Return Home
It is currently Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:04 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:09 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 16
Not negative review but I would like to know how Tom or those deeply familiar with Toms work would reply to the following:

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html


It would seem that the fringe science and geiger counter experiments at Princeton produced statistically insignificant results, and that this 'fringe' lab and its experiments ended their work without having made any significant impact in the field. Tom based a lot of the meat and potatoes of why how his theory is substantiated by modern science on experiments such as this.

Not ragging on Tom and his TOE, hoping for a good rebuttal as to why I am wrong here.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:23 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:32 pm
Posts: 199
Funny, I've heard the opposite about the PEAR lab parapsychology experiments. You're linking to a very biased website, some articles on skeptic's dictionary are laughable. The author of the site doesn't believe in lucid dreaming or hypnotism, both phenomena which have been proven to exist. His article on OoBE is just plain silly.

Capital "s" "Skepticism", has become a quasi-religion. If you want proof of this look no further than skeptic's dictionary.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:26 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 16
Quote:
Funny, I've heard the opposite about the PEAR lab parapsychology experiments. You're linking to a very biased website, some articles on skeptic's dictionary are laughable. The author of the site doesn't believe in lucid dreaming or hypnotism, both phenomena which have been proven to exist. His article on OoBE is just plain silly.

Capital "s" "Skepticism", has become a quasi-religion. If you want proof of this look no further than skeptic's dictionary.
Yes thank you I realize its a biased website but what I am more interested in is how Tom would reply to the 'statistical insignificance', as the results he spoke of in his lectures seemed much more conclusive. Therein I feel there is a gap and would just like a better explanation as to why it is prudent to accept the PEAR research as statistically significant. I would definitely like to believe it is but I am at the moment experiencing 'open minded skepticism' and waiting for an answer. I am not a scientist so unfortunately I cannot do my own data collecting.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:07 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:30 pm
Posts: 1058
Location: New York City
IUofC,

Robert T. Carroll, from the biography, is a member of academia, and would not normally be in favor of any teachings that would be considered fringe. I am not surprised that he takes the time to de-bunk any and all para-psychology, meta-physics, and any other fringe ideas not taught in mainstream academia.

And you wonder:
Quote:
"...as to why it is prudent to accept the PEAR research as statistically significant."
I would say do your own research and experiments, and draw your own conclusions.

and then...
Quote:
"...I would definitely like to believe it is but I am at the moment experiencing 'open minded skepticism' and waiting for an answer..."
We do not support belief in any form. If you are looking for someone to convince you, then you must go to a site that thrives on BELIEF. There will be no answers here that satisfy you.


Finally...
Quote:
"... I am not a scientist so unfortunately I cannot do my own data collecting."
Very few of us here, on this forum, are scientists, but we all do our own data collection. You are surrounded by DATA, look around. There is no person that can give you the answers that you seek.

Have you read the Trilogy yet? If not, its a good place to start.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:04 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 16
Sorry I dont think I made myself clear.

In the website I posted there is commentary alluding to the fact that the statistical results are not actually statistically significant, so my question is, what is it about the PEAR research that prompted Tom to note it in his lecture in NY as proof that intention collapses wave function. If its simply a matter of that website I quoted skewing the facts, that is fine. But as far as I can see this isnt PMR thinking trying to define Bigger Picture reality or a misguided small-picture scientists or anything along those lines, it seems that the validity of the results themselves as 'good science' are called into honest question. Im just curious about the criteria Tom would have used to judge that the PEAR experiments were something PMR scientists and skeptics alike could look at for evidence, when it would seem that the PEAR evidence is not as strong as the impression I had been left with. Tom is after all presenting the research to the audience as proof of others who are doing good research in the field. I also had trouble finding documentation of this robot falling off the table thing.

As you aptly point out belief is not knowledge so that is why I came here to ask, rather than believe Tom is right without thinking it through, or that the website is true without coming here to ask those more in-the-know than I. And even Tom himself wrote that in certain situations its prudent to accept others' knowledge - I think this is one of those situations where I would like to rely on the knowledge of others rather than spend my lifetime trying to re-create all the experiments myself in my basement and do my own data collecting. You can appreciate my dilemma and I hope you can also see we are on the same side here.

I am half way through the trilogy and I am enjoying it immensely.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:26 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
It sounds like there are several open questions here and I do not know the answers.

1) What parts of the article posted about are biased and inaccurate?

2) What is the full extent of the data from the PEAR research versus what the article discussed?

3) What specific data was Tom referring to when he quoted the PEAR research?

Tom would have been basing his comments on whatever they reported, accepting them as legitimate researchers as the respectable institution that they are. As far as I know he never participated directly in any such types of statistical analyses and attempts to alter probabilities. He always had more direct approaches to and ability to directly experience or make his own changes to probabilities.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:54 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 16
Quote:
It sounds like there are several open questions here and I do not know the answers.

1) What parts of the article posted about are biased and inaccurate?
I am not sure, I believe the gentleman above was saying its extremely biased.. I was just hoping to find out to what extent this criticism of the PEAR research was accurate. From my layman's point of view the only 'bias' is that the author doesnt seem to think that PEAR's statistical findings are valid because of the size of the sample (millions of RNG trials).
Quote:
2) What is the full extent of the data from the PEAR research versus what the article discussed?
It appears that the website simply quotes the PEAR data as-is. The core of the rebuttal on PEAR's research is that the change is very small, and only discernible due to the uniquely large sampling rate. Some would say 'thats good science' - a large sampling rate. Others like the author of this article would say 'stretching the trials out to such number so that a tiny variation becomes more apparent, when under normal size sampling groups wed see no difference', believe its bad science. I think this is the core issue.
Quote:
3) What specific data was Tom referring to when he quoted the PEAR research?
Thats the thing, he was simply referring if I remember correctly to a fringe department at Princeton (which is now in fact shut down it seems), having success with Geiger counters and robots falling off tables etc. Id have to back track through the lectures (all 5-6 hours) to find the bit but basically at this point Im just asking... IF the PEAR research is statistically insignificant:

1) does Tom know something about the research that contradicts this that this author is missing?
2) if other scientists/critics find this tiny variation that normally wouldnt exist inconclusive, why does Tom refer to it at all?

Basically I was under the impression that the experiments conducted by PEAR were rock-solid and able to stand toe-to-toe (no pun intended) with say the double slit experiment, but while the double slit experiment seems like a no-brainer this PEAR stuff seems to be called into doubt for good reason. Again, according to the background they performed their science under the strictest possible conditions and did their best to use good equipment so it behooves us at this point to start hiding behind the 'get your own data' thing; this is for all intents and purposes supposed to be the 'reliable data' from professionals, and i dont think we could define it as small picture science either.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:17 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 670
You raise a good point. I haven't dug into the PEAR research much, but my understanding is that a large sample size is required to show statistically significant results for events with a small uncertainty.

To add more detail about the criticism, the article says that over a large sampling rate, a bias in the device may mean that it is not truly random and you're just measuring the error (i.e. the device itself is biased 1% or whatever in a certain direction). I don't know if that's true or not.

You could fix that by doing several experiments with many different devices trying to bias it in either direction. I don't know if they did that or not. But if I thought of that off the top of my head I'm hoping that any self-respecting researcher would account for those details.

I suspect you could gain greater clarity with the situation by reading the PEAR papers yourself and comparing it against what this skeptic's article has said. I suspect the article isn't showing the whole picture. Once you get to the last couple paragraphs it just OOZES bias, so it's hard to take the earlier paragraphs with any credibility (for me anyways).

Also: I haven't been able to find that video with the robot falling off the table that Tom has mentioned in some of his videos. Has anyone else been able to?

_________________
Mike


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:04 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Martin knows robots I'd ask him about any video existing. I will on facebook.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:30 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I have watched that video of robots being controlled to deviate away from randomness by 'psychic' control but cannot find the reference here on the board. Probably a victim of the tendency of members to just post a link without any added material to know what is within the link. I keep mentioning that this needs to be done but you guys keep ignoring me. I looked at all the links regarding robots from a search but did not find this one.

On the web so far, I have found a link to this paper: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... _peoch.pdf Title: Psychokinetic Action of Young Chicks on the Path of An Illuminated Source The 'young chicks' were not human females chasing a guru but rather baby chickens. The baby chicks somehow managed to mentally control a normally randomly moving robot carrying a candle in the dark so that it spent its time around the group of chicks. In case you are not aware of it, baby chicks will cluster together for warmth in a compact group and are normally kept in warmed hutches until they become older and do not need the higher temperature of an artificial mother. The robot, rather than wandering the room, stayed near the chicks, apparently by their controlling it to keep the light source near and possibly because they could sense the heat of the candle.

I have also found this actual paper from PEAR which describes follow up experiments to the original robot control by thought experiments. http://www.icrl.org/pdf/Robot2_technical.pdf This paper's title: Random Robot Redux: Replications and Reflections authored by
R.G. Jahn, E.B. Fassassi, J.C. Valentino, and E.S. Hoeger. They report equal or better results than in the original research.

The above paper in its references led me to the original published paper on thought controlled robots describing this work on this link: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... 1_jahn.pdf This is titled: Response of an REG-Driven Robot to Operator Intention authored by R.G. Jahn, B .J. Dunne, D.J. Acunzo, And E.S. Hoeger.

This is the actual research as published so it should authoritatively provide the information that you seek.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:23 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 16
Thank you very much for the replies everyone.
I am working today but checked in before I headed off for the day.
I will take a look at these papers thoroughly first chance.

I think its a bit of a stalemate on second glance - PEAR says they did this but Dr. so and so says it wasnt good enough.
I agree that in the end I will just have to start practicing in point consciousness or go OOB or something and start to collect my own data (something Im really looking forward to) if I really want to know about intent collapsing waves. But rather than the bias in the authors writing I was just most concerned with the fact that the size of sampling rate and results seem to truly indicate there wasnt much of an effect at all.

Hopefully the author and myself have misinterpreted things and Tom has seen into the results deeper than this and referenced them for good reason.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 1220
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Hi IUofC,

There are some general rebuttals at Dean Radins blog, but it's a long time since I read it. You can find his blog here: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/ , might be some good reading.

Here's some evidence which was documented on video, it comes from a declassified CIA project.

Some time since I saw it, but it should be interesting nonetheless.
SRI: Stanford Research Institute paranormal research


Top
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:31 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:31 pm
Posts: 3496
Location: Florario/Ontorida
Quote:
Thank you very much for the replies everyone.
I am working today but checked in before I headed off for the day.
I will take a look at these papers thoroughly first chance.

I think its a bit of a stalemate on second glance - PEAR says they did this but Dr. so and so says it wasnt good enough.
I agree that in the end I will just have to start practicing in point consciousness or go OOB or something and start to collect my own data (something Im really looking forward to) if I really want to know about intent collapsing waves. But rather than the bias in the authors writing I was just most concerned with the fact that the size of sampling rate and results seem to truly indicate there wasnt much of an effect at all.

Hopefully the author and myself have misinterpreted things and Tom has seen into the results deeper than this and referenced them for good reason.
You have to obtain direct experience of PSI to collapse speculation to a known regarding reality being more than PMR

at that point, you are truly open, and then, Tom is the only game in town regarding a plausible model, for a proof seeker

Debating studies of research suggesting the impossible cannot be productive

Others, deeply want to believe and are deficient in skepticism...I guess I am in that camp

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 16
Quote:
Hi IUofC,

There are some general rebuttals at Dean Radins blog, but it's a long time since I read it. You can find his blog here: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/ , might be some good reading.

Here's some evidence which was documented on video, it comes from a declassified CIA project.

Some time since I saw it, but it should be interesting nonetheless.
SRI: Stanford Research Institute paranormal research
Thanks very much for that information, I will check it out first chance I get, kind of on a long work stretch right now.
Also, along the same lines, has anyone heard of this?

http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:20 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Yes this has been discussed here. :)
Loe
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited