Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

Where these people make these statements is in the quotations I already provided.

Lilienfeld et al say: "the eyes do not emit rays or particles of any kind"
Schrodinger says: "in reality nothing emerges from these eyes"
Toulmin says: "For to say “light travels” reflects the nature of reality, in a way which “his eyes swept the horizon” does not, is to point to the fact that the latter remains at best a metaphor. The optical theory from which it came is dead. Questions like “What sort of brooms do eyes sweep with?” and, ”What are the antennae made of?” can be asked only frivolously." - emanations from the eye are "at best a metaphor."
Winer says: "This extramission theory stressed that there were emanations from the eyes during the act of seeing. That is, essences or the like were thought to leave the eye during the act of visual perception."
The Winer quote is the only one that is the least bit ambiguous ("during the act of perception" could be interpreted to mean in tandem with visual perception but otherwise unrelated to it) - all the others state strongly and explicitly that nothing comes out of the eyes.
 
Colin Ross said:
all the others state strongly and explicitly that nothing comes out of the eyes.
Click to expand...

That is not what they say. No person who understood what they were taught in a typical junior high science class will buy your argument.

For example, stating that the eyes do not emit rays or particles does not preclude things passing through the eye. You are attempting to alter the meaning of your quotes. If you were a child, I could understand this. But adults should know better than to play such games.

This is much like when a child capable of understanding what an adult has stated and decides to take only the most literal interpretation in order to twist the intent. The best example would be when one child is told not to touch a sibling in order to stop harassment. Then the kid tries to bother their sibling while stating "I'm not touching you!"
 
Colin Ross said:
Lilienfeld et al say: "the eyes do not emit rays or particles of any kind"
Click to expand...


To me, this talks about the eyes being the source of any emissions. It says nothing about whether certain things can pass through the eyes. The fact that you choose to read it as saying one thing, does not mean that you're interpreting it correctly. In fact, you seem to be interpereting it incorrectly ... on purpose ... despite actual knowledge on your part ... for personal gain.


Schrodinger says: "in reality nothing emerges from these eyes"
Toulmin says: "For to say “light travels” reflects the nature of reality, in a way which “his eyes swept the horizon” does not, is to point to the fact that the latter remains at best a metaphor. The optical theory from which it came is dead. Questions like “What sort of brooms do eyes sweep with?” and, ”What are the antennae made of?” can be asked only frivolously." - emanations from the eye are "at best a metaphor."
Click to expand...


The interpretation you are giving Schrodinger's words purposefully ignores that he is only talking in the context of the now-debunked optical theory - that sight is a process in which rays are emitted, bounced and received by the eyes. He says nothing about rays that can pass through the eyes.

I find it fascinating how much the words you choose to write actually betray you as dishonest. As a trained professional, what are your experiences with people who subconsciously undermine themselves?
 
And again, Dr. Ross has not replied to the very important higher level problem with his argument.

Even if these statements were exactly as Dr. Ross represents them, they are not by biologists or experts in the functions of the body, they are by psychologists, philosophers and physicists. That isn't their area of study, so how can their word be definitive by any stretch?

Even if these statements were made by biologists, that still would not make a contradiction supernatural, biologists are proved wrong all the time, as are practitioners in just about every field of science and medicine. Textbooks and experts from 50 years ago made all kinds of clear statements that we know today to be wrong. The new theories that replaced them were not paranormal.

Even if these statements were made by the most preeminent biologists on earth, that would still not show that anything was "dissallowed" by science. The most well regarded physicists in the world have disagreements. Science is not a cult of personality.

Dr. Ross,
To show that these brainwaves pass through the eyes and are capable of being received in front of them is a paranormal claim, you really must show a peer reviewed, published, properly conducted, and extensively replicated test. Any quotes you repost, even if you read them correctly (you didn't) even if they were recent (they aren't) even if they were from experts in the relevant field (they're not) are not proclamations from the world of science, which I repeat, is not a cult of personality.

If you fail to address this, I can only assume you're just trolling.
If you would like to
 
Last edited:
Slight Misquote

Accurate Lilienfeld quote by me from their book page 35:

"Research suggests that presenting college students with "refutational" messages, those designed not merely to explain how the eye works but how it doesn't work, in this case that the eye doesn't emit rays or particles, leads to short-term reductions in extramission beliefs (Winer at al., 2002)."

Incorrect paraphrasing by me:

"the eyes do not emit rays or particles of any kind"

OK, true I mis-paraphrased.

At this point I think we need to bring the discussion to a close because we are just making the same points over and over without any resolution.
 
This reminds me of a discussion with a psychiatrist that I was working with on a research project. I was trying to explain why you couldn't do 60 correlations and think that the 2 that were significant at the .05 level meant anything. I asked if he really knew anything about this science stuff and he replied, "No, not really. That's why they don't give us scalpels."
Then he went on to relate how a guy he worked with overdosed an elephant with almost half a gram of LSD because he didn't know to equate dosages by blood volume, not body weight.
 
Actually, YOU have made a range of points, from claiming that eyes emit rays or particles your goggles can detect, to, most recently, using the words of your scientific heroes to claim that nothing of the sort happens. With one you have a phenomenon that is, though not paranormal, easily tested. With the latter you have another phenomenon that can also be tested. As the answer for both is "IR," you are both right and wrong, but don't put your usual amount of stock ("dropzone said I was RIGHT!") in the positive answer.

You are a psychiatrist, right? Then you have worked with people who have been abused repeatedly. And you have seen how they work their experiences into their otherwise-normal lives, justifying the actions of others as explainable by the patient's actions, though any reasonable person would note the difference of scale as reason to call the cops. Or for some they are simply tossed aside because such facts do not fit into their worldview. Observing your deflections of documentary facts, especially when your own quotes contradict each other, and the way you appear to believe that instances when you were openly mocked support your beliefs, I have grown to suspect that you are one of those people.

I'd ask, and even suggest details, about your abuse as a child, but I am not as learned as you. However, I suggest you request help from a colleague.
 
Colin Ross said:
At this point I think we need to bring the discussion to a close because we are just making the same points over and over without any resolution.
Click to expand...

You don't actually want resolution, so of course the conversation isn't going anywhere. You're more interested in asserting your preconceived ideas than learning from others who are knowledgeable in the relevant subjects. You cite papers without reading them, you alter experiments without understanding them, and when push comes to shove you threaten to run away but never do. In short, you are typical of those who apply for the MDC.
 
Colin Ross said:
I am ready for the preliminary test by the JREF.
Click to expand...

Ririon said:
No you are not.

You need an actually paranormal claim.

AND you need a finished mutually agreed upon protocol.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, Colin Ross hasn't even tried designing a protocol for the test. He's still working on getting his kit to actually look like it's doing what he wants. Colin, it's not enough for you to simply turn up with a piece of kit and claim it's doing something, you need to actually present a detailed protocol of exactly what will be done, how it will be done, who will be involved, what will count as a pass, what will count as a failure, how you will eliminate any possibility of cheating, how you will eliminate any possibility of error, and so on.

To claim that you are ready for the challenge when you have not even attempted this, or even got your entirely normal, scientifically understood equipment working, really does not give the impression of an honest person who has bothered to read the rules and understand the challenge.
 
Colin Ross said:
The terminology is just a matter of convention.
Click to expand...

Correct. So you need to stick to convention.

I have been using extramission to mean the general category of emanations, of which a sub-category is the theory that extramission is involved in visual perception.
Click to expand...

And this is not conventional. 'Extramission' is not a conventional term for general emissions.

This seems consistent with Winer. Any emanation "during the act of seeing" is classified as a superstition by Winer.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. During the act of seeing is obviously meant as being a part of the act of seeing, and not 'concurrently' since it would be absurd to assume that Winer thinks that e.g. IR emission should stop while in the act of seeing.

"Emanation" and "extramission" seem to be synonyms to me,
Click to expand...

Yes, that is clear. You are, however, mistaken in this assumption.

Winer, Schrodinger and Toulmin state explicitly
Click to expand...

To cut the chase short, even if that were the case, the opinion of three scientists half a century ago does not make something doctrine. In fact, nothing does; science is always open to revision.

that no emanation of any kind exists, therefore no emanation can participate in visual perception,
Click to expand...

No, that is a false conclusion, whoever made it. You cannot prove a negative, so you can't prove one thing by claiming that something else does not exists.

The reason emissions from the eyes can't take part in vision is quite different. I can explain the reason to you, but I suspect you are not interested.


Hans
 
dropzone said:
Good lord, you are citing MORE people who dismiss your claims as NONSENSE as SUPPORTING YOU?!?!?

I withdraw all my suggestions that you are running a con. You have demonstrated you are completely insane and we should contact your local board with this evidence to ask that your licence be revoked before you ruin more lives with your delusions.
Click to expand...

Really? He clearly realizes that his claim is not paranormal. It looks to me like he is practising his rhetoric to see if he can trick his way into a protocol. One wouldn't address any of the criticisms under those circumstances. And it would also explain the use of techniques which are nonsensical from a rational viewpoint (i.e. citing people who make dismissive comments as making supportive comments), but which have rhetorical impact.

ETA: I also doubt that we are the intended audience for this rhetoric. I suspect that Roma was closer to the mark when she mentioned promotion for a new book (if I recall correctly).

Linda
 
Last edited:
JREF Challlenge

I have submitted a detailed protocol, initially in the summer of 2008, then two revisions, the final one in February, 2009, as I mentioned previously. My proposed protocol includes a lot of details about equipment, delta waves, the JREF being able to watch the computer screen and inspect the goggles, etc. To repeat, the fact that I was proposing to use EEG equipment, measure delta waves, use a neurofeedback tone etc, was all submtted to the JREF in August 2008 - eight months before James Randi awarded me the Pigasus. Although various viewpoints have been expressed in this forum, what counts in the end, for the Challenge, is the fact that the JREF awarded the Pigasus for the Challenge being preposterous, silly etc, The JREF did not state that the Challenge was a normal phenomenon and did not accuse me of deception.
When I say I am ready for the preliminary challenge, I mean that I have submitted a detailed protocol - I am waiting for a response from the JREF to the protocol. If they accepted the protocol without further revision, I would be ready to go ahead with the preliminary test.
Again, to repeat, my position is that "the paranormal" is a socially constructed category - some things categorized as paranormal are done so in error.
So far, the main thing I have learned from this discussion is that in future publications I will need to clarify the extramission/emanation/emission distinction and how I am using the term extramission. Otherwise, the discussion can get bogged down in semantics.
Further discussion of the Winer, Toulmin, Schrodinger, Lilienfeld quotes seems unproductive as everyone has stated their positions on that.
 
Colin Ross said:
So far, the main thing I have learned from this discussion is that in future publications I will need to clarify the extramission/emanation/emission distinction and how I am using the term extramission. Otherwise, the discussion can get bogged down in semantics.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just use them to mean what they actually mean, rather than making up your own definitions? The reason the discussion gets "bogged down in semantics" is simply because the way you use certain words is simply wrong, and using the correct meaning results in a claim that is not vaguely paranormal.

fls said:
Really? He clearly realizes that his claim is not paranormal. It looks to me like he is practising his rhetoric to see if he can trick his way into a protocol.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not actually entirely sure about that. The problem is that he seems rather confused. He starts off with a clearly paranormal claim - that people can detect being stared at. He then phrases it in a slightly different way that is still paranormal, but less obviously so - that there are EM emissions from the eyes (not paranormal) and that these can be partially controlled by moving the eye (probably not paranormal) or thinking about it (probably paranormal) and that they can be detected at long range by humans (paranormal). He then takes this claim and tests it in such a way that whatever is detected is definitely not paranormal in any way. But then he tries to present this new test in such a way as to make it seem paranormal again.

So does he realise his claim is paranormal? Is this just a trick? It's hard to say. The original claim is clearly paranormal, and everyone knows it. The claim in the middle is clearly not paranormal, and I suspect everyone knows that. It may be that he knows his actual belief in magic eye beams is just blind faith and will fail miserably at any test, and has therefore tried to twist it into a perfectly normal claim that he can present as a paranormal one. But it could just be that he is extremely confused about what he is actually doing and how it relates to his beliefs.

The latter doesn't seem to be that unusual, it's really just the classic "woo of the gaps" argument. Each time an aspect of the claim is proven wrong, the woo just retreats to a new, less testable form that often has little to do with the original belief, but will still be held up in support of it. Look at psi experiments, for example. They start with the belief that people can move large objects with the power of their minds. But modern tests look for tiny statistical effects on a microscopic scale. Even if they could show an effect, it would have nothing to do with the actual beliefs that led to the experiments and that are claimed to be supported by them. It could be the same here. Each time Colin tries to find his magic eye beams, he fails. The tests have therefore evolved to the point that his EEG goggles have nothing to do with the actual belief in magic eye beams that people can detect staring at them.

So it could be that this isn't deliberate at all, Colin has simply been led along by his delusions, without even noticing that his current claim has nothing whatsoever to do with the belief he claims it supports. Remember, this is a guy who believes in magic eye beams and daemons. He could just be attempting a con, but that may be giving him far too much credit for what he understands about his own beliefs and claims.
 
Cuddles said:
He starts off with a clearly paranormal claim - that people can detect being stared at.
Click to expand...

No, he came up with the "stared at" stuff partway through, when he saw that his "extramission" stuff wasn't flying. He has now gone back to the extramission stuff, because his new tactic is to relate his claim to the statements made about his Pigasus award.

I'm not saying that I know one way or the other. But an easy way for him to trick us is to present himself as the subject of ridicule (without making it too obvious) so that we can congratulate ourselves on our cleverness at finding him out while failing to notice the true extent of his deviousness.

Fortunately, I also suspect that Randi is way, way better at seeing through all of this than we are and he's just stringing him along.

Linda
 
fls said:
s.

Fortunately, I also suspect that Randi is way, way better at seeing through all of this than we are and he's just stringing him along.
Click to expand...

Well, he's pretty much busted one way or the other now. Anything proposed so far involving EEG or similar is clearly not paranormal. The only thing that would be paranormal, from what he's mentioned, is the 'detecting being stared at' option; for some reason he seems to be sticking with 'misinterpreting what some dead white dudes said half a century ago' instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom