Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

[Orphia Nay]

I have just added a tag that connects all the threads about Colin Ross. There are 6 threads in total.

Good job, rjh.

 

[Colin Ross]

Further Questions About Colin Ross Challenge

In response to recent posts:

This quotation from a Swift article by James Randi plus my receiving a 2008 Pigasus Award establish that the JREF regards my claim as a claim of the paranormal. The JREF did not request any rewording of my challenge prior to accepting it:

"Okay, friends, you think you’ve seen every sort of claim that could be thrown at the JREF to challenge the million-dollar prize. Most have been preposterous, silly, irrational, and/or astonishing. Now we have one that is all of those, and it comes from Dr. Colin A. Ross, a psychiatrist from Richardson, Texas."

I remind all that the JREF rules state clearly that after a challenge is accepted, demonstrating how it works scientifically does not invalidate the challenge. Nor does the JREF require a claimant to demonstrate that only he can do what is claimed.
The magnetic component of the brain field is measured by magnetoencephalography (MEG).
Oculoretinography works by stimulating the retina with light and measuring the resulting output from the retina, which is a different principle from EEG.
Throughout the neurology literature brainwaves are described in terms of frequency in Hertz and amplitude in microvolts (the potential between the active and reference electrode). The equipment I use is EEG equipment from Brainmaster - I doubt that a neurologist could be convinced that such equipment measures only electrostatoc potentials or some artifact.

References on remote detection of the EEG are (I doubt you will be able to establish that these references are woo}:

Harland CJ, Clark TD, Prance RJ. Remote detection of human electroencephalograms using ultrahigh input impedance electric potential sensors. Applied Physics Letters 2002; 81: 3284-3286.
Harland CJ, Clark TD, Prance RJ. (2002). Electric potential probes – new directions in the remote sensing of the human body. Measurement Science and Technology 2002; 13: 163-169.
Prance RJ, Beardsmore-Rust S, Aydin A, Harland CJ, Prance H. (2008). Biological and medical applications of a new electric field sensor. Proceedings of the ESA Annual Meeting on Electrostatics 2008; Paper N2: 1-4.
Prance RJ, Debray A, Clark TD, Prance H, Nock M, Harland CJ, Clippingdale AJ. An ultra-low-noise electrical-potential probe for human-body scanning. Measurement Science and Technology 2000; 11: 291-297.

It appears that there is disagreement on the JREF web page as a whole as to whether my claim is impossible, or unremarkable and scientifically real - the shift from human ocular extramission being "woo" or "paranormal" to being a scientific fact seems to be underway, then.
I do not claim to be a physicist or electrical engineer but I have taken a four-day course on neurofeedback, read a number of neurology/EEG and neurofeedback texts, and have a basic understanding of EEGs that is likely above average for an MD psychiatrist.

 

[TSR]

...plus my receiving a 2008 Pigasus Award establish that the JREF regards my claim as a claim of the paranormal.

.
I do not speak for the JREF, but a Pigasus establishes that you are a fool, nothing more
.

 

[fls]

To add my voice to the mix...it is possible that Dr. Ross has deliberately made himself look like a bit of a loon in order to get the JREF to accept a claim that is actually ordinary, but couched in woo-type language. I hope that they are being careful not to fall prey to a trick. The functioning of the human body does involve electrical current and therefore the generation of EM fields, so all of this could just be an effect that was discovered through the novel use of equipment designed to used in a somewhat different way. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of the equipment to say one way or the other. Comments from someone with expertise are definitely needed.

Linda

 

[technoextreme]

Oculoretinography works by stimulating the retina with light and measuring the resulting output from the retina, which is a different principle from EEG.

I was talking about an EOG not an ERG. An EOG would match your results exactly.

 

[Pantaz]

In response to recent posts:

This quotation from a Swift article by James Randi plus my receiving a 2008 Pigasus Award establish that the JREF regards my claim as a claim of the paranormal. The JREF did not request any rewording of my challenge prior to accepting it:...

Actually, according to the last update by RemieV, your challenge application is incomplete.

We have received incomplete application information from Colin Ross and are awaiting the rest.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Mr. Ross, would you be willing to allow someone to examine & analyze your goggles and any other equipment relevant to your claims?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

What is paranormal about this?

If there was an article in the newspaper tomorrow saying “ABC Medical Technologies, Inc. has developed a new EEG/EOG/ERG machine that uses electrodes placed in front of the eyes instead of attached to the skin or retina”, I would not think that the article was about something paranormal. I don’t see how that is different from Ross’s claim.

From www.rossinst.com/paranormal_challenge.html:

I have described a general theory of human energy fields: one element of this theory is the reality of the human eyebeam. In modern science, extramission (the theory that an energy beam comes out of the eyes) is not permitted - this is proven by quotations from Schrodinger and Toulmin and papers by Winer, attached.

I’m don’t know much about the field, but this seems incorrect. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_(vision):

Emission theory or extramission theory is the proposal that visual perception is accomplished by rays of light emitted by the eyes. This theory has been replaced by intromission theory, which states that visual perception comes from something representative of the object (later established to be rays of light reflected from it) entering the eyes.

It sounds to me like extramission is not permitted by modern science as an explaination of how visual perception is accomplished. It is not the true that modern science does not permit or allow that there is any “energy” that comes from the eyes. Clearly light is reflected from eyes. Cleary heat is emitted from eyes. Cleraly there are EOG and ERG machines that can detect emissions from eyes. Science DOES allow, and even accept, these things. So what about the claim is paranormal?

From www.rossinst.com/paranormal_challenge.html:

Belief in the eyebeam is regarded as primitive, superstitious and unscientific and no such energy beam is allowed by modern science. The human eyebeam therefore meets criteria for a paranormal phenomenon. According to my theory, the energy that comes out of the eyes has been called many different things, including chi energy in Chinese medicine, the human aura in western writings, and spirit power in some of my writings. I believe that the human eyebeam and these other forms of energy are all the same thing.

Modern science does not allow for chi energy or the human aura, as they are commonly described. Speculating, or even providing proof, that a known scientifically accepted phenomenon is the basis for a paranormal belief is not a discovery or demonstration of something paranormal. It is, perhaps, the exact opposite.

There is little likelihood that the energy that Ross claims to detect is the basis for chi energy or human aura as they relate to paranormal claims such as telekinesis, visualizing an aura, or detecting that someone is staring at you.

From www.rossinst.com/paranormal_challenge.html:

5. The problem is that the brain waves coming out through the eye will be swamped out by general electromagnetic noise in the environment, so won't be detected.
6. The solution is two-fold: a) put the electrode inside a pair of goggles that is electromagnetically insulated with tin foil, and b) use a sensitive (high-impedance) electrode that can pick up brain waves without physical contact with the body.

Paranormal claims about chi energy and human aura are not about energy beams that are only perceptible within centimeters of the eye when enclosed with tin foil. How can the claims about chi energy or human aura be the same as “brain waves coming out through the eye” when those waves are “swamped out by general electromagnetic noise in the environment” even within a few centimeters from the eye? I doubt that Ross would be willing to use his “eyebeam” to provide a demonstration of paranormal claims like telekinesis, human aura reading, or detecting stares.

Ross is not claiming to demonstrate a paranormal ability or phenomenon. Ross is claiming to have created a device that can detect a known scientifically accepted phenomenon by known scientifically accepted means. At best, he is claiming to have developed a device that is simply more sensitive than existing devices, or that can sense brain waves at a further distance than existing devices by isolating the waves. Whether his goggles work or not, this is a claim and demonstration of technology—not the paranormal.

JREF MDC has accepted some technology claims: bomb detectors, speaker cables, chips that improve CDs, even dowsing rods could be construed as technology rather than paranormal claims. However, in those cases the applicants have clearly stated their claims and JREF has examined the devices or at least received sufficient information about how the devices are supposed to work to verify that the devices do not work and that there is no scientific basis for them to work. There have been MDC applications for claims to demonstrate technology that does something that current technology does not do on the grounds that it is a demonstration of unknown technology--not an unknown and unaccepted power or phenomenon.

Ross’s protocol should be such that it demonstrates something paranormal—something that modern science, or at least the JREF, deem to be impossible within current scientific understanding.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Actually, according to the last update by RemieV, your challenge application is incomplete.

No, this announcement is more recent (15th May 2009):

Colin Ross's challenge announcement:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142754

Colin Ross has applied with the claim that he can cause a tone to sound by shooting energy out of his eyeballs.

He has provided both academic affidavits and media presence.

According to the challenge FAQ:

"The Challenge Application, once it is signed by James Randi, is a legally binding contract."

Does RemieV's announcement that I posted mean that James Randi has signed Ross's application?

 

[Sean84]

*snip*
Does RemieV's announcement that I posted mean that James Randi has signed Ross's application?

From the challenge application:

This application will be signed by JR and returned to the applicant by mail after a test protocol has been mutually agreed upon, and a test date and location have been determined.

To my knowledge this has not yet happened. After reading this thread I doubt it ever will.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks very much, Sean84. Now I share the same doubt.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

"The Challenge Application, once it is signed by James Randi, is a legally binding contract."

Does RemieV's announcement that I posted mean that James Randi has signed Ross's application?

I think Ross is going by this from the FAQs:

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

The wording is a bit ambiguous. What does “approved” mean in this context? JREF has used the term “approved” and even “claimant” to mean that the a completed application has been received and accepted to move on to the protocol stage. In other cases, “approved” seems to indicate that an accepted protocol has been established:

Upon properly completing this document [Challenge Application] and agreeing upon the test protocol, applicant will receive the application back, signed by JR. At that point, the applicant becomes eligible for the preliminary test, which, if successful, will result in the formal test.

If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

It would makes sense that what is accepted as paranormal is only “locked in” once a protocol is approved. Otherwise, it would be fairly easy to make a paranormal sounding claim and even description of how it would be demonstrated, only to reveal in the protocol that you are using known technology or other scientifically accepted methods to demonstrate something that is already scientifically accepted. The purpose of the protocol is to eliminate all scientifically accepted methods of performing the demonstration so that the demonstration is actually a demonstration of something not accepted by science—something paranormal.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

DA and Linda have it. This is not a demonstration of anything even remotely paranormal. It is an example of a very low noise, very high impedance differential amplifier being capacitively coupled to the human body.

E.g.,

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...463332.pdf?arnumber=4463332&authDecision=-203

Abstract

Typical electroencephalogram (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) sensors require conductive gel to ensure low-impedance electrical contact between the sensor and skin, making set-up time-consuming and long-term recording problematic. We present a gel-free, non-contact EEG/ECG sensor with on-board electrode that capacitively couples to the skin. Active shielding of the high-impedance input significantly reduces noise pickup, and reduces variations in gain as a function of gap distance. The integrated sensor combines amplification, bandpass filtering, and analog-to-digital conversion within a 1 inch diameter enclosure. The measured input-referred noise, over 1-100 Hz frequency range, is 2 muVrms at 0.2 mm sensor distance, and 17 muVrms at 3.2 mm distance. Experiments coupling the sensor to human scalp through hair and to chest through clothing produce clear EEG and ECG recorded signals.

 

[Cuddles]

Colin Ross, if you are asking if you can win the MDC by doing something any other person can do, but relabeling what you do using vague and obscure definitions and terminologies, the answer is no.

The trouble is that this simply isn't true. If your vague and obscure terminologies lead the JREF to accept your claim as a paranormal one, then you certainly can win the MDC by doing something everyone else can do. Usually the JREF will easily spot attempts to do this and not test them, but in this case is appears that the JREF has not realised that there is no paranormal claim here. By stating it in a way that brings to mind images of Superman firing laser beams out of his eyes, Colin Ross has managed to get the JREF to accept the claim that the human body produces measurable electromagnetic fields as paranormal.

Of course, it appears that so far he hasn't actually been able to measure it himself, and would therefore struggle to actually pass a test anyway. However, that does not change that the EM field is measurable in theory, and is not a paranormal claim in any way.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

... I submitted a challenge according to the rules and procedures of the JREF and it was accepted. The JREF was, as I see it, agreeing with and endorsing the opinion that my claim was an example of "the paranormal" because this is the position of western science on the matter. Intellectually, that is the whole point (of course I would also like to receive the $1 million). Western science and the JREF have
defined extramission as paranormal - it follows from this viewpoint that the sense of being stared at cannot have any basis in physiological reality, which is also the position of orthodox western science. My effort is to demonstrate that at least one phenomenon classified as "paranormal" in fact can be reclassified as objective, real, demonstrable and scientific, namely extramission. ...

What are you hoping proving this will achieve?

How do you ethically justify tricking the JREF?

 

[fls]

Thanks Ivor.

Linda

 

[MRC_Hans]

ETA: I now see that most of my post has already been covered, still...

The JREF rules and web page state that the JREF does not want to hear theories as to how the proposed paranormal demonstration works - the JREF only wants to discuss an actual demonstration and protocol. Early in my challenge process (2008) I sent the JREF papers by Winer, and quotations from Schrodinger and Toulmin stating that any form of extramission is disallowed by western science.

As already mentioned by another poster, your eyes emit IR (heat) radiation. However, since they don't detect IR, this is not really extramission.

Extramission seems to be defined as active radiation to aid vision. So a radar set uses extramission, in that it produces the energy that is later reflected from the target and detected.

In this sense, there is no extramission from the eyes.

So to prove your claim, you need to not just show any old radiation, instead it would seem that you need to show a kind of radiation that in some way takes part in the process of forming a visual image.

According to the doctrine of intromission, as endorsed by Winer, no energy emission of any kind from the eyes is allowed.

No, as mentioned, this cannot be correct. The eyes emit IR radiation, and no doubt, as you mention, also take part in the general emission of EM waves from the body.

I submitted a challenge according to the rules and procedures of the JREF and it was accepted. The JREF was, as I see it, agreeing with and endorsing the opinion that my claim was an example of "the paranormal" because this is the position of western science on the matter.

I'm not a laywer, but I doubt you can enforce a faulty protcol on the JREF, if the initial recognition can be showed to be due to lack of scientific insight on the part of the JREF. After all, nobody can be required to know and understand every science.

Intellectually, that is the whole point (of course I would also like to receive the $1 million). Western science and the JREF have defined extramission as paranormal - it follows from this viewpoint that the sense of being stared at cannot have any basis in physiological reality, which is also the position of orthodox western science.

That is probably correct, however, how can you infer from some kind of emission to 'the sense of being stared at'?

To prove this, you would not only have to prove that 'the sense of being stared at' actually exists, but also that it was caused by an energy emission form the eyes.

My effort is to demonstrate that at least one phenomenon classified as "paranormal" in fact can be reclassified as objective, real, demonstrable and scientific, namely extramission. The theory of intromission has been set up as the complete explanation of ocular physiology in an all-or-nothing fashion, with extramission completely disallowed.

The terms 'extramission' and 'intromission' appear to relate solely to the faculty of sight. The fact that various radiations not relevant to the faculty of sight may or may not originate from the eyes would seem irrelevant to the scientific exclusion of 'extramission'.

As I see it, you would have to show that some emission playes a role in the faculty of sight, in order to have proved extramission.

Anyone is free to regard this as a trick or con if they wish.

I would have strongly recommended you not to make this statement, in case this ends in a court-room, but that i s too late now.

As I understand it, the JREF welcomes paranormal challenges and is willing to award the $1million if a challenge is successful. Why should I be faulted for submitting a challenge according to JREF rules and procedures?

Morally, and perhaps legally, you can be said to be in bad faith if you submit a challenge, knowing that you have a scientific explanation for the effect. Obviously, if you have found a hitherto unknown scientific effect, the honest thing would be to publish through the proper channels, and not seek to profit by the fact that people not knowing about it may think it paranormal.

If, as I predict will happen, extramission becomes an accepted physiological reality after sufficient replication and peer review, this would seem a worthwhile scientific endeavor to me.

Through the proper scientific channels.

Extramission is one element of a general theory of human energy fields that I have developed - all based on electromagnetic emissions and interactions between organisms in the biosphere. For the JREF challenge I had to boil this down to a specific, detailed protocol, which I have done.
The reaction that my challenge is not really an example of "the paranormal" is exactly what I seek from the scientific community, namely that extramission should not be disallowed. That will hopefully become clear to everyone once the logic, arguments and data are marshalled, but it was not obvious prior to that effort. In fact extramission was actively disallowed as a matter of doctrine.

How do you, precisely, define 'extramission', and can you show that your definition is in accordance with the normally accepted definition, and in particular, with the definition used in the papers you reference and where 'extramission' is excluded?

After all, you cannot base your claim on a different definition of 'extramission', as the scientific exclusion pertains to the normal definition.

Hans

 

[Colin Ross]

Status of Colin Ross JREF Challenge

My Challenge moved into the phase of negotiating a protocol in an email from James Randi on August 1, 2008. I have submitted an initial protocol and two revisions since then, the most recent one in February 2009, to which I await a response.
I don't see how there can be any doubt as to which phase of the process we are in.

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."

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.
Discussion of whether the equipment and demonstration are scientifically valid is interesting but, I reiterate, not relevant to the JREF Challenge rules.
The existence of human ocular extramission and whether it plays any role in visual perception are two separate questions.
I agree that I cannot use my extramission (or "chi energy") to move objects at the macroscopic level. Since the energy is being detected by an electrode and displayed on a computer screen, one could argue that the electromagnetic field emitted by the brain can move electrons, but then this would not be classified as "paranormal" by scientists.
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.
As far as human ocular extramission potentially having a biologically meaningful interaction with other objects and organisms (such as the sense of being stared at) this is a question that can be investigated scientifically with the appropriate electrodes, hardware and software. Low-frequency EM signals (such as 1-40 Hz brainwaves) have an extremely low attenuation, unlike higher frequency emissions that are subject to the inverse square law. They do not stop within inches of the eye. But I didn't submit a claim about the sense of being stared at, nor did I say anything about the signal being detected at a greater distance.
Just because some traditional beliefs about chi energy are mistaken doesn't mean it doesn't exist - why couldn't this simply be a pre-scientific, subjective term for the electromagnetic (EM) field of the body? The EM field of the body clearly plays a role in health and disease and is measured and then modified to treat disease states in western medicine, e.g., drugs for heart block and epilepsy.
My point is not that all elements of traditional chi medicine are valid - rather, my point is that there is a core physiological reality that underlies such beliefs, and these beliefs provide us hints or clues about real electrophysiological processes. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. A superstitious belief about magnets wouldn't lead us to conclude that there is no such thing as magnetic fields. If we found an ancient writing about a magic rock that exuded God energy and could pick up iron, we would know that this was pre-scientific vocabulary for a real phenomenon.

The reference for ELF propagation is:


Barr, R., Jones, D. Llanwyn., and Rodger, C.J.
2000 ELF and VLF radio waves. Journal of Atmosphere and Solar-Terrestial Physics 62;1689-1718.

 

[Loss Leader]

Wake me if any of this goes anywhere.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The trouble is that this simply isn't true. If your vague and obscure terminologies lead the JREF to accept your claim as a paranormal one, then you certainly can win the MDC by doing something everyone else can do. Usually the JREF will easily spot attempts to do this and not test them, but in this case is appears that the JREF has not realised that there is no paranormal claim here. By stating it in a way that brings to mind images of Superman firing laser beams out of his eyes, Colin Ross has managed to get the JREF to accept the claim that the human body produces measurable electromagnetic fields as paranormal.

Of course, it appears that so far he hasn't actually been able to measure it himself, and would therefore struggle to actually pass a test anyway. However, that does not change that the EM field is measurable in theory, and is not a paranormal claim in any way.

He has also claimed that this is 'extramission'. However, 'extramission' appears to defined as an emission that takes part in the faculty of sight.

I hardly think that proving some different form of emission would hold legally as a valid claim.

I would recommend the JREF to back down and reject the protocol now, as this would leave it to Colin Ross to try and prove that his claim was valid, rather than the JREF later havint to prove that is was not.

I think Colin Ross would have a hard time to convince a court that normal EEC/EEG signals constitute 'extramission' by any useful definition of that term.

Hans