62 replies to this topic

[Robot]

This is a follow up on my "PK" generated hauntings, research paper submitted earlier this week.

For my "personal" experiences, this seems the most "reasonable". It does not answer all questions. It is also a much easier read, than the research paper. LOL

Sorry if a repost, my search gave me nothing:

http://paranormal.ab...ate-a-ghost.htm

[Old Guy]

"In any case, the experiments proved that paranormal phenomena are quite real."

I don't disagree with the conclusion. But I do disagree with the terminology. Actually, I do disagree wholly with the statement. What was proven? "Paranormal phenomena" is a bucket phrase like gastroenteritis, or dermatis, or tinnitus. A bit more specificity wouldn't hurt.

When I first ran across the story (early 70's) It reminded me of any number of prayer experiments (which IMHO, are very similar). The more amusing among them was The Famous Harvard Prayer Experiment, which concluded prayer did nothing for nobody, nohow. Yet failed to take into account that God does not answer prayers on our schedule. A bunch of geeks sitting around a table expecting miracles for no other purpose would be low on my priority list, too.

Edited by Old Guy, 27 May 2010 - 09:31 AM.

[Robot]

Old Guy, on May 27 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

"In any case, the experiments proved that paranormal phenomena are quite real."

I don't disagree with the conclusion. But I do disagree with the terminology. Actually, I do disagree wholly with the statement. What was proven? "Paranormal phenomena" is a bucket phrase like gastroenteritis, or dermatis, or tinnitus. A bit more specificity wouldn't hurt.

When I first ran across the story (early 70's) It reminded me of any number of prayer experiments (which IMHO, are very similar). The more amusing among them was The Famous Harvard Prayer Experiment, which concluded prayer did nothing for nobody, nohow. Yet failed to take into account that God does not answer prayers on our schedule. A bunch of geeks sitting around a table expecting miracles for no other purpose would be low on my priority list, too.

LOL, agreed. This particular article was a little easier to digest, then my last cut and paste. "Similar" concepts between the two.

[PhenomInvestigator]

The key point that is missed here is that the Phillip Group created a phenomenon which cannot be explained by physical science. No one can explain how a table levitates under controlled conditions. While it is possible to offer alternative explanations based on conjuring techniques and some known physical effects, these all fail when one realizes that this phenomena could not have been produced in that manner. The tables used were heavy and usual levitation techniques used by magicians would have failed. For the same reason it is possible to rule out pushing the table. The likely explanation is macro psychokinesis (macro PK) which has been demonstrated in parapsychology laboratories by Dr. Wm Roll, Dr. John Palmer and Dr. Jim Carpenter over the years. The work was published in the Journal of Parapsychology.

[Robot]

PhenomInvestigator, on May 27 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

The key point that is missed here is that the Phillip Group created a phenomenon which cannot be explained by physical science. No one can explain how a table levitates under controlled conditions. While it is possible to offer alternative explanations based on conjuring techniques and some known physical effects, these all fail when one realizes that this phenomena could not have been produced in that manner. The tables used were heavy and usual levitation techniques used by magicians would have failed. For the same reason it is possible to rule out pushing the table. The likely explanation is macro psychokinesis (macro PK) which has been demonstrated in parapsychology laboratories by Dr. Wm Roll, Dr. John Palmer and Dr. Jim Carpenter over the years. The work was published in the Journal of Parapsychology.

While I dont know much about this "particular" investigation, I would tend to agree with your comment.

Most of the "relevant information" below is copy/past from an P.M. I just sent to you in another "forum".

I have begun correspondence with Professor Stephen Braude, Chair of University of Maryland Philosophy Dept. Stephen is also the SSE's Editor for their journal.

Stephen has a similar "many decades" investigative background and recently did a "medium" investigation in Germany. Ill meet Stephen for the first time in a couple weeks, at the SSE Conference.

Stephen and a good friend of mine, (Physics Professor Richard Blade), both did investigations on Ted Serios in the late 60's early 70's. I was in a 3 way email correspondence with Braude and Blade, fascinating stuff!

Here is a link to some info on his Germany Medium investigation

http://www.scientifi...29th_annual.pdf

Page 18 of this PDF.

Perhaps Macro PK relevant

[Old Guy]

PhenomInvestigator, on May 27 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

The key point that is missed here is that the Phillip Group created a phenomenon which cannot be explained by physical science.

The point wasn't missed. After all, that is the point.

BUT (as he puts on his demon's advocate hat), here we are 35+ years later, and we can't prove, demonstrate, duplicate, or measure anything paranormal with reliable, repeatable, quantifiable results.

Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?

[Robot]

Old Guy, on May 28 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

PhenomInvestigator, on May 27 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

The key point that is missed here is that the Phillip Group created a phenomenon which cannot be explained by physical science.

The point wasn't missed. After all, that is the point.

BUT (as he puts on his demon's advocate hat), here we are 35+ years later, and we can't prove, demonstrate, duplicate, or measure anything paranormal with reliable, repeatable, quantifiable results.

Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?

"Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?"

That is my current "Understanding"

Psi is "Science Resistant"

[ohreally?]

Old Guy, on May 28 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

PhenomInvestigator, on May 27 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

The key point that is missed here is that the Phillip Group created a phenomenon which cannot be explained by physical science.

The point wasn't missed. After all, that is the point.

BUT (as he puts on his demon's advocate hat), here we are 35+ years later, and we can't prove, demonstrate, duplicate, or measure anything paranormal with reliable, repeatable, quantifiable results.

Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?

Heck you can go back much further. To the year 1882 when some British fellows form the British Society for Psychical Research. Still extant btw http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/.
And still at it and still can't provide proof for a dam thing.

Robot, on May 28 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

Old Guy, on May 28 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

PhenomInvestigator, on May 27 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

The key point that is missed here is that the Phillip Group created a phenomenon which cannot be explained by physical science.

The point wasn't missed. After all, that is the point.

BUT (as he puts on his demon's advocate hat), here we are 35+ years later, and we can't prove, demonstrate, duplicate, or measure anything paranormal with reliable, repeatable, quantifiable results.

Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?

"Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?"

That is my current "Understanding"

Psi is "Science Resistant"

I think you misunderstand what Old Guy means. I think he's saying there's nothing to explain because there's nothing there too explain.

Edited by ohreally?, 28 May 2010 - 09:51 AM.

[Old Guy]

ohreally?, on May 28 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I think you misunderstand what Old Guy means. I think he's saying there's nothing to explain because there's nothing there too explain.

Yes. But, perhaps ironically, Robot planted that seed during a similar discussion in a different thread.

I think the main reason I joined this forum is because (with rare exception) folks here seem to be more mature, open, and receptive in their thoughts. And there are folks like Caverat, Robot, etc..., that seem to be accustomed to thinking outside the box. (Robot is so far out there, I'm not even sure he HAS a box! ;-) For the most part, folks here can stand squarely on opposite sides of an issue without it escalating into an all out argument.

If scientific proof of the paranormal is ever achieved, I blieve it will be by someone comfortable with plowing down paradigms.

I like this place. You folks let me babble.

[Robot]

Old Guy, on May 28 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

ohreally?, on May 28 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I think you misunderstand what Old Guy means. I think he's saying there's nothing to explain because there's nothing there too explain.

Yes. But, perhaps ironically, Robot planted that seed during a similar discussion in a different thread.

I think the main reason I joined this forum is because (with rare exception) folks here seem to be more mature, open, and receptive in their thoughts. And there are folks like Caverat, Robot, etc..., that seem to be accustomed to thinking outside the box. (Robot is so far out there, I'm not even sure he HAS a box! ;-) For the most part, folks here can stand squarely on opposite sides of an issue without it escalating into an all out argument.

If scientific proof of the paranormal is ever achieved, I blieve it will be by someone comfortable with plowing down paradigms.

I like this place. You folks let me babble.

Thanks Buddy! Ill PM pics, when the Hyperdimensional box is complete

[canuck]

Actually, we have already had this conversation some years ago in one of the threads in this forum.

In that context, the discussion revolved around the design of a definitive experiment which would eliminate any doubt as to the source of the observed phenomena. Ie: were the phenomena caused by the “human” participants, or by an outside entity?

This thread petered out when nobody could come up with a definitive experiment to this end.

However, it seems that a variation of this experiment had already been conducted, repeatedly, in the late 1800's to early 1900's by William James and his group at the American Society for Psychical Research.

In these experiments, they studied Leonora Piper, probably the only “psychic” ever studied who seems authentic. Ie: despite many attempts by believers, scientists, skeptics and cynics, nobody was ever able to show that she was anything other than what she claimed to be.

During some of their studies in the USA, Williams asked Piper objectively verifiable questions in ancient Greek (of which she had no knowledge) and the answers were received through two other psychics: one in England, and another one in India.

Leaving out all the details of the methods and controls of the experiments, which were extensive, these experiments seem to confirm that the phenomena were not caused by the participants, but were in fact communications by an outside entity, who was known to be dead.

Anyone interested in these experiments should read up on William James and the “Cross Correspondence” studies.

[Robot]

canuck, on May 29 2010, 03:18 AM, said:

Actually, we have already had this conversation some years ago in one of the threads in this forum.

In that context, the discussion revolved around the design of a definitive experiment which would eliminate any doubt as to the source of the observed phenomena. Ie: were the phenomena caused by the “human” participants, or by an outside entity?

This thread petered out when nobody could come up with a definitive experiment to this end.

However, it seems that a variation of this experiment had already been conducted, repeatedly, in the late 1800's to early 1900's by William James and his group at the American Society for Psychical Research.

In these experiments, they studied Leonora Piper, probably the only “psychic” ever studied who seems authentic. Ie: despite many attempts by believers, scientists, skeptics and cynics, nobody was ever able to show that she was anything other than what she claimed to be.

During some of their studies in the USA, Williams asked Piper objectively verifiable questions in ancient Greek (of which she had no knowledge) and the answers were received through two other psychics: one in England, and another one in India.

Leaving out all the details of the methods and controls of the experiments, which were extensive, these experiments seem to confirm that the phenomena were not caused by the participants, but were in fact communications by an outside entity, who was known to be dead.

Anyone interested in these experiments should read up on William James and the “Cross Correspondence” studies.

Interesting, ill have to read,thanks

[Old Guy]

Robot, on May 28 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Thanks Buddy! Ill PM pics, when the Hyperdimensional box is complete

I sincerely hope you've planned in portability like the <cough> Parabot.

[Old Guy]

canuck, on May 29 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

This thread petered out when nobody could come up with a definitive experiment to this end.

I can understand why. It's not an easy undertakng for the layperson with limited or no funding. Not to mention the simple fact that so many in the investigative community are still chasing ghosts with "tools" that say "Ghost-someting" or "Paranormal-something." Some of those folks are zealous about the "evidence" they present as being "proof."

canuck, on May 29 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

However, it seems that a variation of this experiment had already been conducted, repeatedly, in the late 1800's to early 1900's by William James and his group at the American Society for Psychical Research.

Apologies for being redundant, but IMHO, unless and until we are able to take into account any and all known (and unknown) environmental factors, we'll likely not succeed in providing anything indisputable. Tandy and Lawrence didn't publish The Ghost in the Machine until 1998. Pasteur didn't develope his "germ theory" until the 1860s. My point is, prior to that, if you couldn't see it - it didn't exist.

[Robot]

Old Guy, on May 29 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

canuck, on May 29 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

This thread petered out when nobody could come up with a definitive experiment to this end.

I can understand why. It's not an easy undertakng for the layperson with limited or no funding. Not to mention the simple fact that so many in the investigative community are still chasing ghosts with "tools" that say "Ghost-someting" or "Paranormal-something." Some of those folks are zealous about the "evidence" they present as being "proof."

canuck, on May 29 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

However, it seems that a variation of this experiment had already been conducted, repeatedly, in the late 1800's to early 1900's by William James and his group at the American Society for Psychical Research.

Apologies for being redundant, but IMHO, unless and until we are able to take into account any and all known (and unknown) environmental factors, we'll likely not succeed in providing anything indisputable. Tandy and Lawrence didn't publish The Ghost in the Machine until 1998. Pasteur didn't develope his "germ theory" until the 1860s. My point is, prior to that, if you couldn't see it - it didn't exist.

"Germs" are ficticious creatures created by the Soap companies to sell more of their product. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

Ever see how to make "soap" in "Fight Club", soap will never look the same again.

Edited by Robot, 01 June 2010 - 07:42 AM.