Ideomotor Communication and Art

[Aster]

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc

Hello mr. Randi and everyone.

Allow me to introduce myself to you. My name is Aster. I am a professional ideomotor artist and communicator with over 20 years of experience creating automatic writings and drawings. I always work in a state of trance or self hypnosis.

The work I do started in 1979, when ideomotor movements had not yet physically occurred into writing or drawing, but were experienced as a latently present force, pulling my mind and body from the inside. In that time I created an oil painting which shows a peculiar burrial scene. Odd characteristic of this burrial scene was that the freshly dug grave was situated just outside a cemetary wall. Behind the wall I painted various graves. The freshly dug grave however, was outside this graveyard. It contained a coffin, that was placed over the grave, resting on two wooden support beams. As I said, I painted this in 1979.

In 1983 my brother was murdered in Israel, shot in the head. Me and my family chose to burry him in Israel. We encoutered much problem there, because my brother was not jewish and not of any religion. When we finally were offered a place to burry his body, it appeared to be a freshly dug grave, outside of the cemetary walls. The reason was because his body was not fit to be burried in holy ground.

Three weeks after the burrial, in february 1983, a directive thought just entered my head, just like someone else speaking to me in a way that was so convincingly external, I had to follow up it's command to take a pen and paper. As soon as I laid my pen on the paper, the pen moved by itself. Soft and curly streakes and movements at first, drawing little drawings, but then followed by writings.

Since then, the automatic writing and drawing have been like fire and water with me, experiencing something gradually day by day. Not a single day, the ideomotor effects - after a trauma that was psychically seen and expressed years before it actually happened - have been without the experiencing.

Today I have a collection of over 500 original automatic drawings and a comprehensive study in the field. My work and experience has been noticed by IHEI in White Russia, the International Humanitarian and Economics institute, research facilities at psylab, laboratory for expirimental psychology. I have exhibited my work only twice in the Netherlands, where I work and live, and several times in Russia, whereunder the prestigeous Maxim Bogdanovich's museum.

This year our book will be presented. It contains all information about the obscure ideomotor effects and trance experiencing. But besides the scientific approach you will find a comprehensive account of the mystical and spiritual experiences, equivalent to more than 1000 personal sessions of therapeutic regression, reincarnation and selfhypnosis.

I wonder why true Art messages could not be seen as evidence to support paranormal claims such as my own. Is my life work itself not supporting evidence to the fact that humans can truely foresee the future ?

Best wishes to you all. I welcome your comments.
If you should decide to visit my website, please be reminded that it has not been updated since two years or so... so it only has the expirimental expressions of the strongest ideomotor / sensorimotor experiences.
Rgds.,
Aster.

[Pyrrho]

I'm afraid I find it rather unremarkable.

[Aster]

Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.

[roger]

I also looked at your website.

Perhaps language differences are getting in the way, but I didn't see anything I would characterize as "splendid and monumental". In fact, I can't really figure out what your claim is, other than you are doing automatic drawing. Perhaps if you find the time you could explain exactly what you claim to do?

roger

[Aster]

You write that you looked at my website but failed to see the splendour and monumental qualities of my work... Well, most people don't, so you know under which umbrella you're walking. Anyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

I opt that, if it were you who would be the experiencer of an ideomotor effect, there would not be a doubt in your mind that your experience is utterly convincing and that my art is radiating with splendour; there is not a doubt in my mind that you would be fully appreciating my work and see the monumental quality. I mean my art is evidence of the ideomotor process in function and my work is there, to be viewed and critisized, in abundance.

It is much like Randi states: "Unless you have actually experienced the ideomotor effect at work in yourselves, you cannot have a proper appreciation of how absolutely compelling and irresistable it can be and is."

In my case, I have over 1000 hours of experiencing the ideomotor effects on my own body, and equivalently the same number of trance induced sessions expirimenting with ideomotoric responses, resulting in over 500 original automatic drawings; symbolically speaking, accompanied with the fruit of a theory that seems forever riping, forever growing into richer perspectives over the years.

That in itself is a monumental achievement. But at least worth a closer look and an intelligent comment. And I place myself gladly at the service of those serieously investigating and expirimenting with the phenomenon.

My claim is not that I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor graphic artist.

I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?

And is spiritual contact, for instance with a deceased family member, scientifically proven not possible ? I will say it is possible now and it will be more possible in the years to come. I have my ideomotor art to support me in my, what this forum calls it, eternal delusion.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Aster
Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.
Not a person, but equally monumental work:

http://www.baliadventuretours.com/BAT-Elephant_Art_Gallery.htm

Apply your simple mirror effect and there you have it. All that remains to be done is to invent a "meaningful" interpretation.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Aster

My claim is not that I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor graphic artist.


Wow, when do you want your check, lol.


I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?


Wait, you are 'fishing' for clear and outspoken support for your wacky beliefs in a skeptics forum?

What we all clearly and outspokenly believe is that the death of your brother left an emotional hole in you that you chose to fill with a made up belief. The kindest of us will hope that you will see the error of your ways before your own death.

If you saw your brothers death in a painting five years before he was murdered then why did you not warn him? I don't mean to attack you, but you may have built a complex system of guilt and should seek professional counseling.

[Earthborn]

It is much like Randi states: "Unless you have actually experienced the ideomotor effect at work in yourselves, you cannot have a proper appreciation of how absolutely compelling and irresistable it can be and is." Aster, remember that Randi has a very different definition of what the 'ideomotor effect' is than you apperently do. In Randi's and most skeptic's understanding it is an illusion in dowsing or using a pendulum.
Perhaps to avoid confusion, you should stick with the terms 'automatic writing' and 'automatic drawing'.I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?Well, you tell us. Can you draw something that you don't know but someone else is able to check whether you got it right? If so, it would be amazing.
If you can only draw things that nobody can check, then most people here would just assume it came from your own fantasy and doesn't exist.

[Charlie in Dayton]

...oh no...not another one...

Hey Carlos! Come get your kid brother...:rolleyes:

Let's put it like this, o galactic expert in automatic pencil pushing...try a little automatic READING, as in, if you're after some PR and/or money at Mr. R's expense, then file for the Million. Otherwise, take your egotistical paranormal hat sketches and hit the Great American Highway.

Originally posted by Aster Is my life work itself not supporting evidence to the fact that humans can truely foresee the future ?
No. Accurate and definitive descriptions and details of events yet to happen, submitted and examined under proper controlled conditions, would be supportive evidence of foreseeing the future. Drawing a picture and then matching it to circumstances after the fact don't count.

I welcome your comments.
You asked for it...

If you should decide to visit my website, please be reminded that it has not been updated since two years or so...
And why is that? Didn't you foresee the need for current evidence to present on this board way back then?

[Aster]

pyrrho2000 wrote :

Not a person, but equally monumental work:

http://www.baliadventuretours.com/B...Art_Gallery.htm

Apply your simple mirror effect and there you have it. All that remains to be done is to invent a "meaningful" interpretation.

- - -

I have seen a similar project done with chimpansees. The paintings created by these animals are absolutely great and seem similar to the chaotic scribbles of drawings that babys or siblings make. One thing is to create an image that you have in mind, like the sun or the moon, and not be able to recreate it because your motor system is dysfunctional. Another thing is to allow for an ideomotor expression which does not happen as a result of any consciously preconceived image, but originates from a subconsciously preconceived image of the movement. Perhaps this is what you show us here.

As far as the mirroring of my drawings is concerned, you believe that you have me all figured out, and that my art is nothing but chaotic scribble that gets its meaning after applying a mirror to it.

It is very common that appreciating the clear and vivid representations of chaotic and material thought, of image and representation of movement and of emotion, does not come instantly to a viewing audience. In other words, it takes time and experience to appreciate the original and undisturbed automatic drawing or ideomotoric artistic expression.

The mirroring of my work serves a clear purpose that I have not yet discussed here. It is not the effect's I am after, but it is to express the light line or birth canal, along which the natural reproduction process takes place. Ideomotor art or writings have a common feature and that is that the information seems to be overlapping or layered. This made me create mirror images.

And whereas you may not think much of paintings and art created by elephants or chimps, and use someone's incredible achievement to get animals to create art like this, as an example by which to ridiculize my work, I must add that I love them and thank you for showing this here.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

Rusty_the_boy_robot wrote:

Wait, you are 'fishing' for clear and outspoken support for your wacky beliefs in a skeptics forum?

What we all clearly and outspokenly believe is that the death of your brother left an emotional hole in you that you chose to fill with a made up belief. The kindest of us will hope that you will see the error of your ways before your own death.

If you saw your brothers death in a painting five years before he was murdered then why did you not warn him? I don't mean to attack you, but you may have built a complex system of guilt and should seek professional counseling.

- - -

One way to perceive the truth is to be ready to disprove one's own evidence. I am ready for this, always, and perhaps this constitutes one reason why I am here. There may be other persons here than skeptics, and skeptics may transgress into a more susceptible attitude towards incredibly convincing personal experiences like the ideomotor effect, given new and important critical information. And where would skeptics be if it were not for people like me to take a stand ?

I am a profesional counsellor myself. My ideomotor art is a result of hundreds of natural trance and mechanically trance induced sessions, laying out a complexity of psychological information before you that pertains to all apects of pcychotherapy: regression, reincarnation and transgression...

I am not suffering from the hole you mention. There is no pathology. But what is there is plain to see: information manifested from an interactive proces and conscious-subconscious reality that is as real as the fingernails on your fingers.

The ideomotor effects often manifest after a traumatic experience.
In my case, I know that there has been a very strong pull on the physical and mental system years prior to the actual brake-through of ideomotor manifestions. Before that, ideomtoric force was latently present, physically noticeable, but not clearly expressing itself as such.

This I cannot explain. Some obscure force within me, that I knew as intelligent and speaking from behind the veils of physical death, or the other side, directed me to creatively express images that were vital to express, leading up to the painting that I made depicting the awkward burrial scene of my brother.

That painting did not point my brother out specifically. I was only 21 years old when I made that painting and subsequently seeked guidance in the adult world. I went to many, many people showing that painting. Artists, scientific people, parapsychologists, you name it. Without an exception, everyone told me about the possible representations of my own subconscious mind, which was already clear to me. No one told me that this could be an image pertaining to the future. And today this is no different.

I wish not that I could have known what I know today resulting in the ability to warn my brother. The future is an illusion, as time is an illusion. Things that happen will happen regardless. And, how do you warn someone about something that is to happen in the future anyway? People will think you are nuts when you do that, skeptics should know that.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Aster
I wish not that I could have known what I know today resulting in the ability to warn my brother. The future is an illusion, as time is an illusion. Things that happen will happen regardless. And, how do you warn someone about something that is to happen in the future anyway? People will think you are nuts when you do that, skeptics should know that.

Rgds.,
Aster. [/B]


If you can prove, or even provide a valid argument, that time is an illusion then I will be eternally grateful.

Patiently waiting,

-Rusty the boy robot.

[Earthborn]

One way to perceive the truth is to be ready to disprove one's own evidence. I am ready for this, always, and perhaps this constitutes one reason why I am here.Good! With an attitude like that skeptics will no doubt respect you, except for a few jerks.There may be other persons here than skepticsThere are!and skeptics may transgress into a more susceptible attitude towards incredibly convincing personal experiences like the ideomotor effect, given new and important critical information.Very possible. Provided that the information is accompanied with evidence.But what is there is plain to see: information manifested from an interactive proces and conscious-subconscious reality that is as real as the fingernails on your fingers.No one is disputing that. What is at stake here is whether this 'interactive process' is something extraordinary or supernatural and doesn't have any ordinary and boring explaination.This I cannot explain. Some obscure force within me, that I knew as intelligent and speaking from behind the veils of physical death, or the other side, directed me to creatively express images that were vital to express, leading up to the painting that I made depicting the awkward burrial scene of my brother.Let me give you another explanation, which is more mundane, with nothing 'from behind the veils of physical death' is involved and tell me whether you think it is possible it could have happened that way...

It is well known by neurologists (people who study the brain and the nervous system) that people can do things without being aware of it or have conscious control over it. There is patients who have minor damage in their brain that causes one of their hands to do things without control and even without them knowing beforehand what it is going to do. Still this hand can do very complex things, because it is still controlled by the brain. This person just isn't aware of it. Now let's assume you have a mild form of this: without you being aware of it, your hand can write and draw, but otherwise you have normal control.
You make many pictures this way and one of them is a strange picture of a grave.
Years later, your brother dies and just by coincidence his grave looks remarkebly like the picture you drew years earlier.

You see, skeptics believe in coincidence. The simple fact that something looks remarkebly like something else does not prove in it self that the two are connected. A remarkeble coincidence is remarkeble, but still coincidence.

To know whether something isn't just coincedence, it needs to be tested. For something to be tested, we need to know exactly what it is that is to be tested.

Suppose I would send you three pictures, by post. Could you 'automatically draw' them, before you have seen them? Could you get at least one reasonably correct?

How about if I had a hundred photo's and I shuffled them like cards... What percentage could you draw in the right order before you see them? All of them? 50% or 25%? A rough estimate is fine.

What if I were to introduce you to a number of people... Could you draw things that had some significant meaning to them and could these people recognize the picture that was made for them if they didn't see you make it?

Or does your gift work in a different way entirely?

[Aster]

Earthborn wrote :

Aster, remember that Randi has a very different definition of what the 'ideomotor effect' is than you apperently do. In Randi's and most skeptic's understanding it is an illusion in dowsing or using a pendulum.
Perhaps to avoid confusion, you should stick with the terms 'automatic writing' and 'automatic drawing'.

=> At the core, mr. Randi's definitions and understandings of the ideomotor effect is no different than what is known from the general consensus. I enjoy reading his statements very much and would go ahead with most of what he's been concluding. One thing I do not agree with is his way to describe the people experiencing or experimenting with ideomotor movement. He calls them victims. I believe this is only correct when directed to people who suffer from self deception. The ideomotor phenomenon is not out to deceive people. Rather it is out to guide people into making the best possible choices. I have gone from automatic drawing and writing to ideomotor because the first terms are to closely related to the spiritist idea, whereas ideomotor is a scientific term from psychology. My work is obviously both as, to my opinion, they're one and the same thing. Are you saying that mr. Randi has never described automatic writing and drawing as a result of the same, ideomotor effect ?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess what I am fishing for is a clear and outspoken support for the supposition that trance, or altered state, nescessary to evoke an ideomotor effect, enables one to literally see or otherwise be shown something, in any shape or form, that we cannot possibly know, as it pertains to the future. Or can we ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you tell us. Can you draw something that you don't know but someone else is able to check whether you got it right? If so, it would be amazing.

=> Okay, but neither do I hear anyone offering to check the fact that I painted a burrial scene with a very clear and specific message or feature about it, something that I didn't know as it happened 4 years later, and tell me I got it right.

If you can only draw things that nobody can check, then most people here would just assume it came from your own fantasy and doesn't exist.

=> This is why so many people believe, and believe at heart; and this is also why so many others will say about those believers that what they believe in doesn't exist. The line between reality and fantasy is thin, very thin. Fantasy may not even exist, like nothing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists is the concept of nothing and the concept of reality. Like you write, truth... etc.

I guess what I really want is to put ideomotor effect on the map, create a wider interest and research in the phenomenon. Most people do not even know the term let alone the definition. Most people who do however are probably the skeptics. At least we know something, and that is that ideomotor effects are real, and trance, altered states of consciousness are real. Now, if these phenomena are real and acceptable, why would the conclusions per definition be a delusion ?

Thanks for your response.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

quote:

and skeptics may transgress into a more susceptible attitude towards incredibly convincing personal experiences like the ideomotor effect, given new and important critical information.

Very possible. Provided that the information is accompanied with evidence.

Aster:
True. But I feel that there is a need for a new set of rules that constitute what evidence actually is. We all know that what is valid today is no longer valid tomorrow. Science is always one minute late and one dollar short.

The general concept of truth and of reality is often that, when you cannot sense what a subject senses, it cannot possibly exist. In other words, you have to see it in order to believe it. The ideomotor effect shows that this construct and mentality is working, but besides the truth and worse, that it has become an impedient conviction amongst non spiritually engaged people and sceptics.

The ideomotor system instantly effectuates spiritual engagement, not to use the word énlightenment”, where the im experience is in every sense enlightening. It’s awakening you into a 6th sense and multidimensional thinking. This spiritual engagement makes you aware of how you have been living your life deprived of this tremendous power and continue to miss out on a possibility to enhance your ‘instinctive’ abilities.

Multatuli writes:
No one is disputing that. What is at stake here is whether this 'interactive process' is something extraordinary or supernatural and doesn't have any ordinary and boring explaination.

Aster:
Cool. That the ideomotor effect exists is irrefutable. Dowsers and inventors of im-driven gadgets are usually not in a state of trance or meditation when they use it. I utilise the combination of trance and evoked ideomotoric movement in plain service of the artform it represents. Perhaps now you start to understand why my art is extraordinary.

Is it supernatural? Obviously. The ideomotor art that I present is such, that if I would willfully want to draw (volition) what I drew ideomotorically, I could not ever do it. That means to me that the combination I utilize enhances my power to communicate. Having done this over one thousand times, I am consciously aware of working with the 6th sense.

Furthermore, the supernatural is an inborn talent residing in every single human being on this earth. We only need to adjust to that idea. Look closely how a baby is 100% ideomotorically intelligent and only looses touch gradually over the years due to the simple that she needs to adapt to her biophyisical body. For this soul, in the here and now, decending into human form is an ascention into material form, but a descention into self-consciousness.

A double blind test would create images of chaos, as opposed to when I use my eyes and see through the drawing. But the process or test to actually draw would never fail.
Is it mystical ? Ooops, you didn’t want to know this.
My art is an example of the extraordinary artform that Ra speaks about in the great book of the dead, in the papyrus of Ani. In my 1999 works, the scribe ANI appeared as the twin brothers. The name of Ra is only known to the person who will be known through this extraordinary art. Well, I do not know the name of Ra but I do know the name of my God. And this name is out 3. One name for every dimension he created us in. Focus in on the three-star and try to see my name, Aster, the name of my next life.

Okay, I will now tell you what is at stake here. First of all, I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor trance artist. My art is splendid and monumental, my past and future life evidence is overwhelmingly in support of my claims.
I consider ideomotorics in general the way to a revived understanding of the world, of reality, and foremost a bridge to an ancient, forgotten and decensitized sensing mechanism which, once set in motion, will set the ordinary mind on fire.
But is it a good idea to show these drawings to the world ? My art has a tendency to evoke very strong emotions of fear. There is no sense in being afraid for a simple work of art though, now is there ? Ofcourse there is. Art is communication is suggestion is ideomotor effect. And this is what is happening.
Before you consciously understand that you react to what you see in the drawing, there has been something else that made you realize that you are actually reacting to something inside you, merely touched by the external suggestion of the ideomotor drawing.

Fear. The foremost evoked reaction with viewers of my art. And you know what ? It is an ancient and well rooted fear that is, it is the fear that accompanies the cell memories of a reality that speaks of a conscious experience, spiritually symbolised as “dead spirit”. As a dead spirit you live, because life is and remains eternal but in one exception, yet you are dead and an eternal prisoner but in one exception.

Many people, living and walking besides us, are examples of these dead spirits. See, you don’t have to be dead, to be a spirit. And this is what constitutes the ultimate memory of hell. To me it does at least.

So here I present one side of the ideomotor effect. Ideomotorics brings you back to the light, however it is also a voyage through the ultimate darkness.
Multatuli... He is one of them you know... And with him are billions. As much as the universe is teeming with life. And this is what my work shows to the world. Thousands and thousands of dead spirits.

The majority of entities that I see as a result of watching my ideomotor drawings, are dead. But there are entities with me, that guide me and are alive. Alive spirits.

And of course it is all but me. Nevertheless I know there names and I have drawn their pictures too. Not static, but alive pictures of every one of them that had the luck or strength to cling on to me.

Every drawing can be put into a moving picture, an animation of any timelength you decide, but never without supplying new intelligent suggestions to the mind in order evoke even deeper layers of emotions.

By that time, scepsis has defeated it’s own purpose. Believing is no longer an issue. Karma seizes to exist, as does duality. The ultimate goal then, is Harmony. From Harmony will grow a new peace and understanding. And the ideomotor movement will be on full automatic. We live in the 5th dimension of consciousness. This is what I predict for the future of mankind. It won’t take long either.

Last but not least, ideomotorics gives you a sense of self, but without the accompanying ego. Anyway, after me will follow an ever growing number of participants that will support me in the scientific research projects that are presently at hand and the personal experiencing of ideomotorics, with splendid and monumental disclosures in every arena thinkable.
I will not rule out any of your suggestions. I have gone through NDE when I was 5 years old and they electricuted my body to bring me back. After that, 3 weeks of morphine, upto 15 shots a day. God knows how they fried my brain that glorious day J.

I cannot help what sceptics believe. I have a story to tell. There are no coincidences, there are only synchronicities.

Multatuli writes:
Suppose I would send you three pictures, by post. Could you 'automatically draw' them, before you have seen them? Could you get at least one reasonably correct?

Aster:
It sounds a bit boring but we could try. What does it mean if I fail ?

Multatuli:
How about if I had a hundred photo's and I shuffled them like cards... What percentage could you draw in the right order before you see them? All of them? 50% or 25%? A rough estimate is fine.

Aster:
I don’t know. But what does this test mean ? That I am psychic or ... ?

Multatuli:
What if I were to introduce you to a number of people... Could you draw things that had some significant meaning to them and could these people recognize the picture that was made for them if they didn't see you make it?

Aster:
Perhaps... never really tried that. Why introducing me first ? The image I would have of them would suggest things that cloud the information.

Multatuli:
Or does your gift work in a different way entirely?

Aster:
I guess so. My art is simply an expression and a manifestation of the ideomotor movement in the works. As I do this in a trance meditive state anything is possible. Chances are however that what is created through me in the project may not be the will of the controlling autonomous force that ideomotor effect represents. This is always communicated. So, a drawing may show only one or two elements of things pertaining to these persons, whereas the main part is essentially meant for other directives. This could blurr the perception of these persons when asked to recognize something of themselves in it.

Rgds.,
Aster

[Earthborn]

But I feel that there is a need for a new set of rules that constitute what evidence actually is.But don't say that to a skeptic!Science is always one minute late and one dollar short.True, but science is designed to be like that. It is not a weakness, it is one of its strengths. Science is a bit conservative, because it shouldn't throw away proven and tested theories for theories that are still unproven or even untested. This way the best theories survive.In other words, you have to see it in order to believe it.This is not true. Science accepts that many things exist even if they cannot be seen: gravity, electricity, radioactivity... However, only when the effects it has are undeniable.Multatuli writes:My name is not Multatuli. He only wrote the quote in the signature. There is a line above it that seperates my text with my signature. People just like to quote others in their signatures.Dowsers and inventors of im-driven gadgets are usually not in a state of trance or meditation when they use it. I utilise the combination of trance and evoked ideomotoric movement in plain service of the artform it represents.Wait a minute... Does that mean you can dowse too? If so it would be quite easy to test.A double blind test would create images of chaos, as opposed to when I use my eyes and see through the drawing. But the process or test to actually draw would never fail.'Double Blind' does not mean that you must draw you pictures with your eyes closed! It means that an experiment is set up in such away that no one can cheat by signalling the right answers to the person tested, consciously or unconsciously.First of all, I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor trance artist.Okay, if that is true... What if I gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists, and maybe a few people who pretend to be but can just draw really well, and I let you and them all draw. Then I present all the pictures to a jury of people who will judge the 'splendour' of all the pictures. Does it mean you are chosen as the best?I cannot help what sceptics believe.Skeptics don't all believe the same. In fact there is a wide variety of beliefs among them. 'Skeptic' means only one thing: demanding evidence. Whether they believe something themselves, skeptics often demand evidence that is so undeniable and overwhelming that it even convinces the people who don't believe it.It sounds a bit boring but we could try.Science is often very boring. Boring but meticulous. Usually science only becomes exciting when all this boring work produces evidence for something new and interesting.What does it mean if I fail ?It just means that you fail at that particular test and that you cannot draw a picture before you have seen it.I don’t know. But what does this test mean ? That I am psychic or ... ?The test is another way to test whether you are able to draw a picture without having seen it. The first test was very simple but not conclusive, because you could get one of the pictures right by 'accident': someone who is not a gifted ideomotor artist but is asked to draw a picture, could make a picture that looks like one of the pictures I send them.
This second test is more elaborate because it requires you to draw many pictures. However, with so many pictures the chances are greater that you get a few of them right by accident. This is why you are supposed to get the right in the right order. Could you do that?Perhaps... never really tried that. Why introducing me first ? The image I would have of them would suggest things that cloud the information.I would introduce them to you, because you are supposed to draw a picture for that person specifically. The question is then whether these people can recognize what picture is made specifically for them.
If you think that it would be easier to do, if you do not know the person, it could also be done that these people sit in a room next to you while you draw the picture for them. It makes no real difference for the evaluation of the test. Could you do it?So, a drawing may show only one or two elements of things pertaining to these persons, whereas the main part is essentially meant for other directives. This could blurr the perception of these persons when asked to recognize something of themselves in it.True, but you don't have to do a perfect job. All that is required in this test is that enough people can recognize their own picture to show that there really is something to the pictures and they are not just guessing which one is made for them.

(Btw: If your first language is Dutch and it would be easier for you to communicate in Dutch, you can click the PM icon to give me a personal message.)

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Aster
Thank you for an honest opinion, allthough not very informative.
I challenge you to point out one person living on earth who has a testimony to ideomotor experiencing as splendid and monumental as I do.

Best wishes,
Aster.


Aster, the ideomotor effect is not supernatural. Predicting the future is.

So no one is doubting that you have experienced the ideomotor effect. We are doubting that you can predict the future.

[Aster]

Quote: In other words, you have to see it in order to believe it
This is not true. Science accepts that many things exist even if they cannot be seen: gravity, electricity, radioactivity... However, only when the effects it has are undeniable.
Aster: I did not mean ‘see’ in a literal way. The undeniable effects it has... brings this to mind: As everyone seems to be convinced that one of the undeniable effects of ideomotor experiencing is that the subject claims the force to be external or that at least the physical experience is such, that the body is felt to be moved as opposed to you moving your body, is it safe to say that the force behind ideomotor movement either ís or cán be external (as suggestions can both be internal as external) or a disclosure of a greater, higher form of self ? As external suggestions (representations of visual, auditive, kinesthetic and olfactor/gustator communciations) can be made to the mind, why is it so far off to assume that they could be the source of some indeomotor effects ? And if an external suggestion may include telepathic communication, why then would it be so far off to expect that this communication may originate from dimensions of consciousness we are not equipped to sense other than by means of bridging our conscious mind to the oracle well of our subconscious mind?
My name is not Multatuli. He only wrote the quote in the signature. There is a line above it that seperates my text with my signature. People just like to quote others in their signatures.
Aster: I appologize.
Wait a minute... Does that mean you can dowse too? If so it would be quite easy to test.
Aster: You know, I have never tried it, but I surely assume that I can, and so can you. There is not much to it. Dowsing does not require an altered state of consciousness in order to have the rods move. It does require a certain sesitive perception though, by which the dowser is attuned or focussed on the answer to the question at stake. The process of dowsing is fairly similar to using the pendulum and other means which utilises an ideomotor movement. I have used the pendulum faily often and in my practice of hypnotherapy I sometimes use ideomotor questioning and ideomotor finger signalling, which is a similar project. In comparison to the superfast automatic drawing ideomotor techniques, automatic writing, using the pendulum, finger signalling and using the ouija board in order to communcate are extremely slow processes
'Double Blind' does not mean that you must draw you pictures with your eyes closed! It means that an experiment is set up in such away that no one can cheat by signalling the right answers to the person tested, consciously or unconsciously.
Aster: I see. Shows you what I know...
Quote : First of all, I am the worlds foremost and most competent ideomotor trance artist.
Okay, if that is true... What if I gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists, and maybe a few people who pretend to be but can just draw really well, and I let you and them all draw. Then I present all the pictures to a jury of people who will judge the 'splendour' of all the pictures. Does it mean you are chosen as the best?
Aster: I challenge you to gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists. I have a website up since 1996 which has been visited by approximately 25.000 people. Only a very few people contacted me with similar experiences, like automatic writing. But people with well developed automatic drawing experiences have failed to contact me up to now. In the past, we know that artists like Breton, Masson and Salvador Dali and Austin Osman Spare have experimented with ideomotor writing and drawing. But compared with their results, my work by far exceeds in quality and quantity.
Quote : I cannot help what sceptics believe.
Skeptics don't all believe the same. In fact there is a wide variety of beliefs among them. 'Skeptic' means only one thing: demanding evidence. Whether they believe something themselves, skeptics often demand evidence that is so undeniable and overwhelming that it even convinces the people who don't believe it.
Aster : Okay. So the evidence I present in relation to ideomotor experiencing is undisputed by skeptics. The fact that I claim that external suggestions can be part of the cause for my ideomotor drawing and writing is probably acceptable too. But where I claim that my drawings are a result of spiritual communication, this is where it gets difficult.
Quote : It sounds a bit boring but we could try
Science is often very boring. Boring but meticulous. Usually science only becomes exciting when all this boring work produces evidence for something new and interesting.
Aster : I wholeheartedly agree. This is why the scientific research, which has started in Belarus by the faculty of expirimental psychology in 2001, is an interesting project to partake, follow, or invest in. In that respect it may be interesting to note that the ISMTE congress in Sweden/st.Petersburg offers SIS
Quote : What does it mean if I fail ?
It just means that you fail at that particular test and that you cannot draw a picture before you have seen it.
Aster: : And I assume that with ‘seeing’ you mean visualising an image by using the eyes. Ideomotor drawing is more following the mental representations of the movement in the mind rather than seeing that what develops on the paper while drawing it. I often have my eyes closed. No drawing ever develops by ‘seeing’ a mental representation of the image I am drawing, let alone that I draw something that I have actually seen with my own eyes before. The latter process is or can be influencing the final result though. And this is particularly interesting because the lines that are drawn often offers a distinct form by which the conscious self (me, the metaperson watching what is drawn through me) is expecting the lines to continue. Yet, the ideomotor movement goes it’s own way and draws differently and often against my own will, that represents another form, namely that of the expected image.

I guess that you are focussing your attention towards the psychic ability, foreseeing something that, in fact, cannot be seen. I am not making any but one claim to such an ability. Perhaps you can think of other tests that could enhance a better understanding of what happens in an altered state of consciousness on the basis of the ideomotor effect. This would be more complex, but in the end it serves the same goal.
Quote : I don’t know. But what does this test mean ? That I am psychic or ... ?
The test is another way to test whether you are able to draw a picture without having seen it. The first test was very simple but not conclusive, because you could get one of the pictures right by 'accident': someone who is not a gifted ideomotor artist but is asked to draw a picture, could make a picture that looks like one of the pictures I send them.

This second test is more elaborate because it requires you to draw many pictures. However, with so many pictures the chances are greater that you get a few of them right by accident. This is why you are supposed to get the right in the right order. Could you do that?
Aster : Again, I don’t know. When I think of it, a voice in me says no. So I assume that I cannot. But I am willing to try this or some other test you offer, provided that we could come up with a form and terminology that What I do know is that there is no question of coïncidence. Synchronicity supposes that there is a good reason or a distinct cause that prevents people not to be able to perform the tests you offer.
Quote : Perhaps... never really tried that. Why introducing me first ? The image I would have of them would suggest things that cloud the information.
I would introduce them to you, because you are supposed to draw a picture for that person specifically. The question is then whether these people can recognize what picture is made specifically for them.
If you think that it would be easier to do, if you do not know the person, it could also be done that these people sit in a room next to you while you draw the picture for them. It makes no real difference for the evaluation of the test. Could you do it?

Aster : Well, that stands to reason. I feel this form of a test seems the most appealing. It feels a little bit like psychometrics. Why don’t we do a test on the basis of a photograph of you ?
Quote : So, a drawing may show only one or two elements of things pertaining to these persons, whereas the main part is essentially meant for other directives. This could blurr the perception of these persons when asked to recognize something of themselves in it.
True, but you don't have to do a perfect job. All that is required in this test is that enough people can recognize their own picture to show that there really is something to the pictures and they are not just guessing which one is made for them.

Aster : Allright, but with one remark. You see, most ideomotor or automatic drawing I have seen look like fairly simple drawings. My work is complex and the complexity makes it far more difficult to analise. I would have to ask my subconscious to draw me information pertaining to the people shown to me in simple format in order to cocreate a clear recognisable image of information. I have never done that before.

(Btw: If your first language is Dutch and it would be easier for you to communicate in Dutch, you can click the PM icon to give me a personal message.)
Aster: I have done this.

Regards,
Aster.

[Aster]

Rusty wrote:

Aster, the ideomotor effect is not supernatural. Predicting the future is. So no one is doubting that you have experienced the ideomotor effect. We are doubting that you can predict the future.

I am not making any claims that I can predict the future in any way, let’s not make a mistake about this. Prediciting the future is not what I am after. What I have been claiming however, is that I have, in at least one instance, predicted the future and that my life work as an ideomotor artist and communicator is primarily based on that experiencing. To assume that the example I give is but an example of coíncidence is not positively constructive. In another time, life or culture the assesment regarding the evidence I offer would be such, that this experience in fact could be considered acceptable supporting evidence, however perhaps not conclusive, whereas I opt that the assumption of my experience being a coïncidence should be supported by evidence too. Again, in my book coïncidence do not exist, only synchronicities, which makes it impossible to just set aside.

The fact that I work with the ideomotor effect in an altered state of consciousness clouds the information in a way that the release of information and communication with other parts of the self is probably due to the trance experience of which the ideomotor movement is an effect. Trance experiencing connects ordinary awareness to that of various psychological meta positions eg. in dissociated self, overself or higher self, as in spirits and other entities, partitians of the psyche or personality and not to forget cosmic entities or extraterrestrials. None of this is considered supernatural by me when I am not in a trance. Moreover, to me, prediciting the future is not supernatural either. It is quite another thing when I am in touch with the ideomotor force. It is then apparent that I am communicating with the above presenses, which, when true, would be supernatural.

In any case, it does require the latent mental ability to bridge parts of consciousness that otherwise remain dorment or ‘disconnected’. I support the idea that future, past and present are happening all at once. Lively attests from clients in the field of regression and reïncarnation therapy support the existence of memories of past and past life experiences. I strongly support the idea that the same results are achieved doing progressive (para)psychological research, meaning the discovery of what ‘lies ahead’ rather than what is considered past and how this may influence our life in the supposed here and now.

In this respect I see time as an illusion.
Aster.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Aster
Rusty wrote:

Aster, the ideomotor effect is not supernatural. Predicting the future is. So no one is doubting that you have experienced the ideomotor effect. We are doubting that you can predict the future.

I am not making any claims that I can predict the future in any way, let’s not make a mistake about this. Prediciting the future is not what I am after. What I have been claiming however, is that I have, in at least one instance, predicted the future and that my life work as an ideomotor artist and communicator is primarily based on that experiencing. To assume that the example I give is but an example of coíncidence is not positively constructive. In another time, life or culture the assesment regarding the evidence I offer would be such, that this experience in fact could be considered acceptable supporting evidence, however perhaps not conclusive, whereas I opt that the assumption of my experience being a coïncidence should be supported by evidence too. Again, in my book coïncidence do not exist, only synchronicities, which makes it impossible to just set aside.

The fact that I work with the ideomotor effect in an altered state of consciousness clouds the information in a way that the release of information and communication with other parts of the self is probably due to the trance experience of which the ideomotor movement is an effect. Trance experiencing connects ordinary awareness to that of various psychological meta positions eg. in dissociated self, overself or higher self, as in spirits and other entities, partitians of the psyche or personality and not to forget cosmic entities or extraterrestrials. None of this is considered supernatural by me when I am not in a trance. Moreover, to me, prediciting the future is not supernatural either. It is quite another thing when I am in touch with the ideomotor force. It is then apparent that I am communicating with the above presenses, which, when true, would be supernatural.

In any case, it does require the latent mental ability to bridge parts of consciousness that otherwise remain dorment or ‘disconnected’. I support the idea that future, past and present are happening all at once. Lively attests from clients in the field of regression and reïncarnation therapy support the existence of memories of past and past life experiences. I strongly support the idea that the same results are achieved doing progressive (para)psychological research, meaning the discovery of what ‘lies ahead’ rather than what is considered past and how this may influence our life in the supposed here and now.

In this respect I see time as an illusion.
Aster.


This post elucidates Randi's frequent problem of identifying challengers' claims.


"Prediciting the future is not what I am after. What I have been claiming however, is that I have, in at least one instance, predicted the future and that my life work as an ideomotor artist and communicator is primarily based on that experiencing."

Ummm.................yeah, so what is your claim in a couple of sentences? That you have predicted the future in the past, which could also be the present???

Good Luck.

[Earthborn]

SFB, Aster told me in a pm that s/he's not after the money and is only hear for 'constructive criticism by skeptics'. We can give that, can't we?

Aster, please try to figure out how quoting works, because your posts are pretty hard to read like this.As everyone seems to be convinced that one of the undeniable effects of ideomotor experiencing is that the subject claims the force to be external or that at least the physical experience is such, (snip), is it safe to say that the force behind ideomotor movement either ís or cán be external (snip) or a disclosure of a greater, higher form of self ?No, that is not safe to say. The ideomotor effect is undeniable effect, however it is not clear to anyone (except the person experiencing it) that it is an external force. If I would look at you draw automatically, there is no way I can see whether you are just drawing or forced by an external force to draw. Perhaps you have other behavior as well, that isn't common for someone who draws pictures, but there is no way for me to be sure you are faking those. Even if I trust you wouldn't do that, it is no proof that you don't.You know, I have never tried it, but I surely assume that I can, and so can you. There is not much to it. Dowsing does not require an altered state of consciousness in order to have the rods move.Of course not. Nobody ever said it is hard to move the rod. In fact it is far too easy so someone can even fake dowsing: moving the rod on purpose.The process of dowsing is fairly similar to using the pendulum and other means which utilises an ideomotor movement.Yes, it is. Using a pendulum is very similar. If you prefer using a pendulum instead of a dowsing rod, than that's fine by me. Makes no real difference.It does require a certain sesitive perception though, by which the dowser is attuned or focussed on the answer to the question at stake.You do realize that there have many dowsers who were tested by JREF (Randi and scientists) and they all failed at the simplest tests, don't you? And they were all very much convinced that they had that 'certain perception'.I see. Shows you what I know...No, biggy. You can't know everything.
But if you want to have constructive conversations with skeptics, I think it is time to learn about that.

Suppose there is someone who says that he can read minds. To prove it to others, he let's a friend throw a die (dobbelsteen). The friend looks at the number that comes up and concentrates on it. He doesn't show it to the mindreader of course. He the asks the mindreader to read his mind and figure out what number came up.

Friend: "So, you'll never guess this!"
Mindreader (after intense oncentration): "1"
Friend: "Wow, correct."

The audience is intrigued, but guessing right once isn't very spectacular. The friend throws again.

Friend: "After this warming up, I want to see a real result!"
Mindreader: "5"
Friend: "Spectacular!"

Now the audience is spellbound. The assistant throws again.

Friend: "Undoubtedly you'll get this one correct, too."
Mindreader: "2"
Friend: "Right!"

Another throw of the die.

Friend: "You better get this one too, or people will lose faith in you."
Mindreader: "6"
Friend: "Yes, people... He got that one right as well!"

Would you be impressed by such a performance? Would you believe the mindreader could really read the mind of his friend? Many people would. But there is a really simple trick! The mindreader and his friend have used a code. In this case 'sunday'. That word has letters that are all different and there are exactly 6 of them. The friend threw the die, and when it came up with 1 he started his sentence with a letter 's', when it comes up 2 he starts with a 'u', '3' n, '4' d, 5 'a' and 6 'y'. The mindreader doesn't have to read minds, because his friend simply tells him the answer. His intens concentration is just acting!

This is one of the reasons why 'blinding' is important in paranormal research: you don't want someone around just blatently telling the testsubject all the answers. The easiest and surest way to make sure nobody is signalling the right answers is by making sure the people who know the right answers aren't in the neighbourhood of the testsubject.

But there is another reason why blinding is important. I'm sure you know those consumer programmes (like KASSA) where they test products on quality and or taste. In almost all cases they make sure the people who test the products don't know which procdut they are testing. This is because people can be influenced by what they know about a product. If they know it is an expensive product they expect it to be better than a cheap one. That can influence how they judge the quality the product in an unfair way.

In the 4th section of this column by Randi you can read about a fun situation where something like this happens, in the case of dowsing: http://www.randi.org/jr/030102.html

This teaches us that even iif t seems to the person involved like it is an autonomous effect, that is not consciously controlled, it can still be affected by what you know and expect. That's something you should be aware of while dowsing, using a pendulum or automatic drawing. The fact that it feels to you like it happens on its own, doesn't mean that it isn't you who does it.

Here's a simple experiment you can do at home to test whether you can dowse or use a pendulum:

Take 10 teacups, or buckets or whatever (teacups is easiest) and
an object that fits under it and you are sure of you can find by dowsing for it (or moving a pendulum over it).

Ask a friend to place the teacups on the table, shuffle them around a bit and let him/her place the object under the cup.
Now try to find it with your pendulum or dowsing rod or whatever.
Repeat it a few times. Could you find them? Write down how many you got right and how many you got wrong.

Now repeat the same experiment, but now we use a 'blinding' procedure. Now your friend shuffles the teacups and puts the object under one of the cups while you are in another room and can't see in happening! Get back in the room and try to find the object with your pendulum. Try not to look at your friend for clues or approving nods, that's cheating. Write down how many you got right and how many you got wrong. This was a 'single blind experiment'

Now try it another time. Not only are you out of the room when your friend hides the object, this time your friend goes out of the room when you go inside, so you two are never together and it is impossible for your friend to give you any clues, consciously, or uncousciously. To be really fair, you could use a third friend who waited outside the room with you, and goes in with you to make sure you don't cheat by lifting one of the teacups. Write down how many you got right and how many you got wrong. Then you have performed a 'double blind experiment'

Pretty simple and obvious isn't it? Now if you do equally well in all three, it means that you have a paranormal gift. If you did best in the first experiment, a bit worse in the second and a bit more worse in the third then what you know has a large influence on what you choose, even with ideomotor effect. If you performed great in the first, lousy in the second and got almost nothing right in the third, then the pendulum is worthless and you have no gift for using it at all, it was just influenced by what you already know.

If you decide to actually perform such a test, I can write a computerprogram for you that you can use to record all the answers and check how many you got right and then calculate how well you did. Experiments like this require a bit of statistics and letting a computer take care of it all might come in handy.I challenge you to gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists.That's why I said I would find people who can draw well and can fake being ideomotor artist. Or can your work only be compared with other ideomotor artists and you expect fakers might be better at drawing?

Remember that many of the experiments I propose are to try to understand what you think you are actually capable of. The experiments might not take place, but if you can truthfully explain how you think you will perform in them, it helps me better in understanding you and your gift. The teacup experiment I outlines above is simple and you can do it at home and it would be interesting if you chose to try it, but of course getting a bunch of artists and a jury together and to judge your work on its splendour might be a little bit more difficult.Okay. So the evidence I present in relation to ideomotor experiencing is undisputed by skeptics. The fact that I claim that external suggestions can be part of the cause for my ideomotor drawing and writing is probably acceptable too. But where I claim that my drawings are a result of spiritual communication, this is where it gets difficult.Exactly! Critical thinking isn't that, is it?This is why the scientific research, which has started in Belarus by the faculty of expirimental psychology in 2001, is an interesting project to partake, follow, or invest in. In that respect it may be interesting to note that the ISMTE congress in Sweden/st.Petersburg offers SISMaybe you should give us a link or something so people can see what that research is all about...And I assume that with ‘seeing’ you mean visualising an image by using the eyes.Yes, that's right.I guess that you are focussing your attention towards the psychic ability, foreseeing something that, in fact, cannot be seen.Correct. If you can do that, it is something very special and paranormal and you can get a million dollars. If you can only draw what can be seen, or things you can fantasize, then that is not so special and certianly not paranormal and you can't get a million dollars. It's that simple.Perhaps you can think of other tests that could enhance a better understanding of what happens in an altered state of consciousness on the basis of the ideomotor effect.Yes, perhaps I could. But I need to know what you think you can do, how often you can do it under what circumstances. That's why I came up with all the other experiment, to find out what you think you can do.
The only way to find out whether you can actually do them, is to perform such an experiment.When I think of it, a voice in me says no. So I assume that I cannot. But I am willing to try this or some other test you offerI don't think there is much point in trying an experiment you expect to fail in. You should only try an experiment you are very sure of that you can succeed.Well, that stands to reason. I feel this form of a test seems the most appealing. It feels a little bit like psychometrics.Yes, it is. This is very similar to how Randi would test a psychometric/psychometrician.. whatever it is called. Why don’t we do a test on the basis of a photograph of you ?The problem with that is that you might pick up clues from the photograph itself. And it would be just one test of one photo. If we were to perform this test, we should use more than one person, something like 10 or something, and let them try to find the drawing that they feel is most likely made for them.

Remember however that this can be a difficult test. A while ago we had an astrologer here who tried a similar test. He had to make horoscopes for ten people based on their birthdates and times and people had to choose which horoscope best fitted their character (without knowing of course which one was made for them). If enough people could choose their own horoscope based on the character analysis then he would have confirmed that he could create an accurate analysis.
He was a good sport and went along fine with the experiment however, he failed. And admitted it.
He later told us that when he started to make the analyses, he would fail, because he had great difficulty in making them all different enough to be recognizable, while at the same time accurately following the patterns he calculated in the planets. The problem with these things is often that people are all so similar that one thing can mean something significant to many people!
(Randi often demonstrates this by giving many people a horoscope and asking them how accurate it is. Most people will describe it as very accurate even when it is the exact same horoscope for all of them!).

You will be faced with a similar problem should you try a test like this, because you might make drawings that seem very significant to many people. Some of the images might be recognizable to more than one person.I would have to ask my subconscious to draw me information pertaining to the people shown to me in simple format in order to cocreate a clear recognisable image of information. I have never done that before.Okay. Remember that it isn't useful to try to do a complex experiment if you don't feel confident you might succeed in it. The experiments I propose don't have to happen, they are meant more to try to figure out what you think you can and cannot do.
If you can think of other experiments yourself or changes to experiments I proposed, that might make you feel more confident in succeeding don't hesitate to propose them.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Earthborn
SFB, Aster told me in a pm that s/he's not after the money and is only hear for 'constructive criticism by skeptics'. We can give that, can't we?


Earthborn:

Well you did a pretty good job above. I just would like to know what Aster is claiming to be able to achieve that smacks of the paranormal. But I want a straightforward answer in about one to three sentences. I don't like wading through his/her vague language. Is this not "constructive" criticism? I am asking for clarification. Do you understand what Aster is claiming? It does not matter that money is not at issue.

[Earthborn]

But I want a straightforward answer in about one to three sentences. (snip) Is this not "constructive" criticism? I am asking for clarification.I guess so, however I think it is unreasonable to exepct a straightforward answer in three sentences. I don't think Aster has an idea of this him/herself in such a clear and succinct way. S/he is on a bit different level of thinking than most skeptics. The best way to figure out what is claimed is by actually wading through the 'vague' language and asking for clarification at specific points. This is what I do when I propose experiment and ask whether Aster could perform them or not.Do you understand what Aster is claiming?I think I'm starting to understand (Aster, don't hesitate to correct me when you think I'm wrong, but understand that I'm trying to translate it into a languge a skeptic may understand!):
I think what Aster is saying is that s/he can draw images by being guided by a sort of mystic force, and there is some of Aster's own thoughts that are projected in them, sometimes things from the future or of things s/he cannot know bleed through and end up as pictures on paper. Apperently this is not much a controllable process and this force works somewhat erratic and unpredictable so it is difficult to test.
I suppose that is the claim just a couple of sentences. I hope I got it right. :)

Notice that Aster is quite clear about wanting feedback from skeptics and if you manage to cope with the long-winded language you can see that s/he is actually very helpful in trying to answer direct questions, even responding quite rationally to propositions of experiments.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think what Aster is saying is that s/he can draw images by being guided by a sort of mystic force, and there is some of Aster's own thoughts that are projected in them, sometimes things from the future or of things s/he cannot know bleed through and end up as pictures on paper.

Aster?

[Diogenes]

Yalel, is that you?

[Aster]

http://cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

Quote : Ummm.................yeah, so what is your claim in a couple of sentences? That you have predicted the future in the past, which could also be the present ???

Look, I will thoroughly think about what my claim is and will soon write that down in a clear, short and sweet manner. I also want to appologize for my LBS style of writing that troubles others. I see where this may have lead to some annoyment. I will try to do better.

Rgds., Aster.

[Aster]

As everyone seems to be convinced that one of the undeniable effects of ideomotor experiencing is that the subject claims the force to be external or that at least the physical experience is such, (snip), is it safe to say that the force behind ideomotor movement either ís or cán be external (snip) or a disclosure of a greater, higher form of self ?

Quote : No, that is not safe to say. The ideomotor effect is undeniable effect, however it is not clear to anyone (except the person experiencing it) that it is an external force.

Besides the person experiencing ideomotor effect, there are assertions of scientists studying the phenomenon and the people experiencing it, which often includes themselves.

The force behind the ideomotor movement is the idea or thought; in abstract, religious or spiritual terms, the word. The idea, thought or word, is the suggestion that implements autonomous, automatic movement. These suggestions can be internal as well as external. There is no reason to assume the exclusion of either one.

Quote : If I would look at you draw automatically, there is no way I can see whether you are just drawing or forced by an external force to draw. Perhaps you have other behavior as well, that isn't common for someone who draws pictures, but there is no way for me to be sure you are faking those. Even if I trust you wouldn't do that, it is no proof that you don't.

That says something about you, but I do see your point. I draw in a manner that isn’t common for drawing, but that wouldn’t prove anything about external input to a skeptic.

In my opinion, the skeptic has to be convinced about the fact that, within the total makeup of his system, his conscious awareness may appear as a ‘one in one’; with ideomotor movement it becomes ‘two in one’. In trance, that bright and inner voice that you may turn to when you are in trouble and ask for guidance or help, manifests with a motor effect. The ‘one in one’ is the selfconscious you, and the ‘two in one’ is that part of you, plus the autonomous automatic subconscious self. The autonomous self is you, but you may not be aware of it; The other side, is what I call it, clearly appears to have a mind, a will and a movement of it’s own.

You know, when experiencing ideomotor drawing split conscious, you are able to feel two currents of movement which at play simultaniously. One that you know as your own, and one that you don’t know other than as this strange something, that appears not to be you.

These forces and their separate movements at first appear to be in duality with each other; rather, appear to be each others opposites. You will sense that there is a communication between them. There is a sense of polarity about them. Then, when your state of conscious allows this, the ideomotor movement seems to ‘brake away’ from the volitile movement, the movement of your will. The game is on. Next, you make a conscious descision that allows you to surrender your will to that of the ideomotor movement, go along with it, give up your own will to something that feels like an external entity taking part of your body.

Quote : Of course not. Nobody ever said it is hard to move the rod. In fact it is far too easy so someone can even fake dowsing: moving the rod on purpose.

Well okay, but the ideomotor graphic is not at all easy to fake, but everything can be learned. In order to copy a genuine ideomotor response, just as in dowsing, one needs a lot of practice.

quote: You do realize that there have many dowsers who were tested by JREF (Randi and scientists) and they all failed at the simplest tests, don't you? And they were all very much convinced that they had that 'certain perception'.

I know. And it’s not difficult to understand why they fail. Dowsers utilise the ideomotor movement in favor of paranormal abilities they claim to posess. To them, the fact that the ideomotor effect is present constitutes their evidence. But the ideomotor effect neither proves nor disproves having a supernatural talent. Claimants fail, not because the ideomotor process fails them but because they fail the ideomotor process. Dowsers are often no competent analysts of the phenomenon either, rather they are mediums, or as Randi says, victims.

I do not know exactly how Randi’s tests are performed, but I have learned that the results of my personal experiments vary as much as the parameters (any in- and external circumstance = suggestions) change. The supernatural mind adapts automatically - without any effort from the claimants part - to the ever changing environment in which the dowsing is performed, just because the body-mind-spirit system is naturally geared this way. I agree with Randi when he writes, try the test yourself before you apply...

I am convinced that I have that certain perception. But you do to. You may not be conscious of it. But if you were, you would see that there is no supernatural thing going on there, it is just a latent life force within us, awaiting to be released. In that way similar to Kundalini. Also latent. Awaiting to be released...
It is merely heavenly.

Quote : Would you be impressed by such a performance?

Yes.

Would you believe the mindreader could really read the mind of his friend?

No.

This is one of the reasons why 'blinding' is important in paranormal research: you don't want someone around just blatently telling the testsubject all the answers. The easiest and surest way to make sure nobody is signalling the right answers is by making sure the people who know the right answers aren't in the neighbourhood of the testsubject.

I understand.

In the 4th section of this column by Randi you can read about a fun situation where something like this happens, in the case of dowsing: http://www.randi.org/jr/030102.html

I am fully aware of the role personal expectations play. My expectations can be influenced by what I know and what I expect and know doés have an influence on the autonomous effect.

The influence is such that the autonomous force allows for this personal input and immediately equates an answer which results in movement. It is like instant adaptation to a change of parameters.

The experience is such that you may be surprised which result the autonomous force will be showing you. It can either follow the expectation or your knowledge influencing it, or it can totally bypass expectations and continue it’s very own way.

The instream of personal information coinciding with whatever choice the autonomous force makes can even be accompanied by an obscure mental asset explaining the situation. In other words, you are made clear why the other side made such a choice. All is geared to make you understand one thing. In order to completely release the ideomotor effect, you have to surrender to it, physically and mentally.

If you decide to actually perform such a test, I can write a computerprogram for you that you can use to record all the answers and check how many you got right and then calculate how well you did. Experiments like this require a bit of statistics and letting a computer take care of it all might come in handy.

Your offer is very much appreciated! In return, I could perhaps interest you in cooperating with us, Vladimir Sivitsky Ph.D, of IHEI, and myself, and study the ideomotor effect.

I challenge you to gather a number of other ideomotor trance artists.

That's why I said I would find people who can draw well and can fake being ideomotor artist. Or can your work only be compared with other ideomotor artists and you expect fakers might be better at drawing ?

There are many artists that draw or paint unaware of utilising ideomotor movement. When an artist makes his best work he often says, it went so easy, it was a stream, almost on automatic. My bet is that they are experiencing mild forms of ideomotor effects.

There are as many artists who create in a trance or altered state of consciousness and don’t recognize ideomotor effects. This is because ideomotor effects and altered states of conscious are both a natural phenomenon, and, whatever is natural and often performed may go unnoticed as part of an automatic subconscious process. Just like moving one leg before the other when you walk.

Comes to mind what Barett L. Dorko writes : Their brushstrokes, ‘a result of movements especially complex and meaningful without volition, are an important aspect of our ability to communicate.’

Dorko also claims that ‘the purpose of ideomotor movement is instinctive in origin and nescessary for normal functioning.’ Having said that, there seems to be no need to fake the ideomotor process; it won’t disprove anything.

Experts in drawing may be able to fake ideomotor drawing. But in order to perform such a test, I opt that these fakers should not be made aware of what an original idemotor drawing looks like and how the ideomotor artist makes his moves.

Only after thorougly studying the ideomotor process, faking may become a success. Yet, without the ideomotor effect actually being utilised by the faker, I do not see how he can create a drawing that is of better quality than the drawings made through ideomotor movement. To make you understand this, I would have to explain what the specific qualities of an ideomotor drawing are.

Remember that many of the experiments I propose are to try to understand what you think you are actually capable of. The experiments might not take place, but if you can truthfully explain how you think you will perform in them, it helps me better in understanding you and your gift. The teacup experiment I outlines above is simple and you can do it at home and it would be interesting if you chose to try it, but of course getting a bunch of artists and a jury together and to judge your work on its splendour might be a little bit more difficult.

I see your point in offering these experiments and I am in favor of cooperation. No starting off on the wrong foot...

This is why the scientific research, which has started in Belarus by the faculty of expirimental psychology in 2001, is an interesting project to partake, follow, or invest in. In that respect it may be interesting to note that the ISMTE congress in Sweden/st.Petersburg offers SIS

Maybe you should give us a link or something so people can see what that research is all about...

Sure : IHEI research : http://www.aster-media.nl/ihei.html
ISMTE : http://www.siu.nu/ISMTECongress/ISMTE_Display.asp?DID=1
SIS : http:// www.ifmo.ru

I guess that you are focussing your attention towards the psychic ability, foreseeing something that, in fact, cannot be seen.

Correct. If you can do that, it is something very special and paranormal and you can get a million dollars. If you can only draw what can be seen, or things you can fantasize, then that is not so special and certianly not paranormal and you can't get a million dollars. It's that simple.

Of course. What about when my claim is not that I could do this repeatedly or upon request, but that what I offer is psychological and parapsychological evidence supporting the fact that, at least on one specific occasion, I could. See, if or when my claim is partly accepted as a parapsychological occasion, this would sign to millions of so called deluted people that their belief is justified and that such special things áre in fact possible.

Perhaps you can think of other tests that could enhance a better understanding of what happens in an altered state of consciousness on the basis of the ideomotor effect

Yes, perhaps I could. But I need to know what you think you can do, how often you can do it under what circumstances. That's why I came up with all the other experiment, to find out what you think you can do. The only way to find out whether you can actually do them, is to perform such an experiment.

Okay, I understand and I will see how I can do these experiments. Are you in the research business ? You write of testing other people. Was this in cooperation with JREF or are you speaking about your own institution ? What comes to mind is whether or not mr. Randi has ever done an experiment that involved ideomotor effect. Can you tell me this ?

The problem with that is that you might pick up clues from the photograph itself. And it would be just one test of one photo. If we were to perform this test, we should use more than one person, something like 10 or something, and let them try to find the drawing that they feel is most likely made for them.

That is the case now; I don't work with the person in mind nor am I a practicing clairvoyant. I don’t even work with me in mind.
I work with nothing in mind. If I would now be asked to focus upon a person for whom I would then create a special ideomotor trance message, I cannot tell you who or what would appear.

Okay. Remember that it isn't useful to try to do a complex experiment if you don't feel confident you might succeed in it. The experiments I propose don't have to happen, they are meant more to try to figure out what you think you can and cannot do. If you can think of other experiments yourself or changes to experiments I proposed, that might make you feel more confident in succeeding don't hesitate to propose them.

It intriques me and I will cooperate.

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Aster]

I would like to put some pictures up inside my posts.
Can anyone tell me if this is possible ?
I did the IMG thing, but the picture doesn't show.

Along with discussing a particular ideomotor work of art, I could write my claims. It will touch the belief system though, guys!:-)

Rgds.,
Aster.

[Earthborn]

Besides the person experiencing ideomotor effect, there are assertions of scientists studying the phenomenon and the people experiencing it, which often includes themselves.If scientists are studying themselves, it wouldn't be independent and objective research. It could be very interesting, but it wouldn't prove a thing.I draw in a manner that isn't common for drawing, but that wouldn't prove anything about external input to a skeptic.Exactly: it wouldn't prove anything, and that is what we're after here.One that you know as your own, and one that you don't know other than as this strange something, that appears not to be you.Yes, but as I have told you before, this does not mean that it isn't controlled by the exact same brain as your normal conscious movements. In fact it is a well known phenomenon that the brain can make the body do things that someone is not consciously aware of, and even may seem to the person involved that it has a will of its own.Your offer is very much appreciated! In return, I could perhaps interest you in cooperating with us, Vladimir Sivitsky Ph.D, of IHEI, and myself, and study the ideomotor effect.How did he study you? Did he ever made you do an experiment with the kind of control of the experiments I outlined? Do you mean this guy?SIVITSKY Vladimir Genadiyvich
The candidate of pedagogical sciences. The head of Psychology Chair and the head Creative Laboratory of Experimental Psychology of the International Humanitarian & Economic Institute.
Interests:

Computer psychodiagnostics, sports psychology, ideomotorics, psychoregulation, creation of developing computer games.
http://geni.org.by

Address: 220013, Belarus, Minsk, P.Brovki Street, 22
Tel.: (+ 375-17) 274-24-98, Fax: (+ 375-17) 231-55-27
E-mail: psylab@it.org.byHe doesn't seem very specialized in any field. And his work doesn't appear on any non-Russian sites. Does he speak and write English?

Please explain what kind of experiments he did. Is he convinced that the ideomotor effect is caused by some outside force?To make you understand this, I would have to explain what the specific qualities of an ideomotor drawing are.Please do.Sure : IHEI research : http://www.aster-media.nl/ihei.html
ISMTE : http://www.siu.nu/ISMTECongress/ISM...play.asp?DID=1
SIS : http:// www.ifmo.ruOuch! You couldn't find anything in English, my Russian is a bit rusty (actually I don't know any Russian at all)?

I used the automatic translation service of Altavista to make at least a little bit sense of it:

Rough translation of Geni.org.ru site:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeni.org.by%2F&lp=ru_en
(If no text appears click reload. Sometimes the text isn't handled properly by the translator. Remember that it is an automatic translation and not very readable and probably not very accurate.)

By browsing around I found this:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ru_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeni.org.by%2Fstat%2F3.html
It appears you have had contact with someone in this institute. But I can't see whether you were tested by anyone of them. Perhaps you can explain what kind of experiments were done in a language some of us might even understand. Preferably English, but if you want to it in Dutch, I might be able to translate for people on this board. (But keep it as short as possible, please!)

Rough translation of the IFMO site:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifmo.ru%2F&lp=ru_en
Appears to be a fine technical university. I fail to see the relevance of it when the 'ideomotor effect' is concerned.

The ISMTE thing is fortunately in english:
http://www.siu.nu/ISMTECongress/ISMTE_Display.asp?DID=3
Appears to be an organization that sells courses and workshops. And people can attend some sort of 'congress' for a stiff fee. This is not a reputable scientific organization. It may be okay what they are trying to sell people, but it cannot be used as an authority on anything. Sorry.Of course. What about when my claim is not that I could do this repeatedly or upon request, but that what I offer is psychological and parapsychological evidence supporting the fact that, at least on one specific occasion, I could.Such a past occurance does not constitute evidence. It already happened when there were no experimental controls in place. And it might very well be pure coincidence.

Remember that you are not the only person in the world who had an experience that seemed very significant to them. I had them too, and I'm certain most skeptics did also. Such things happen to all of us, but they are not proof of anything other than coincidence, people only see significance in hindsight and people tend to see patterns where there none. It could be that they are just interpreting something that has no real significance at all.

Many Muslims believe that miracles are just personal communications from God, and you should keep them to yourself. Who is going to believe you anyway? I rather like this view, as it allows you to keep a special place in your heart for the things that seem of great significance to you, while at the same time you don't start running around claiming miracles with every chance occurance.Okay, I understand and I will see how I can do these experiments.Good!Are you in the research business ?No.You write of testing other people.I did not write about testing other people myself. I can just easily imagine how tests could be performed, but I have no experience performing them. I might not be able to provide any actual test, and certainly no test facilities. Some of the tests however are simple enough to do at how yourself, maybe with the help of a few friends. Anyway, I encourage you to do them (you don't need a russian scientist to oversee it, just carry it out carefully while being honest) before you start any formal test... Just don't start to run aroud telling everyone that it worked and that 'it is now officially approved' because it isn't. Such a test at home is not meant as scientific evidence, but is meant to familiarize yourself with good experiments and trying to figure out for yourself whether you can do certain things or not,What comes to mind is whether or not mr. Randi has ever done an experiment that involved ideomotor effect.Only the many dowsing tests which all miserably failed when people simply could not do what they thought they could do. It probably means that they didn't do a simple test at home, or they would have known...I work with nothing in mind. If I would now be asked to focus upon a person for whom I would then create a special ideomotor trance message, I cannot tell you who or what would appear.In that case, that particular test in no good and it would be wrong to even try it. It would be equivalent with me trying to 'Breakdance'... :)It intriques me and I will cooperate.Well, start with imagining tests you think you could succeed in, and post some of the ideas on the forum for all to see.I did the IMG thing, but the picture doesn't show.Just place the webadres of the picture between the imagetags, like so:
[IMG]http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg[/IMG]

Should work fine, like this:
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg
(You forgot the www.)

Uhm... What is it? Is it appropriate on this forum?
I could write my claims. It will touch the belief system though, guys!:-)Try not to elaborate on how you think it works, just focus on what it is you can actually do. A good way to do it is by imagining experiments yourself and asking yourself whether you would be able to do them. And if those aren't too complicated, try them.

Good experiments are usually where you give yourself a fixed number of choices, like a multiple choice exam, with one good answer for every time you repeat the test. Count the number of times you get something right and also count the number of times you got it wrong. Then, just like the teacher would in for an exam, substract the number of times you would have gotten right by guessing. For instance if you choose between 4 things, substract 25%, for 5 things 20% etc... Then divide the total number of tests by the ones you got right, multiply by 10 and you have a grade like you would get in a Dutch school... Easy to understand.

Suppose you must choose out of 4 items for each test, and you do 20 tests.
Suppose you get 6 right.
You substract what you get by chance: 6 - (1/4 * 6) = 6 - 1.5 = 4.5
Divide by the number of tests: 4.5/20 = 0,225
Multiply by 10: 0,225 * 10 = 2,25
Give yourself a 2+
(For american readers: in the Netherlands schools usually give grades from 0 to 10. Just multiply by another 10 to get a percentage grade.)
Not very impressive, is it? If you get a result like this, you probably just guessed it and got lucky here and there.

The more tests you do, do more accurate you get, which means that if you just guess your grade will be closer to 0. With 20 tests you should get at least a 5 before you can honestly say there is something other than guessing. If you manage to do 1000, getting a 2 could actually mean there is something there! It's just not very accurate, so it can only be found with many tests.

Good luck!

[Aster]

If scientists are studying themselves, it wouldn't be independent and objective research. It could be very interesting, but it wouldn't prove a thing.

No, at best it would be a mix between objective and subjective research. I do not agree with you that subjective research wouldn’t prove a thing. Things may be proven long before an independent and objective research substatiates it.

Carpenter / the skeptics diary : We may not be aware of it, but suggestions can be made to the mind by others or observations. Those suggestions can influence the mind and affect ideomotor behavior. What is purely physiological, however, appears to some to be paranormal.

Externally perceived action may produce an internalized motor program which is available in its turn to be imaged and then expressed by action of the perceiving individual. Action is preceeded by image. That is, visualisation of action provides the structure for the action executed. Perception of external action provides structure for creation of the internal motor program for action. The cirquit is complete.

Suppose you are hypnotized and consciously aware of your body. The hypnotist suggests that your body will perform an act, like raising your arm. You are aware that your body performs the act independently of volition. May this not serve you as an example of an externally provided ideomotor action ?

In fact it is a well known phenomenon that the brain can make the body do things that someone is not consciously aware of, and even may seem to the person involved that it has a will of its own.

Yes, and that is not because of personal delution but simply because it hás a will of its own. The brain is just the brain and you are not the brain.

How did he study you? Did he ever made you do an experiment with the kind of control of the experiments I outlined? Do you mean this guy?

Yes, SIVITSKY Vladimir Genadiyvich is the man. We have not yet come to do any testing. Sivitsky’s research is based on the art and experience that I present including a videofilm of me doing ideomotor drawing.

He doesn't seem very specialized in any field. And his work doesn't appear on any non-Russian sites. Does he speak and write English?

Yes, rather poorly.

Please explain what kind of experiments he did. Is he convinced that the ideomotor effect is caused by some outside force?

No experiments. I am not saying that the only cause for ideomotor effect is an external force. What I am saying is that both in- as external suggestions can influence the mind, resulting in ideomotor effect. Besides that, I cannot answer for Vladimir; if you want me to forward your questions to him I would be happy to do that. You can also write to him directly : psylab@it.org.by

Ouch! You couldn't find anything in English, my Russian is a bit rusty (actually I don't know any Russian at all)?

Sorry for that. Try www.ifmo.ru/sis. They study spirit through consciousness, I guess is all I wanted to tell you.

Appears to be an organization that sells courses and workshops. And people can attend some sort of 'congress' for a stiff fee. This is not a reputable scientific organization. It may be okay what they are trying to sell people, but it cannot be used as an authority on anything. Sorry.

I am trying to get the Max Planck Institute in Muenchen and the Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology in Bern, Switzerland (which is related with the University of London) interested in my work. Do you view these institutions as reputable scientific organizeations ? And what about the JFK university in California ? The latter rejected my work.

Such a past occurance does not constitute evidence. It already happened when there were no experimental controls in place. And it might very well be pure coincidence.

Rules like this should not deprive testimonial evidence from being scientifically researched or worse, become a part of the pseudoscientific world. The fact that the evidence I offer in support to my claim is not acceptable to science, does not conflict with the occurence actually being supernatural. These things just cannot be tested as they are one time experiences. Please remember that you are not talking to a person who is blindly following the aftermath of a single experience. Experiences that feel significant to people might very well be significant and not only to them. What might be significant to others might also prove to be significant for you or me. What happened to me does not happen to most people; in my 8 years of research I have not found one comparable case.

I did not write about testing other people myself.

I see.

Only the many dowsing tests which all miserably failed when people simply could not do what they thought they could do. It probably means that they didn't do a simple test at home, or they would have known...

What I meant was, did mr. Randi ever participate (as subject) in a test involving induced hypnosis or trance and ideomotor effect to learn how results would influence his opinion on the supernatural abilities of man ?

Uhm... What is it? Is it appropriate on this forum?

You are not the first person whose sexual bodies respond to this image. I do not know what constitutes the appropriateness to show pictures like this on this forum. But I cannot help but seeing many symbolic identity pictures added by skeptic people to their posts while signing their messages with odd names. Odd... you’d think that skeptic people would stay close to their own identity. To which reality does this fantasy or expression of alternative identity pertain ?

I have associated this picture with Ima’an. Ima’an is my cosmic guide, a creature that has been with me since early childhood. Ima’an is the foreteller of IAM-, IS-, and ISIS presence experiencing. I believe I drew Ima’an picture first in 1979. In 1994, I created this ideomotor graphic representation of Ima’an. Obviously, the image is part of an original ideomotor drawing complimented with it’s mirror half.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Psiload]

Aster wrote:

I have associated this picture with Ima’an. Ima’an is my cosmic guide, a creature that has been with me since early childhood. Ima’an is the foreteller of IAM-, IS-, and ISIS presence experiencing.

Ima’an? Isn't she married to David Bowie
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg
Whoa! She hit the wall!

[Earthborn]

No, at best it would be a mix between objective and subjective research.No, I don't think it would. I use a few simple definitions for objective/subjective, which I think anyone can agree on:

objective: equally true for everybody
subjective: different for everybody/relies entirely on interpretation.

If a scientist studies him/herself, the result relies completely on their own interpretation and other scientists don't necessarily agree.

Something is only objectively true when both the people who believe in it and the people who don't believe it can perform the exact same tests and get the same result. This is true of many scientific facts, but I'm sure you are well aware that there are many other issues that are still hotly debated and don't yet have an objective answer.I do not agree with you that subjective research wouldn’t prove a thing. Things may be proven long before an independent and objective research substatiates it.That's a bit dependant on what you choose to consider 'proof'. Something may very well be true without objective evidence, but without objective evidence you cannot be sure and you cannot convince someone who doesn't believe it (but is willing to change his/her mind when presented objective evidence).Suppose you are hypnotized and consciously aware of your body. The hypnotist suggests that your body will perform an act, like raising your arm. You are aware that your body performs the act independently of volition. May this not serve you as an example of an externally provided ideomotor action ?No, because I would raise my arm myself when being told to do that.Yes, and that is not because of personal delution but simply because it hás a will of its own. The brain is just the brain and you are not the brain.So you are saying that your ideomotor art may come from your brain, but your normal everyday activities are not? I would think the brain has an enormous influence on both.We have not yet come to do any testing. Sivitsky’s research is based on the art and experience that I present including a videofilm of me doing ideomotor drawing.That's a real pity. It means that his research is not very remarkeable.Yes, rather poorly.Well, that's what I was afraid of. I think it isn't such a big deal though, since I now know that he didn't do any real tests.I am trying to get the Max Planck Institute in Muenchen and the Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology in Bern, Switzerland (which is related with the University of London) interested in my work. Do you view these institutions as reputable scientific organizeations ? And what about the JFK university in California ? The latter rejected my work.The 'Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology' doesn't sound like a very scientific Authority to me, but I may be wrong. Max Planck is fine, but I seriously doubt they will take you any more seriously than the JFK University.

To be blunt, I would not consider any organization or person who accepts your ideas unquestioningly as a reputable scientific authority. This is because you don't seem to have formulated your claims yet and you have not done any tests that would indicate that there is anything involved that scientists don't already know. Your work is not yet ready to be taken seriously by science.

Also, I think you take the wrong route. You try to find recognition by the highest of scientific authorities, but you have very little to convince them of anything. It would be better to try to do a few experiments, maybe asking a few people of a local skeptic's group to help you... Start smaller: very little science is done by people with a few revolutionary ideas that immediately convinces the scientific community.Rules like this should not deprive testimonial evidence from being scientifically researched or worse, become a part of the pseudoscientific world.Testimonial evidence can sometimes be used in science, but only when it might lead to evidence that can be checked. For instance, when some people say they have seen a strange beast, scientists can look for it, trying to find footprints or droppings or the beast itself. But when someone tells that something happened to them 20 years ago, there is nothing left to check whether it really happened exactly like that, and therefore it is not scientific evidence.The fact that the evidence I offer in support to my claim is not acceptable to science, does not conflict with the occurence actually being supernatural.No, of course not. But because there is no way to check how it happened exactly, there is also no evidence that it was supernatural. There is no proof one way or the other, but since supernatural occurances are very rare or even non-existed, and occurances that people mistake for being supernatural are quite common, most skeptics will assume that it is the latter.
These things just cannot be tested as they are one time experiences.Exactly.What happened to me does not happen to most people; in my 8 years of research I have not found one comparable case.I think that highly depends on what you think is 'comparable'. And the fact that it you didn't find anyone with a comparable case is not indicative that it isn't just a random event.What I meant was, did mr. Randi ever participate (as subject) in a test involving induced hypnosis or trance and ideomotor effect to learn how results would influence his opinion on the supernatural abilities of man ?I don't know. Unfortunately JREF does not give much information about the past challenges, and I personally see that as a weakness of the challenge. However we should also realize that for many people who participated, the fact that they lost is such an embarrasment that they probably don't want any information released. It would aid in the fairness of the tests though, and in the showing people that the tests are fair...Obviously, the image is part of an original ideomotor drawing complimented with it’s mirror half. Well, yes. I noticed that it was mirrored. However, the colour seems that of human skin and the fact that mirror images can sometimes create strange shapes I could not determine whether or not it was a part of human anatomy. Please note that ShowMe had to remove his avatar because it looked like something inappropriate, not because it was. The reason was that people should be able to use this site at work, school or library without shame about what it appears they are looking at. Perhaps it would be a better idea to post a scan of the original picture without the colouring or the lighting effect?

The picture is far too small to see what it actually is... Can't you give a link to a larger version?

[zensidhe]

This thread had been fascinating.

Earthborn, you are doing a Great job trying to glean a definitive claim/test from Aster. You have remarkable patients and a great demeanor.

Aster I am very happy to see you picked up on the proper use of quote. I had a look at your art, and while I don't personally believe it constitutes anything paranormal, I find it all interesting to look at. (I may not know art, but I know what I like.)

Anyway, keep it up guys. I'm enjoying the progression.

[Aster]

Ima’an? Isn't she married to David Bowie

There is Imaan and there is Imaan. Just like the spheres. They are all the same, yet they are different. Not merely the spheres in the mind of the lucid thinker, the dreamer or of the other side, but the spheres of human conscious awareness; a multi dimensional consciousness.

Margaretha wrote through me "Moon and moon and moon". These words may have been set aside by some of you as meaningless. But I treasured those words for twenty years to find out that they are coordinates on what I call the cosmic clock, a representable representation of human consciousness.

Imaan is Bowie's wife indeed, but is it not spelled Iman ? In my drawings there is a lot that points to imaan, unfortunately the carrier of muslim fundamentalist Jihad. There never seemed to be an escape for me there, until I cast that spirit out. Until now, perhaps, with Bush legalizing war kicking Saddam Hussein out of power, and America and England, and the wole world in their following working together towards a new world order, starting at the cradle of religious human culture, Iraq. What I see and read from my drawings is what I see. What you see is quite another thing.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

had a look at your art, and while I don't personally believe it constitutes anything paranormal, I find it all interesting to look at. (I may not know art, but I know what I like.)

You may not know art but now you know Ideomotor art.

"Yet, let it not be thought that a person not an artist may by these means not become one: but those artists who are hampered in expression, who feel limited by the hard conventions of the day and wish for freedom but have not attained to it, these may find in it a power and a liberty elsewhere undiscoverable." Austin Osman Spare

Nothing paranormal about ideomotor art. IM is my work and my work is not guilty of being paranormal until proven quilty.

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

Can anyone tell me what these stars are behind some posts giving a rating of some sort ?

Rgds.,

Aster.http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Earthborn]

In my drawings there is a lot that points to imaan, unfortunately the carrier of muslim fundamentalist Jihad.Actually, most muslims understand the word 'imaan' as trust/faith in God.Nothing paranormal about ideomotor art. IM is my work and my work is not guilty of being paranormal until proven quilty.But I'm sure that you wouldn't have come here if you didn't think there was anything paranormal/ supernatural/ metaphysical to it?Can anyone tell me what these stars are behind some posts giving a rating of some sort ?Yes, scroll all the way to the bottom and you'll see a roll down menu titled 'Rate this thread'. There you can choose how much you enjoy it. Choose an option and your vote is calculated with the ovtes of other people and expressed as stars at the top.

[Aster]

Actually, most muslims understand the word 'imaan' as trust/faith in God.
Yes, and unfortunately Jihad is often an essential part of imaan.
But I'm sure that you wouldn't have come here if you didn't think there was anything paranormal/ supernatural/ metaphysical to it?
Obviously. I have been working with parts of self, subconscious mind, presenses of conscious awareness, spirits, cosmic entities etc. Many of these experiences remain part of an inner depth, a methaphysical, spiritual and religious world. I am here to put these experiences 'to the test' and create an audience for ideomotor sensing and movement.
Yes, scroll all the way to the bottom and you'll see a roll down menu titled 'Rate this thread'. There you can choose how much you enjoy it. Choose an option and your vote is calculated with the ovtes of other people and expressed as stars at the top.[
I see, thank you!

Rgds.,
Aster.

http://www.cybercomm.nl/~cyberspc/imaan.jpeg

[Aster]

No, I don't think it would. I use a few simple definitions for objective/subjective, which I think anyone can agree on:
A scientist studying himself provides ‘equally true for everybody’, even when working totally by himself. The mix is this: The scientist within the person represents and protects the objective research and the student within the person represents the subjective research providing an interpretation of results that are different for everybody, thus providing a combination of efforts.

My objective is to be the student; the scientist in me is missing. This is where a partnership with Vladimir and other scientists is relevant to me. And now I am here to seek a skeptic response.
If a scientist studies him/herself, the result relies completely on their own interpretation and other scientists don't necessarily agree.
Okay, what is required to change your view in support of the way I see it ? We can discuss and argue all our life, we can test all our life, but that’s not where solutions are quickly found, nor where new idea’s are formed instantly. Scientists research problems in their minds and bodies, do steep introspective thinking (perhaps even trance meditation) and the best research is often performed in solitude, when asleep! Something is only objectively true when both the people who believe in it and the people who don't believe it can perform the exact same tests and get the same result. This is true of many scientific facts, but I'm sure you are well aware that there are many other issues that are still hotly debated and don't yet have an objective answer.
Yes, like the mental and emotional foundations for psychic awareness- dopamines.
I do not agree with you that subjective research wouldn’t prove a thing. Things may be proven long before an independent and objective research substatiates it.
That's a bit dependant on what you choose to consider 'proof'. Something may very well be true without objective evidence, but without objective evidence you cannot be sure and you cannot convince someone who doesn't believe it (but is willing to change his/her mind when presented objective evidence).
But that is not a problem. Results will be put to the test. When the test is not available we are smart enought to think of one. When the experiment cannot be tested, as in my claim, we design a scientific model of acceptance that accomodates claimes of the supernatural to be accepted by science.
One example of my claims is the definition of my work: These drawings are the key to the formula that links spiritual communication to the science of math.
Suppose you are hypnotized and consciously aware of your body. The hypnotist suggests that your body will perform an act, like raising your arm. You are aware that your body performs the act independently of volition. May this not serve you as an example of an externally provided ideomotor action ?
No, because I would raise my arm myself when being told to do that.
I won’t deny that it is you who is raising your arm. But what
causes you to raise it ? This is my point. You do not have an
answer for this, nor does mr. Randi, nor does science. It all stops at the ideomotor effect, that mr. Randi short cirquits with the idea of one self.

My claim is that the ideomotor effect is but a tool for action (acts and laws) mediated by the human psyche gouverning the act. The source is and will be unknown as it cannot be known. It can only be experienced and represented.

Experiencing ideomotor movement in your arm will make you realize that the source can be external as well as internal suggestion.
Yes, and that is not because of personal delution but simply because it hás a will of its own. The brain is just the brain and you are not the brain.
So you are saying that your ideomotor art may come from your brain, but your normal everyday activities are not? I would think the brain has an enormous influence on both
I see where my answer was not clear. You were saying that the brain can make the body do things that someone is not consciously aware of, and even may seem to the person involved that it has a will of its own.

I was also once programmed to believe that the brain is responsible for this. But has that been tested and supported by evidence ? And if so, are tests not designed to prove just that ? Where the assumption is in place that there is more to movement that just the brain ?

My ‘Yes’ to your quote is pure habit (that past programming!). I see the senses registered, worked out and processed in the brain, but that what feeds the brain with information is to and from the cellular neurosystem. Every cell is an individual entity, the system is a copy. Every cell is a conscious entity. We are aware of the system, not of the indicidual cell. And that grand collection of cells hosts the force behind ideomotor effect. Our conscious awareness can be raised to cell level. Through cell level we become conscious of how our cells are holographic copies of all that is. Today, we are not enough cell conscious. Not enough ideomotor effect. Our brain does allow, but we tend to restrict our brain to function in ways completely new to us.
We have not yet come to do any testing. Sivitsky’s research is based on the art and experience that I present including a videofilm of me doing ideomotor drawing.
That's a real pity. It means that his research is not very remarkeable.
That is irrelevant now. We know that the path is not easy. Testing will be done sooner or later. We have insufficient financial assets to substantiate laboratory testing. We plan to raise funds through book and artsales, even a movie for the russian market is in the works.
The 'Institute for Creative Art Therapy and Transpersonal Psychology' doesn't sound like a very scientific Authority to me, but I may be wrong. Max Planck is fine, but I seriously doubt they will take you any more seriously than the JFK University.
Thanks for the confidence. JFK gouverns the Susan Seddon Boulet art contest that I asked to compete with. It is a contest between students of JFK. When I’d be studying there I would be able to compete and have a good chance of winning, and get my name up in the world of Art. But hey, I am the alive representation of the external suggestion J and they don’t want that I guess.
To be blunt, I would not consider any organization or person who accepts your ideas unquestioningly as a reputable scientific authority.
Unquestioningly ?
This is because you don't seem to have formulated your claims yet and you have not done any tests that would indicate that there is anything involved that scientists don't already know. Your work is not yet ready to be taken seriously by science.
I don’t nescessarily disagree but I know this is in the works now. My aim is to create an audience far more interesting than the scienctific community. And that is people like you and I. I can assure you that scientists don’t already know what I know and I can also assure you that science will become interested in me as they can study me in relation to subjects that have already been very well examined but miss the final answer, where or what is its source ?
Also, I think you take the wrong route. You try to find recognition by the highest of scientific authorities, but you have very little to convince them of anything. It would be better to try to do a few experiments, maybe asking a few people of a local skeptic's group to help you... Start smaller: very little science is done by people with a few revolutionary ideas that immediately convinces the scientific community.
That is your opinion, based on what you know now. And I respect that. I am your patient after all. But you do not forsee what your patient foresees.
Having said that, I’d rather be seen as student. I Russia I cannot be anyones patient because there is no pathology.
Testimonial evidence can sometimes be used in science, but only when it might lead to evidence that can be checked. For instance, when some people say they have seen a strange beast, scientists can look for it, trying to find footprints or droppings or the beast itself. But when someone tells that something happened to them 20 years ago, there is nothing left to check whether it really happened exactly like that, and therefore it is not scientific evidence.
Exactly, and so that leaves an opportunity open.
The fact that the evidence I offer in support to my claim is not acceptable to science, does not conflict with the occurence actually being supernatural.
No, of course not. But because there is no way to check