Άρα τουλάχιστον θα πρέπει να παραδεχθούμε ότι υπάρχουν ακόμα και επιστήμονες που βλέπουν παραισθήσεις και ότι ο Geller τουλάχιστον έχει την ΜΕΤΑΦΥΣΙΚΗ ικανότητα να παραπλανεί.

Αλλά φυσικά για τους μη ψυχωτικούς που έχουν ζήσει και προσωπικές εμπειρίες υπάρχουν και άλλες εξηγήσεις πέρα από τις παραισθήσεις χωρίς όμως αυτές να απορρίπτονται απαραίτητα.

quote:

---

Βασικά ένας που δέχθηκε (ο Uri Geller) κάποτε να γίνει πειραματόζωο για να ικανοποιηθούν κάποιοι ψυχωτικοί έπεισε τους επιστήμονες για extrasensory perception -παραισθητική διαίσθηση- αυτή η ερευνά δημοσιεύθηκε στο science journal Nature το 1974.

---

'We are either alone in the universe or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming'
-Arthur C. Clarke-

Ο ποιο αξιόπιστος επιστήμονας ως προς αυτά τα θέματα είναι ο εαυτός μας αλλά ακόμα και με αυτόν θα πρέπει να έχουμε επιφυλάξεις.

Όσο για αυτό με τον Geller δεν πείστηκαν ως προς το κουτάλι αλλά πείστηκαν ως προς αυτό που είπα, μάλλον δεν κατάλαβες τι είπα.

Έχω ακούσει απίθανες εξηγήσεις για πολλά τέτοια θέματα, οι οποίες τις περισσότερες φορές είναι ποιο απίθανες από το να συμβαίνει πραγματικά αυτό που φαίνεται.

Βασικά μου έχουν συμβεί αμέτρητα πράγματα τα οποία δεν μπορώ να εξηγήσω ούτε με την θεολογία ούτε με την φιλοσοφία ούτε με την επιστήμη ούτε με τίποτα.

Θα αναφερθώ σε ένα απλό που μου έχει συμβεί δυο φορές.

Βασικά δουλεύω πολύ με το κεφάλι μου σε θέματα επιστημονικά φιλοσοφικά ψυχολογικά κλπ και υπάρχει ενδεχόμενο να βρίσκομαι σε κατάσταση διαλογισμού για 5 6 ώρες ακόμα και παραπάνω (βασικά αυτό είναι μάλλον κουσούρι γιατί ποιος κάθετε στις μέρες μας να σκέφτεται) και έτσι όπως χάνομαι μέσα στις σκέψεις μου και μπαίνω σε μια κατάσταση αφασίας και αποκόβομαι πλήρως από το περιβάλλον, εντελώς ασυνείδητα μου έχει τύχει δυο φορές να κοιτάω ένα αντικείμενο χωρίς να έχω την συνείδηση ότι το κοιτάω.

Την πρώτη φορά ήταν ένα γυάλινο τασάκι το οποίο χωρίς να το ακουμπήσω από απόσταση δυο μέτρων και χωρίς να έχει κάποια προηγούμενη ρωγμή άνοιξε στα δυο, το ίδιο περιστατικό μου έχει συμβεί και με ένα ποτήρι.

Η λογική εξήγηση άντε ήταν σύμπτωση, να σπάσει το τασάκι και το ποτήρι από μόνο του.

_________________________

quote:

---

Όσο για αυτό με τον Geller δεν πείστηκαν ως προς το κουτάλι αλλά πείστηκαν ως προς αυτό που είπα, μάλλον δεν κατάλαβες τι είπα.

---

'We are either alone in the universe or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming'
-Arthur C. Clarke-

Αυτόν που δεν πρόκειται να πάρω ποτέ στα σοβαρά είναι κάποιους εμπαθέστατους τύπους σαν εσένα.

Αν το πάρουμε έτσι τότε και o Γιουνγκ, o μεγαλύτερος ψυχίατρος όλον τον εποχών ήταν κάτι σαν το πρεζάκια της ομονοίας.

Αυτό που είπα ισχύει για μένα τουλάχιστον.

Αυτό που είπα ποιο πάνω είναι απλά ένα δείγμα από αυτά που συμβαίνουν στην οικογένεια μου εδώ και μερικές γενιές.

Ξεκινώντας από την γιαγιά μου (μάλλον Αιγυπτιακής καταγωγής) που μας έκανε διάφορες μαγγανείες κλπ πράγματα που πέθαναν μαζί της, καθώς δεν υπήρχε κάποιος να την πάρει στα σοβαρά και να κάνει μια ερευνά σχετικά με το τι ήταν αυτές οι τελετές και από προέρχονταν.

Φτάνοντας μέχρι την μανά μου της οποίας επίσης έχουν συμβεί απίθανα και αμέτρητα πράγματα, ένα χαρακτηριστικό είναι που είδε στον ύπνο της έναν εξαψηφιο αριθμό και κατέληξε να είναι ο αριθμός του πρώτου λαχείου(στην Κύπρο).

Φυσικά για τους κακοπροαίρετους η μανά μου είναι πρεζάκι στην ομόνοια και εγώ μάλλον το βαποράκι.

Έχω δει αμέτρητα ανεξήγητα έως και προφητικά όνειρα έχω τουλάχιστον 1000 παραδείγματα τηλεπάθειας με συγγενείς φίλους μου και ειδικά με τις γυναίκες που είμαι κατά καιρούς, φυσικά όλα αυτά είναι της φαντασίας μου και δεν πρέπει να τα ερευνήσω για να ικανοποιηθούν οι ψυχωτικοί που προανέφερα, φυσικά στην συλλογή μου έχω και ποιο βαριά θέματα που δεν θα μπορούσα να τα αναφέρω ούτε δημόσια αλλά ούτε και σε προσωπικό επίπεδο.

Μερικα λογακια για τον Γκέλερ.
Ο Γκέλερ είχε καταφέρει να ξεγελάσει δυο επιστήμονες σε ενα πειραμα.Τους ξεγέλασε γιατι οι 2 αυτοι επιστημονες δεν ήξεραν πολλά απο ταχυδακτυλουργία.Ηξερε όμως ο James Rhandi και γιαυτο δεν μπόρεσε να περάσει την δοκιμασια.Μηνυσε τον Rhandi για 100.000 δολλάρια αλλά έχασε και τώρα χρωστάει 150.000 δολλάρια στον Rhandi.
Και στο show του Carson δεν καταφερε να περάσει την δοκιμασία γιατι ο Carson ειχε αλλάξει τα κουταλια (υπήρχε η υποψια οτι ο Γκέλερ "δουλευε" τα κουτάλια απο πρίν για να μειώσει τις αντοχες τους.)

Και ομως υπάρχει δυνατότητα να ελεγχουν οι παραψυχολογικες δυνάμεις.Ισχυριζεσαι οτι μπορεις και μετακινεις πραγματα με την δύναμη σου?Μετακίνησε τα!Ισυχρίζεσαι οτι μπορεις και διαβαζεις το μυαλό αλλων.Σκεφτομαι κατι μπορεις να δεις τι σκέφτηκα?κτλ

Εχουν γινει πολλά παρόμοια πειράματα και αποτελεσμα ΜΗΔΕΝ.

Δεν έχω καμία δύναμη και καμία τέτοια βλακεία δεν ισχυρίστηκα, δύναμη έχω στα χέρια μου που ξέρουν να δίνουν φάπες σε ανώμαλους ο εγκέφαλος μου δεν επιλέγει αυτά που ανάφερα αντίθετα μπορεί να επιλέξει να αρχίσει τις φάπες σε ανώμαλους.

Ναι φίλε velian συνέχισε να μιλάς για πρεζάκιας και αχώ θα συνεχίζω να Μήλο για ανωμάλους ψυχωτικούς είσαι σε καλό δρόμο έτσι προσεγγίζονται αυτά τα θέματα και έτσι θα βγάλει άκρη η επίτιμοι έτσι όπως το φαντάζεται ο κάθε προκατειλημμένος.

Όσο για την πρόκληση θα έλεγα να βρεθούμε επί προσωπικού να σε κάνω εσένα πειραματόζωο να δεις που άμεσος θα καταλάβεις.

Δεν μας απάντησες για τα παιδία ποιο πάνω αλλά είπαμε ότι θέλει ο κάθε ένας βλέπει και ότι θέλει ο κάθε ένας λέει.

Ούτε να πουλήσω προσπάθησα ούτε να παραπλανήσω καθώς είμαι άγνωστος μεταξύ άγνωστων αυτό που φωνάζω σε όλα τα βλαμμένα είναι να είναι λιγότερο φανατισμένα.

Καταλάβατε βλαμμένα (η πρεζάκια το ίδιο κάνει)?

Αν η επιστήμη αρχίσει να υποστηρίζει τέτοια θέματα θα δημιουργηθεί ένας μικρός πανικός όπως έγινε και στο παρελθόν στην αρχαία Ελλάδα όταν ο κάθε ταχυδακτυλουργός δήλωνε θεός για να δημιουργεί την δική του σέκτα.

Αν υπηρχαν αυτα τα φαινόμενα θα ηταν πολυ ωραια.Θα βαζαμε τα μεντιουμ να κανουν προβλεψεις πχ για το ποτε θα γινει σεισμος και θα εκκενωναμε τις πολεις εγκαιρα.Αν υπηρχε τηλεπαθεια δεν θα χρειαζοταν να πεταμε λεφτα στην ΕΥΠ.Θα βαζαμε ατομα με remote viewing για να μας εντοπισουν χαμενα παιδακια κτλ.θΑ μας βολευε μια χαρα και θα τα βαζαμε σε εφαρμογη ευχαριστως.Θα γλυτωναμε κοπο και χρημα.

Αλλα ως τωρα καμια αποδειξη για την υπαρξη αυτων των φαινομενων.Παρολο που επαναλαμβανω οι επιστημονες μελετουν εδω και 20 χρονια ατομα που ισχυριζονται οτι διαθετουν τετοιες δυναμεις.

Τωρα αν εσυ ισχυριζεσαι οτι εχεις τετοιες δυναμεις τρεχα στον James Rhandi και βγαλε μας ολους ψευτες.
http://www.randi.org/
Αντε ντε τι κάθεσαι?

ΥΓ.Η ακατασχετη κοπρολογια ειναι ενδειξη διαταραγμενης προσωπικοτητας.
ΥΓ2Πολλα ατομα δεχτηκαν να μπουν σε δοκιμασια οχι μονο ο Γκελερ.Ολοι ανεξαιρετως απετυχαν.

Ελπίζω να μην υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι οι τέκτονες βρίσκονται σε αρκετά ψηλές θέσεις και σε επιστημονικό και σε πολιτικό και σε όλα τα επίπεδα καθώς περί αυτού υπάρχουν αποδείξεις.

Εγώ δεν λέω ούτε ότι είναι κακοί ούτε ότι είναι κακοί καθώς έχουν συμβάλει τα μέγιστα στην εξέλιξη της ανθρωπότητας αλλά ταυτόχρονα υπάρχουν κάποια γεγονότα που δεν είναι και τόσο ευεργετικά.

Λοιπόν οι μασόνοι διδάσκονται τον ερμητισμό και ερευνούν πέρα από τα γνωστά όρια της επιστήμης την ανθρώπινη υπόσταση και δέχονται κάποιες παλαιότερες διδασκαλίες και βάση αυτόν προγραμματίζουν για το μέλλον.

Ας δούμε μια διδαχή τον φαντασιόπληκτων οπιομανών μασόνων μήπως και κάποια βλαμμένα αρχίσουν να δέχονται την συνύπαρξη(γιατί περί αυτού πρόκειται) με όσους διαφωνούν.

---------------------------

΄΄Σόλων, Σόλων, σεις οι Έλληνες είσθε αιωνίως παιδιά, κανείς Έλλην δεν είναι γέρων". Ο Σόλων όταν άκουσε αυτά, του είπε: "Πώς γίνεται αυτό, τί εννοείς με αυτά που λες;".

Και εκείνος απάντησε: "Όλοι είσθε νέοι κατά την ψυχή, διότι δεν έχετε μέσα εις την ψυχή σας καμία παλαιά γνώσιν δια την αρχαία παράδοση, ούτε και κανένα μάθημα παλαιό από την πολυκαιρία. Αιτία αυτού του φαινομένου είναι η εξής: Πολλές καταστροφές ανθρώπων έχουν γίνει και θα γίνουν από πολλά αίτια, οι πλέον μεγαλύτερες από πυρκαγιές και κατακλυσμούς και οι μικρότερες από αμέτρητα άλλα αίτια.

Π.χ. η παράδοση που επικρατεί εις την χώρα σας, ότι δηλαδή κάποτε ο Φαέθων o υιός του Ηλίου, αφού έζευξε το άρμα του πατρός του, επειδή δεν είχε την ικανότητα να ακολουθήσει τον ίδιον με τον πατέρα τον δρόμο και τα επί γης πυρπόλησε και αυτός κτυπηθείς από κεραυνό εφονεύθη, αυτό λέγεται ως μύθος, ενώ η πραγματικότης είναι η "παράλλαξις" των πέριξ της γης περιφερόμενων ουρανίων σωμάτων και η καταστροφή από το άφθονο πυρ κατά μακροχρόνια διαστήματα των επί της γης ευρισκομένων όντων.

Τότε λοιπόν όσοι κατοικούν εις τα όρη και εις υψηλούς και εις ξηρούς τόπους καταστρέφονται περισσότερο από εκείνους που κατοικούν πλησίον των ποταμών και της Θαλάσσης. Εις την χώρα μας όμως ο Νείλος, ο οποίος και κατά τα άλλα είναι σωτήρ μας, μας σώζει και εις τοιαύτας περιπτώσεις αμηχανίας υπερεκχειλίζων. Όταν εξάλλου οι Θεοί, καθαρίζοντας την γη, την καταπλημμυρίζουν με νερά, όσοι ευρίσκονται εις τα όρη σώζονται, όπως π.χ. οι βουκόλοι και οι βοσκοί, όσοι όμως κατοικούν εις τας πόλεις σας παρασύρονται από τους ποταμούς εις την Θάλασσαν.

Εις την χώρα μας όμως εδώ ούτε τότε ούτε άλλοτε πίπτει εκ των άνω νερό επάνω εις την γη, αλλά αντιθέτως φυσικότατα αναδύεται εκ των κάτω προς τα άνω. Εξ' αιτίας αυτών λοιπόν των αιτιών οι παραδόσεις της χώρας μας λέγεται ότι είναι παλαιότατες. Η αλήθεια όμως είναι ότι εις όλα τα μέρη, όπου ο χειμώνας ή η ζέστη δεν είναι υπερβολικά, υπάρχει πάντοτε το γένος των ανθρώπων, άλλοτε πολυάριθμο και άλλοτε ολιγάριθμο.

Όσα ωραία ή μεγάλα ή καθ' οιονδήποτε τρόπον αξιόλογα έχουν γίνει εις την χώρα σας ή εις την ιδική μας ή εις άλλον τόπον από όσους γνωρίζομε εξ ακοής, όλα αυτά είναι από παλαιούς χρόνους γραμμένα εδώ εις τους ναούς μας και έχουν διασωθεί.

Εις την χώρα σας όμως καθώς και εις άλλες χώρας, όσα κάθε φορά έχουν διοργανωθεί ώστε να είναι κατάλληλα δια τα γράμματα και δια τα άλλα όσα είναι αναγκαία εις τας πόλεις, έρχεται κατά καθορισμένα χρονικά διαστήματα σαν φοβερά ασθένεια εναντίον τους ρεύμα από τον ουρανό και αφήνει ζωντανούς μόνον τους αγράμματους και αμόρφωτους από σας, ώστε γίνεστε εξ αρχής πάλι σαν νέοι, χωρίς να γνωρίζετε τίποτε από τα παλαιά που τυχόν έγιναν είτε εις την δική μας είτε εις την δική σας χώρα.

-----------------------------------

Φυσικά ο Πλάτων ο Πλούταρχος ο Πρόκλος και όλα αυτά τα μεγαθήρια του πνεύματος ήταν απλά πρεζάκια της ομόνοιας έτσι όπως συνηθίζει να λέει ο κάθε ανώμαλος.

Ο Πλούταρχος και ο Πρόκλος και άλλοι επιβεβαίωσαν περί του λόγου του Πλάτωνα άρα όλοι έπασχαν από το πολύ οποίο.

Έλα μου ντε που οι ερμητιστες εξακολουθούν να βρίσκονται στο τιμόνι και ότι αυτές οι διδασκαλίες δυστυχώς η ευτυχώς δεν έχουν πεθάνει.

Φυσικά το θέμα θα μπορούσα να το παρουσιάσω καλύτερα αλλά με τον φασισμό που παρατηρείτε μόνο με κλοτσιές και μπουνιές μπορεί κάποιος να μετακινηθεί από την αλαζονεία του.

Απλά κάνω εισαγωγή στην βασική διδασκαλεία του ερμητισμού ότι η γνώση είναι δύναμη και θα μπορούσε να είναι η αιτία για πολλές καταστροφές και βλέπουμε το τι θα ακολουθήσει.

Καθώς όλοι αυτοί είναι πρεζάκια και ο Γιουνγκ και όλοι και βρίσκονται και άλλοι πυροβολημένοι αλαζόνες να υποστηρίζουν αυτούς που λένε αυτές τις βλακείες

Το θέμα μας ξανά τονίζω είναι η αποδοχή της διαφορετικής αντίληψης και η συνύπαρξη χωρίς φανατισμούς και ακρότητες.

Για να μην συνεχιστούν οι ασυναρτησίες.

Opws episis den se xaraktiriza oute vlameni(poy eisai, oxi gia ayta poy pisteveis alla gia ton dogmatismo soy se sxesi me to ti prepei na pistevei o kathe enas) an den ipostirizes ton allo vlameno pou me eipe prezaki kai an den epasxes apo afton ton thriskeftiko dogmatismo den tha eixa asxolithei pote me ena vlameno san esena.

quote:

---

Den soy eipa egw mori vlameni ti tha pistepseis esi epimeneis oti prepei na skotosw tin empiria moy gia na iknaopoieitheis.

Opws episis den se xaraktiriza oute vlameni(poy eisai, oxi gia ayta poy pisteveis alla gia ton dogmatismo soy se sxesi me to ti prepei na pistevei o kathe enas) an den ipostirizes ton allo vlameno pou me eipe prezaki kai an den epasxes apo afton ton thriskeftiko dogmatismo den tha eixa asxolithei pote me ena vlameno san esena.

---

Ναι τωρα μας έπεισες!

Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence - in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul.

Σας ευχαριστώ που μου ανοίξατε πάλι την όρεξη για ερευνά.

---------
Remote Perception at Stanford Research Institute

We present results of experiments suggesting the existence of one or more perceptual modalities through which individuals obtain information about their environment, although this information is not presented to any known sense. The literature 1-3 and our observations lead us to conclude that such abilities can be studied under laboratory conditions.
We have investigated the ability of certain people to describe graphical material or remote scenes shielded against ordinary perception. In addition, we performed pilot studies to determine if electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings might indicate perception of remote happenings even in the absence of correct overt responses.
We concentrated on what we consider to be our primary responsibility -- to resolve under conditions as unambiguous as possible the basic issue of whether a certain class of paranormal perception phenomena exists. So we conducted our experiments with sufficient control, utilising visual, acoustic and electrical shielding, to ensure that all conventional paths of sensory input were blocked. At all times we took measures to prevent sensory leakage and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional.
Our goal is not just to catalogue interesting events, but to uncover patterns of cause-effect relationships that lend themselves to analysis and hypothesis in the forms with which we are familiar in scientific study. The results presented here constitute a first step towards that goal; we have established under known conditions a data base from which departures as a function of physical and psychological variables can be studied in future work.
First, we conducted experiments with Mr. Uri Geller in which we examined his ability, while located in an electrically shielded room, to reproduce target pictures drawn by experimenters located at remote locations. Second, we conducted double-blind experiments with Mr. Pat Price, in which we measured his ability to describe remote outdoor scenes many miles from his physical location.
Finally, we conducted preliminary tests using EEGs, in which subjects were asked to perceive whether a remote light was flashing, and to determine whether a subject could perceive the presence of the light, even if only at a noncognitive level of awareness.
In preliminary testing Geller apparently demonstrated an ability to reproduce simple pictures (line drawings) which had been drawn and placed in opaque sealed envelopes which he was not permitted to handle. But since each of the targets was known to at least one experimenter in the room with Geller, it was not possible on the basis of the preliminary testing to discriminate between Geller's direct perception of envelope contents and perception through some mechanism involving the experimenters, whether paranormal or subliminal.
So we examined the phenomenon under conditions designed to eliminate all conventional information channels, overt or subliminal. Geller was separated from both the target material and anyone knowledgeable of the material, as in the experiments of ref. 4.
In the first part of the study a series of 13 separate drawing experiments were carried out over 7 days. No experiments were deleted from the results presented here.
At the beginning of the experiment either Geller or the experimenters entered a shielded room so that from that time forward Geller was at all times visually, acoustically, and electrically shielded from personnel and material at the target location. Only following Geller's isolation from the experimenters was a target chosen and drawn, a procedure designed to eliminate pre-experiment cueing. Furthermore, to eliminate the possibility of pre-experiment target forcing, Geller was kept ignorant as to the identity of the person selecting the target and as to the method of target selection. This was accomplished by the use of three different techniques: (1) pseudo-random technique of opening a dictionary arbitrarily and choosing the first word that could be drawn (Experiments 1-4); (2) targets, blind to experimenters and subject, prepared independently by SRI scientists outside the experimental group (following Geller's isolation) and provided to the experimenters during the course of the experiment (Experiments 5-7, 11-13); and (3) arbitrary selection from a target pool decided upon in advance of daily experimentation and designed to provide data concerning information content for use in testing specific hypotheses (Experiments 8-10). Geller's task was to reproduce with pen on paper the line drawing generated at the target location. Following a period of effort ranging from a few minutes to half an hour, Geller either passed (when he did not feel confident) or indicated he was ready to submit a drawing to the experimenters, in which case the drawing was collected before Geller was permitted to see the target.
To prevent sensory cueing of the target information, Experiments 1 through 10 were carried out using a shielded room in SRI's facility for EEG research. The acoustic and visual isolation is provided by a double-walled steel room, locked by means of an inner and outer door, each of which is secured with a refrigerator-type locking mechanism. Following target selection when Geller was inside the room, a one-way audio monitor, operating only from the inside to the outside, was activated to monitor Geller during his efforts. The target picture was never discussed by the experimenters after the picture was drawn and brought near the shielded room. In our detailed examination of the shielded room and the protocol used in these experiments, no sensory leakage has been found.
The conditions and results for the 10 experiments carried out in the shielded room are displayed in Table 1 and Fig. 1. All experiments except 4 and 5 were conducted with Geller inside the shielded room. In Experiments 4 and 5, the procedure was reversed. For those experiments in which Geller was inside the shielded room, the target location was in an adjacent room at a distance of about 4 m, except for Experiments 3 and 8, in which the target locations were, respectively, an office at a distance of 475 m and a room at a distance of about 7 M,
A response was obtained in all experiments except Numbers 5-7. In Experiment 5, the person-to-person link was eliminated by arranging for a scientist outside the usual experimental group to draw a picture, lock it in the shielded room before Geller's arrival at SRI, and leave the area. Geller was then led by the experimenters to the shielded room and asked to draw the picture located inside the room. He said that he got no clear impression and therefore did not submit a drawing. The elimination of the person-to-person link was examined further in the second series of experiments with this subject.
Experiments 6 and 7 were carried out while we attempted to record Geller's EEG during his efforts to perceive the target pictures. The target pictures were, respectively, a tree and an envelope. He found it difficult to hold adequately still for good EEG records, said that he experienced difficulty in getting impressions of the targets, and again submitted no drawings.
Experiments 11 through 13 were carried out in SRI's Engineering Building, to make use of the computer facilities available there. For these experiments, Geller was secured in a double-walled, copper-screen Faraday cage 54 m down the hall and around the corner from the computer room. The Faraday cage provides 120 dB attenuation for plane wave radio frequency radiation over a range of 15 kHz to 1 GHz. For magnetic fields the attenuation is 68 dB at 15 kHz and decreases to 3 dB at 60 Hz. Following Geller's isolation, the targets for these experiments were chosen by computer laboratory personnel not otherwise associated with either the experiment or Geller, and the experimenters and subject were kept blind as to the contents of the target pool.
For Experiment 11, a picture of a kite was drawn on the face of a cathode ray tube display screen, driven by the computer's graphics programme. For Experiment 12, a picture of a church was drawn and stored in the memory of the computer. In Experiment 13, the target drawing, an arrow through a heart (Fig. 2c), was drawn on the face of the cathode ray tube and then the display intensity was turned off so that no picture was visible.
To obtain an independent evaluation of the correlation between target and response data, the experimenters submitted the data for judging on a 'blind' basis by two SRI scientists who were not otherwise associated with the research. For the 10 cases in which Geller provided a response, the judges were asked to match the response data with the corresponding target data (without replacement). In those cases in which Geller made more than one drawing as his response to the target, all the drawings were combined as a set for judging. The two judges each matched the target data to the response data with no error. For either judge such a correspondence has an a priori probability, under the null hypothesis of no information channel, of p 1/(10!) = 3 x 10 to the power -7.
A second series of experiments was carried out to determine whether direct perception of envelope contents was possible without some person knowing of the target picture.
One hundred target pictures of everyday objects were drawn by an SRI artist and sealed by other SRI personnel in double envelopes containing black cardboard. The hundred targets were divided randomly into groups of 20 for use in each of the three days' experiments.
On each of the three days of these experiments, Geller passed. That is, he declined to associate any envelope with a drawing that he made, expressing dissatisfaction with the existence of such a large target pool. On each day he made approximately 12 recognisable drawings, which he felt were associated with the entire target pool of 100. On each of the three days, two of his drawings could reasonably be associated with two of the 20 daily targets. On the third day, two of his drawings were very close replications of two of that day's target pictures. The drawings resulting from this experiment do not depart significantly from what would be expected by chance.
In a simpler experiment Geller was successful in obtaining information under conditions in which no persons were knowledgeable of the target. A double-blind experiment was performed in which a single 3/4 inch die was placed in a 3 x 4 x 5 inch steel box. The box was then vigorously shaken by one of the experimenters and placed on the table, a technique found in control runs to produce a distribution of die faces differing nonsignificantly from chance. The orientation of the die within the box was unknown to the experimenters at that time. Geller would then write down which die face was uppermost. The target pool was known, but the targets were individually prepared in a manner blind to all persons involved in the experiment. This experiment was performed ten times, with Geller passing twice and giving a response eight times. In the eight times in which he gave a response, he was correct each time. The distribution of responses consisted of three 2s, one 4, two 5s, and two 6s. The probability of this occurring by chance is approximately one in 10 to the power 6.
In certain situations significant information transmission can take place under shielded conditions. Factors which appear to be important and therefore candidates for future investigation include whether the subject knows the set of targets in the target pool, the actual number of targets in the target pool at any given time, and whether the target is known by any of the experimenters.
It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis.
A study by Osis 5 led us to determine whether a subject could describe randomly chosen geographical sites located several miles from the subject's position and demarcated by some appropriate means (remote viewing). This experiment carried out with Price, a former California police commissioner and city councilman, consisted of a series of double-blind, demonstration-of-ability tests involving local targets in the San Francisco Bay area which could be documented by several independent judges. We planned the experiment considering that natural geographical places or man-made sites that have existed for a long time are more potent targets for paranormal perception experiments than are artificial targets prepared in the laboratory. This is based on subject opinions that the use of artificial targets involves a 'trivialisation of the ability' as compared with natural preexisting targets.
In each of nine experiments involving Price as subject and SRI experimenters as a target demarcation team, a remote location was chosen in a double-blind protocol. Price, who remained at SRI, was asked to describe this remote location, as well as whatever activities might be going on there.
Several descriptions yielded significantly correct data pertaining to and descriptive of the target location.
In the experiments a set of twelve target locations clearly differentiated from each other and within 30 minutes driving time from SRI had been chosen from a target-rich environment (more than 100 targets of the type used in the experimental series) prior to the experimental series by an individual in SRI management, the director of the Information Science and Engineering Division, not otherwise associated with the experiment. Both the experimenters and the subject were kept blind as to the contents of the target pool, which were used without replacement.
An experimenter was closeted with Price at SRI to wait 30 minutes to begin the narrative description of the remote location. The SRI locations from which the subject viewed the remote locations consisted of an outdoor park (Experiments 1, 2),- the double-walled copper-screen Faraday cage discussed earlier (Experiments 3, 4, and 6-9), and an office (Experiment 5). A second experimenter would then obtain a target location from the Division Director from a set of traveling orders previously prepared and randomised by the Director and kept under his control. The target demarcation team (two to four SRI experimenters) then proceeded directly to the target by automobile without communicating with the subject or experimenter remaining behind. Since the experimenter remaining with the subject at SRI was in ignorance both as to the particular target and as to the target pool, he was free to question Price to clarify his descriptions. The demarcation team then remained at the target site for 30 minutes after the 30 minutes allotted for travel. During the observation period, the remote-viewing subject would describe his impressions of the target site into a tape recorder. A comparison was then made when the demarcation team returned.
Price's ability to describe correctly buildings, docks, roads, gardens, and so on, including structural materials, color, ambiance, and activity, sometimes in great detail, indicated the functioning of a remote perceptual ability. But the descriptions contained inaccuracies as well as correct statements. To obtain a numerical evaluation of the accuracy of the remote viewing experiment, the experimental results were subjected to independent judging on a blind basis by five SRI scientists who were not otherwise associated with the research. The judges were asked to match the nine locations, which they independently visited, against the typed manuscripts of the tape-recorded narratives of the remote viewer. The transcripts were unlabelled and presented in random order. The judges were asked to find a narrative which they would consider the best match for each of the places they visited. A given narrative could be assigned to more than one target location. A correct match requires that the transcript of a given date be associated with the target, of that date. Table 2 shows the distribution of the judges' choices.
Among all possible analyses, the most conservative is a permutation analysis of the plurality vote of the judges' selections assuming assignment without replacement, an approach independent of the number of judges. By plurality vote, six of the nine descriptions and locations were correctly matched. Under the null hypothesis (no remote viewing and a random selection of descriptions without replacement), this outcome has an a priori probability of p = 5.6 x 10 to the power -4 since, among all possible permutations of the integers one through nine, the probability of six or more being in their natural position in the list has that value. Therefore, although Price's descriptions contain inaccuracies, the descriptions are sufficiently accurate to permit the judges to differentiate among the various targets to the degree indicated.
An experiment was undertaken to determine whether a physiological measure such as EEG activity could be used as an indicator of information transmission between an isolated subject and a remote stimulus. We hypothesised that perception could be indicated by such a measure even in the absence of verbal or other overt indicators. 6, 7
It was assumed that the application of remote stimuli would result in responses similar to those obtained under conditions of direct stimulation. For example, when normal subjects are stimulated with a flashing light, their EEG typically shows a decrease in the amplitude of the resting rhythm and a driving of the brain waves at the frequency of the flashes 8. We hypothesised that if we stimulated one subject in this manner ( a sender), the EEG of another subject in a remote room with no flash present (a receiver), might show changes in alpha (9-11 Hz) activity, and possibly EEG driving similar to that of the sender.
We informed our subject that at certain times a light was to be flashed in a sender's eyes in a distant room, and if the subject perceived that event, consciously or unconsciously, it might be evident from changes in his EEG output. The receiver was seated in the visually opaque, acoustically and electrically shielded double-walled steel room previously described. The sender was seated in a room about 7 m from the receiver.
To find subjects who were responsive to such a remote stimulus, we initially worked with four female and two male volunteer subjects, all of whom believed that success in the experimental situation might be possible. These were designated 'receivers'. The senders were either other subjects or the experimenters. We decided beforehand to run one or two sessions of 36 trials each with each subject in this selection procedure, and to do a more extensive study with any subject whose results were positive.
A Grass PS-2 photostimulator placed about 1 m in front of the sender was used to present flash trains of 10 s duration. The receiver's EEG activity from the occipital region (0z), referenced to linked mastoids, was amplified with a Grass SP-1 preamplifier and associated driver amplifier with a bandpass of 1-120 Hz. The EEG data were recorded on magnetic tape with an Ampex SP 300 recorder.
On each trial, a tone burst of fixed frequency was presented to both sender and receiver, and was followed in one second by either a 10 s train off lashes or a null flash interval presented to the sender. Thirty-six such trials were given in an experimental session, consisting of 12 null trials - no flashes following the tone - 12 trials of flashes at 6 f.p.s. and 12 trials of flashes at 16 f.p.s., all randomly intermixed, determined by entries from a table of random numbers. Each of the trials generated an 11-s EEG epoch. The last 4 s of the epoch was selected for analysis to minimise the desynchronising action of the warning cue. This 4-s segment was subjected to Fourier analysis on a LINC 8 computer.
Spectrum analyses gave no evidence of EEG driving in any receiver, although in control runs the receivers did exhibit driving when physically stimulated with the flashes. But of the six subjects studied initially, one subject (H. H.) showed a consistent alpha blocking effect. We therefore undertook further study with this subject.
Data from seven sets of 36 trials each were collected from this subject on three separate days. This comprises all the data collected to date with this subject under the test conditions described above. The alpha band was identified from average spectra, then scores of average power and peak power were obtained from individual trials and subjected to statistical analysis,
Of our six subjects, H. H. had by far the most monochromatic EEG spectrum. Figure 3 shows an overlay of the three averaged spectra from one of this subject's 36-trial runs, displaying changes in her alpha activity for the three stimulus conditions.
Mean values for the average power and peak power for each of the seven experimental sets are given in Table 3. The power measures were less in the 16 f.p.s. case than in the 0 f.p.s. in all seven peak power measures and in six out of seven average power measures. Note also the reduced effect in the case in which the subject was informed that no sender was present (Run 3). It seems that overall alpha production was reduced for this run in conjunction with the subject's expressed apprehension about conducting the experiment without a sender. This is in contrast to the case (Run 7) in which the subject was not informed.
Siegell's two-tailed t approximation to the nonparametric randomisation test 9 was applied to the data from all sets, which included two sessions in which the sender was removed. Average power on trials associated with the occurrence of 16 f.p.s. was significantly less than when there were no flashes t = 2.09, d.f. = 118, P < 0.04). The second measure, peak power, was also significantly less in the 16 f. p. s. conditions than in the null condition ( t = 2.16, d.f. = 118, P < 0.03). The average response in the 6 f.p.s. condition was in the same direction as that associated with 16 f.p.s., but the effect was not statistically significant.
Spectrum analyses of control recordings made from saline with a 12 kOhm resistance in place of the subject with and without the addition of a 10 Hz, 50 microvolt test signal applied to the saline solution, revealed no indications of flash frequencies, nor perturbations of the 10 Hz signal. These controls suggest that the results were not due to system artifacts. Further tests also gave no evidence of radio frequency energy associated with the stimulus.
Subjects were asked to indicate their conscious assessment for each trial as to which stimulus was generated. They made their guesses known to the experimenter via one-way telegraphic communication. An analysis of these guesses has shown them to be at chance, indicating the absence of any supraliminal cueing. So, arousal as evidenced by significant alpha blocking occurred only at the noncognitive level of awareness.
We hypothesised that the protocol described here may prove to be useful as a screening procedure for latent remote perceptual ability in the general population.
From these experiments we conclude that:
- A channel exists whereby information about a remote location can be obtained by means of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality.
- As with all biological systems, the information channel appears to be imperfect, containing noise along with the signal.
- While a quantitative signal-to-noise ratio in the information-theoretical sense cannot as yet be determined, the results of our experiments indicate that the functioning is at the level of useful information transfer.
It may be that remote perceptual ability is widely distributed in the general population, but because the perception is generally below an individuals level of awareness, it is repressed or not noticed. For example, two of our subjects (H.H. and P.P.) had not considered themselves to have unusual perceptual ability before their participation in these experiments.
Our observation of the phenomena leads us to conclude that experiments in the area of so-called paranormal phenomena can be scientifically conducted, and it is our hope that other laboratories will initiate additional research to attempt to replicate these findings.
This research was sponsored by The Foundation for Parasensory Investigation, New York City. We thank Mrs. Judith Skutch, Dr. Edgar D. Mitchell of the Institute of Noetic Sciences - as well as our SRI associates, Mr. Bonnar Cox, Mr. Earle Jones and Dr. Dean Brown - for support and encouragement. Constructive suggestions by Mrs. Jean Mayo, Dr. Charles Tart, University of California, and Dr. Robert Ornstein and Dr. David Galin of the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute are acknowledged.
Russell Targ
Harold Puthoff
Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory,
Stanford Research Institute,
Menlo Park, California 94025
Fig 1. Target pictures and responses drawn by Uri Geller under shielded conditions.
Fig 2. Computer drawings and responses drawn by Uri Geller. a, Computer drawing stored on video display; b, computer drawing stored in computer memory only; c, computer drawing stored on video display with zero intensity.
Fig 3. Occipital EEG spectra, 0-20 Hz, for one subject (H. H.) acting as receiver, showing amplitude changes in the 9-11 Hz band as a function of strobe frequency. Three cases: 0,6, and 16 f.p.s. (12 trial averages).
Tables
1 Pratt, J., Rhine, J.B., Stuart, C., and Greenwood, J., Extra Sensory Perception after Sixty Years (Henry Holt, New York, 1940).
2 Soal, S., and Bateman, F., Modern Experiments in Telepathy (Faber and Faber, London, 1954).
3 Vasilliev, L.L., Experiments in Mental Suggestion (ISMI Publications, Hampshire, England, 1963).
4 Musso, J.R., and Granero, M., J. Parapsychology, 37, 13-37 (1973).
5 Osis, K., ASPR Newsletter, No. 14 (1972).
6 Tart, C.T., Physiological Correlates of Psi Cognition, Int. J. Parapsychology, V, No. 4 (1963).
7 Dean, E.D., Int. J. Neuropsychiatry, 2 (1966).
8 Hill, D., and Parr, G., Electroencephalography: A Symposium on its Various Aspects (Macmillan, New York, 1963).
9 Siegel, S., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, pp. 152-156 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956).
---------------------------

Θα το μελετήσω προσωπικά και βλέπουμε καθώς ο Randi από ότι κατάλαβα είναι επιστήμονας της εξαπάτησης και υπάρχουν και τέτοιοι παρά πολλοί.

Πάντως βρήκαμε τον νέο θεό, ο Randi o μπουλης και τα αρνάκια του.

Οποιος θέλει κανει αιτηση στον Rhandi.

Πριν γίνει η δοκιμασία και τα 2 μερη (ο υποψηφιος και ο Rhandi) συμφωνουν για όλες τις λεπτομεριες τις δοκιμασίας για αν αποφευχθουν οι αδικιες.

Αφου συμφωνησουν για το πως θα αποδειχτει η υποτιθεμενη ιδιοτητα λαμβανει χωρα η δοκιμασια.

Ολοι απέτυχαν.

Τι μας λεει στο αρθρο του ο Prescot?Oτι ο JAMES Rhandi είναι αυστηρος!Τον κατηγορει για αυστηροτητα!Δεν τον κατηγορει οτι παραποιει τις δοκιμασίες του για να βγάλει τους υποψηφιους ψευτες και απατεώνες!

Αρα πήγαινε και θεσε εαυτον εις δοκιμασιαν.Αν πετυχεις μπορεις να εθεις και να μας το τριψεις στα μουτρα.

A και απο ο,τι βλέπουμε:

quote:

---

χωρίς να έχει την παραμικρή επιστημονική κατάρτιση

---

Αυτό το λέει και ξέλεει δεν το κατάλαβα, αφού είσαι βλαμμένη και από την αρχή το υποστήριξα, να σου πω ψέματα?

Λοιπόν η απάντηση σε όλα σας τα προβλήματα είναι σκεπτικισμός στους σκεπτικιστές.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm

Telepathy is a pretty strange idea. According to Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe, scientific evidence for its existence has been accruing for decades. So do we follow the evidence and, at the very least, provisionally grant the possibility that telepathy is real, or do we simply banish it as being too weird? While the former is the scientific approach, the latter appears to be the favored response of skeptics.

As any ESP or “7th sense” researcher knows, the only way to scientifically demonstrate telepathy is through statistics. When I asked Randi if it’s true that he refuses to accept statistical evidence in his famous million dollar contest, not only did he deny this charge, but after a skeptic protested that statistics can be bent any old way to prove whatever you want, Randi informed him that statistics is a branch of mathematics. While he would insist on checking the findings with his own statistician, this would only be to ensure that the math was done correctly.

Two days later, Richard Dawkins said he was worried that Randi would eventually have to pay up. Dr. Dawkins had just delivered a truly fine lecture - the high point of the conference, in fact - and Randi had joined the famed author onstage for a public chat. “About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities.” Dawkins had just introduced this neologism during his talk. An alleged phenomenon is perinormal (from the Greek “peri,” in the vicinity of) if it seems impossible but which, in contrast to the “paranormal,” turns out to be a 100% natural, skeptic-approved phenomenon. Electromagnetic fields, for instance, were once perinormal but eventually came to be recognized as real. The question, then, is which phenomena currently dismissed by skeptics as paranormal are actually perinormal. “I mean, what if somebody-what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?”

Randi agreed he might have to pay up someday. But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.

Μιλάμε πρέπει να είναι κάποιος πολύ βλάκας για να πιστεύει αυτόν το απατεώνα.

Οποιος θέλει κανει αιτηση στον Rhandi.

Πριν γίνει η δοκιμασία και τα 2 μερη (ο υποψηφιος και ο Rhandi) συμφωνουν για όλες τις λεπτομεριες τις δοκιμασίας για αν αποφευχθουν οι αδικιες.

Αφου συμφωνησουν για το πως θα αποδειχτει η υποτιθεμενη ιδιοτητα λαμβανει χωρα η δοκιμασια.

Ολοι απέτυχαν.

Τι μας λεει στο αρθρο του ο Prescot?Oτι ο JAMES Rhandi είναι αυστηρος!Τον κατηγορει για αυστηροτητα!Δεν τον κατηγορει οτι παραποιει τις δοκιμασίες του για να βγάλει τους υποψηφιους ψευτες και απατεώνες!

Αρα πήγαινε και θεσε εαυτον εις δοκιμασιαν.

A και απο ο,τι βλέπουμε:

quote:

---

χωρίς να έχει την παραμικρή επιστημονική κατάρτιση

---

Along this line, is the experiment a multi-trial statistical one or a direct measurement? Park's description of mind-over-matter experiments is recommended. Although balances capable of measuring micro-gram (very tiny) forces exist, mind-over-matter experiments use statistical trials, possibly because no claimant has ever been able to move a micro-balance with thoughts. The small effect observed in statistical trials is likely due to some small systemic bias in the experiment itself. The polywater affair is an example of a small effect that could not be increased.

PEAR The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

Table of Contents
Robert Todd Carroll

the truth is in here!
SkepDic.com

Click to order from Amazon

vertline.gif (1078 bytes)

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)

The brainchild of Robert G. Jahn, who, in 1979, when he was Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, claimed he wanted “to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.” In short, he wanted to be a parapsychologist and test psychokinesis (PK). Not so unbelievably, he has found several others at Princeton who also were tired of humdrum work in the humanities, social sciences, engineering, and physics, and have joined the quest to prove that the mind alone can alter matter.

In the 1960s, physicist and parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt started using random event generators to do PK experiments. According to Dean Radin (1997), over the years Schmidt provided solid scientific support for the PK hypothesis and the people involved in the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C.E.M. Hansel, however, claims that regarding all the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt’s work: “The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt’s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so” (Hansel 1989: 185).

In 1986, Jahn, Brenda Dunne, and Roger Nelson reported on millions of trials with 33 subjects over seven years trying to use their minds to override random number generators (RNG). Think of the RNG as producing zeros and ones. Over the long haul, the laws of probability predict that in a truly random sequence, there should be 50% of each produced. The subjects in the PEAR experiments tried to use their minds to produce more zeros (or ones, depending on the assignment). In short, the PEAR people did what many drivers do when they try to use their thoughts to make a red light turn green.

In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says “in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance” [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data (1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one" (Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star" performers.

However, according to Ray Hyman, “the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. His hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994). According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and found to be groundless" (Radin 1997: 221). His source for this claim is a 1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, "Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments" (5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If [operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results." According to McCrone, the "size of the effect is about .1 percent, meaning that for every thousand electronic tosses, the random event generator is producing about one more head or tail than it should by chance alone" (McCrone 1994).

These data should remind us that statistical significance does not imply importance.

Furthermore, Stanley Jeffers, a physicist at York University, Ontario, has repeated the Jahn experiments but with chance results (Alcock 2003: 135-152). (See "Physics and Claims for Anomalous Effects Related to Consciousness" in Alcock et al. 2003. Abstract.) And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany (See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499–555, 2000).

Based on the results of these experiments, Radin claims that “researchers have produced persuasive, consistent, replicated evidence that mental intention is associated with the behavior of …physical systems” (Radin 1997: 144). That sounds like a hasty conclusion to me. He also claims that “the experimental results are not likely due to chance, selective reporting, poor experimental design, only a few individuals, or only a few experimenters” (Radin 1997: 144). He's probably right except for the bit about it being unlikely that the experimental results are due to chance.

Jahn, six of his associates, and PEAR even have a patent (US5830064) on an “Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output.” The PEAR people are so convinced of the breakthrough nature of their work that they have incorporated as Mindsong Inc. They claim their corporation "is developing a range of breakthrough products and research tools based on a provocative new technology -- proprietary microelectronics which are responsive to the inner states of living systems." One of their breakthrough products is some software "that allows you to influence, with your mind, which of two images will be displayed on your computer screen." They also sell a device for several hundred dollars that lets you do your own testing of mental influence on randomized outputs.

See related entries on confirmation bias, ESP, experimenter effect, ganzfeld experiments, law of really large numbers, meta-analysis, occult statistics, parapsychology, pathological science, psi assumption, post hoc fallacy, and psychokinesis.

further reading

* Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments (1992) by George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick, Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, June, pp. 97-113.
* The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality (1996) by Ray Hyman
* Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena (1995) by Ray Hyman
* Slashdot - News for Nerds, IBM and Mind Input Devices
* The Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research
* STATS - Statistics and the Media (This site had nothing to do with PEAR but since PEAR's claims are based upon statistical analysis of data, I thought some readers might like to look at a site that does nothing but look at statistical data and examine what some people try to do with that data.)

Συνοπτικα παίζουν με τις στατιστικές εδω και 20 χρονια.

Normalizing The Paranormal
By Rusty Rockets
(..........................................................)
But there have been a number of significant challenges to PEAR’s research that raise both methodological and statistical issues. One detailed review, written by George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick, concluded: “The PEAR remote-viewing [RP] experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years. The defects provide plausible alternative explanations. There do not appear to be any methods available for proper statistical evaluation of these experiments because of the way in which they were conducted.” Ouch.

There are other troubling assessments of PEAR’s scientific procedures, but it is not the intention of this article to dwell on whether PEAR did or did not use proper scientific procedure (while acknowledging its significance), but rather, whether anything and everything should be fair game for scientific observation.

While imagination may be more important than knowledge, there are some fundamental ways to decide what can and cannot be scrutinized scientifically. One could argue the most important criteria to be repeatability and falsifiability. The PEAR team say that even though the observed effects of human/machine anomalies are very small, “a few parts in ten thousand on average,” and RP experiments described only as being “beyond any chance” (in fact, one of PEAR’s many papers on the subject claims that the phenomenon of RP has “now been demonstrated”), the experiments are considered “statistically repeatable.” But at PEAR, “repeatable” can be an ambiguous word.

“The statistical evidence for the acquisition of an anomalous component of information is very persuasive, but as in the human/machine experiments, the effects are not replicable in the usual sense of strict scientific repeatability. Of course, most conventional science only demonstrates statistical replicability, but this fact tends to go unacknowledged by those who insist that in this field we must be able to produce effects on demand before the data can be accepted as legitimate!” exclaimed Dunne.

So, whether PEAR’s experiments are replicable or not is left hanging in the air; it just depends on how you interpret “replicable.” Skeptic and author of Science Friction, Michael Shermer, says: “When I look closely at such research…, I find that the experiments are nonreplicable and that the rare significant effects are very slim and when other researchers try to replicate the results, they can't. This is a sign of pseudoscience, or at least bad science,” said Shermer.

What also cannot be ignored are the minute anomalies, supposedly associated with PEAR’s human/machine experiments, surfacing from such a huge body of variables. The question of whether such tiny amounts of anomalous behavior over such a long period of time (25+ years) is not a little disheartening does not seem to bother Dunne. “To that,” says Dunne, “I would simply point out that most of contemporary science deals with extremely tiny effects within huge bodies of variables, yet their legitimacy as non-random, "real" effects is seldom questioned, i.e. quantum mechanics, high energy physics, molecular biology, chemistry, or genetic engineering. The main difference between these fields and our own area of study is that those are theory-driven, where empirical studies are designed to confirm existing models. Our work is data-driven, and presently lacks a theoretical framework that predicts the results for which one should be looking. That does not make it illegitimate science. To the contrary, our approach is actually more consistent with the principles of the scientific method, where data and theory are intended to inform each other in an iterative manner.”

When asked if PEAR had any idea where these mysterious anomalies come from, or any explanation as to how they may have cropped up, Dunne explains that: “we simply do not yet know the reason for the anomalies or their operational mechanisms. But they are very much worth studying, because they are telling us that our current models of reality are evidently incomplete and we still have a few things to learn.” This response is no surprise to Shermer. “Needless to say,” he responds, “believers in PSI have no mechanism to explain how it is supposed to work.”

Popper and Einstein are correct in that all science progresses through various stages, from inspiration to theoretical proof. The researchers at PEAR have certainly worked very hard at trying to prove the existence of human/machine anomalies and RP, but would seem to have little to show for their efforts. It appears on the face of it that PEAR is doing legitimate science, but to what end? And where does it end? When do you hang up your electrodes and call it a day? Perhaps Dunne is correct to claim that any field of science could legitimately be asked the same question.

Dawkins’ sleight-of-hand notwithstanding, according to the rules of Randi’s competition, if a psychic ability is proven, he must pay up. Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million. As Dr. Radin notes, a meta-analysis of all ganzfeld telepathy experiments up to 1997 revealed a probability of a million billion to one. So if Randi is true to his word, it ought to be possible to perform an experiment that would garner the prize. Of course, it would take a huge number of sessions to demonstrate such a high level of improbability. In the end, the million dollars might do nothing more than pay for the experiment. But it would be worth it for no other reason than to put an end to allegations that the unclaimed prize is itself evidence against psychic phenomena.

Βασικά η όλη φάση είναι ο πλήρης παραλογισμός στο έπακρο και το γεγονός που λέει ποιο πάνω είναι ότι το βραβείο είναι unclaimed (προφανώς λόγο τον παραλογισμών του σε σχέση με το τι είναι αυτές οι βλακείες που ζητά).

Άντε να πάω να δώσω ένα εκατομμύριο για να κάνω ένα πείραμα μη ξέροντας ο απατεώνας ποια αφορμή θα βρει να μην πληρώσει, απλά για να ικανοποιηθούν κάποιοι πιστοί της βλακείας.

Τέλειο μου φαίνεται, εγώ κάνω επιστημονικά πειράματα δωρεάν που μπορούν να πείσουν ΟΠΟΙΑΝ το επιθυμεί μετά από ένα καλό πείραμα που γνωρίζω μπας και ξυπνήσει.

http://mtrsn.burtcom.homeip.net/sfaq_002.htm
με θεματικες ενότητες
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
2.3: What is "Sensory Leakage"?
2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?

2.5: Does dowsing work?
και το κυριοτερο:
2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?

Psychic researchers have noted something they call the "shyness effect" (or more grandly "psi-mediated experimenter effects"). This is invoked to explain the way in which many subjects' psychic powers seem to fade when exposed to careful scrutiny and proper controls. Often it is alleged that having a skeptic in the audience can prevent the delicate operation of psi.

In its most extreme form this hypothesis becomes a "catch-22" that makes any results consistent with a psi hypothesis. This renders the hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Less extreme forms might themselves be testable.

2.7: Why don't the skeptics test the *real* psychics?

A claim is sometimes made that the Skeptics movement only tests those psychics which it knows to be frauds. The real psychics are supposedly being ignored by skeptics who are afraid to be proved wrong.

There are three problems with this claim.

* Firstly, it assumes that all the skeptics are engaged in a conspiracy to persuade the world that psychic powers do not exist. This is only a Petty Conspiracy theory (see section 0), since it only requires the involvement of a few dozen of the most prominent skeptics, but it is still difficult to see any motive for such a deception. "Fear of being proved wrong" implies that they already know they are wrong, which makes their continued activity rather puzzling.

* Secondly, most skeptics are always ready to take part in any reasonable test. The "real" psychics are perfectly at liberty to challenge the skeptics.

* Thirdly, there are always more alleged psychics. Hence this argument presents the skeptics with an ever-receding target. The dialogue goes something like this:

Paranormalist: Yes, I concede that Mr. Adams is a fake, but what about Mr. Brown. The things that he does could never be faked.

[Some months later]

Skeptic: Here is how Brown did it....

P: OK, I concede that Adams and Brown are fakes, but Mrs Carver is the surely the real thing.

[Some months later]

S: Here is how Carver did it...

P: OK, maybe Adams, Brown and Carver were fakes, but what about Digby and Ender?

S: I give up. There's no convincing some people.

P: [shouting] Digby and Ender are real psychics: the skeptics are afraid to test them. They only test the fakes!

This same argument is used by creationists disputing intermediate forms in the fossil record, and is expanded upon in the talk.origins FAQ.

2.8: What is the ganzfeld?

quote:

---

Βασικά η όλη φάση είναι ο πλήρης παραλογισμός στο έπακρο και το γεγονός που λέει ποιο πάνω είναι ότι το βραβείο είναι unclaimed (προφανώς λόγο τον παραλογισμών του σε σχέση με το τι είναι αυτές οι βλακείες που ζητά).

---

Edited by - medtech on 15/04/2006 21:16:34

quote:

---

Η δευτερη κατηγορια, ειναι και η πιο επικινδυνη. Εδω πλεον το ατομο, οχι μονο πιστευει οτι εχει επαφη με καποιον αορατο κοσμο, αλλα εχει και τασεις προσυλητισμου, επικοινωνιας με αλλους ανθρωπους "σε ανωτερο επιπεδο", και μια συμπεριφορα συμπλεγματος ανωτεροτητας. Αναζητα ΑΝΑΓΝΩΡΙΣΗ για τις "μεταφυσικες ιδιοτητες του", πραγμα που πολλες φορες τον οδηγει σε κυκλους "μυστων", οι οποιοι εχοντας γνωση της ανυπαρξιας αυτων των φαινομενων, θα χρησιμοποιησουν την μεγαλομανια του "εσωτεριστη", για να τον εκμεταλευτουν.

---

Ωραία υπόθεση το σκέφτηκα να σου πω την αλήθεια αλλά ήμουν 2 μέτρα μακριά και στην πρώτη περίπτωση είχα και μάρτηρα άρα μάλλον πρόκειται για ομαδική μαστούρα.

Εγώ μαστουρωμένους βλέπω μόνο κάποιους από την βλακεία που θεωρούν αξιόπιστο τον αποδεδειγμένα απατεώνα Randi και όχι τις έρευνες του standford.

Θα μπορούσατε να είσαστε λιγότερο βλαμμένα αν απλά παραδεχόσασταν ότι αυτό που λέτε δεν είναι τίποτα περισσότερο από απλά μια γνώμη και να προκαλούσατε λιγότερο και να μαστουρώνατε λιγότερο.

Αν είναι να παίξουμε με links να αρχίσω και εγώ να κατεβάζω καθώς τα βλαμμένα καταλαβαίνουν μόνο από ποσότητες, εξού η απίστευτη μαστούρα της βλακείας που σας έχει βαρέσει.

Αυτά περί ατομικά κλπ στα αντιστρέφω γιατί κάποιοι άλλοι είναι που πάσχουν από αυτό το θέμα.

Τον Randi ποιος τον εξετάζει?

Άρα είναι unclaimed γιατί δεν έχει γίνει επιστημονική κριτική στις μεθόδους του.

Βασικά έχει γίνει απλά ο κάθε ένας πιστεύει ότι θέλει that is my point.

Eντυποσιαστικα τόσο πολύ με τον Randi και την ιδέα του να γίνει διάσημος και πλούσιος που σκέφτομαι και εγώ να κάνω κάτι ανάλογο.

Δεν υπάρχει κανένας που να μην του αρέσει να τον παίρνει από πίσω.

Και οποίος μου αποδείξει το αντίθετο μέσα από το πειράματα κωλοκονθοσκοπησης που θα πραγματοποιήσω αν υπάρξει έστω και ένας που να βγει έξω άντρας θα του δώσω το νόμπελ βλακείας.

Ο τύπος έχει καταδικαστεί για ύβρεις και αλλού είδους ενέργειες, βρίζει και ψεύδεται ασύστολος και έχει κάνει το θέμα με την παραψυχολογία προσωπικό του πρόβλημα, του έχει γίνει εμμονή.

Άρα είναι τόσο αξιόπιστος όσο όλοι οι άνθρωποι που βάζουν μπροστά τον εγωισμό τους σε προσωπικές κόντρες.

What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)? What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance?

Randi's main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy.
Ιn 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.
Ο τύπος είναι για τα σίδερα, μπράβο χαίρομαι που βρήκατε το super ψυχωτικό βλαμμένο να τον κάνετε θεό σας.

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi's biggest target. In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller's alleged abilities. He defamed two eminent scientists, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, calling them "incompetent." At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, "Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better ... is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy."
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2006/01/26/awsi3.html

Το ξαναβάζω αυτό μήπως ξεμαστουρώσετε από την αλαζονεία που σας προσφέρει αυτός ο ψυχανομαλος.

What's more important, what science knows or what it doesn't (yet)? What's more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance?

ESOTERICA.gr Forums !

© 2010-11 ESOTERICA.gr