EVP - new theory

[MRT]

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

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

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

The results are at: http://www.assap.org/newsite/article...dio%20EVP.html

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

Comments welcome!

[Dr B]

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

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

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

Edit - what about red noise?????

[MRT]

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

[Dr B]

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

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

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

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

[MRT]

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

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

[Tin Lizzie]

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

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

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

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

[Dr B]

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

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

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

[Dr B]

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

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

I am with you on that one!

[Dr B]

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

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

[Tin Lizzie]

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

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

The best form of evidence is experience

[Dr B]

The best form of evidence is experience

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

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

Please read more.

[Dr B]

Maurice

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

[Tin Lizzie]

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

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

Please read more.

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

Cheers!

[MRT]

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

[MRT]

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