Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

[Wobbly]

Same people, same methodology, same problems.

Dude, this isn't that hard. If you want a valid experiment have the fucking dog and owner live in a soundproof windowless room until the dog starts going to the door, or whatever, when it is anticipating the return of the owner. Then run the experiments.

Use your brain for once instead of posting a trash articles and trolling everyone because you're too complacent to think critically about things that affirm your POV.

[Gobbo]

In all the studies presented there has been OVERWHELMING statistical evidence to support the thesis which, after the first round, were conducted in randomized, completely blind trails. So if you have a qualm with the methodology why don't you state specifically where you see the flaw in the experimentation.

Oh, there it is:

If you want a valid experiment have the fucking dog and owner live in a soundproof windowless room until the dog starts going to the door, or whatever, when it is anticipating the return of the owner.

That's retarded. The experiments attempt to mimic the natural conditions the dog/owners exist in. You cannot run an experiment involving animals in the manner you're suggesting. It would be pointless. It would likely panic and behave completely differently.

That aside, it wouldn't make it valid; it would make it more valid (in the mistaken way you are suggesting.) There is no threshold point where a study becomes 'valid.'

Anyways, we're going to get to the windowless rooms and all that stuff when I move on to the other studies. This is one of many.

[Wobbly]

You know I'm right, you know that "statistical evidence" means shit for invalid experiments, and you know that when one of the subjects of the experiment runs the equipment it is not blind.

Do blather on, though, please.

[Gobbo]

Adopting the methodological controls as described in Wiseman et al (1998), Sheldrake & Smart found that Jaytee was at the window 4% of the time during the main period of her absence and 55% of the time when she was returning.

Alright, so moving on.

[James S Saint]

Same people, same methodology, same problems.

Dude, this isn't that hard. If you want a valid experiment have the fucking dog and owner live in a soundproof windowless room until the dog starts going to the door, or whatever, when it is anticipating the return of the owner. Then run the experiments.

Use your brain for once instead of posting a trash articles and trolling everyone because you're too complacent to think critically about things that affirm your POV.

Even such arrangements wouldn't work.
You cannot strongly change the normal environment of an event, especially concerning living entities, and expect them to not be affected. That is one of the very many errors that psychologists and scientists do wrong. Just as the Hiesenburg principles clearly display, any attempt at measure can destroy the effort to measure.

In such a case as a dog and an owner, if cameras are to be used, they must be present and active before the experiment is to begin long enough for the dog and owner to get accustom to them being there. After that point, it must still be evident that the behavior is still in effect. Any altered behavior for sake of the experiment must become or be seen as "normal", not intentionally formed for the sake of measure. That means that the owner must have a reason for randomly preparing to go home that is not based in the experiment.

The end effect, if you really want a good experiment for such things, is that you must already be recording and discover an event that meets the minimum standard for significance else you cannot form a truly "Scientific experiment" and draw confident conclusions.

The original observation of the owner was the only thing that even came close to that stipulation and thus only the owner's testimony can be accepted as relevant data even though it is quite possibly biased for any number of reasons. The problem is that if a science minded individual were to try to note the same behavior in his own pet, he is likely to cause the entire effort to fail merely because he is attending to it with critical eyes and presumptions in judgment. Those are his tools, thus he cannot even do the experiment.

It must be observed after the fact so that critical analysis of the undisturbed recorded data can be assessed with scrutiny. But if a camera is viewing everything people are doing, do you really think people will behave "normally"? Not a chance. If people even think they are being watched, they respond differently and often in the opposite direction of their incentives. But thinking that one can secretly observe people without affecting them is a presumption... and a false one. Thus again, the experiment as a valid experiment cannot be done.

This is one of the many things which Science cannot examine or determine other than merely presume and declare "Truth" (as they so often do).

[Wobbly]

That aside, it wouldn't make it valid; it would make it more valid (in the mistaken way you are suggesting.) There is no threshold point where a study becomes 'valid.

'

Yep, validity isn't an absolute thing. Kudos, really, this is quite a zing. I mean, you figured out that science has fallibility built in. How can we go on? Oh yeah, validity as used in science is aware of its own limitations.

[Gobbo]

The original observation of the owner was the only thing that even came close to that stipulation and thus only the owner's testimony can be accepted as relevant data even though it is quite possibly biased for any number of reasons. The problem is that if a science minded individual were to try to note the same behavior in his own pet, he is likely to cause the entire effort to fail merely because he is attending to it with critical eyes and presumptions in judgment. Those are his tools, thus he cannot even do the experiment.

Wut. The owner isn't observing the dog.

Man, I really wish people would just read the studies before talking.

[Gobbo]

That aside, it wouldn't make it valid; it would make it more valid (in the mistaken way you are suggesting.) There is no threshold point where a study becomes 'valid.

'

Yep, validity isn't an absolute thing. Kudos, really, this is quite a zing. I mean, you figured out that science has fallibility built in. How can we go on? Oh yeah, validity as used in science is aware of its own limitations.

Oh yeah, you proposed a retarded experiment condition. Kudos, you figured out you were wrong.

[Wobbly]

You cannot strongly change the normal environment of an event, especially concerning living entities, and expect them to not be affected. That is one of the very many errors that psychologists and scientists do wrong. Just as the Hiesenburg principles clearly display, any attempt at measure can destroy the effort to measure.

What's wrong with this? You move the dog and person into the control room and have them live there until it becomes their home psychologically. Cameras and all. Then you have, as part of their normal lives, the owner run errands that the scientist randomly decides the time of. Or maybe a computer program "randomly" outputs the errands. You do not tell the person when those errands stop being part of habituation to this type of life, and when they become part of the tests.

Here's the best part, you don't let the person know the cameras are there, and lead them to believe that they will be given the camera when the experiment is beginning. Thus the experiment will be completed before the participants think it has begun.

[Gobbo]

What's wrong with this?

Funding.

[James S Saint]

The original observation of the owner was the only thing that even came close to that stipulation and thus only the owner's testimony can be accepted as relevant data even though it is quite possibly biased for any number of reasons. The problem is that if a science minded individual were to try to note the same behavior in his own pet, he is likely to cause the entire effort to fail merely because he is attending to it with critical eyes and presumptions in judgment. Those are his tools, thus he cannot even do the experiment.

Wut. The owner isn't observing the dog.

Man, I really wish people would just read the studies before talking.

I have a short memory. Who said that the behavior existed? Whoever that was, is the only testimony that could even possibly be considered. But that testimony wouldn't be very credible on its own.

[Gobbo]

Who said that the behavior existed?

The scientists watching the dog's actions on a camera.

But that testimony wouldn't be very credible on its own.

Why? The dog is alone in a house like it normally is, and they are watching how many times it spends at the door/window waiting.


Seems pretty straightforward.

[James S Saint]

You cannot strongly change the normal environment of an event, especially concerning living entities, and expect them to not be affected. That is one of the very many errors that psychologists and scientists do wrong. Just as the Hiesenburg principles clearly display, any attempt at measure can destroy the effort to measure.

What's wrong with this? You move the dog and person into the control room and have them live there until it becomes their home psychologically. Cameras and all. Then you have, as part of their normal lives, the owner run errands that the scientist randomly decides the time of.

What is wrong is simple.
You have very strongly changed their environment and possibly cathartically. If the event doesn't happen, you haven't proven anything other than to say that you can destroy such behavior by putting people in controlled environments where they are being watched.

It is ridiculous to think that a human or dog is not effected by such drastic changes, especially when trying to measure something that is very dependent on their mental and emotional state.

Here's the best part, you don't let the person know the cameras are there, and lead them to believe that they will be given the camera when the experiment is beginning. Thus the experiment will be completed before the participants think it has begun.

Again, you are not reading or you are ignoring. I already covered that scenario.

[Wobbly]

It is ridiculous to think that a human or dog is not effected by such drastic changes, especially when trying to measure something that is very dependent on their mental and emotional state.

Sure sure. However, people move all the time and they habituate to their new circumstances and so do their animals. They find a new normal, and I have no reason to think that this new normal wouldn't include the very basic behavior of a dog anticipating the return of the owner. You're right, we couldn't absolutely conclude anything based off the experiment precisely because people moved. However, to my mind, "absolutely conclude" is an oxymoron when it comes to experiments.

Again, you are not reading or you are ignoring. I already covered that scenario.

Hmm, your point was based on the subjects having knowledge of the observation.

[James S Saint]

They find a new normal, and I have no reason to think that this new normal wouldn't include the very basic behavior of a dog anticipating the return of the owner.

I have many reasons for assuming it. First, you are talking about a very subtle behavior that is rarely noticed at all. But more importantly, you have already invalidated the experiment with an assumption directly related to the data being assessed.

You're right, we couldn't absolutely conclude anything based off the experiment precisely because people moved. However, to my mind, "absolutely conclude" is an oxymoron when it comes to experiments.

Significance is the issue. If what you change involves something related to the data being analyzed, your experiment means nothing at all.

Hmm, your point was based on the subjects having knowledge of the observation.

That is EXACTLY what is being measured.
You cannot assume that you can do something secretly if what you are trying to measure is whether hidden things are noticed. The dog and owner constitute a hidden thing (the dog can't see the owner) that you are trying to measure a reaction to. If the dog can sense the owner, what makes you think that neither the dog nor the owner can sense that they are being watched?

In one incident, I noted my own behavior drastically change for a short moment as I did something that I have never done before and is out of character for me. As I pondered why I had the sudden change, I examined the location and discovered that they had just, literally the day before, installed a security camera just barely in sight enough for me to unconsciously notice it but not consciously. My reaction, unfortunately, was predictable in that I responded so as to show them what they were seeking, I did the very thing they were looking to see if I do. It is one of many forms of self-defeat that arise from complex situations wherein people attempt to secretly judge others.

[Wobbly]

I have many reasons for assuming it. First, you are talking about a very subtle behavior that is rarely noticed at all. But more importantly, you have already invalidated the experiment with an assumption directly related to the data being assessed.

No I am talking about the fact that dogs regularly go to a homes access point when it is made aware that an owners return is forthcoming. Whether that be because the owner comes home every day at the same time, the dog hears the owners car,the owner is seen through the window, there exists some unknown psychic connection, or whatever other trigger someone could come up with, doesn't really matter at this stage. What would need to be established is that the dog does perform this in it's new surroundings. I've moved several times, and my dog always ends up doing this after a short period of time.


Anyway, never mind that. We are going to get nowhere because I have no idea what you are trying to do in this thread. Are you trying to point out like a problem with experimenting because of the limits of epistemology/ontology or something? You imply that any formal experiment means nothing, when clearly the methodology has had concrete practical implications for us. What does "mean nothing" mean? At some point we have to say fuck it and do the experiment. We can not control for everything, and presumably according to you we cannot control for the fact that we control, but we can limit the greatest offenders and give ourselves the best possibility of maximizing what humans episteme is capable of.

Curious that I find myself on this side of the argument, when I began by tearing apart the validity of RS. There is a very significant difference in scope.

[James S Saint]

No I am talking about the fact that dogs regularly go to a homes access point when it is made aware that an owners return is forthcoming. Whether that be because the owner comes home every day at the same time, the dog hears the owners car,the owner is seen through the window, there exists some unknown psychic connection, or whatever other trigger someone could come up with, doesn't really matter at this stage. What would need to be established is that the dog does perform this in it's new surroundings. I've moved several times, and my dog always ends up doing this after a short period of time.

But that has nothing to do with determining psychic ability (which is the subject here).

Anyway, never mind that. We are going to get nowhere because I have no idea what you are trying to do in this thread. Are you trying to point out like a problem with experimenting because of the limits of epistemology/ontology or something? You imply that any formal experiment means nothing, when clearly the methodology has had concrete practical implications for us. What does "mean nothing" mean?

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure I'm interested, me and Gobbo left the bit about validity in the dust about 6 posts ago.

The point is that you cannot do negative testing on ESP issues.

In Science, a VERY fundamental concern is that if you observe something, you might very well affect it. With inanimate subjects, such risk is minimal until you get down to extremely small entities. Heisenberg proved through mathematics, that one cannot measure the state of an electron and also measure its position because any attempt to measure either would affect the other. That came to be known as the "Uncertainty Principle".

But that thought invaded every level of Science because at Copenhagen, they had decided that if something cannot be observed, then it does not exist at all. Of course that led to huge effects throughout the world concerning the existence of God and very many things, like the back side of the moon if no one is watching it. The paradoxes that it created led to Relativity and the notion that Truth itself doesn't exist (hence no God).

The uncertainty Principle was finally undermined when someone realized that they could use an "Entangled" pair of electrons and thus measure one without affecting the other. Entanglement is a form of parallel behavior.

But it is very difficult and actually impossible to use entanglement methods concerning people. You have to find two people who are exactly identical (they try with identical twins), but both people must then be in the exact same situation. But on top of that, they have to NOT have any ESP ability else either will detect that they are being treated differently than the other. But it is such ESP that is being tested for.

Thus if ESP occurs, it can only be analyzed in retrospect and within the "natural" environment in which it occurred. The only way to conclude any data concerning its non-existence is to examine all history and declare that there has never been significant data to reflect a positive occurrence.

ESP can only be positive tested, negative tests cannot be arranged.

If one can see it occurring while being tested, then it can be concluded as valid. But if one does not see it occurring, nothing can be concluded.

[Wobbly]

I agree with everything here, except I thought entanglement meant that observing one did affect the other. Otherwise we would be able to determine position and spin. Although I quit following this shit some time ago because I was no longer able to recognize it as science.

And I am undecided on the implication of observation changing reality. My intuition that it is a Newtonian point of view to say the fact that if you "observe something, you might very well affect it" is a problem or risk , but in a world where observation does alter physical reality observation cannot have a privileged position and must be organically integrated into our worldview. As in it is okay experimentally to change things through observation because it is natural to the thing being observed. It would not be an experiment if our observation did not change things. I don't know, there is just something fishy about the way people deal with the implications of the observer according to QM.

[James S Saint]

I agree with everything here, except I thought entanglement meant that observing one did affect the other. Otherwise we would be able to determine position and spin. Although I quit following this shit some time ago because I was no longer able to recognize it as science.

Well that is good, because it really stopped being what we think of as Science. Science, after Copenhagen became a promotion of magic, the very thing that it proposes to dispel. But the same happened with all of the religions. They were originally proposed to dispel beliefs in gods with the declaration that there can only be one actual god, hence "God". And that God was declared, "What is" (not "I AM"). In other words, Reality itself, or Truth itself. But such quickly became an issue of magical invisible monsters.

And I am undecided on the implication of observation changing reality.

It doesn't change it except by the normal means, but sometimes those means cannot be easily detected. ESP is actually a provable occurrence, but as with everything, if you do not clearly define exactly what you are talking about, you can't really prove anything, But even if you do, whatever you do will quickly get corrupted with presumptions concerning magic again. The double slit experiment is a perfect example.

My intuition that it is a Newtonian point of view to say the fact that if you "observe something, you might very well affect it" is a problem or risk , but in a world where observation does alter physical reality observation cannot have a privileged position and must be organically integrated into our worldview. As in it is okay experimentally to change things through observation because it is natural to the thing being observed. It would not be an experiment if our observation did not change things. I don't know, there is just something fishy about the way people deal with the implications of the observer according to QM.

QM is the Quantum Magi using psychology to usurp power from "Truth bearers", including scientists. It works. Science has been converted into a religion for mystics, just as all of the religions prior. The Jewish Cabala explains exactly how to accomplish it using words, semantics. It is a very old art involving "spells" and is why we refer to the assembly of words as "spelling".

What we can validly conclude from experiments is only that "while being measured, these things behave in this way". And that has been very useful for verifying many hypotheses. But it has a limit and cannot be used so as to proclaim Truth even though that is the new agenda for Science (as per Copenhagen).

[Blurry]

Don't mind Gobbo, you guys. If you read through some of his old posts you'll see that, to his own mind, he is NEVER wrong.

Yeah, he's one of those.

And you know what's shitty about it? He doesn't realize that once people realize this about him they are turned off of what he is going to say before he even says it. What's the point in even listening to someone who thinks he's never wrong? There is no discussion to be had, just a lecture, and lectures are boring.

[Wobbly]

The persona reminds me of Impenitent.

[Gobbo]

to his own mind, he is NEVER wrong.

Deal with it.

[Blurry]

to his own mind, he is NEVER wrong.

And Blurred never has anything original to say. We all play our parts.

What is "original", Gobbo? You?

Oh shit, that's good stuff. Check out the first quote in my signature Unlike yourself, I recognize that it's not possible to be "original" anymore. At least I can embrace that, yeah? Instead of pretending like I have anything to say that hasn't already been said. There you go with trying convince yourself of what a special little snowflake you are...again.

[Gobbo]

I recognize that it's not possible to be "original" anymore.

It's possible to be original.

That's funny you think it isn't.

[Blurry]

I recognize that it's not possible to be "original" anymore.

It's possible to be original.

That's funny you think it isn't.

Prove it. Say something original, right now. Something that has never been thought or spoken of before. Ready...GO.