“God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experime

[Limbo]

Anyone listen to Skeptico? This one looks interesting. I haven't listened to it yet. Maybe this weekend.

“God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experiments (http://www.skeptiko.com/michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link/)

Claims of telepathy, ESP and other psi phenomena are a mainstay of popular culture but taboo in neuroscience research circles. Fortunately, Dr. Michael Persinger of Canada’s Laurentian University has never been afraid to venture where other researchers fear to go. In the 1980’s Persinger made headlines with his “God Helmet”, a device that stimulates temporal lobes with a weak magnetic field in order to produce religious states.

Now, Persinger has discovered the same type of brain stimulation can create metal states conducive to human telepathy. “What we have found is that if you place two different people at a distance and put a circular magnetic field around both, and you make sure they are connected to the same computer so they get the same stimulation, then if you flash a light in one person’s eye the person in the other room receiving just the magnetic field will show changes in their brain as if they saw the flash of light. We think that’s tremendous because it may be the first macro demonstration of a quantum connection, or so-called quantum entanglement. If true, then there’s another way of potential communication that may have physical applications, for example, in space travel.”

While Persinger’s experiments could prove groundbreaking, he remains doubtful about his controversial findings reaching his colleagues, “I think the critical thing about science is to be open-minded. It’s really important to realize that the true subject matter of science is the pursuit of the unknown. Sadly scientists have become extraordinarily group-oriented. Our most typical critics are not are mystic believer types. They are scientists who have a narrow vision of what the world is like.”

Here is a link to the discussion thread:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/1116-89-god-helmet-inventor-dr-michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link-lab-exp.html

[Paul2]

I'm, uh, skeptical until there's a whole lot more details.

When did he do this? Details about the experiment? Has it been replicated by others?

We've got a long way to go before *anything* is established, and past track record doesn't encourage.

[Limbo]

I'm, uh, skeptical until there's a whole lot more details.


Sure.

When did he do this? Details about the experiment? Has it been replicated by others?


I haven't listened to the interview (link in OP) yet, maybe those questioned are answered in it? Have you listened to it?


We've got a long way to go before *anything* is established, and past track record doesn't encourage.


Maybe by your reconing.

[Paul2]

The interview was transcribed, it's in the link from the OP. Nothing in it that would indicate that the claim is/was examined critically.

[Limbo]

Here is the download link to the MP3, 35 min interview.

http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-89-Michael-Persinger.mp3

[fls]

Oops. He said "quantum entanglement" after describing a set of conditions which would not involve quantum entanglement. I'm not sure what to make of that gaffe; it makes him look a bit sloppy in his thinking.

Linda

[Horatius]

Fairly easy to test. Flash the lights in Morse code; see if the detector side can accurately replicate the message. Simple dots and dashes would not be very susceptible to observer bias. With proper double blinding, it would be a very powerful demonstration, if it works.

[paiute]

You had me at "quantum".

[Gate2501]

Oops. He said "quantum entanglement" after describing a set of conditions which would not involve quantum entanglement. I'm not sure what to make of that gaffe; it makes him look a bit sloppy in his thinking.

Linda

I know what to make of it. It is the same as those folks who try to posit quantum consciousness theories. QM is one of the final "gaps" in which to cram your woo.

1. Select your wacky hypothesis about macro-scale reality.
2. Find a quantum effect that behaves in a similar manner but has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothesis, which cannot manifest on macro scales any more than I can quantum tunnel through a bank vault.
3. Appeal to said quantum effect as a scientific explanation for your wacky hypothesis.

[Vitor Moura]

Persinger's article can be downloaded here:

http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/368/389

[Paul2]

fls, can you critique Persinger's article (link above in post #10)? I'm not sure I'm qualified to do the nitty-gritty.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think I've stumbled onto test footage from one of the prototypes.

God Helmet MkI - The "Happy Helmet" (http://en.sevenload.com/videos/RpBZD9o-Ren-And-Stimpy-Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy)

[Kell]

1. Select your wacky hypothesis about macro-scale reality.
2. Find a quantum effect that behaves in a similar manner but has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothesis, which cannot manifest on macro scales any more than I can quantum tunnel through a bank vault.
3. Appeal to said quantum effect as a scientific explanation for your wacky hypothesis.

4. Profit!!!

[I Ratant]

...I can quantum tunnel through a bank vault.
...
.
Desire to acquire unearned wealth noted.
The authorities have been notified.

[PixyMisa]

fls, can you critique Persinger's article (link above in post #10)? I'm not sure I'm qualified to do the nitty-gritty.
It's complete drivel.

There are many things wrong with it, but I'll pick up on two in particular.

First, an EEG is not going to show evidence of quantum entanglement one way or another, any more than a single photocell is going to show the chemical composition of a distant star. It's not sensitive enough or precise enough by many orders of magnitude.

Second, what they are hypothesisizing is physically impossible (http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm). Quantum decoherence (the breakdown of quantum entanglement) at the temperature of the brain occurs in picoseconds or less. Might as well try to weigh an electron on your kitchen scales.

[Vitor Moura]

It's complete drivel.

There are many things wrong with it, but I'll pick up on two in particular.

First, an EEG is not going to show evidence of quantum entanglement one way or another, any more than a single photocell is going to show the chemical composition of a distant star. It's not sensitive enough or precise enough by many orders of magnitude.

Wrong. See:

01. DUANE, T. D. & BEHRENDT, T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science, v. 150, p. 367, 1965; [RESULT POSITIVE]

02. HEARNE, K. (1977). Visually evoked responses and ESP. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 49, 648-657 [RESULT POSITIVE]

03. HEARNE, K. (1981). Visually evoked responses and ESP: Failure to replicate previous findings. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 145-147 [RESULT NEGATIVE]

04. WALLACE, R. K. & UNDRITH, G. S. Intersubject EEG coherence: is consciousness a field? International Journal of Neuroscience, v. 16, p. 203-209, 1982 [RESULT POSITIVE]

05. REBERT, C. S. & TURNER, A. EEG spectrum analysis techniques applied to the problem of psi phenomena. Behavioral Neuropsychiatry, v. 6, p. 18-24, 1974; [RESULT POSITIVE]

06. TARG. R. & PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, v. 251, p. 602-607, 1974. [RESULT POSITIVE]

07. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J. & RAMOS, J. Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. International Journal of Neuroscience, v. 36, p. 41-53, 1987.[RESULT POSITIVE]

08. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J.; DELAFLOR, M.; SANCHEZ, M. E. & GUEVARA, M. A. Human communication and the electrophysiological activity of the brain. Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, v. 3, p. 25-43, 1993; [RESULT POSITIVE]

09. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J.; DELAFLOR, M.; ATTIE, L. & GOSWAMI, L. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: the transferred potential. Physics Essays, v. 7, p. 422-428, 1994; [RESULT POSITIVE]

10. RICHARDS, T. & KOZAK, L. Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, v. 9, p. 122-128, 2003 [RESULTA POSITIVE]

11. WACKERMANN, J.; SEITER, C.; KEIBEL, H. & WALLACH, H. Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, v. 336, p. 60-64, 2003. [RESULTADO POSITIVO]

12. STANDISH, L. J.; KOZAK, I.; JOHNSON, L. C. & RICHARDS, T. Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, v. 10, p. 307-314, 2004; [RESULTO POSITIVE]

13. RADIN, D. L. Event-related EEG correlation between isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, v. 10, p. 315-324, 2004. [RESULT POSITIVE]

14. STANDISH, L. J.; KOZAK, I.; JOHNSON, L. C. & RICHARDS, T. Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Dec 2005, Vol. 11, No. 6: 955-963 [RESULT POSITIVE]

15. AMBACH, W.: Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects - a replication study. European Journal of Parapsychology 23 (2), 131-146, 2008 [RESULT NEGATIVE]


Second, what they are hypothesisizing is physically impossible (http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm). Quantum decoherence (the breakdown of quantum entanglement) at the temperature of the brain occurs in picoseconds or less. Might as well try to weigh an electron on your kitchen scales.

What you said is "physically impossible" in fact is "physically possible".

From the September 2009 Scientific American Magazine

Quantum Entanglement, Photosynthesis and Better Solar Cells
Quantum details of plants' food-making ability could improve photovoltaic technology

(...)

Quantum systems can exist in a superposition, or mixture, of many different states at once. What’s more, these states can interfere with one another—adding constructively at some points, subtracting at others. If the energy going into the antennas could be broken into an elaborate superposition and made to interfere constructively with itself, it could be transported to the reaction center with nearly 100 percent efficiency.

A new study by Mohan Sarovar, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, shows that some antennas—namely, those found on a certain type of green photosynthetic bacteria—do just that. Moreover, nearby antennas split incoming energy between them, which leads not just to mixed states but to states that are entangled over a broad (in quantum terms) distance. Gregory*Scholes, a chemist at the University of Toronto, shows in a soon to be published study that a species of marine algae utilizes a similar trick. Interestingly, the fuzzy quantum states in these systems are relatively long-lived, even though they exist at room temperature and in complicated biological systems. In quantum experiments in the physics lab, the slightest intrusion will destroy a quantum superposition (or state).

These studies mark the first evidence of biological organisms that exploit strange quantum behaviors. A better understanding of this intersection of microbiology and quantum information, researchers say, could lead to “bioquantum” solar cells that are more efficient than today’s photovoltaics.

Full article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-entanglement-and-photo

[Soapy Sam]

Not sure I understand.
Experiments have "positive" results?
You mean the experiment was designed to produce a desired result?
And frankly, including Radin does not bolster your case.

[fls]

Persinger's article can be downloaded here:

http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/368/389

Please note that this cannot be the same study referred to in the OP. However, it is worth discussion and does involve the claim of 'quantum entanglement'.

One of the first things that strikes me when I read the article is that he gets away with making statements that are not backed by evidence or are frankly contradicted by evidence. Usually peer-review prevents these sorts of statements, but if one looks at the journal in which it is published, it begins to make sense. The purpose of the NeuroQuantology journal is to "stimulate a synthesis or provoke new models", which suggests that speculation in the absence of evidence may be left unchallenged.

They took 4 pairs of people, divided them into 2 groups on the basis of proximity, measured 6 different frequency ranges in 8 different regions under 2 different conditions (eyes open and eyes closed). If you are keeping track, that means they looked at 96 correlations for each pair. They then report that 2 of those correlations were statistically significant.* This is taken as exemplifying 'entanglement'. There is no comment as to what should be made of the 94 correlations which don't exemplify 'entanglement'.

Then we get to the issue of what 'quantum entanglement' can look like macroscopically. Because, as has already been pointed out, when we talk about the conditions under which entanglement applies, it has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions which Persinger describes. So he needs to establish this connection before the results of his experiment can be taken to say anything whatsoever about this state. And this is how he does it. He states, "[i]f we assume that the probability or the magnitude of entanglement increases with the numbers of spatial proximities between pairs of units, in these instance two brains, then the results of this study might be considered a macroscopic example of this "excess correlation". So basically, if we assume something which is contradicted by pretty much everything we know, then the experiment is valid.

Then we have the issue of what this is supposed to explain - telepathy or the anomalous transfer of information. Yet Persinger himself states, "[w]e would not conclude that the correlations of brain power within specific bands between pairs of people were coupled with intention."

So what we have is this..."if you make an assumption which contradicts our prior knowledge and you pick out 2 unusual results a posteriori while ignoring the overwhelming number of ordinary results, you can form a conclusion about the results which is still insufficient to serve as support for any of the ideas tested by parapsychologists."

And despite all this, when we fail to conclude from this study that there is evidentiary support for parapsychology, it is because we are close-minded goats.

Linda

[fls]

Wrong. See:

01. DUANE, T. D. & BEHRENDT, T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science, v. 150, p. 367, 1965; [RESULT POSITIVE]

02. HEARNE, K. (1977). Visually evoked responses and ESP. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 49, 648-657 [RESULT POSITIVE]

03. HEARNE, K. (1981). Visually evoked responses and ESP: Failure to replicate previous findings. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 145-147 [RESULT NEGATIVE]

04. WALLACE, R. K. & UNDRITH, G. S. Intersubject EEG coherence: is consciousness a field? International Journal of Neuroscience, v. 16, p. 203-209, 1982 [RESULT POSITIVE]

05. REBERT, C. S. & TURNER, A. EEG spectrum analysis techniques applied to the problem of psi phenomena. Behavioral Neuropsychiatry, v. 6, p. 18-24, 1974; [RESULT POSITIVE]

06. TARG. R. & PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, v. 251, p. 602-607, 1974. [RESULT POSITIVE]

07. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J. & RAMOS, J. Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. International Journal of Neuroscience, v. 36, p. 41-53, 1987.[RESULT POSITIVE]

08. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J.; DELAFLOR, M.; SANCHEZ, M. E. & GUEVARA, M. A. Human communication and the electrophysiological activity of the brain. Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, v. 3, p. 25-43, 1993; [RESULT POSITIVE]

09. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J.; DELAFLOR, M.; ATTIE, L. & GOSWAMI, L. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: the transferred potential. Physics Essays, v. 7, p. 422-428, 1994; [RESULT POSITIVE]

10. RICHARDS, T. & KOZAK, L. Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, v. 9, p. 122-128, 2003 [RESULTA POSITIVE]

11. WACKERMANN, J.; SEITER, C.; KEIBEL, H. & WALLACH, H. Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, v. 336, p. 60-64, 2003. [RESULTADO POSITIVO]

12. STANDISH, L. J.; KOZAK, I.; JOHNSON, L. C. & RICHARDS, T. Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, v. 10, p. 307-314, 2004; [RESULTO POSITIVE]

13. RADIN, D. L. Event-related EEG correlation between isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, v. 10, p. 315-324, 2004. [RESULT POSITIVE]

14. STANDISH, L. J.; KOZAK, I.; JOHNSON, L. C. & RICHARDS, T. Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Dec 2005, Vol. 11, No. 6: 955-963 [RESULT POSITIVE]

15. AMBACH, W.: Correlations between the EEGs of two spatially separated subjects - a replication study. European Journal of Parapsychology 23 (2), 131-146, 2008 [RESULT NEGATIVE]

It should be pointed out that none of those studies are examples of entanglement as purportedly tested by Persinger. In fact, they would specifically be proof against entanglement, as the idea that he tested was that entanglement preserves neutrality, so that changes in the EEG state in one subject should be met with the opposite results in the other.

Linda

[Vitor Moura]

This is the other article by Persinger about the subject:

http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/170/216

Abstract
We tested if "entanglement" could be demonstrated between two non-sibling
brains with only a history of spatial proximity if one brain was exposed to a
consciousness-structured, continuously accelerating, circumcerebral magnetic
field to access this connection. Four pairs of strangers met and remained within one meter of each other for one hour, twice per week, for four weeks. After this period the brain of the stimulus person of the pair, who was seated in a closed chamber, was exposed successively to six (5 min each) different complex circumcerebral magnetic fields that were rotated counterclockwise. Quantitative monopolar electroencephalographic measurements over the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes were collected by computer for the response person of the pair who was seated in another room. The predicted increase in electroencephalographic power within the 5.0 Hz to 5.9 Hz band over the temporal lobes (but none of the other lobes), similar to that observed previously for siblings, was noted for the response persons when the stimulus persons received frequency modulated, circumcerebral magnetic fields at 20 msec rates of change per solenoid. The response persons also reported unusually intense "sensed presences", anger, and sexual arousal during these periods.

[Paul2]

fls, thanks a bunch for getting to the heart of the matter.

[fls]

They took 4 pairs of people, divided them into 2 groups on the basis of proximity, measured 6 different frequency ranges in 8 different regions under 2 different conditions (eyes open and eyes closed). If you are keeping track, that means they looked at 96 correlations for each pair. They then report that 2 of those correlations were statistically significant.* This is taken as exemplifying 'entanglement'. There is no comment as to what should be made of the 94 correlations which don't exemplify 'entanglement'.

I forgot to follow up on my asterix.

Linda

* In case you are wondering, the chance of finding 2 'significant' correlations when you have 96 to choose from is 25%.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I forgot to follow up on my asterix.

Linda

* In case you are wondering, the chance of finding 2 'significant' correlations when you have 96 to choose from is 25%.

Assuming an alpha of 0.01.

For those interested, this is calculated using the Binomial distribution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution) If X is the number of significant correlations, then:

P(X>=2) = 1 - [P(X=0)+P(X=1)]

P(X=0) = 96C0 * alpha^0 * (1-alpha)^96 = 1 * 0.01^0 * 0.99^96 = 0.381

P(X=1) = 96C1 * alpha^1 * (1-alpha)^95 = 96 * 0.01^1 * 0.99^95 = 0.370

P(X>=2) = 1 - (0.381 + 0.370) = 0.249

Changing alpha to 0.05 results in P(X>=2) of more than 95% for 96 independent correlations.

[Kuko 4000]

Anyone listen to Skeptico?


No, because I've noticed it's not sceptical or scientific enough in its approach, a good case of this would be the psychic detective challenge they had.

I would recommend Point of Inquiry, Reasonable Doubt, Skepticality, Skeptically Speaking and Skeptics Guide to the Universe to name just a few for your sceptical listening.

[skiba]

Not sure what you mean, kuko. The psychic detective challenge was an experiment. You know, actually putting the claims of a psychic to the test.

I listen to skeptiko regularly and maybe it is alittle too open minded for some, but there alot of interesting guests from both sides of the fence.

[Jeff Wagg]

Skeptiko is not a reliable source. He is not a fair interviewer, in my opinion. Skeptico, with a "c" is a completely different matter.

[Jeff Corey]

They would do better with two paper cups and a string.

[Kuko 4000]

Not sure what you mean, kuko. The psychic detective challenge was an experiment. You know, actually putting the claims of a psychic to the test.

I listen to skeptiko regularly and maybe it is alittle too open minded for some, but there alot of interesting guests from both sides of the fence.


The critical thinking from the host Alex in that episode was totally lacking. The guests are interesting and from all sides, which is good, I agree, and I've only listened to a few shows, but the overall feeling I get from it (in addition to what I've heard from many realiable sources) is that it's not critical enough in its approach, and like Jeff commented, not a reliable source. I am going to DL more episodes for fun and to see whether my opinion was formed too hastily. Just to make it clear, it's not about being too open minded, quite the opposite actually, but about critical thinking, scepticism and being scientific.

Btw. This thread is about Skeptiko (not Skeptico), I should've corrected Limbo on the spelling in my previous post, there's a big difference.

[skiba]

The critical thinking from the host Alex in that episode was totally lacking. The guests are interesting and from all sides, which is good, I agree, and I've only listened to a few shows, but the overall feeling I get from it (in addition to what I've heard from many realiable sources) is that it's not critical enough in its approach, and like Jeff commented, not a reliable source. I am going to DL more episodes for fun and to see whether my opinion was formed too hastily. Just to make it clear, it's not about being too open minded, quite the opposite actually, but about critical thinking, scepticism and being scientific.

Btw. This thread is about Skeptiko (not Skeptico), I should've corrected Limbo on the spelling in my previous post, there's a big difference.

Heres one show that I'd recommend.

Skeptiko Host, Alex Tsakiris, offers a point-by-point response to the comments of noted Skeptics, Dr. Steven Novella, and Dr. Richard Wiseman. During the 30-minute show Tsakiris examines Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s, “Dogs That Know” experiment and the criticisms leveled against it. Tsakiris also discusses the critismes of Dr. Richard Wiseman and reveals how his claims are contradicted by published reports on the experiment. (http://www.skeptiko.com/35-dr-steven-novella-and-dr-richard-wiseman-on-dogs-that-know-research/)

[Kuko 4000]

Heres one show that I'd recommend.




Thanks, I'll check it out :)

[fls]

Heres one show that I'd recommend.

Skeptiko Host, Alex Tsakiris, offers a point-by-point response to the comments of noted Skeptics, Dr. Steven Novella, and Dr. Richard Wiseman. During the 30-minute show Tsakiris examines Dr. Rupert Sheldrake’s, “Dogs That Know” experiment and the criticisms leveled against it. Tsakiris also discusses the critismes of Dr. Richard Wiseman and reveals how his claims are contradicted by published reports on the experiment. (http://www.skeptiko.com/35-dr-steven-novella-and-dr-richard-wiseman-on-dogs-that-know-research/)

That's a good example of what Kuko 4000 was referring to with respect to a lack of critical thinking. Tsakiris simply takes Sheldrake's word that he adequately addressed the criticisms to his methodology and bases the remainder of his criticisms on the assumption that Sheldrake did what he claimed he did. He also treats as ridiculous the issue of randomization and the issue of validity with respect to measurement. That he fails to understand the importance of these issues also makes his criticisms worthless.

Linda

[skiba]

That's a good example of what Kuko 4000 was referring to with respect to a lack of critical thinking. Tsakiris simply takes Sheldrake's word that he adequately addressed the criticisms to his methodology and bases the remainder of his criticisms on the assumption that Sheldrake did what he claimed he did. He also treats as ridiculous the issue of randomization and the issue of validity with respect to measurement. That he fails to understand the importance of these issues also makes his criticisms worthless.

Linda

Do you really think he was being unfair to Wiseman here?
It's just that, when skeptics criticize Sheldrakes methodology on the "Dog's that know" experiment, they usually refer to Wiseman.

[fls]

Do you really think he was being unfair to Wiseman here?

I do. He makes a lot of fuss about two comments Wiseman made almost in passing based on interpreting them in a way that may have been different than Wiseman intended (that's the way it looks to me). And he characterized Wiseman's use of a valid methodology as "bizarre" and "totally his own invention". I have a great deal of difficulty believing that Tsakiris could say that had he actually read Wiseman's study. And if he read Wiseman's study and still saw it that way, then it speaks volumes as to his ability to understand.

It's just that, when skeptics criticize Sheldrakes methodology on the "Dog's that know" experiment, they usually refer to Wiseman.

As far as I know, he's the only researcher to study this dog using a valid methodology. Sheldrake's methodology can be criticized without any recourse to Wiseman, but Wiseman showed that the application of methods which address those criticisms led to null results.

Linda

[Asm]

I noticed Electromagnetic theories of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness) has its own Wikipedia entry.

I know it's probably nonsense, but I have some layman questions.

Will noise from outside the skull necessarily ruin a weaker EM field inside, or its hypothetical interaction with the brain? (I know I can pick out tiny details on the wall paint from across the room even though I'm sitting in the middle of an ocean of crisscrossing waves, but perhaps it doesn't compare...)

Are they absolutely certain that the brain has no means of interacting with brainwaves? Or does it just seem highly unlikely.

Even if there is no interaction, could, for all we know, consciousness just as well reside inside a "brainfield" as inside neurons?

[skiba]

As far as I know, he's the only researcher to study this dog using a valid methodology. Sheldrake's methodology can be criticized without any recourse to Wiseman, but Wiseman showed that the application of methods which address those criticisms led to null results.

Linda

It's been awhile since I listended to that podcast, but didn't Wiseman give a null result if the dog went to the window even once before the owner was comming home. Where as Sheldrake gave a graph of how long the dog spent time at the window at any given time. Scoring high at the time the owner was on her way home.

Wasn't the method the same for both Wiseman and Sheldrake, only the analysis differed? If I recall correctly, the dog displayed the same behaviour on Wiseman and Sheldrakes experiments, they only came to a different conclution.

[abr]

who want to do an experiment of telepathy on skype or msn ,i have many concluente experiment the last with my friend i send numbers between 0 to 100,he receive all the numbers that i send.

[fromdownunder]

who want to do an experiment of telepathy on skype or msn ,i have many concluente experiment the last with my friend i send numbers between 0 to 100,he receive all the numbers that i send.

You also have your own thread devoted to that very topic. I suggest you reopen discussion on that thread if you wish to continue any discussion along these lines.



Norm

[Ashles]

who want to do an experiment of telepathy on skype or msn ,i have many concluente experiment the last with my friend i send numbers between 0 to 100,he receive all the numbers that i send.

I am having trouble understanding your communications when you just use actual text. I can't imagine how much worse it would be via telepathy.

[fls]

It's been awhile since I listended to that podcast, but didn't Wiseman give a null result if the dog went to the window even once before the owner was comming home. Where as Sheldrake gave a graph of how long the dog spent time at the window at any given time. Scoring high at the time the owner was on her way home.

Wasn't the method the same for both Wiseman and Sheldrake, only the analysis differed? If I recall correctly, the dog displayed the same behaviour on Wiseman and Sheldrakes experiments, they only came to a different conclution.

Papers:
http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/pdf/dog_video.pdf

The issue is whether or not the dog is responding to a specific trigger - a trigger which cannot be anything but paranormal. Otherwise, all that you have is that the dog spends varying amounts of time at the window and sometimes his time at the window occurs at about the same time as the owner is returning home. The problem is that we cannot control or capture all those things which are influencing the dog's behaviour (traffic on the street, visitors to the house, passerbys, alertness of the dog, time of day, presence or absence of people in the house, the owner's behaviour prior to leaving, the owner's routine, the owner's dress and scent, car sounds, etc.). The list of what we know about is already long and almost all uncontrolled.

There are several patterns in the data presented. The dog spends less time at the window for the first hour that his owner is gone and after that begins to make semi-regular trips to the window for no obvious reason, plus trips to the window for more obvious distractions.

Where we are given the details of the dog's behaviour, there seems to be a pattern to his visits to the window that relates to the passage of time. For the experiments Sheldrake performed, after about 90 minutes of absence the dog starts to visit the window more frequently until the 120 mark, at which point he visits the window for by far the most extended periods of time. There is then a drop off in the number of visits which then gradually increases until you hit the 160 minute mark. This same pattern is also shown in the control data. It just so happens, despite Sheldrake's statement that the return times were chosen randomly, that 5 out of the 12 return times chosen were at the 120 minute mark, and 3 were at the 160 mark, so 8 of the 12 experiments correspond to a pattern that is already present in the dog’s behaviour that is unrelated to any paranormal triggers.

If we look at Sheldrake's measure of success, that the ten minute period prior to the return shows less visits than that after the return, we discover than many of the ten minute periods show this pattern, regardless of whether or not they correspond to the return of the owner. Counting up the total number of 10 minute periods during which the owner could have returned, 63 percent of them were preceded by a 10 minute interval with fewer visits to the window irrespective of whether or not the owner was on her way home.

ETA: Note this same finding is present in the control data.

There is a bias which is introduced with early stopping. We know that trials which are stopped after a positive result is obtained, before subsequent regression to the mean (a result following an unusual result will most likely be closer to the average, rather than farther away) can average the results, introduces an effect whereby positive results are preferentially saved. Sheldrake’s main analysis includes only the first 10 minute period for the return time. If we look at Wiseman’s data, which includes return times longer than 10 minutes, we see that the time spent at the window drops off after that first ten minutes, so including those times would lower the average.

It becomes clear that there are already patterns in the dog’s behaviour which can easily be exploited to correspond to the return of the owner. We cannot control the dog’s behaviour, so if we want to see whether or not that behaviour is truly independent of normal behaviour (i.e. due to paranormal triggers), the trigger (independent variable) has to be specific, the behaviour (dependent variable) has to be specific, and the trigger has to be completely independent of any other pattern. Taking the last issue into consideration, it becomes obvious that the only data that can be of use is data where the owner returns at random times. All other times do not rule-out the possibility of various cues the dog may respond to. Even though the owner states that she does not notice a routine to her normal activities, it does not mean that she does not have a routine which the dog has noticed.

Wiseman and Sheldrake both chose a specific trigger – the setting out for home. Wiseman chose a specific behaviour. In particular, he chose a behaviour which could happen only once in the course of a trial, so its presence during the period of interest would be unusual. Sheldrake chose a non-specific and common behaviour. In fact, he chose a behaviour whose presence during the period of interest would be usual and expected. But most importantly, even though the return times were chosen by random methods, the actual times of return were very far from random. In fact, they correspond very nicely with a pre-existing pattern to the dog’s behaviour. If you overlay the graph with the frequency with which various return times were chosen using the ‘random’ methods, it is almost exactly the same as the graph in figure 5 which shows the length of visits to the window when the owner did not come home. I find that an amazing coincidence, but it means that the results which Shedrake found would be what you’d expect if the dog’s behaviour was uninfluenced by any paranormal trigger. Wiseman, who actually managed to chose a specific behaviour whose presence did not correspond to a pre-existing pattern, did not find an association.

Linda

[Beth]

It's been awhile since I listended to that podcast, but didn't Wiseman give a null result if the dog went to the window even once before the owner was comming home. Where as Sheldrake gave a graph of how long the dog spent time at the window at any given time. Scoring high at the time the owner was on her way home.

Wasn't the method the same for both Wiseman and Sheldrake, only the analysis differed? If I recall correctly, the dog displayed the same behaviour on Wiseman and Sheldrakes experiments, they only came to a different conclution.

That is my recollection as well. Linda's post seems to indicate that this is correct.

Wiseman and Sheldrake both chose a specific trigger – the setting out for home. Wiseman chose a specific behaviour. In particular, he chose a behaviour which could happen only once in the course of a trial, so its presence during the period of interest would be unusual. Sheldrake chose a non-specific and common behaviour. In fact, he chose a behaviour whose presence during the period of interest would be usual and expected. But most importantly, even though the return times were chosen by random methods, the actual times of return were very far from random. In fact, they correspond very nicely with a pre-existing pattern to the dog’s behaviour. If you overlay the graph with the frequency with which various return times were chosen using the ‘random’ methods, it is almost exactly the same as the graph in figure 5 which shows the length of visits to the window when the owner did not come home. I find that an amazing coincidence, but it means that the results which Shedrake found would be what you’d expect if the dog’s behaviour was uninfluenced by any paranormal trigger. Wiseman, who actually managed to chose a specific behaviour whose presence did not correspond to a pre-existing pattern, did not find an association.

Linda

I find this to jive with my recollection. Wiseman and Sheldrake both chose analysis options that resulted in their default hypothesis being accepted. I'm not as certain as you which was the best choice of behavior though. The advantage of choosing a common behavior is that it's easier for the test to spot a difference. Sheldrake's test should be more sensitive with the same sample size. Wiseman's choice of that behavior results in a test more likely to mistakenly reject the alternative hypothesis.

I think the pattern analysis is interesting and a plausible explanation for the seeming success. So, in the end, after looking over the papers I had seen, I felt the results were inconclusive and unconvincing.

[skiba]

Interesting points Linda. I wasnt aware of this.

For sure, there seems to be regular pattern to the dogs behaviour.
But I think, that is to be expected, animals form habbits same as humans.
I cannot say if sheldrake porpusely expoited this or not, but that doesnt explaint the increased time spent at the window during the return.

In the control there are peaks at 50-125 seconds.
During the main period in the actual trials, the peaks are similar to the control. During the return there at 400-450.


I agree that there are alot of variables that can affect the dogs behaviour, but unless you can propose something that happens regularly every time the owner returns, I dont see the need to speculate.

[fls]

Interesting points Linda. I wasnt aware of this.

For sure, there seems to be regular pattern to the dogs behaviour.
But I think, that is to be expected, animals form habbits same as humans.
I cannot say if sheldrake porpusely expoited this or not, but that doesnt explaint the increased time spent at the window during the return.

In the control there are peaks at 50-125 seconds.
During the main period in the actual trials, the peaks are similar to the control. During the return there at 400-450.

Yeah, the control measurements are done under more homogeneous circumstances than the remainder of the trials, without variation in the time of day, setting, or presence of humans, and when the owner knew in advance what would be the length of her absence. It shouldn't surprise us that this data would vary much less than the other data which occurred under much more variable conditions and under conditions when JayTee spent more time at the window overall. Real control data, which would give some indication of just how much time we would expect JayTee to spend at the window for any given time-period, is non-existant. And the assumption made by Sheldrake and used by Radin for the analysis (that the time spent at the window should be the same for each 10 minute period) is very clearly wrong. I suppose that they wouldn't necessarily know that beforehand, but they had to have realized it once the results were in. It's odd that they included the analysis after they knew it was wrong. Of course, it's also odd that Sheldrake deliberately withheld information which contradicted his hypothesis on at least one occasion (he did not include all the trials from Wiseman), and that this is yet another example where he manages to obtain a very non-uniform distribution while using supposedly random methods (his telephone telepathy experiments are another example.

I agree that there are alot of variables that can affect the dogs behaviour, but unless you can propose something that happens regularly every time the owner returns, I dont see the need to speculate.

I don't know that it would have to happen every time. If it did, then Sheldrake has effectively disproven his idea, since the dog did not wait by the window on about half of the trials.

Linda

[Dancing David]

Wrong.
Well you might be.

....
Full article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-entanglement-and-photo


Hi, I have just met you Vitor Moura, welcome to the Forum.
And please if I seem rude I apologize and will do so again as needed. But it seems to me that you have made a claim that is unsupported, so before anything else and the imporatnt part is:
how does any of the research in that article/press release have any bearing on what you or the psi articles are claiming?

Oh gosh a scientific press release that has been reformatted to fill pages!

Let us actually look at the material shall we?

Submitted journal articles Mohan Sarovar

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.5427v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/arxiv:0910.1847
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3988
http://arxiv.org/abs/arxiv:0905.3787


Now if you look at this they are talking about coherence and ‘entanglement’ in chromospheres in a single cell (and probably a single organelle.). Which is not too surprising, there are going to be effects in light frequency absorption.

But this has nothing to do with quantum states between brain cells between separated brains in human beings. It has to do with very short order effects (femto-seconds) in a photosynthetic system in close proximity. There is also no transfer of information or states across a large scale area.

So once again we have argument by press release and a claim being made that is not relevant to the original discussion.

[Maia]

Persinger is an interesting one, without a doubt, and there have been quite a few discussions about his work around here before. He also publishes research on some other subjects, and the one which I can comment about the most... authoritatively, I guess, or at least the closest to anything resembling an authoritative way, is his work involving anticonvulsants and their long-term effects on traumatic brain injuries. (Evil, evil computer is not letting me publish the link to the articles.) This is remarkable research,and it's contributed to advances in medical treatment which have had very practical and positive results for a lot of people. So Persinger's certainly capable of doing very good work.

[Vitor Moura]

Well you might be.

Sure, anyone can make mistakes.

Hi, I have just met you Vitor Moura, welcome to the Forum. And please if I seem rude I apologize and will do so again as needed.

But is really necessary to be rude?

But it seems to me that you have made a claim that is unsupported, so before anything else and the imporatnt part is:
how does any of the research in that article/press release have any bearing on what you or the psi articles are claiming?

You will see below.


Now if you look at this they are talking about coherence and ‘entanglement’ in chromospheres in a single cell (and probably a single organelle.). Which is not too surprising, there are going to be effects in light frequency absorption.

But this has nothing to do with quantum states between brain cells between separated brains in human beings. It has to do with very short order effects (femto-seconds) in a photosynthetic system in close proximity. There is also no transfer of information or states across a large scale area.

So once again we have argument by press release and a claim being made that is not relevant to the original discussion.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503136v2.pdf

2.2. Possibility of QE in the biological domain

As a by-product of interactions, QE should be an omnipresent feature in nature. However, this would mostly be at the molecular level and below. In systems of macroscopic scale, be they inanimate or alive, one would expect that the effects of QE would quickly be lost, because any macroscopic system interacts permanently with the environment through the exchange of thermal radiation. And as soon as such interaction with systems outside the original QE occurs, the original QE gets diminished or fully destroyed. This is partly countered by the fact that, with increasing complexity of the entanglement — as would be the case in systems of many degrees of freedom, e.g. from molecules upwards — the deviation from classical physics as witnessed by violations of Bell inequalities becomes stronger [6],[7]. Therefore, traces of QE might be noticeable between such systems even after appreciable contact with the environment. In certain solids this has already been detected, because macroscopic properties like the behavior of the magnetic susceptibility are a proof of entanglement even at finite temperature [8, 9]. It has also been shown that the thermal environment does not only tend to destroy QE, but also permanently creates it by mediating between any two systems [10, 11]. Therefore, it is not completely impossible that QE can exist in the biological realm. In fact, its obvious advantages may have helped to stabilize mechanisms utilizing QE under evolutionary pressure. First suggestions for a role of entanglement between animals have already been made in [12]. There have also been hypotheses of quantum computations, which rely on QE, taking place in the brain [13]. It has also been suggested that correlations found between the electroencephalograms from two different persons could be due to QE [14, 15]. Indeed, one can easily think of a wide range of biological processes, where QE would lead to a Darwinian advantage: Quantum entanglement could coordinate biochemical reactions in different parts of a cell, or in different parts of an organ. It could allow correlated firings of distant neurons. And — as shall be the topic here — it could coordinate the behavior of members of a species, because it requires no physical link and is independent of distance. It is also conceivable that QE correlates processes between members of different species, and even between living systems and the inanimate world.

Specifically, the evolutionary advantage of quantum entanglement could consist in the following: Since quantum entanglement involves no transfer of information between the entangled parts, but produces effects over arbitrary distances as if information had been transferred [16], it can eliminate the need to develop further means of communication.

[Dancing David]

Sure, anyone can make mistakes.



But is really necessary to be rude?

Geez dude, that is the last time I ever try to be nice to you. This is the JREf and sometimes it seems rude when it is not.
Apparently english is not your first language.



You will see below.



http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503136v2.pdf

I will read it and get back to you, the last one had nothing to do
with any possible effects in the supposed study.

But i will read it and let you know.

ETA: Considering it is all speculative, it does not bode well, i will also check the sources of data and see how they really apply to thier use in the article. Hopefully they will do much better than you did.

[Maia]

Indeed, one can easily think of a wide range of biological processes, where QE would lead to a Darwinian advantage: Quantum entanglement could coordinate biochemical reactions in different parts of a cell, or in different parts of an organ. It could allow correlated firings of distant neurons.


I could also win $20 million if I just knew the correct lotto numbers for tomorrow, but you know, something tells me that's just not going to happen. This really isn't my idea of scientific thinking. Maybe somebody else can explain it better in terms of quantum theory or physics (well, I'm sure somebody else could,) but let's look at how this kind of statement compares to the research on anticonvulsants and long-standing traumatic brain injuries (which Persinger did do). Moderate closed-head TBI's have permanent effects, generally in terms of subdural hematomas and diffuse axonal damage. In the past, it was not understood that the use of antiepileptic drugs could improve the long-term sequelae of these neurological conditions. It's now known that they can, or at least that some of the newer meds can (such as lamotrigine). We don't know exactly why, but we don't really need to; what's important for clinical purposes is that they do. We don't need to qualify these results with 8,000 repetitions of how this, that, and the other "could" happen. The precise details about whatever it is that "could" be happening in the brain are certainly very interesting, we do know some things about them, and we may be able to find out more someday, but right now, these meds are changing people's lives, and results are what matter. In the case of QE, however, we have absolutely no idea if anything is actually happening. The speculations are tautological, because nobody knows if they refer to anything or not.

[Dancing David]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503136v2.pdf

Everything in this article is totaly speculative and has no data to back it up.

Like this speculative doozy:

In this paper we make use of the simplest kind of QE, which is the correlation
of the angular momentum between two particles of the same kind.
Both shall have an angular momentum of hbar/2, and are thus so called spin(- 1/2)particles. hbar is Planck’s constant of action.


Yeah right and how ar e the ants and butterflys going to measure that?

And it gets much worse, it is laughable to pretend that this means anything, they jump from one scale to another, they discuss legitemate examples of entanglemet, like the cesium atoms and laser splitting

Another possibility is that the systems to be entangled each
interact in succession with one external system. This has been done with two
atoms passing a cavity one after the other [23], and with two macroscopic
Cs-samples, which one after the other were traversed by a beam of light [24] and then gives ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that this would work in biology.

Yes would be a more efficient human being if I had super powers, could fly and light fires with my eyeballs.

That does not man that i can.

[Kuko 4000]

I am going to DL more episodes for fun and to see whether my opinion was formed too hastily. Just to make it clear, it's not about being too open minded, quite the opposite actually, but about critical thinking, scepticism and being scientific.


I have now listened to 6 more shows and I feel I can say for certain that the host Alex (of Skeptiko) does not apply good or even decent critical thinking skills. Anyways, I thank you (skiba) for encouraging me to listen more, it's very enlightening to see how some of the main guys from the "believer" and non-sceptical side handle this stuff. I am going to keep listening to this show even though I often get this feeling: :mgduh

[skiba]

I have now listened to 6 more shows and I feel I can say for certain that the host Alex (of Skeptiko) does not apply good or even decent critical thinking skills. Anyways, I thank you (skiba) for encouraging me to listen more, it's very enlightening to see how some of the main guys from the "believer" and non-sceptical side handle this stuff. I am going to keep listening to this show even though I often get this feeling: :mgduh

Your welcome Kuko.
Well, Alex clearly is on the believer side, and that's a big turn off for skeptics, but I still think he manages to keep it quite balanced.

Good to hear that you'll still listen to the show.

[dlorde]

... There have also been hypotheses of quantum computations, which rely on QE, taking place in the brain [13]. ...

This sounds like Penrose & Hameroff's 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction' (or 'Quantum Consciousness') idea. Pseudo-science of the worst kind by a great mathematician.

[fls]

Your welcome Kuko.
Well, Alex clearly is on the believer side, and that's a big turn off for skeptics...

When I'm listening to a program, what makes it work for me is when the host asks those questions that I want to ask. When the host doesn't challenge the guest on those points and criticisms which are key to the validity of their ideas, it's not particularly useful to me, as I can read and understand the research on my own.

It's not so much that whether or not someone believes is a turn off, it's whether or not their beliefs prevent them from extracting crucial information from their guest.

Linda

[Gate2501]

This sounds like Penrose & Hameroff's 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction' (or 'Quantum Consciousness') idea. Pseudo-science of the worst kind by a great mathematician.

Yes, I mentioned the similarity to Quantum Consciousness in my snarky post on the first page. These Quantum <insert your macro-scale woo here> theories really bother me.

[skiba]

These Quantum <insert your macro-scale woo here> theories really bother me.

Maybe there not so far fetched.

Quantum Entanglement Proved at the Macroscale (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quantum-Entanglement-Proved-at-the-Macroscale-122923.shtml)

[fls]

Maybe there not so far fetched.

Quantum Entanglement Proved at the Macroscale (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quantum-Entanglement-Proved-at-the-Macroscale-122923.shtml)

There are certain exceptional states which under contrived circumstances can exhibit properties of quantum mechanics (examples, lasers, superconductivity, bose-einstein condensates, phonons). However, Persinger is clearly making reference to conditions which are not one of these exceptional states under contrived circumstances. The brain is not a superconductor.

Linda

[Dancing David]

Maybe there not so far fetched.

Quantum Entanglement Proved at the Macroscale (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quantum-Entanglement-Proved-at-the-Macroscale-122923.shtml)

Um, press reelase here:
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2094

This has nothing to do with the nonsense presented in this thread.


Martinis said: "This experiment has met this challenge, achieved by performing a very demanding measurement on a pair of Josephson qubits, a measurement that requires excellent control over qubit state preparation, qubit entanglement, and very high fidelity single-shot state measurements of the entangled qubits. It directly proves that quantum mechanics is the only possible description for the behavior of a macroscopic electrical circuit."


they also do not state the level of violation of the Bell's status. Superconducting/supercold materials and EM fields not brain sized organic structures.

[skiba]

A question to those who are more informed on the subject:

Because of the measurement problem, how do they actually find out how long a system can maintain entanglement?

[Dancing David]

Skiba, this is a very complex issue, first off there is Bell's theorem and the whole world of QM. Then there are people who look for violations of Bell's theorem.

Then there is the issue of how research gets reproted , especially about QM. Like the 'consciousness' and QM stuff (which is wrong) and how one possible violation of Bell's theorem gets reported and repeated but the refutation or limits of it does not.

Here is the deal, the creation of an entangled pair of particles is just that. The creation of a pair of particles, they are NOT large macroscopic structures. They are not created by two people just happening to know each other, a butterfly does not have the equipment to detect the 'spin' state of entangled particles. And the other problem is that to transfer information using entangled particles throws you up against the paradox, even if you violate locality and the speed c you need more reference to transmit information. You can't transmit information by just looking at the spin state of a partcile, you have to be able to say "it will be this state and that means a 0/1 bit" and I don't think you can force that on one member of an entangled pair.

[steenkh]

It seems that quantum entanglement is increasingly being found in biological beings,
like this example of quantum entanglement "over a broad (in quantum terms) distance" has been identified in the antenna of a certain type of photosynthetic bacteria: Quantum Entanglement, Photosynthesis and Better Solar Cells (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-entanglement-and-photo).

(The original paper seems to be this one: Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light harvesting complexes (http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3787))

And here is another news article from Scientific American about quantum entanglement in macro systems: How Noise Can Help Quantum Entanglement (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=easy-go-easy-come) by George Musser.

[Dancing David]

Yes, but it is entanglement in a chrlorphyll structure and lasts femto-seconds, it is already cited in this thread. :)

And not relevant to brain entanglemnt.

[Vitor Moura]

Papers:
http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/petsBJP.pdf
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/pdf/dog_video.pdf

The issue is whether or not the dog is responding to a specific trigger - a trigger which cannot be anything but paranormal. Otherwise, all that you have is that the dog spends varying amounts of time at the window and sometimes his time at the window occurs at about the same time as the owner is returning home. The problem is that we cannot control or capture all those things which are influencing the dog's behaviour (traffic on the street, visitors to the house, passerbys, alertness of the dog, time of day, presence or absence of people in the house, the owner's behaviour prior to leaving, the owner's routine, the owner's dress and scent, car sounds, etc.). The list of what we know about is already long and almost all uncontrolled.

There are several patterns in the data presented. The dog spends less time at the window for the first hour that his owner is gone and after that begins to make semi-regular trips to the window for no obvious reason, plus trips to the window for more obvious distractions.

Where we are given the details of the dog's behaviour, there seems to be a pattern to his visits to the window that relates to the passage of time. For the experiments Sheldrake performed, after about 90 minutes of absence the dog starts to visit the window more frequently until the 120 mark, at which point he visits the window for by far the most extended periods of time. There is then a drop off in the number of visits which then gradually increases until you hit the 160 minute mark. This same pattern is also shown in the control data. It just so happens, despite Sheldrake's statement that the return times were chosen randomly, that 5 out of the 12 return times chosen were at the 120 minute mark, and 3 were at the 160 mark, so 8 of the 12 experiments correspond to a pattern that is already present in the dog’s behaviour that is unrelated to any paranormal triggers.

If we look at Sheldrake's measure of success, that the ten minute period prior to the return shows less visits than that after the return, we discover than many of the ten minute periods show this pattern, regardless of whether or not they correspond to the return of the owner. Counting up the total number of 10 minute periods during which the owner could have returned, 63 percent of them were preceded by a 10 minute interval with fewer visits to the window irrespective of whether or not the owner was on her way home.

ETA: Note this same finding is present in the control data.

There is a bias which is introduced with early stopping. We know that trials which are stopped after a positive result is obtained, before subsequent regression to the mean (a result following an unusual result will most likely be closer to the average, rather than farther away) can average the results, introduces an effect whereby positive results are preferentially saved. Sheldrake’s main analysis includes only the first 10 minute period for the return time. If we look at Wiseman’s data, which includes return times longer than 10 minutes, we see that the time spent at the window drops off after that first ten minutes, so including those times would lower the average.

It becomes clear that there are already patterns in the dog’s behaviour which can easily be exploited to correspond to the return of the owner. We cannot control the dog’s behaviour, so if we want to see whether or not that behaviour is truly independent of normal behaviour (i.e. due to paranormal triggers), the trigger (independent variable) has to be specific, the behaviour (dependent variable) has to be specific, and the trigger has to be completely independent of any other pattern. Taking the last issue into consideration, it becomes obvious that the only data that can be of use is data where the owner returns at random times. All other times do not rule-out the possibility of various cues the dog may respond to. Even though the owner states that she does not notice a routine to her normal activities, it does not mean that she does not have a routine which the dog has noticed.

Wiseman and Sheldrake both chose a specific trigger – the setting out for home. Wiseman chose a specific behaviour. In particular, he chose a behaviour which could happen only once in the course of a trial, so its presence during the period of interest would be unusual. Sheldrake chose a non-specific and common behaviour. In fact, he chose a behaviour whose presence during the period of interest would be usual and expected. But most importantly, even though the return times were chosen by random methods, the actual times of return were very far from random. In fact, they correspond very nicely with a pre-existing pattern to the dog’s behaviour. If you overlay the graph with the frequency with which various return times were chosen using the ‘random’ methods, it is almost exactly the same as the graph in figure 5 which shows the length of visits to the window when the owner did not come home. I find that an amazing coincidence, but it means that the results which Shedrake found would be what you’d expect if the dog’s behaviour was uninfluenced by any paranormal trigger. Wiseman, who actually managed to chose a specific behaviour whose presence did not correspond to a pre-existing pattern, did not find an association.

Linda

Linda, in the link below you will find Sheldrake's reply to you:

http://www.4shared.com/file/188187139/165cc00c/Sheldrake_reply_to_Linda.html

Best wishes.

[fls]

Linda, in the link below you will find Sheldrake's reply to you:

http://www.4shared.com/file/188187139/165cc00c/Sheldrake_reply_to_Linda.html

Best wishes.

I'm not sure I want to download stuff from a stranger given the recent attempt at spreading malware to forum members by someone who was hostile to skeptics. This sort of activity is also tricky, as it can be seen as posting by proxy, which is against forum rules.

If Sheldrake is interested in participating in this conversation, maybe he should join the forum?

Linda

[Hepcat65]

I took the "risk" & uploaded the text on a google document, view mr Sheldrakes reply here: http //tiny.cc/edFyp

[fls]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATk6k68qyvS0ZGN2NW1odHNfMGNrdjNjNWdj&hl=en

That's for posting that Hepcat65.

So we're back to the same problem that I mentioned to Vitor Moura in the previous Sheldrake thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5387152#post5387152). He is not engaging in our discussion and simply dismisses criticisms against his work, so how can any of this help here where we are actually engaged in critical discussion?

Linda

[Dancing David]

But 'controls' are too much work.

;)

[Vitor Moura]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATk6k68qyvS0ZGN2NW1odHNfMGNrdjNjNWdj&hl=en

That's for posting that Hepcat65.

So we're back to the same problem that I mentioned to Vitor Moura in the previous Sheldrake thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5387152#post5387152). He is not engaging in our discussion and simply dismisses criticisms against his work, so how can any of this help here where we are actually engaged in critical discussion?

Linda

Linda, I think Sheldrake answered very well your points. In fact, you should explain many things, like "where this 63% figure comes from". By the way, why don't you write to him?

[fls]

Linda, I think Sheldrake answered very well your points.

Really? His answer essentially comes down to "I didn't notice this pattern, but now that you mention it, I will ignore it anyway." He did not offer up an explanation which would address these issues.

In fact, you should explain many things, like "where this 63% figure comes from".

I stated explicitly where it came from. If you look at the 12 graphs from Sheldrake's experiments and count all the ten minute intervals in the period of time in which the owner could have returned, there are 40 intervals, 25 of which show an increase in waiting times.

Anyway, I am happy to discuss specific points that you think may be important, but I ask that you do so by re-opening the Sheldrake thread, since it is becoming off-topic for this thread.

Linda

[fls]

By the way, why don't you write to him?

Why? Shouldn't his research stand on its own? Are you suggesting that he withheld important information in his publication of his research, so that by writing to him, he will share with me that information which serves to address the criticisms that I raised?

Linda

[Vitor Moura]

Really? His answer essentially comes down to "I didn't notice this pattern, but now that you mention it, I will ignore it anyway." He did not offer up an explanation which would address these issues.

As I understand, he did.

And the data in figure 4, which show the effects of long return times show a peak around 70 minutes and 140 minutes, not the pattern she claims to have found. Moreover, in figure 4, with the medium and short return times, the maximum time at the window occurred before the maxima that she claims to have seen.

I stated explicitly where it came from. If you look at the 12 graphs from Sheldrake's experiments and count all the ten minute intervals in the period of time in which the owner could have returned, there are 40 intervals, 25 of which show an increase in waiting times.

This makes it clearer how you arrived at this number. But out of the 40 10 min intervals, 16 when the dog went to the window were when Pam was actually coming home, which is what the experiment was about. If you had counted all the 10 minute intervals, the great majority showed no movement to the window at all.

Anyway, I am happy to discuss specific points that you think may be important, but I ask that you do so by re-opening the Sheldrake thread, since it is becoming off-topic for this thread.
Linda

Sure, but I must remeber that it was not me who started to talk about Sheldrake in this thread...

[Vitor Moura]

Why? Shouldn't his research stand on its own? Are you suggesting that he withheld important information in his publication of his research, so that by writing to him, he will share with me that information which serves to address the criticisms that I raised?

Linda

Maybe yes, maybe no. Anyone can make good or bad criticisms, and you could save a lot of our time if you only write to him. If your criticisms are good, I think Sheldrake you say "you are right, this is a failure in my research". If your criticisms are wrong, Sheldrake will explain you why, like he is doing now.

If you don't want to write to him, I think you should send your future criticisms to a peer-review journal, like the Journal of Scientific Exploration, or Anthrozoos, or any other, and see if the reviewers acept them. That's what I did concerning to a case of reincarnation, and my criticisms were accepted by the reviewers and the authors of the original article answered to my criticisms very well.

Best wishes.

[fls]

Further discussion of Sheldrake's experiments taken here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5482359#post5482359

Linda

[Speldosa]

Does anybody know of any critique against these kind of studies, published in a scientific journal? I've been searching like crazy for this in different kind of citation indexes, such as Scorpus, but so far I haven't found ****.

[Kuko 4000]

Does anybody know of any critique against these kind of studies, published in a scientific journal? I've been searching like crazy for this in different kind of citation indexes, such as Scorpus, but so far I haven't found ****.


I'm hoping this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=173466) will become a good source for just that in the future. I hope JREF members (who are more up to the task than I) will find it worth their time.

[Robo Sapien]

Most of the science (or pseudo-science) around this is too steep for me, but my rule of thumb is that whenever anyone mentions the word "quantum" in a claim, its usually BS. Maybe I'm just too jaded over Deepak Chopra, who knows.

[harvardiv]

I've posted this before, but according to

scigod.org/archive/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/mindmatter/ExperiSupport.pdf

(complete url on title, because I'm not at post 15 yet.)

Anyway, the author of this paper Huping Hu claims brain quantum entanglement is reproducible. Maybe we can have James Randi do these reproducible experiments under controlled conditions, they appear exceedingly simple to replicate. Apparently you'll need access anesthesia chemicals, and a microwave oven. Let's actually prove something.

Sincerely,

Chris

BTW, He also quotes Mr. Persinger and previous experiments not mentioned here several times in his paper, and it'll be interesting to see what scrutiny these get as well.

[The Norseman]

I've posted this before, but according to

scigod.org/archive/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/mindmatter/ExperiSupport.pdf

(complete url on title, because I'm not at post 15 yet.)

Anyway, the author of this paper Huping Hu claims brain quantum entanglement is reproducible. Maybe we can have James Randi do these reproducible experiments under controlled conditions, they appear exceedingly simple to replicate. Apparently you'll need access anesthesia chemicals, and a microwave oven. Let's actually prove something.

Sincerely,

Chris

BTW, He also quotes Mr. Persinger and previous experiments not mentioned here several times in his paper, and it'll be interesting to see what scrutiny these get as well.

Hi harvardiv welcome!

How about you doing the experiment and then applying for the MDC? That's usually how it works at JREF, at any rate.

[harvardiv]

Hello Mr. Norseman:

I am not the originator of the idea, and could be doing copyright infringement if I do Huping Hu's experiments. Even so, in my opinion I doubt his claims anyway, so I don't think I'm the guy for the MDC. I have tried to contact Mr. Hu, but he refuses to respond in my opinion, because of the tone I used when I argued with him. Is there anyone in this forum willing to "call Mr. Huping Hu out" to the MDC and put his money where his mouth is in my opinion? I think somebody needs to challenge this guy, because if he's wrong in my opinion people need to know it.

hupinghu@quantumbrain.org.

Any volunteers?

[Dancing David]

I've posted this before, but according to

scigod.org/archive/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/mindmatter/ExperiSupport.pdf

(complete url on title, because I'm not at post 15 yet.)

Anyway, the author of this paper Huping Hu claims brain quantum entanglement is reproducible. Maybe we can have James Randi do these reproducible experiments under controlled conditions, they appear exceedingly simple to replicate. Apparently you'll need access anesthesia chemicals, and a microwave oven. Let's actually prove something.

Sincerely,

Chris

BTW, He also quotes Mr. Persinger and previous experiments not mentioned here several times in his paper, and it'll be interesting to see what scrutiny these get as well.


Sorry this guy is a dum bunny:
"Sun et al (2004) has shown that a moving spin is affected by an external electric field and feels a force/torque as m×[(v/c2)×E] where m and v are respectively the magnetic moment and the velocity of the moving spin and E is the external magnetic field. Shen (2005) has shown that, as a relativistic quantum mechanical effect, an external electric field exerts a transverse force on an electron spin 1/2 if the electron is moving. The said spin force, analogue to the Lorentz force on an electron charge in a magnetic field, is perpendicular to the electric field and the spin motion when the spin polarization is projected along the electric field"

They then make up some **** about

"Therefore, the interactions between the moving nuclear/electronic spins in neural membranes and proteins and the varying high-voltage electric fields there directly feed information into mind in the dualistic mind-brain approach of spin mediated consciousness theory."

and

"Quantitative calculations shall be performed in a separate paper."

Oh whoops, all *********** unicorns and lollipops ain't it, no actaul method to show what the *********** 'field' produced by the neurons actually is, and what actual force or effect it would have.

Then there is more more stupid **** about some bad research done by the Persinger and some freaking freight sized assertions without evidence, thata re actually lies because they claim they are related to unpresented evidence.

And that is just in the first seven pages. What a crock of self referencing, poorly documented ********.

"We first chose general anesthetics in our experiments because they are among the most powerful brain-influencing substances. Our expectation was that, if nuclear and/or electronic spins inside the brain are involved in brain functions such as perception as recently hypothesized by us (Hu & Wu, 2002), the brain may be able to sense the effect of an external anesthetic sample through
Preprint
Hu, H &Wu, M. Experimental Support of Spin-mediated Consciousness Theory from Various Sources
QuantumDream, Inc. quantumbrain.org
16
quantum entanglement between these spins inside the brain and those of the said anesthetic sample induced by the photons of the magnetic pulses by first interacting with the nuclear and/or electronic spins inside the said anesthetic sample, thus carrying quantum information about the anesthetic molecules, and then interacting with the nuclear and/or electronic spins inside the brain."

This reads like homeopathics *********** ********.

[harvardiv]

Dancing Dave:

Nice post. The key question is does Huping Hu explain it well enough that the connection is being between the scientific fact and his idea is being made or not? Or is this a cut and paste job?

The one interesting thing is that Huping has a PhD in biophysics, so quite possibly he is making a real connection. The other interesting thing is that he is a lawyer, and has created a non profit for the study of a God who lives in the quantum realm -science's last gap. ( just like there's an Elf at the center of the earth). So since there are still questions, I want to see somebody call Huping out for the MDC, and let's put to rest whether he's for real or not. His email is hupinghu@quantumbrain.org. Somebody confront this man.

[The Norseman]

Hello Mr. Norseman:

I am not the originator of the idea, and could be doing copyright infringement if I do Huping Hu's experiments. Even so, in my opinion I doubt his claims anyway, so I don't think I'm the guy for the MDC. I have tried to contact Mr. Hu, but he refuses to respond in my opinion, because of the tone I used when I argued with him. Is there anyone in this forum willing to "call Mr. Huping Hu out" to the MDC and put his money where his mouth is in my opinion? I think somebody needs to challenge this guy, because if he's wrong in my opinion people need to know it.

hupinghu@quantumbrain.org.

Any volunteers?

Ah, alright. I've never heard of a scientific experiment being copyrighted before, but that's fine. I would think that if this guy was a serious scientifically-minded researcher, he'd be all kinds of happy to have others duplicate his work. It's really the only way for his ideas to be accepted and incorporated and built upon by other scientifically-minded people.

[harvardiv]

So Norseman:

Is that a yes? Send him an email and challenge him to the MDC. Let's see if he hesitates.

Sincerely,

Chris

[The Norseman]

So Norseman:

Is that a yes? Send him an email and challenge him to the MDC. Let's see if he hesitates.

Sincerely,

Chris

I hadn't planned on volunteering, but I'm a fairly good writer, so I wouldn't mind sending out an email and inviting him to register to JREF.

I'll post a follow-up here in this thread.

[Dancing David]

Dancing Dave:

Nice post. The key question is does Huping Hu explain it well enough that the connection is being between the scientific fact and his idea is being made or not? Or is this a cut and paste job?

Not really, it is a set of weak conjectures and bogus assertions.


The one interesting thing is that Huping has a PhD in biophysics, so quite possibly he is making a real connection.

Appeal to authority is not interesting, being educated does not mean any more than that.

The other interesting thing is that he is a lawyer, and has created a non profit for the study of a God who lives in the quantum realm -science's last gap. ( just like there's an Elf at the center of the earth). So since there are still questions, I want to see somebody call Huping out for the MDC, and let's put to rest whether he's for real or not. His email is hupinghu@quantumbrain.org. Somebody confront this man.

Nope, there are hundreds of thousands of people like him, he makes his poorly based claims without any experimental evidence, that is his issue.

[John Albert]

I remember this guy!

http://oi54.tinypic.com/15grnh3.jpg

Ever since that machine showed up on Ebay, I've been wondering when the buyers would come forth and present the future-world technology of Dr. J.S. Strauss to the scientific community.

[harvardiv]

"I hadn't planned on volunteering, but I'm a fairly good writer, so I wouldn't mind sending out an email and inviting him to register to JREF."

I suggest something more to the point, like "We invite you to the Million Dollar Challenge, where we can peer review your work".

Thanks,

Chris

[steenkh]

I suggest something more to the point, like "We invite you to the Million Dollar Challenge, where we can peer review your work".
The MDC is not a scientific paper, and the results are not peer reviewed, whatever that would mean. Besides "we" are not his peers, and peer reviewing is only a defence to stop the worst articles from being published; it is not a guarantee of quality.

[billydkid]

I don't know, but to me, whatever the supposed theory, if the guy is able to put people in two separate rooms and achieve the results claimed (I saw this on that Morgan Freeman show) it's pretty cool and interesting, if, again, it is actually true. The way I am understanding it, he has demonstrated an effect and hypothesized a mechanism.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I am not the originator of the idea, and could be doing copyright infringement if I do Huping Hu's experiments.

That's not how science works. Science would die if researchers could copyright experiments and forbid attempts to replicate.