Geez, where do I start today? How about a little more detail on what’s going on. Here’s the background on how we got started in this:
Recently, my wife and I were trying some experiments with ESP symbols. We took turns being the ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’. Basically, we both were coming up with results that were no better than ‘chance’. I started recording data on the receiver’s mindset, mood, environment, etc. When I studied the results, I found no meaningful data, whether it was my wife or myself.
I then studied the sender’s states. My results as being a sender offered nothing interesting in the data. But I did notice a peculiar result when my wife was acting as a sender. On many of the occasions where I had guessed correctly, my wife stated that she had drifted into a daydream-like (lower alpha or theta) state. She compared it to reading a book and not remembering what was on the page, or driving a car and not remembering the last few miles. Kinda like hypnosis- very similar to relaxing meditation.
It seemed to only happen at the point she was changing from beta (active) to the alpha or theta state. If she was
already relaxed, the results were within the realm of chance. We kept experimenting and she got very adept at relaxing and ‘coming back’ when she wished. She would focus on the symbol at the point of relaxation and my correct guesses would far exceed what could be explained by chance.
What is different when I’m ‘guessing’ correctly? Nothing. It feels the same as when I’m wrong. I am going by my intuition. It just happens that she is somehow influencing my intuition at the time. What I do know is that if I make a ‘guess’ when she is transitioning for one state to another, that ‘guess’ is far more accurate than any other time.
I also found that if I tried to think about it and not go with my gut feeling, then my success rate dropped to around 20% (chance). In other words, when I went with my intuition, I was right most of the time.
If I asked you quickly to name one of the symbols, you would come up with one. Why would you name that particular one? Something in your brain told you to select one. Our brains don’t function as a true random number generator. We make guesses based on our intuition. For example, if I asked a group of people to think of a number between 1 and 10, the largest percentage would guess ‘7’. It just ‘seems like the right one to pick’. Although it doesn’t apply to our scenario, here is a good link on intuition:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2349
I don’t expect people to believe us without proof. We’ve told very few people about this. We’ve done some tightly controlled experiments and the results have been impressive. I started with this forum so that I could have some rational, skeptical feedback on a testing protocol. My goal was to work backwards and figure out if there were any unconscious influences. Your input has been helpful.
The professor has requested that the sending witnesses not communicate with the receiving witnesses during the sending/receiving period. However, will there be a definite video/witness record of each of the professor's written answers as it's made, to prove what symbol he wrote down to correspond with each symbol being sent?
That’s fine! All my answers would be sealed and given to an observer BEFORE anyone started talking, the test was over, we went to another room, etc.
Ah, good old unquestioning "locals". And demos. We all love demos. So much better than those irritating tests, with their controls and protocols.
Lighten up. ‘Demos’ was a word choice. I expect any demo to have controls and protocols. If I wanted to go to some gullible group and get positive affirmations, I would have no problem finding volunteers. I’m looking at this from a scientific standpoint and not some publicity stunt. I thought JREF would be a good, objective starting point. (That, and the fact that they're offering a million bucks.
)
The professor seemed to be very eager to eliminate any possibility of "counting," but unfortunately after I posted this, the thread got bogged down in legal points which might prevent the test, so this issue never got fully discussed.
I think you’ve brought up an excellent point and one that I’ve thought a lot about. (No, my wife and I are not counting.) I’ve even considered the possibility of it happening subconsciously but it wouldn’t explain the results we’ve had.
We’d both be having to do it simultaneously, we’d have to have a starting point and we’d have to maintain that in our heads for at least 3-40 minutes to complete the test. By eliminating the ‘received’ signal from my end I’d have no way to signal back to her. Anyone that watches our demonstration (test or whatever you want to call it) will see that it’s not what’s happening.
I’d welcome any control on the test that would disprove the counting method. What do you suggest? (I personally don’t think that it’s possible to keep an accurate count for more than a minute, much less a half-hour.) I’m happy to interact with the observers or do whatever is requested. Tell me what would work.
The excuse that Randi might sue the hell out of you is the dumbest I have ever heard.
Litigation, on the other hand, can happen at a drop of a hat - and the awards and costs can well exceed a million bucks. I say protect all parties involved so no-one has to worry about the whole distasteful activity.
Everybody sues everybody nowadays. After a recent ordeal my neighbor suffered, I saw what frivolous litigation can do. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not, you still have to do the dance. There's an enormous incentive for JREF to see me fail, no matter what their intentions. I take them at face value, but the money involved is a major factor. I’m not an attorney. My lawyer won’t be back until after Mem. Day weekend so I will talk to him then.
Wouldn't a good idea be to make a surprisingly "lucid proposal" and then make some legal strawman to get it thrown out on a technicality?
I used the term ‘lucid’ after reading other applications. I couldn’t understand them. My goal is to be tested.
