet pointless and over tired rant. 8)

We do not dismiss things out of hand - thats the usual nonsense touted by people who cannot see that many of us arrive at positions after great thought - though where we arrive is not where you might want us to be O0

Edit - i dont need to put my hand in a fire to know it will hurt..... :D Your logic predicts I must....