Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

[MRC_Hans]

The following is from the JREF Challenge rules:

"PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration."

To be sure, the abrasive and arrogant style of the JREF may one day backfire on them.

This rule, to me, clearly states that my explanation for how the demonstration will work is not to be submitted to the JREF and is not relevant to the process.

True, but the fact that you don't plan to demonstrate anything paranormal would seem relevant.

The existence of human ocular extramission and whether it plays any role in visual perception are two separate questions.

That would depend on the definition of the term 'extramission'. Based on my, admittedly recent, investigation of that, 'extramission' seems to be defined as a method of obtaining vission. If that is correct, it is obviously not possible to separate the two questions.

I agree that I cannot use my extramission (or "chi energy") to move objects at the macroscopic level.

All this begs the question of, considering your position, why you plan to use the rather elusive ECG signal, when you have the easy to detect and robust IR radiation. This will even be more able to 'move' a physical object.

I would reformulate the question as: "Can human ocular extramission have a measurable effect on and interaction with material objects in the external world?" If it can be detected by an electrode, the answer is yes.

Only if you define 'extramission' as 'any energy emission originating from the eyes'. That, however, would seem not to be the correct definition.

Hans

 

[Colin Ross]

Definition of Extramission

I think the following quotes demonstrate pretty clearly that, according to western science, no emission of any kind from the eyes is allowed. Nowhere have I found any qualifying statements by scientists about any type of extramission being allowed (e.g., EM extramission). The intromission model is absolute and exclusive of any form of extramission, it seems to me (although Schrodinger does say that something seems to be missing from the intromission model). Two propositions are disallowed: 1) there is any extramission of any kind, and 2) extramission plays any role in visual perception:

Dear reader or, better still, dear lady reader, recall the bright, joyful eyes with which your child beams upon you when you bring him a new toy, and then let the physicist tell you that in reality nothing emerges from these eyes; in reality their only objectively detectable function is, continually to be hit by and to receive light quanta. In reality! A strange reality! Something seems to be missing in it.

Erwin Schrodinger
What Is Life? (1944)


If we prefer, we can think of the phenomenon of sight as the Greeks did, regarding the eye not as a kind of sensitive plate, but as the source of antennae or tentacles which stretch out and seize on the properties of the object it surveys.

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. The former does more: it can both take its place at the heart of a fruitful theory and suggest to us further questions, many of which can be given sense in a way which the questions suggested by “His eyes swept the horizon” never can.

Stephen Toulmin
The Philosophy of Science (1953)


Could an erroneous, ancient theory of visual perception still be a commonly held belief of children and adults at the end of the 20th century? A number of ancient philosophers, including Plato, Euclid, and Ptolemy, believed in what has been termed the extramission theory of visual perception. 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. With advances in the sciences of optics and physiology, the extramission theory was replaced by what is called the intromission theory. This theory holds that there is only input to the visual system and that this information alone allows people to see. The extramission theory was ultimately put to rest in scientific and philosophical circles in the early 17th century, although informed opinion had generally dismissed extramission notions as early as the 13th century.

Gerald Winer
American Psychologist (1996)

In my view, intromission and extramission are not mutually exclusive models and extramission could play a role in the sense of being stared at but not in visual perception. The reality of extramission does not hinge on its playing a role in visual perception. This is clearest in the Toulmin quotation - he clearly states that the theory of extramission is dead and it is not possible to investigate the properties of the "brooms" with which eyes "sweep the horizon" scientifically.
I submitted these quotations with my original Challenge application.

 

[technoextreme]

The intromission model is absolute and exclusive of any form of extramission, it seems to me (although Schrodinger does say that something seems to be missing from the intromission model). Two propositions are disallowed: 1) there is any extramission of any kind, and 2) extramission plays any role in visual perception:

Stop treating us like idiots. The intromission model may be exclusive to emission of light for seeing but it doesn't discount the ******** your spewing.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Dr. Ross should try repeating his demonstration with the electrode(s) positioned at the back of his head, next to the primary visual cortex. This will no doubt add weight to the hypothesis that we have eyes in the back of our heads.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I think it's sad how Dr. Ross seems to think nobody here understands the subjects he's discussing. It's also rather interesting to look at his current claim in the context of his past actions. He got caught (and admitted to) using a directly-coupled EEG device. Now he's using a capacitively-coupled EEG device ... as if physical contact was the issue.

 

[Colin Ross]

Ad Hominem Comments

I am willing to continue discussing the challenge or the protocol, but I will not respond to ad hominem attacks, character attacks etc.
Overall, it appears that we are approaching or have reached an impasse, and that further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

 

[technoextreme]

I am willing to continue discussing the challenge or the protocol, but I will not respond to ad hominem attacks, character attacks etc.
Overall, it appears that we are approaching or have reached an impasse, and that further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

Your claim isn't paranormal. It never will be paranormal. It should never be tested as paranormal. You seem to think that how the eye sees objects completely discounts the claim that our eyes don't emit EMF. No it means that we don't emit EMF to see. It doesn't mean that they dont' emit EMF.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Overall, it appears that we are approaching or have reached an impasse, and that further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

That's usually what happens when someone who doesn't understand a subject finds themselves in the company of those who do.

 

[Marcus]

I am willing to continue discussing the challenge or the protocol, but I will not respond to ad hominem attacks, character attacks etc.
Overall, it appears that we are approaching or have reached an impasse, and that further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

Giving up already? I was going to request that you learn how to click the quote button(and respond to points raised) but if you're running it's moot.

 

[Myriad]

I claim that I can send a beam of energy out of my eyes, capture it in a special set of goggles I have built, and then use the energy to make a tone play out of a speaker.

This claim says that you plan to demonstrate that the energy that powers the speaker to produce the tone comes from your eyes. That is, I would expect there to be no other source of energy such as a battery, charged capacitor, spring, photocell, or artificially produced electromagnetic field powering the speaker.

If you plan to use any such additional energy source, then your claim falls into the same category as a claimant saying "I can use the power of my mind to make a coin move on a table top ten feet away," and then showing up for the test carrying a ten-foot pole and saying, "I never said I'd use only the power of my mind!" Which is a momentarily amusing scenario, but not a valid Challenge procedure.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Colin Ross]

Intromission Versus Extramission

I don't think that intromission and extramission are mutually exclusive. I think that both occur. If you look at the Toulmin quote, it seems very clear and explicit that no form of extramission of any type is allowed, the optical theory of extramission is dead, and extramission cannot be investigated scientifically because there is nothing there to investigate. I am not arguing that extramission is involved in visual perception. I am saying that extramission exists and I am proposing that it is a candidate for the mechanism underlying the sense of being stared at (I mean outside my Challenge - I didn't say anything about the sense of being stared at in my Challenge). Both extramission in any form and the sense of being stared at are regarded as unscientific superstitions by modern science = paranormal. I would say that the definition of paranormal (which for the JREF Challenge is whatever the JREF accepts as paranormal) is, something that lies outside science, is not allowed by science and is explicitly stated to be based on a scientifically dead theory. Extramission seems to me to be in the category of "paranormal" currently - just like a claim by me that I could levitate objects using my mind. That claim is "paranormal" because it lies outside science, is disallowed by science, and there is no known mechanism for it. The same applies to extramission and hence to making a tone sound out of a speaker using extramission.
"The paranormal" is a category invented by humans - some phenomena assigned to that category by modern science in fact belong to the category of scientific fact. I am saying that extramission has been misclassified by western science for hundreds of years - at least back to John Locke. The JREF was adopting the position of orthodox science regarding extramission when it accepted my Challenge. I doubt that anyone would challenge the JREF with a paranormal claim if he or she did not believe the claim was real and demonstrable - claimants can be either correct or incorrect in this belief.
If any paranormal claim is ever reliably demonstrated to the JREF, it seems to me, the transition of that phenomenon from paranormal to scientific has begun. Otherwise the Challenge would be a tautology and impossible to win because anyone who won would then be regarded as having demonstrated a scientific phenomenon rather than the paranormal, and the win would be disallowed.
The category error concerning extramission has been made by western science for hundreds of years. Setting aside the $1 million, the whole point of my Challenge is to try to demonstrate that human ocular extramission is real, and from there open up the possibility of investigating it scientifically, in terms of frequency, intensity, coherence, polarization, signal attenuation over distance and other standard features of EM radiation, then to investigate whether extramission has any demonstrable signaling functions in the biosphere, for instance in predator-prey interactions. If it turns out that a gazelle can sense a lion staring at it, even subliminally, and this can be demonstrated scientifically, say with a device that mimics lion ocular extramission, that seems interesting and worthy of documentation to me. I realize there is an "if" there - but theories do not have to be correct to be scientific, they only have to be testable, which mine is using existing or slightly modified existing technology.
The theory that human ocular extramission exists, can be demonstrated scientifically, and has biological signaling functions, is not part of current mainstream science and is not self-evident to scientists. Moving down this pathway of scientific investigation is blocked in academia at the first step, intellectually, in terms of funding, and sociologically. Why? Because few mainstream academic scientists are willing to risk the stigma or the social consequences of investigating "the paranormal."

 

[not daSkeptic]

I am saying that extramission has been misclassified by western science for hundreds of years ...

Are you saying that you yourself do not consider this phenomenon to be paranormal despite what others think?

 

[Toke]

Extramission seems to me to be in the category of "paranormal" currently - just like a claim by me that I could levitate objects using my mind. That claim is "paranormal" because it lies outside science, is disallowed by science, and there is no known mechanism for it. The same applies to extramission and hence to making a tone sound out of a speaker using extramission.

There have been quite a lot of research into the paranormal, the results have been disappointing.
Perhaps your would get a better reaction to a funds request if you had some effect to investigate.

A rock attracting iron could have gotten a funding request to investigate magnetism approved.
A coin staying still on a table in spite of being stared hard at, not so much.

 

[technoextreme]

Does anyone find it interesting that he's trying to back his claim back into woo despite the fact that his claim is scientifically plausible despite his complete and utter ignorance?

 

[Toke]

Does anyone find it interesting that he's trying to back his claim back into woo despite the fact that his claim is scientifically plausible despite his complete and utter ignorance?

It does look like he have a million good reasons to get a known/plausible effect passed off as woo.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think the following quotes demonstrate pretty clearly that, according to western science, no emission of any kind from the eyes is allowed.

No. They do not. Again, they are talking about visual perception. Schrodinger is talking about the “objectively detectable function” of eyes. Toulmin is talking about the “phenomenon of sight”. Winer is talking about the “theory of visual perception”.(OK, Schrodinger may actually be talking about something a bit different.)

Extramission theory is a theory of sight. It neither allows nor disallows that there are any types of emissions that come from he eyes. As has been pointed out, it is quite clear to science and everybody that there are emissions from the eyes such as heat, light, etc.

Let’s say I have a radar and a digital camera. I explain that the radar uses extramission because it detects an object by sending out a signal that bounces off the object and returns to the radar. I explain that the camera is a uses intromission because it does not detect objects by sending out a signal, but rather detects an object by detecting and recording the light waves that reflect off the object and into the camera lens.

The radar uses extramission because it works by sending out a signal.
The camera uses intromission because it works by receiving in a signal.

Does this mean that my digital camera does not send out any signals, or even any electrical or electromagnetic emissions? No. Of course not. The camera reflects light and probably gives off heat. When it is turned on, proper sensors can detect the electricity being used by the camera. But those emissions don’t have anything to do with the basic principals of how the camera works. I never said, and don’t believe, that a digital camera does not give off any emissions. I simply explained that a camera works but receiving light waves in the lens, as opposed to something like a radar that works by sending a signal out.

I could claim that I can use my psychic powers to shoot magical energy beams out of a digital camera and record them with my gizmo. That might sound paranormal. Of course, I would simply be using existing devices to record known and accepted small electromagnetic activity around the camera when it is turned on. That is not paranormal. It is not paranormal to detect known electromagnetic activity using known devices that are able to detect that electromagnetic activity.

Cameras, and eyes, work by intromission. Cameras, and eyes, do not work by extramission. Cameras, and eyes, do send out emissions. These statements are not contradictory. These statements are accepted by science. There is nothing paranormal or “not allowed by science” about them.

Science does not disallow that there are emissions from eyes. A rejection of an extramission theory of vision is not exclusive to that belief and does not invalid that belief.

 

[blobru]

I don't think that intromission and extramission are mutually exclusive. I think that both occur. If you look at the Toulmin quote, it seems very clear and explicit that no form of extramission of any type is allowed, the optical theory of extramission is dead, and extramission cannot be investigated scientifically because there is nothing there to investigate. I am not arguing that extramission is involved in visual perception.

That's the only "extramission" Toulmin was talking about, in context.

Brain waves through the eyes are not 'disallowed' by western science, because brain waves through the skull are not disallowed by western science; they are an accepted phenomenon, and as the eyes and eye sockets are in the skull, then so are brain waves through the eyes an accepted phenomenon; demonstrating the existence of an accepted scientific phenomenon hardly qualifies as proving the paranormal.

I am saying that extramission exists and I am proposing that it is a candidate for the mechanism underlying the sense of being stared at ...

Then the brain waves passing through the eyes must be different from those passing through the rest of the skull (otherwise, assuming they, and the difference, are even detectable by other organisms over 'staring' distance, the target would have "the sense of being stared at" whether the other were staring at her or looking away, or staring with eyes shut).

That might be an interesting paranormal experiment (though it's a far cry from the demonstration of an accepted scientific phenomenon proposed in the challenge application). Good luck with it.

 

[Colin Ross]

History of Colin Ross Challenge

Perhaps it would make things clearer if I ran over the history of my Challenge briefly. In early August 2008, prior to any critique of my initial protocol by the JREF, I realized that the conventional electrode I was using was being activated by my eyelashes causing a tone to sound due to eyelash movement artifact. I told the JREF that I would look into getting a high-impedance electrode and get back to them. In October 2008 I got back to the JREF with a revised protocol involving a high-impedance electrode I had manufactured for me, and which made no physical contact with my skin or eyelashes. I further modified the protocol in February 2009. During this time period (August 08-February 09), I responded to a set of questions from James Randi about the protocol.
As of the time of my initial submission I had a theory about how the challenge would work but the phenomenon was in the category of paranormal according to the JREF. I assume that every Challenge applicant must believe his claim is real, otherwise he wouldn't make it, and I assume every applicant must have a theory about how his claim works. The point is, the theory is irrelevant by JREF rules.
This brings us back to the tautology - if a Challenge is ever successful, then it must actually work, and there must be a mechanism by which it works, and therefore it is not actually paranormal - it was misclassified. This logic applies to all JREF Challenges - the ones that fail remain "paranormal" and one that wins - if there ever is one - must be a real phenomenon and therefore not actually paranormal.
This seems to me to be general logic that applies to all Challenges, and not unique to my Challenge.
My character, theories and motives are irrelevant to a JREF Challenge by JREF rules. Just because I have a theory that may turn out to be correct doesn't invalidate my claim. In any case, my theory may turn out to be incorrect - it certainly isn't endorsed by Winer, Toulmin or Schrodinger.

At this point I think I have said just about everything I have to say and made my position as clear as I can.

 

[not daSkeptic]

At this point I think I have said just about everything I have to say and made my position as clear as I can.

Still unclear as to whether you think your claim is or is not paranormal by your definition of the term.

 

[dropzone]

Does anyone find it interesting that he's trying to back his claim back into woo despite the fact that his claim is scientifically plausible despite his complete and utter ignorance?

Well, yeah.

Back in US 7th grade (year 8 to Brits) my entry for the annual science fair was a test if humans could detect light with their hands. As light sources I used flashlight (torch) lamps that ran under 3VDC. Sister Mary Whatsername dismissed it as my subjects detecting the (eensy-weensy) bit of heat emitted by the light bulbs. Which was possibly true but, as IR light )heat) is still light...

...there's no arguing with nuns. The same can be said for "Dr" Colin Ross.