owl

While I was "giving it a rest," as I said above, I was browsing on the subject and found an interesting article about the effect of distance on psi phenomena. (Ref: The distance was over 200 miles between my father and my aunt in the above "anecdote", also a true story, to credit where due... that not all psi anecdotes are lies or various confusions about the truth.) Here is the link and a couple of quotes, out of context but giving a bit of the flavor of the present state of the science of "psi." (my bold and parenthetical comments) From "Psi and Distance: A Premature Conclusion" at: inclusivepsychology.com As I've already suggested, the demands of lab experiments are often not sensitive to the sometimes fragile and often environmentally dependent nature of psi "gifts." Anthropology, for instance, is much better at studying shamanism, including healing and telepathy, than any lab experiment could ever be after dragging a shaman out of his/her natural environment and demanding performance in a rigidly (i.e., "rigorously") controlled Western science lab environment... and treated as if he were a fraud until he proves otherwise. Just a bit intimidating. Maybe drastic culture shock alone can fulfill the experiments' null hypotheses by intimidation alone, however unintentional.

One would think... Sometimes psychic abilities depend on real life situations where there is a need or a wish for help... or a dear friendship (like the brother/sister contact above) in intimate communication. Not even looking for fame or wealth in my family's case. When challenged to submit to interrogation by such an intense psychic bully as "The Amazing Randi", psi debunker extrordinaire, on the promise of the million buck (or whatever) prize... try to imagine that such a challenge would only blow my father's gift away on that occasion. I already tried to convey how fragile his altered state of consciousness was (the "trance" as it was usually called.) If a red-neck heckler could disrupt his trance (which happened), until he was removed, I'm sure The Great Debunker could totally dominate and disrupt the whole evening of otherwise peaceful demonstration with his scathing skepticism. That would be a "no, thanks."

Cap 'n R, I studied the 6 pg Sterne paper you linked in depth, and I can not say that I disagree with it. The "Comparison of frequentist and bayesian approaches to statistical inference" does indeed seem to be a major improvement in statistical analysis. That said, I don't know where that leaves the analysis of the 16 double blind experiments summarized above. I think it makes my summary statement even more relevant: "I thought p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073 were 'significant' positive results. But now it's all about what 'significant' means,..." If "statistical significance" is a bogus concept as usually applied in experimental analysis, and if anecdotal accounts of psi phenomena are scientifically "worthless," that seems to leave the whole field of study of consciousness acting at a distance dismissed as debunked... I think without a "fair trial." There are, however, some unresolved issues, two of which I have already mentioned. The experimental "rigor" of the laboratory demands an abandonment of the "real life" situations in which "gifted" healers, etc. often function best, whether in altered states of consciousness, or simply in supportive environments. I think that if science would emphasize more improved methods of "field studies" out of the lab, this effect would have a better chance of documentation. Secondly, studies of mass populations (or even large sample lab studies) for "psychic abilities" must assume some "significant" level of its prevalence in the general population. If only one out of a million have such ability, and that one is not in the population studied... well, there you have it... a very large sample with no positive results. So, "there is no such thing as psychic ability" *... a false negative for humans with such abilities. As I said, even one indisputable case would discard that* null hypothesis. And there are hundreds, maybe thousands of demonstrated cases, but they are only anecdotal... not "real science." And even the rigorous double blind experiments cited above (with p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073) are discarded because "statistical significance" is misinterpreted in general. I think that anything I can propose here in reasonable support of consciousness acting at a distance will continue to be shot down, so I think I will just give it rest. An after thought about my disbelief in "precognition"... "seeing the future before it happens": (Yes, another anecdote!) My father, on several occasions, would announce to the family that his sister, who lived over 200 miles away, was about to call on the phone. (They called each other every week or two, not on a regular schedule.) Typically, that would happen within a minute or so of the announcement. We all knew that they had an excellent psychic connection. Once there was a much longer delay, around 10 minutes or so between the announcement and the call. Dad asked her about the delay. She laughed and said, "You are good!", and then explained that she almost lifted up the phone to call and then decided to go to the bathroom first... and then showered... before calling. "Believe it or not." (I don't care which!) Edit: Btw, this is an example of telepathy, knowing when she was thinking about calling in real time, not "precognition," just to be clear.

On the run here. Haven't yet read your previous pdf, but took a quick look at the above. It is about precognition, or how the future might become the present before it's actually present... looking into the future. You probably already know my opinion about that "hypothesis." Case in point: This was "an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people’s responses..." "...participants had to guess the future position of pictures on a computer screen, left or right." So it was a guessing game experiment. Because of the sci-fi nature of the 'time travel' assumption within this guessing game, I would not believe his rejection of the null hypothesis in eight out of nine experiments either. And it may well be that "psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data." I look forward getting into the study you cited. I have not yet rejected the premise of your blog, even though it does seem to assume that most positive statistics on psi phenomena show false positives... which may be true, implying that the statiticians doing the analysis are incompetent. Could be. Edit; ps: My comment in post 97 yesterday bears repeating. “Of course (ed: part of) the rigor of control is in the meaningful quantification of both intent and effect.” Without meaningful quantification as above, “statistical significance” is much to do about nothing.

My last reply did not post. (No clue why.) To reconstruct... I copied the study. Thanks. Will study it after weekend festivities. I did not intend to misrepresent you. Sorry if that is how you saw my comments. I saw your blog as debunking the standard interpretation of "statistical significance." That would make statisticians incompetent and half of all results wrong in the first place, because of a standard misinterpretation of "significance." Beyond that, I wonder if anyone noticed the difference between the basic investigative questions: "Does everyone have 'psychic' abilities?"... and "Does anyone have 'psychic' abilities?" ...Just to keep it a broader conversation than the most technical questions of statistical significance.

I was disappointed in my attempt to study the 16 double blind experiments mentioned above. The link to the original medical journal account was broken. Here is all I got from the http://wwwCouncilForHealing.com link: I thought p less than.oo1; p less than .003; and p less than .073 were 'significant' positive results. But now it's all about what 'significant' means, so I expect the thread to bog down once again with the discussion of the Cap 'n's material about half of all statistical results being not accurate in the first place. Apparently there are no statisticians who know how to perform accurate statistical analysis, according to his sources. I will study his material when get it.

No. First, the experiment must be designed to clearly detect and distinguish the difference between demonstrated psychic ability and lack thereof. Without that, the old statistical saw holds true, as exemplified in your 45 frauds falsely showing psychic powers: "There are liars, damn liars, and statistians." Again, that is always the challenge of excellent experimental design... to eliminate false positives to the best of the experimenter's ability. I will keep this in mind as I study the 16 examples referred to above. Yes, thanks.

I read the first two sections of the blog. ... I don’t think you understand the meaning of the null hypothesis. In the “psi” realm, it is simply stating the assumption which the experiment will attempt to show wrong, i.e., that there is no “psi” effect present. If there is a ‘statistically significant correlation' (as per standard experimental stastistical procedures) between the “intent” and the “effect”, then the null hypothesis is discarded and a positive effect demonstrated. Of course the rigor of control is in the meaningful quantification of both intent and effect. And the larger the sample the better... but for psi effects quality, not just quantity is very important. Edit: A "gifted healer or psychic" with an excellent (albeit anecdotal) track record is 'worth his weight in gold' for experimental verification, while multitudes with no history or record of such "gifts" will show, not suprisingly, no positive results. Edit: The question here is not, "Does everyone have psychic abilities?" but, "Does anyone have psychic abilities.) False negatives (in your next heading) are not a big concern to critics of “psi” experiments, i.e., positive psi effects that experiments missed. Statisticians all appreciate the power of sample size called statistical power, but you have gone way off the deep end applying your medical study source to all statistical analysis and claiming that half of all results are wrong, by those assumptions about sample size: “The average statistical power of a medical study is 50%.” In section 2 you continue with the assumption: ... ...which makes no sense to me... so any critique of the rest of your blog would be mute.(edit: moot.) Again, in the psi realm, "missing a real correlation" has not been an aspect of criticism of the experiments

Ringer, I read the links you offered (thanks) and then spent a couple of hours reading links from a search on non-local consciousness. I recommend you do the same in reciprocation. I have yet to study abstracts of the 16 double blind experiments showing positive statistically significant results listed by Benor in the link I provided earlier to his "Healing research." I will get back to you on that, but they may refute the claims in your links that there are no such results. (Btw, thanks for sticking to the topic.) Here is a link to Trends in Cognitive Sciences from Volume 5, Issue 11, 1 November 2001, Pages 472–478; A quantum approach to visual consciousness: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661300017745 Please read the abstract. I've read other articles in The Journal of Consciousness Studies on quantum non-locality in larger-than-micro brain events. Will dig up and link if you are interested. Another alternative is that most normal, everyday brain functions and sensory/perception are quite local, while those called "extrasensory" depend on altered states of consciousness... altered by a wide range of situations. Much testimony of "psychics" and "healer" is that they go into a variety of 'altered states' for their results, but when tested, the test situations themselves demand that they function rationally rather than "intuitively" or whatever. This is always taken by skeptics as just a lame excuse. When my father was demonstrating "the power of the mind" in a "trance state" before an audience* (guided in and out by my mother) his usually positive results could easily be disrupted/blocked by a heckler. Once removed, the demonstration would proceed with results unexplainable by science. *Btw, he never charged for admission and would not accept donations. He felt that accepting money to witness his 'gift' would have "corrupted" the gift. No, I do not. As I already said, my stomach pain and image of my son suffering far away, simultaneously with his hospitalization with an ulcer was 'susceptible' to memory distortion. Yet I immediately told my wife what brought me back home and recorded the whole experience in my journal soon after he got out of the hospital. So, it is reasonable to assume that the chances of or extent of such distortion were minimal. (Plus my whole academic career testifies to an excellent memory... for details studied for tests, etc.) Again, I'll get back to you with a specific critique of those most rigorously controlled experiments above. If you deny the significance of a one in a million chance of occurrence "by chance," for instance, then you deny the principle of statistical significance as a whole. (Some were, as I remember, very highly significant as per statistical analysis.)

I "hold to" the "truth as I know it" of my personal story related above, disbelief or claims of distortion notwithstanding. I also "hold to" the statistical significance of positive effects verified in rigoruously controlled experiments on consciousness acting "at a distance," like the 16 double-blind experiments summarized by Benor.

Not really. I have always had many different interests and have followed those I like most, many of which I have never mentioned here. I always liked working with my hands, and a skilled trade was a good balance with my professional interests. But I really don't care if you understand or believe that. Note: Dear moderators, Why is it that Iggy and ydoaPs and others are allowed to hijack this thread with persistent slurs on my character (honesty and integrity)... obviously off topic?

I had a B.S. in behavioral psychology when I worked in two mental hospitals in Denver during Nam. My title was simply 'counselor' in those cases, not 'psychologist.' Then I worked in three settings in Oregon with an M.A. certificate as a 'counseling psychologist.' See post above (quoting the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) on masters degree certification for psychologists by state boards of examiners. My studies of consciousness were not part of my credentials but rather a side interest in "transpersonal psychology." I did private practice also with my "shingle out" as an M.A. psychological counselor (as distinguished from say a financial counselor or career counselor.) Thanks. I am not an expert in quantum physics, so i just wondered of the often quoted entangled particles "communication at a distance" was similar to the mechanism for telepathy. I guess not. Thanks. I misunderstood the "communicating at a distance" part. And there is no explanation I know of for human consciousness (intention, telepathy, healing) communication/acting at a distance, but that doesn't keep science from studying it. Iggy: Again, I have in fact worked as a M.A. level counseling psychologist in three different professional settings in Oregon. I will not, for obvious reasons, be specific as to where or why you can't find a record of it. Your persistent conviction that I am a liar does not make me a liar. I say again, I have never lied in this forum. Get over it.

Had you studied any of the double blind, rigorously controlled experiments investigating 'consciousness effective at a distance'... some linked above... before you moved the thread to the 'basement' of pseudo-science and 'speculation' here? How are all those experiments less credible than your favorite examples of verified physics? All the above (...) was about me misunderstanding 'entangled particles' "communicating at a distance," as the common phrase has it. I don't know about that. Just asking. But, more importantly, how do murder cases and running stop signs have anything to do with any of the above? Finally, what did I say that was " blatantly false about psychology?" Final note, about the anti- Ad Hominem argument policy here: Ad hominem: from Wikipedia .That is the essence of every post here in reply by ydoaPs, yet somehow the rule does not apply to him/her. So s/he is allowed to hijack my thread with his obsession and personal attacks on my integrity and honesty. Yet I was the one who got the warning against ad hominem attacks early in this thread after a barrage of insults against me. Interesting.

How do particles change polarity of spin at a distance when they are observed? How do they stay in "communication?" Or is that a popular misconception? (I am not an expert in quantum physics.) Then, more obviously, how do masses attract each other at a distance? Curved space? (What does that mean? How does that work?) How did I know that my son was in extreme physical distress 'at a distance?' (Just an "anecdote" of course!) But I "knew" and that knowing was verified. The falsified (selective or distorted) memory argument applies to complicated neurotic cases as we see in clinical counseling situations... Not so much in run of the mill telepathy testimony. (one of my former 'specialities' as a counseling psychologist.)

What a wasted life! A 170 to 178 IQ (SBIS to WAIS) and all that psychology education with a BS (behavioral) and then an M.A. equivalency certification and a long counseling career in five institutions in two states and I still don't know anything about psychology! You know nothing about my career... yet you spout off.

Please explain in more detail.

It's amazing that you still ask, assuming that you read my last post. I don't even know which part to repeat and "bold" again for you. Short answer... yes... retired now for quite a few years. Ps; an afterthought: Maybe you are confused about the difference between a license and the certification I have already explained in some detail. Or maybe you are just hell bent on clinging to your longstanding project of "debunking" my credentials, since you have so much invested in it over such a long period of stalking me with that agenda. My often repeated counsel is that you just "get over it." ...and remind yourself what thread you are posting in... as to "topic" and all.

Just a follow-up on the whole derailment of this thread into the credentials required of a psychologist... and the false accusation that I am a liar. Reference; hypervalent-iodine's comment: From the Bureau of Labor Statistics for psychologists; *(Edit: but not always.) From Education-Portal.com Psychologist: Educational Requirements I met them.

I was, in fact, certified by the Oregon State Board of Psychologist Examiners as a counseling psychologist at the masters degree level as a result of a test they administered and my previous counseling experience as explained above. I continued my skilled trade as a stonemason and bricklayer along with my counseling career, based on my MA equivalency, which I never misrepresented to clients as being a PhD level psychologist. However, this thread is not entitled, "Owls credentials, or lack thereof, as a psychologist." I have honestly clarified that as best I can. I still wonder how 'action at a distance' works in any/all cases, including entangled particles, gravity and conscious intention. If no one here is interested in the subject, there is no point in continuing to defend my honesty as the now derailed subject of this thread. In the spirit of this thread's intent, from Dean Radin at http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/bio.html (my bold)

StringJunky: I understand the subject very well already. Here is a link very relevant to this "entanglement" concept: Dean Radin: “Entangled Minds.” http://www.deanradin.com/ Edit; Ps: Sorry; It was ObserverB's post 53 quoting StringJunky's post on LSD above. But entangled particles and entangled minds are a good subject of investigation for similarities. (To my): Edit: The whole quote was: Your '...' omission is the difference between what I said and how you 'spun' it. I was not 'admitting' that I was unlicensed (which I had never claimed) but explaining the specifics of my certification as a counseling psychologist. "Yes," what? "Yes," you understand the difference now, or now you retract your false accusations and apologize for clearly insinuating (false assumptions) and implying (false implied accusations) that I am a liar.? I am not registered as a ” licensed psychologist,” which requires the PhD in clinical psychology. Clear? I am a certified counselor in psychology at the M.A. level for civil service, as I already clearly explained. Clear? How about that apology?

You really don't pay attention to what I say. (It would really help.) I never said that I was "licensed" as a psychologist. Is that clear? Do a little homework on Oregon law for practicing psychological counseling if you are all that intent on publicizing my credentials as your idea of an expose'.* I would give you my full resume', but something tells me that would be too candid and revealing, 'perhaps' even abused, in total disregard for my expressed desire for privacy... plus being way off topic... which you continue to disregard as you continue your personal attack. I submit to the forum that you 'seem' obsessed (clinically speaking) with that * personal agenda... and that is my professional diagnosis, even without a PhD degree in clinical psychology. My certification was the result of the M.A. level test they gave (which I aced... no time for modesty here), and my experience as a "counselor" in two mental hospitals (in Denver) over a three year period during the war in Nam. (Plenty of battle stress syndrome and psychotic breaks to deal with.) I easily qualified to be a masters level counselor in all Oregon civil service jobs.

You "shouldn't." A good scientist "believes" nothing but stays open to all possibilities until they are proven wrong or very well verified. You either know or you don't know. "Belief" is for the religious and superstitious. I agree that the account was, as any account from memory is, "susceptible" to false memory... in a very unlikely scenario in which I almost immediately forgot what happened, a very simple sequence of events, within a few days of the original experience. I only insist that I am telling it as I experienced it, without intentional distortion. I am very "used to" such skepticism, especially in my internet conversations in science forums, so don't give yourself too much credit as a threat and big debunker. Ps: Please educate yourself on the difference between psychology, and its different requirements in different states, and psychiatry, which *almost* everyone knows requires a medical degree.

Regarding Iggy’s continuing character assassination attempts, insisting that I am a liar:: I was certified by the OR. State Board of Psychologists Examiners (since you've stalked me to my state in violation of my expressed desire for privacy) with an MA equivalency for the purpose of counseling on that level in any civil service job in the state. That and practicing the profession of counseling psychology made my a psychologist without a clinical psych Phd. Apparently you don't know the difference between psychology and psychiatry, which I have never claimed. Get over it. Thanks for you concern about my self image. It's fine. I would not need to be defending my honesty without your unfounded slurs. Wanna know about my being First Trustee on an 80 acre community land trust or my status as a Elder at the OR Country Fair... "Rainbow Man?" Well, that and all of the above 'Liar!, Liar!' crap you are dishing up is *a bit* off topic, about which no one here seems to care. The thread would do just fine as a science of consciousness topic without my personal history or the one very simple and clearly remembered and recorded TRUE STORY above. But true to form, personal attacks continue to be the norm here.

Shortly after, while it was still very fresh in my mind, right after he got out of the hospital. I had already told my wife exactly what happened as soon as I got back. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for you to make up your own version of what happened? Like I tell him this and he tells me that, etc... which did not happen. There was no "initial revision," and the original journal account, as I said, is the same (though not 'word for word') as first related here. Think what you want. I'm done with it.

To last sentence... huh? A simple sequence of events is easier to remember than a complicated sequence, not "irrelevant." Did you get this part?... I used to keep a journal of paranormal events in my life... long, long ago. I had actually *forgotten* that fact and that specific entry until remembering it in the midst of my last post. It took an 'archeological dig' to find it in my very old files, but, sure enough... here it is, fresh after it happened and just like re-told it. Get over it.